meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Rabbeinu Bahya/Rabbeinu Bahya/English/Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher, trans. Eliyahu Munk, 1998..txt"}
text: Rabbeinu Bahya
  רבנו בחיי
  Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher, trans. Eliyahu Munk, 1998.
  
  
  Rabbeinu Bahya
  
  Introduction
  
  
  
  Bereshit
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ...
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  בראשית,  According to the plain meaning of the text, i.e. what is known as the פשט the meaning of the word בראשית is: "at the beginning." If, nonetheless, the Torah did not write the word בראשונה  “at the beginning,” an unmistakable expression, this is because the expression  בראשיתincludes so many more and exalted meanings than does the word .בראשונה
      According to the view of Rashi, grammatically speaking the  word  בראשית is a possessive form, as it is every time it appears in the Torah. It signals that on the first day G'd created only the light. The meaning of the full verse then is: "at the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth there was Tohu  Vavohu, chaos. G'd said: 'let there be light.'" Everything else developed from that point on including the creation of heaven and earth. The word בראשית here is comparable to the verse in Hoseah, 1,1. תחלת דבר ה' בהושע ויאמר ה' אל הושע, וגו'" “When G'd began to speak to Hoseah, G'd said to Hoseah, etc." Rashi's opinion was that if the Torah had wanted to tell us that heaven and earth had been created  on the first day, the Torah should have written בראשונה. 
      The fact is however, that the word is not a possessive form at all but an independent word and it is equivalent to the Torah having written בראשונה. Proof of this is found in the tone-sign tipcha on the word which separates it from the word which follows it. The paragraph tells us that heaven and earth with all their derivatives were created on the first day, all of them without there having preceded them any physical matter at all. This fact is attested to by the word ברא which describes the creation of "something out of nothing." This, at any rate, is the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah who is quoted to this effect in Midrash Tanchuma at the beginning of our portion. On the other hand, Rabbi Yehudah, who disagrees with him, claims that the universe was created during six days. He bases himself on the repeated directives of the Torah that something new should emerge and the Torah's reporting that indeed it did, using the words ויהי כן to inform us that G'd's instructions had been carried out. Rabbi Nechemyah claims that the proof that the whole universe was created already on the first day are the words (1,24) תוצא הארץ “let the earth bring forth." The wording "bring forth" indicates that G'd referred to matters which had already been in existence ready to emerge but had not yet seen the light of day until commanded to do so by G'd. The matter can be compared to a farmer who sows six grains of corn at the same time only to find that they take root at different times instead of all sprouting forth simultaneously. The six days of creation described by the Torah report the sequence in which G'd's creative activity became manifest. This is what the Psalmist had in mind (Psalms 33,9) כי הוא אמר ויהי i.e. “for He had given a directive and then it materialised." David taught us that G'd's directive and its execution as visible fact occurs simultaneously. Afterwards, (the creation of heaven and earth) He gave these various directives introduced by the Torah with the words ויאמר אלוקים and G'd's work became manifest, was converted from being a potential to becoming actual.
  אלוקים,  the plain meaning of the word is that it describes divinity. It describes the One who possesses all the divine powers. This is the reason it is expressed in the plural, i.e. not merely אל or אלוה, but the One Who comprises  all the divine powers within His essence. An example of such use of the word is found in Joshua 24,19. אלוקים קדשים הוא It means that in His capacity as אלוקים  He comprises all aspects of holiness, sanctity. We find a parallel use of words describing terrestrial authority in Isaiah 19,4 where such rulers are described in the plural as אדנים קשה, "a harsh master" (although the adjective applied to "them" is in the singular). The reason the noun is in the plural is because such rulers manifest their authority in so many different ways. If such use of the plural is appropriate for describing terrestrial rulers, how much more so is it appropriate for describing G'd whose authority is manifested in innumerably more ways than the authority of even the most powerful human king on earth. Their entire authority is, after all, only derived from G'd. G'd, by definition, is One, indivisible, but His powers are many. We find many other examples of nouns in the singular being described as if they had been written in the plural. To name some: ליל שמורים הוא (Exodus 12,42) "it is a night of vigil," (the word for "vigil" is in the plural). Or, (Leviticus 23,28) יום כפורים הוא “it is a Day of Atonement." Another reason why the Torah refers to G'd as אלוקים in the plural is the great deal of intelligence, wisdom, and insight He employed when He created the universe. [I believe the author treats each attribute as something separate, hence He justifies the plurality of attributes by referring to the One who employed all these attributes in the plural. Ed.] This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 3,19 "ה' בחכמה יסד ארץ כונן שמים בתבונה." The Lord founded earth by employing wisdom, He established the heavens by employing understanding." G'd is described as employing different attributes when creating the universe.
      From an homiletical point of view the name אלוקים describes G'd in His capacity as judge. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote אלוקים לא תקלל (Exodus 22,27) "you must not curse a judge." Onkelos translates the word in that verse as  ,דיינא judge. We have an unequivocal verse in Psalms 75,8 proving that the word means judge, i.e. כי אלוקים שופט זה ישפיל וזה ירים “For G'd is a judge; He raises up one man while bringing down another." The term אלוקים for G'd is appropriate at this point as He employed the attribute of Justice when creating the universe.
      From a mystical point of view, i.e. קבלה the word is composed of two separate words אל הם. The first word is a name for G'd in the possessive form, the second word הם describing all the other attributes G'd employed when creating the universe. We find something along those lines in Numbers 31,16 הן הנה “they are the very ones." As to the letter י which so far is unaccounted for (by this kabbalistic approach), we find such a letter י in Kohelet 12,1 וזכור את בוראיך" “and remember your Creator," where the letter י appears to be extraneous at first glance. [After all we have only  one  Creator, and what did Solomon mean? Ed.] The author contents himself with the enigmatic words: "the intelligent student will understand what I mean." [I believe the message is that the letter has been slipped in to hint at the ten emanations which are part of basic kabbalistic teachings, explaining how totally abstract matter could have been converted into tangible matter. Ed.]
    את השמים ואת הארץ  "heaven and earth." Whenever the word את appears it adds something to the meaning of the plain text. At the most basic level, the two words here are meant to convey that two additional matters or raw materials were involved in the creation of heaven and earth. According to the plain meaning of the text, we understand the two words as references to the two different raw-materials (elements) G'd employed when creating heaven and earth, seeing the two are obviously not made of the same material. This is the meaning of "the earth was tohu vavohu", i.e. that after the initial act of creation earth was still in a chaotic state. The specific meaning of the two words is that the material, was covered with a form, This is what is meant by Isaiah 66,2 The first three words in that verse refer to existing material, whereas the last words "My hands have fashioned," refer to G'd supplying this material with a distinctive form, צורה. According to this verse in Isaiah, G'd first  created  the raw material, ,ברא but subsequently His activities consisted only of  refining  such raw material by acts of יצירה respectively. ,בריאה creation of matter, consisted of merely creating the smallest physical particle, a ,נקודה “a point," something barely perceptible. This little particle formed the beginning of the entire solar system.
      Looked at from an homiletical point of view, the extra words את in the phrase "heaven and earth," include the sun, moon, stars in the case of the word  שמים and the entire range of vegetation in the case of the word ארץ. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  והארץ היתה תהו ובהו “and the earth had been in a chaotic state, etc." This is a reference to the raw material which had not yet been properly defined and therefore could not yet be named. This explanation is analogous to what our sages have said in Kidushin 40 בתוהא על הראשונות “he had second thoughts on what he had thought before." The Torah called this indefinable material "tohu," whereas Greek philosophers called it "hayuli," the original matter. The word "bohu," on the other hand, refers to this material once it had been equipped with a distinctive shape and had assumed a definitive form. The word בהו is actually two words comprised of  בו הוא"something which does have a certain form by which is identifiable". This is what Isaiah 34,11 had in mind when he said "He will measure it with a line of chaos and with weights of emptiness." The prophet related the word "a line," to the word which described something indefinable, visible but not substantive. Incidentally, this word is related or derived from Psalms 40,2 קוה  קויתי ה' [i.e. intense hope precedes concretisation of one's wishes. Ed.] An artisan envisages מקוה, a building in his mind's eye before he builds it. The relationship of the word is that the stones are the manifestation, the format of the building the artisan had first envisaged  To sum up the whole passage: "At the beginning G'd created a minute amount of matter out of absolute nothingness. This contained within itself the potential and energy to expand into what we call "heaven and earth." After this initial stage of creative activity by G'd the earth had still remained in a chaotic state, matter without separation into shape or form of the four basic raw materials (elements) of the universe, i.e. fire, wind, water and dust. The word הארץ includes all these four basic materials the earth is made of. [Even though the material  עפר is only the last one described in the record of מעשה בראשית at the creation of man. Ed.] the Torah refers to it first when speaking about ארץ which was a minute point. Philosophers called it a "point," [to distinguish between the solar system which  appears in constant motion, whereas earth  appears stationary. Ed.]. They viewed the earth as if it were a point surrounded by the planetary system. Earth was viewed as stationary based on Kohelet 1,4 והארץ לעולם עומדת “and the earth remains in its place forever." This is in contrast to the planets surrounding it which move from place to place and never remain in the same spot. Only a small part of earth is in motion, ever. The reason the planetary system, i.e. ,שמים  is called עליון  lofty, high, is because the material it is made of is so delicate, so fine, and so pure. Earth, on the other hand, is made of the coarsest, the most opaque material. Once the Torah had begun to discuss the properties of earth it returns its attention to the heaven and lists the other basic raw materials (elements) in their proper order, i.e. "fire, wind, and water. The word חשך darkness, is a reference to elemental fire which is dark (compare Shemot Rabbah 2,10.) [This recalls the statement of our sages that the Torah was written with black fire on white fire. Ed.] It is listed ahead of the second element רוח, wind, seeing that fire is a more comprehensive element than wind. The wind precedes water, i.e. "the wind (spirit) of G'd hovered over the deep." This is because wind is a more comprehensive element than water. Water, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive element than earth (dust). We find this order of the basic elements both in Kohelet and in Job. Just as the Torah in this instance began its detailed description with the נקודה the "point," when it wrote: "and the earth was chaotic," so the Book of Kohelet begins with this "point" describing it as something which remains in place forever, i.e. והארץ לעולם עומדת (Kohelet 1,4). Next Solomon mentions the element fire when he wrote וזרח השמש ובא השמש sun shone and the sun set (Kohelet 1,5)." After the fire Solomon mentions the wind in Kohelet 1,6 where he wrote  סובב סובב הולך הרוח “the wind goes round and round." Lastly, Solomon mentions the water when he wrote הנחלים הולכים אל הים", “all the rivers flow into the sea" (Kohelet 1,7). Also in the Book of Job (Job 28,24) its description of creation begins with the "point," i.e. earth, or "dust," when the author wrote: i.e. כי הוא לקצות הארץ יביט תחת כל השמים יראה, ”for He sees to the ends of the earth, observes all that is beneath the heavens." The reference to the heavens is a reference to fire. The text continues: לעשות לרוח משקל ומים תכן במדה when He fixed the weight of the winds, set the measure of the waters." We observe that the elements are listed in the same order as in Kohelet and in Bereshit. The reason for this is that all these three Books concern themselves with some degree of research, and its words are based on our knowledge of nature. In our verse the Torah informed us that the earth assumed a shape, that the darkness which is the fire, spread out above the mixture of dust and water. This mixture is called תהום,"the deep," in the language of the Torah. It describes the ocean which has earth dissolved in it. Compare Jonah 2,6 תהום יסובבני, "the deep surrounds me.  The wind was blowing entering the darkness and hovering above the water. When the Torah speaks of ורוח אלוקים, we would actually have expected  ורוח האלוקים, i.e. “the wind (spirit) of G'd;" the reason the Torah chose to omit the letter ה , thereby apparently identifying wind as something divine, this is because of all matters in the physical universe wind is the closest to the invisible abstract force called G'd. Even though in some respects fire is even more insubstantial, diaphanous, than the wind, the Torah did not want to associate this word with G'd seeing that we described fire as a product of, or rather synonymous with, darkness. 
      From an homiletical point of view, the words בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ are understood to mean "on account of three merits the universe was created, the merit of  חלה i.e. giving the priest the first portion of a woman's dough, the merit of מעשרות i.e. the various tithes given to the Levite or the priest, and the merit of בכורים, bringing part of the first ripe produce to the Temple as a gesture of thanksgiving. This statement is based on all of these three commandments being described in the Torah at one place or another as  ראשית"the first of something." (Numbers 16,2; Deut. 18,4; Exodus 23,19). Furthermore, our sages said (Bereshit Rabbah 1,6) "the universe was created for the sake of Moses who has been described as  ראשיתin Deut. 33,21 וירא ראשית לו 'He regarded him as His  .ראשיתThese three commandments called  ראשיתnot only have a common denominator, but each one of them is also an allusion to "wisdom," something called ראשית. The word is translated as חוכמא , wisdom, by the Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 1,1. This is all because the letters in the commandment  בכוריםthe first ripe fruit, allude to the Unity of G'd (according to Rabbi Chavell, the author means the three letters in the word  ב-כ-ר allude to  בינה insight, כתר crown, and ב=ראשית חכמה respectively). Similarly, the commandment of  ,מעשרות tithing, is a reference to such superior wisdom as the number 10 is reminiscent of the Power of the One and only Creator. The commandment of חלה by its very definition represents the very first of a woman's productive activity, making bread and donating its first part to representatives of the spiritual leaders of the people, the priests. As to the Midrash stating that the merit of Moses accounted for the creation of the universe, this is not only because we have seen that he is associated with  ראשית but also because it was he who was found worthy to give the Torah to the Jewish people. If you examine the word  בראשית more closely you will observe that it contains an allusion to the building of the first Temple which stood for 410 years, corresponding to the word  בזאת in the verse  בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקד “equipped with this (410) Aaron will enter the Temple" (Leviticus 16,3). You are no doubt aware that our sages in Pesachim 54 have stated that the Temple was created before haven and earth. [the reference is to the plan for the eventual site of the Temple on earth, or to its counterpart in heaven. Ed.] This is the reason the Torah first wrote  בראשית ברא"first G'd created something," and only afterwards to alert the reader that some things preceded the creation of heaven and earth. Seeing that according to Bereshit Rabbah (end of second chapter) G'd is reported as having envisaged the Temple as being destroyed and being rebuilt, the Torah wrote that to hint that there would come a time when G'd's presence would be withdrawn from the Jewish people.
     ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים "and the spirit (wind) of G'd hovered above the surface of the waters." This is a reference to the Torah which even at a time of the withdrawal of G'd's presence, שכינה would never be totally forgotten by His people even when they are in exile.
       ויאמר אלוקים יהי אור "G'd said: "let there be light." This is an allusion to messianic times. The period of the kingdom of the Messiah is alluded to in Isaiah 60,1 "Arise, shine, for your light has dawned; the Presence of the Lord has shone upon you."
      ,ויבדל אלקים בין האור ובין החושך "and G'd separated the light from the darkness." This is an allusion to the separation between the Jewish people and the Gentile nations, the former always looking forward to the Messiah and redemption, whereas the Gentiles are content to remain is spiritual darkness. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah, 2,5 commented on this that in this verse we have a reference to the four kingdoms [preceding the messianic age Ed.]. This is what they said: "the words והארץ היתה תהו ובהו are a reference to the empire of the Babylonians; the word ובהו  is a reference to the empire of the Medes. The wordוחשך  is a reference to the empire of the Greeks, whereas the word תהום is a reference to the Roman Empire. Finally, the words ורוח אלקים  refer to the spirit of the Messiah." 
      If you will examine the text even more closely, you will observe that the word בראשית, is composed of the two words אש ברית, an allusion to the third and enduring Temple based on the prophecy in Zachariah 2,9, (see commentary by Rabbi Chavell). The words are derived from a rearrangement of the letters in בראשית. You can also divide the word בראשית to form the two words ברא שית, suggesting "He created the foundation," שיתין, the place underneath the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem which the Talmud described as the "navel" of the earth. A third possibility is to divide the wordבראשית  into,ברא תיש  "He created a ram," an allusion to the ram offered on Mount Moriah by Avraham in lieu of his son Yitzchak. Our sages in Avot 5,6 have described this ram as having been created prior to the conclusion of the six days of creation. Another word contained within the wordבראשית  is the word ארשת, an allusion to speech (Psalms 21,3). The meaning of the additional letter י, which combined with the word ארשת spells ,בראשית ,is that we have an allusion to the ten directives G'd uttered and which are recorded in the Torah's report about G'd's creative activity. Remember that the universe was created in the month of Tishrey and that the word בראשית alludes to this, i.e. the letters can be read as א-בתשרי. Concerning this date of when the universe was created there is a dispute in Rosh Hashanah, folios 10-11, between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The former holds that the universe was created in Tishrey, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua believed that it was created in the month of Nissan. Although, generally speaking, in a dispute between these two scholars we rule according to the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, in this instance the Talmud rules in favour of the view of Rabbi Eliezer. This is the meaning of the statement on that folio: "when we pray nowadays on Rosh Hashanah, describing it as זה היו תחלת מעשיך, 'this is the day when You commenced Your works,' this reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer."
      Looking at the words בראשית ברא אלקים את השמים ואת הארץ from a rationalistic, investigative point of view, it is a well known fact that the universe is divided into three basic spheres. One sphere comprises the world of angels, i.e. celestial regions; the second sphere is what we call "outer space," the sphere of the planetary system; the third sphere is our own terrestrial world. All three parts of the universe were created by the same invisible force. The word בראשית is an allusion to this mysterious force which is the origin of everything in creation, a force which itself knew no beginning. First, this force created the celestial regions and the angels therein. These are called אלקים in the Scriptures. The world of planets is called שמים; our own terrestrial world is known as הארץ. It is due to these considerations that the Torah could not commence by writing אלקים ברא בראשית, but had to write בראשית ברא אלקים in order for the word ברא to refer back to the word בראשית. This enabled us to appreciate that a mysterious force called  בראשית created the region of the angels known as אלקים. The term "earth" includes such phenomena as the moon and anything closer to earth than the moon. The next verse explains this in greater detail when the Torah writes: והארץ היתה תהו ובהו, that the part of the universe known as the terrestrial region had been in a chaotic state at the time when the Torah had described the commencement of creation, i.e. ברא. The subject that is referred to as having been in a state of chaos are the four basic elements the existence of which had been hinted at in the previous verse as we explained earlier. 
  The word ארץ here is a generic term applying to each of these four components our terrestrial earth is made of, collectively as well as separately, such as in Genesis 1,10 ויקרא אלקים ליבשה ארץ. In view of this [ארץ without the letters וה in front, Ed.], the word  והארץ refers to Earth, i.e. all its four elements combined. The words   תהו ובהו on the other hand, refer to the element   alone. The Torah tells us that at that stage this element could not be defined as it could not be isolated. You should know that the number of planets is 955, corresponding to numerical value of the word השמים.  [The final letter ם is considered as equivalent to 600. Ed.] You will find this idea in a book called מעשה מרכבה, where we are told that at the time G'd descends from the celestial regions, i.e. from 955 רקיעים, heavens, and He seats Himself on the throne commensurate with His glory, all these heavens as well as the gateways to the regions called  ערבות, recite the verse שאו שערים ראשיכם, "lift up you gates your heads, etc." (Psalms 24,9).  We also find in Derech Eretz Rabbah, that "G'd is the solitary Ruler in the celestial regions, His name is One, and He resides in 390 heavens [the numerical equivalent of the word שמים, Rabbi Chavell.]. Each one of these "heavens" has been stamped with His name, a name which has been alluded to in the Torah (Deut. 32,1) האזינו ה-שמים, "hearken  the Heavens."  When I shall explain that verse in due course, I will quote that Midrash in detail. At any rate, it is impossible to reduce this number of heavens. According to our sages in the Talmud (Kabbalists), there are only seven heavens and they are enumerated in Chagigah 12. We quote: "Rav Yehudah said that there are two kinds of heaven seeing that the Torah wrote in Deut. 10,14: השמים ושמי השמים, 'the heaven and the heaven of the heavens.' Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that there are seven heavens and they are called: וילון, רקיע, שחקים, זבול, מעון, מכון, ערבות. According to researchers, i.e. the philosophers, there are nine heavens. They are: גלגל המקיף (compare Maimonides hilchot Yesodey Ha-Torah), גלגל המזלות  the zodiac, i.e. the horoscopes, and the seven "heavens" dominated by the seven fixed stars [an antiquated astronomical concept believed in by all astronomers until exploded by Copernicus about 1540. Ed.] According to these "philosophers," the four elements of our terrestrial universe rank below these regions dominated by what is known as שבעה כוכבי לכת, the 7 fixed planets. King Solomon already listed these four elements in the same order in a single verse in Proverbs 30,4 where he wrote:  מי עלה שמים וירד, מי אסף רוח בחפניו, מי צרר מים בשמלה? מי הקים כל אפסי ארץ? "Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind (spirit) in his hand? Who has wrapped the water in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? According to the philosophers the element of fire receives its heat from the planet moon which is immediately above it and closest to it. This is due to the constant motion of that planet. It is a well known fact that every body which is in motion generates heat by its motion. The larger the body in question and the closer to earth, the greater the heat it generates and its ability to warm other bodies which are close to it. Seeing that it is the nature of fire to rise constantly, it is the first element to receive warmth from the moon. The fact that fire rises must certainly have a purpose. The moon itself, however is not warm nor does it inflame. Nor does fire rise indefinitely.  Both the earth and the moon have been assigned definitive orbits separated from each other by an atmosphere which neither can break out of. Just as water, which has a tendency to descend, cannot descend to the extent of flooding the earth, so fire cannot ascend beyond certain limits and inflame what is beyond those limits. These philosophers use Job 37,18 חזק כראי מוצק ועדו , "strong like a mirror which has been cast," as proof that the atmosphere separating planets and their respective orbits from one another is impenetrable. I have already pointed out that the universe was created in the month of Tishrey, a month under the  influence of the zodiac sign מאזנים, "scales." This is also the meaning of the second verse in Genesis, that the wind of the Lord was hovering above the deep." We know that the zodiac sign governing the wind is "scales," whereas the zodiac sign governing water is  עקרב, "scorpion." The correct interpretation of our verse is therefore: "When did G'd create heaven and earth? At a time when the רוח אלוקים  rises develops and rises in the morning, i.e. at the time when the zodiac sign "scales" which is the zodiac sign pertaining to the רוח, "wind" hovers "above the face of the waters" which is close to the zodiac sign "scales," the sign pertaining to the waters. The reason why these respective zodiac signs are called "scales" and "scorpion" as well as the reason for the names of the remainder of the zodiac signs is because a cluster of stars form a shape reminiscent of such objects or animals in the sky. According to tradition, at the time the deluge occurred the constellations of the seven fixed stars was as follows: There was a cluster of stars resembling the shape of a lamb; there was a similar cluster of stars resembling the shape of an ox; the same was the case with the zodiac signs "twins," both of whom resembled human beings. There was a constellation resembling a lobster (cancer), a constellation resembling "scales," a constellation resembling a scorpion, a constellation resembling a bucket, i.e. a human being drawing water; All these horoscopes or zodiac signs were named after their appearance in the sky at the time of the deluge. It may be true that the reason these signs appeared in that fashion in the sky at the time of the deluge was meant to remind man of Divine supervision of his fate by his recalling the names of the horoscopes. Our sages in Pessikta Rabbati 2,9 as well as in Tanchuma  have explained this in the manner we have outlined.
      You should also know that the מולד תשרי i.e. the precise time when the moon began a new orbit to signal the beginning of the month of Tishrey at the time when G'd created Adam, was the night of Monday the fifth hour, 204 parts into that hour. By counting backwards from that time, our sages arrived at the conclusion that G'd began creating the universe on the 25th day of Ellul, assuming that the stars had already become manifest. How did our sages know all this?  They knew this from the מולד of the month Nissan following. [According to our astronomical experts, each lunar orbit occurs at a predetermined distance from the previous "month," i.e. 29 days and 12 hours plus 793 parts of an hour.] Considering the fact however, that the planets had not been placed (hung) in orbit until the fourth day of creation we know for certain that this could not have occurred on Monday as we said, i.e. the day on which Adam was created. Nonetheless this was the true date according to the scientists.
      As to the fact that in our prayers on New Year's day we recite:זה היום תחלת מעשיך  "this is the day when You (G'd) commenced Your work of creating the universe," how do we account for that statement? We may accept such a statement regardless of whether the creation of the universe commenced when the moon was in the position of  on the eve of Monday or on Friday the 10th hour plus some parts of the hour,  provided we count Adam as having been created on the 6th day after 12 hours of night and two hours of daylight had elapsed. This would have been the hour when G'd brought Man before Him to be judged for the first time. [the purpose of  ראש השנה. Ed.] The meaning of the words "this is the first day of Your works," then is: "this is the first day Your creatures (man) had to face Judgment." If we interpret our liturgy in that fashion we do not have to refer to fictitious times, i.e. imaginary days and hours prior to the functioning of the planetary system in orbit. The fact that the Torah does not mention G'd as having  completed anything, i.e. ויעש on the first day but only refers to G'd as having "created, ברא, on that day makes it clear that the sages who composed this prayer are not at odds with the view of scientists. Had they referred to G'd's "creating" the universe on that day, they would have had to refer to ברואיך, "Your creatures," instead of  מעשיך, "Your completed handiwork."
      Let us now turn to the mystical aspects of Torah, קבלה, revealed in our verses thus far. The words בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ contain within them an allusion to the ten sefirot, "emanations." The "Heaven and Earth" referred to here are the celestial counterparts of our terrestrial universe. These are not part of the planetary system. They are referred to in Psalms 68,34 as שמי קדם וארץ החיים, "the ancient heavens." The term ארץ החיים, refers to what is known in Psalms 142,6 , "the land of (eternal) life." The word בראשית, on the other hand, is an allusion to the true wisdom, similar to what the Psalmist describes asיראת ה'  ראשית חכמה, "the beginning of true wisdom is reverence for the Lord." The letter ב in  בראשית refers to the "second" of the emanations, i.e. חכמה, counting from אין, the highest emanation downwards. You will observe therefore that both the word ראשית and its first letter ב,  are testimony to the Supreme wisdom which was at work when the universe was created. Seeing that everything is derived from this wisdom, the letter  is written in larger script to alert the reader to this thought. Although this is the second letter in the alphabet it is the first one when it comes to what we can comprehend. [seeing that it is beyond us to comprehend the essence of the One represented by the letter א Ed.] The meaning of the phrase then is: "the wisdom with which the universe was created is known as אין."  Anything preceding that act of creation is out of bounds for us to investigate. This is why the emanation above that of חכמה is known as אין, nothing. [In our days this emanation is known as כתר.  Ed.]. The reason that the tenth emanation was named  אין is based on Psalms 111,10 ,והחכמה מאין תמצא  "How could you find the (type) of wisdom which is beyond (physical) existence?" The line in Psalms would have to be understood as an announcement rather than as a question when accepting this interpretation.  At any rate, even this ultimate aspect of wisdom is somehow alluded to in the shape of the protruding bottom of the letter ב. This is what the Kabbalists had in mind when they said: "if they ask the letter ב 'who has created you?' it will point its protrusion in the direction of where the letter א should have preceded it (Bereshit Rabbah 1,14)." This letter is the true כתר, "the crown of the universe." 
      The author describes “wisdom” as “Sefer,” seeing that the generations pass from this earth and their wisdom disappears with them except for what has been committed to paper, i.e. a book, a “Sefer.” “Sefor” is the בינה  “insight,” employed by man when he counts. This we also know from Chronicles II 2,16: ויספר שלמה כל  .האנשים הגירים אשר בארץ ישראל אחרי הספר אשר ספרם דוד אביו. ”Solomon counted all the aliens who were in the land of Israel, besides the census taken by his father David. The word “Sippur” refers to all the other countings and numbers that man can achieve and talk about.  You should be aware that the word “Sefer” represents the letter י  of the three letters י-ה-ו, whereas the word “Sefor” represents the letter ה in that sequence; finally, the word “Sippur” represents the letterו  in that sequence. This is what is meant by תפארת which is the sixth of the emanations.  You are also aware that the mumerical value of the wordספר    is 340. In view of this, the three times we encounter the word ספר   are three different names for שכל , intelligence. Although “intelligence” is multifaceted, and of different strengths, these three aspects of intelligence are the major ones,. Similarly, the above-mentioned three letters of the Holy Name of G’d are the principal ones. They are all derived from the same root, the One who has stamped the world with His imprint, the כתר, crown, which is also known as אין סוף  “The Infinite One.” You need to appreciate that the words in Exodus 15,25 שם שם לו חק ומשפט  ,“there He gave them statutes and social laws,” is an allusion to this wisdom . (According to a Kabbalistic text called  Ginat Egoz, the fact that the letters of the word  שם appears three times in the above-mentioned verse may be the reason for this comment in the ספר היצירה). 
     אלוקים In this instance this is a reference to “teshuvah” another expression for this particular form of intelligence represented by the emanation בינה. This intelligence was involved in creating the physical universe. This is what we have in mind in our prayers on New Year’s Day when we refer to that day as being the first of G’d’s works. This was the attribute of G’d Avraham addressed when he is reported as praying to אלוקים  in Genesis 20,17, ויתפלל אברהם אל האלוקים . The Torah means that he addressed himself to the last letter ה in the word האלוקים . We find that David also addressed that level of intelligence represented by the name אלוקים when he said in Psalms 66,17 אני אל אלוקים אקרא. [This name is identified with the last letter ה in the Ineffable, four-lettered name of G’d. The author discussed the meaning of the first three letters in that name on the previous page. Ed.] Concerning the level of intelligence referred to as “teshuvah,” it has been said in Proverbs 2,3 that אם לבינה תקרא, “you should call upon  this level of intelligence, i.e. address your prayer to that emanation.” [These concepts are explained in Tossephta HaZohar on Bereshit page 34, as well as in the commentary called Levush by Rabbi Mordechay Jaffe on Genesis 2,1.] The reason why “teshuvah” is called בינה  is because it belongs to the “upper” five emanations. Both the words אקרא as well as the word תקרא are references to prayer. Onkelos translates  the words ויקרא שם אברהם, ”Avraham called there,” as וצלי, “he prayed.” As to the words את, ואת, which appear as a kind of preface to the words השמים והארץ, respectively, they are meant to allude to the emanations גדולה  and  גבורהrespectively, which were also active in the creation of the universe. The word השמים describes the emanation תפארת  which is equivalent to עדן the most refined region in the physical universe. The two pillars (another simile for some of the emanations) נצח והוד are included in the term השמים. We have to arrive at this conclusion seeing they are not reported anywhere as having been created separately. Also the emanation known as הצדיק [known in more recent kabbalistic writings as the emanation יסוד, Ed.] is included in the term השמים. It is the emanation which is responsible for the continued existence of the universe. On the other hand, one may say that the addition of the letter ו to the word את was intended to include the three last-mentioned emanations.The word והארץ, is an allusion to the garden in “Eden.” This “garden” was derived from the region we described as עדן. When the Torah wrote והארץ היתה, “and the earth had been, etc.” this is intended to convey that what follows had been a previous existence which was now being transformed into a superior existence. The word ארץ is a description of earth after it had undergone this transformation. The reason the Torah mentioned the previous state of the earth, i.e. היתה, was to tell us whence everything material in our universe originated, i.e. the level of the emanation we had described as  חכמה the emanation “wisdom” which preceded every creative process. The word tohu is a reference to the emanation בינה which is like a green line which surrounds the entire universe, whereas the word bohu alludes to something which begins to emerge, i.e. the emanation known as גדולה. The word חשך, on the other hand, refers to the emanation גבורה. Furthermore, the verse contains an allusion to the eventual age of the earth before it will be destroyed. [Some Kabbalists equate this “green line” with what our author had previously referred to as “teshuvah.” Compare Recanati  who attributes this to our author here. Rabbi Chavell] This concept is explained in greater detail in Rosh Hashana 31 where the sages maintain that the universe has a lifetime of six thousand years. The intelligent reader will understand. The reason why the Torah immediately mentioned the chaotic state of the universe prior to the creation of light is to remind us that there had already been a previous universe which had been destroyed. You will also find an allusion to the name of G’d consisting of forty two letters in the very first word of the Torah. The letter א occurs six times in the very first verse of the Torah. They are an allusion to the six times 1000 years the earth is destined to endure. (The letter א stands also for the number 1000).  The word והארץ at the beginning of the second verse is an allusion to the seventh milenium.
  	The reason that in connection with the heaven, השמים, the Torah did not see fit to allude to anything which had preceded it, is simply that once you know what had occurred prior to creation of the earth as we know it, you can form your own conclusions as to what preceded the heaven. This is also the reason the Torah did not allude to the purpose of the planetary system prior to the time it was placed in the skies on the fourth day. According to kabbalah, however, the reason the Torah refrains from such allusions is that seeing the material from which heaven was made is the most pure, the most refined, it never had to undergo a metamorphosis even while previous “earths,” its forerunners, had to undergo such transformations. How would anyone be able to form the slightest notion of what had been heaven previously seeing that our sages (Berachot 34) interpreted Isaiah  64,4  עין לא ראתה אלוקים זולתך, “no eye except the one of G’d Himself had ever seen it,” to mean that the material of heaven was so refined that it was invisible to the human eye. What point would there be in relating to what it had been like prior to the creation of our earth at this stage? To sum up: the Torah  made it its task to elaborate on what is known as הנגלות, matters which G’d has seen fit to reveal, whereas it is silent on matters G’d considers as הנסתרות, the hidden aspects of the universe. Remember that theהשמים  והארץ which form the subject of the first verse are a reference to the two emanations תפארת  and מלכות; they are identical with what is described in chapter 2,8 as  גן and עדן  respectively. This is the deeper meaning of Pessachim 54 that both Gan as well as Eden were created prior to the creation of the universe. If even the “garden” had come into existence prior to the universe, how much more so must עדן have ben created prior to the universe! After all, the Torah testifies that the “garden” been planted in Eden. Compare Genesis 2,8: “G’d planted a garden in Eden of old [i.e. prior to the creation of the universe].” 
  	You should also know that we have a tradition which suggests that the 42-lettered name of G’d is alluded to by the fact that there are 42 letters in the first verse of the Torah between the first letter ב  and the letter ב in the word in the word  בהו in verse 2. The 42- lettered name of G’d is part of the attribute of Justice  something which has been derived by the application of many “צירופים, “permutations” of the letters in G’d’s Holy Name. When you examine the matter closely you will find in the arrangement of the letters of the Torah in this opening paragraph a reference to the number בהר'ד i.e. the precise time of the creation of the luminaries which I discussed  on page 12. Each one of those four letters appears at exactly the same distance from each other  just as does the letter ב. The intelligent reader will understand what I refer to. One does not need to be especially brilliant to realise that  such relationships of a string of letters on repeated occasions cannot be accidental, but are intended to alert the careful reader to a profound message. The message is that the creation of the universe reported in our paragraph had not been the first of its kind, but that there had been other universes prior to the one we live in. This is alluded to in Psalms 90,2 where the psalmist speaks about periods בטרם הרים יולדו, “before the mountains had been “born.” At such a time the attribute of Justice operated in the absence of any “tool” and proceeded to create such a “tool”, i.e. the universe. [In Kabbalistic writings the word הרים “mountains” refers to the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, who respectively reflect the virtues of  חסד, גבורה, תפארת also known as part of the ten emanations, based on a book called אזרח בישראל. The word  כלי may be understood as an acrostic of כהן, לוי, ישראל] The message would be that the attribute of Justice found it counterproductive to be active in a world which lacked these three kinds of people. Ed.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויאמר  אלוקים “G’d said, etc.” The word אמירה in this instance is a description of “will.” We find it used in this sense in Samuel I 20,4  where Yonathan uses it to indicate that whatever David desires of him he would do. Alternately, the meaning of the word is “decreed,” as we find it in Job 22,28, ותגזר אומר ויקם לך “You will decree and it will be fulfilled.” [The reason for this unusual interpretation of the word ויאמר is that there was no one for G’d to say to what He is reported as having said. Ed.].
  	יהי אור, ויהי אור .”let there be light; there was light.” As far as the plain meaning is concerned, the Torah speaks of two kinds of light. One kind  is the kind we use in our material world, the light provided by the sun and the moon. The other category is the light preserved for the use of the righteous in a future world. This former, i.e. the light we use daily, has been “distilled,” or “set aside,” from the other light which has been stored up for the future. This is what our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 17,7 derive from  our verse when they said: “the light of the higher regions  has been distilled from the planet sun.” Both of these lights are alluded to in a single verse in  Psalms 31,20 מה רוב טובך אשר צפנת ליריאיך “how great is Your goodness that You have in store for those who revere You.” [The reason for this whole explanation is that the Torah repeated the word אור instead of merely writing “it was so.”] The verse in Psalms continues פעלת לחוסים בך נגד בני אדם You have created in the full view of those who take refuge in You.” The repetition indicates that there is a hidden light as well as a light which has been revealed. Do not query that the whole idea is strange seeing that the luminaries had not been created until the fourth day. The fact is that when the Torah mentions the sun and moon for the first time on the fourth day it does not describe when they were created, only when they were assigned to function, to give light for the earth; the wording is להאיר על הארץ, “to shine on earth.” On the first day the light did not penetrate earthward further that the firmament רקיע .
  	Looking at our verse from an homiletical point of view: the words “let there be light, there was light,” come to tell us that when human beings want light they must derive it from an existing source or form of light. How is it possible for man to create light out of darkness? G’d, on the other hand, produced light out of a universe wrapped in darkness. This is what Job recognised when he said (Job 12,22) מגלה עמוקות מני חשך ויוצא לאור צלמות, “He draws mysteries out of the darkness and brings obscurities to light.”  Daniel phrased it similarly when he said (Daniel 2,22) הוא גלא עמיקתא ומסתרתא ידע מה בחשוכא ונהורא עמיה שרא. The word עמיקתא refers to what is known as מעשה מרכבה,”esoterics,” whereas the word מסתרתא  refers to the creation of heaven and earth. The words ידע מה בחשוכא  refer to the “darkness on the face of the deep,” whereas the words ונהורא עמיה שרא refer to G’d giving the directive “let there be light.” After it has become clear that G’d made light emerge out of darkness, we learn that night is part of the day, and that it is perfectly in order to refer to night as “day” as indeed we do on every festival when in our prayers we refer to יום חג המצות הזה, “this day the festival of unleavened bread,” even though the prayer in question is recited in the evening after dark. The same applies to the evening prayers of all the other festivals. On the other hand, “day” is never referred to as  a part of night. Rabbi  Simon in Bereshit Rabbah 3,5 draws our attention to the fact that the word אור appears five times in our short paragraph. This is an allusion to the five Books of Moses. The words יהי אור refer to the first Book of Moses seeing that we read in that Book about the creation of light. The wordsויהי אור  refer to the Book of Exodus where G’d provided light for the Jewish people when He orchestrated the Exodus and they emerged from spiritual darkness as well as from physical darkness. We read in Exodus 10,23, ולכל ישראל היה אור במושבותם, “and all the Israelites enjoyed light in their respective dwellings.” The words וירא אלוקים את האור refer to the Book of Leviticus which is full of commandments all of which provide us with spiritual light. The words ויבדל אלוקים בין האור ובין החשך, “G’d separated between the light and the darkness, are a reference to the Book of Numbers wherein we find that G’d made separations between those Israelites who had left Egypt as adults and those who had been under age and therefore were allowed to proceed to the Holy Land. The words ויקרא אלוקים לאור יום are a reference to the Book of Deuteronomy which is also full of many commandments providing us with further spiritual illumination. To sum up this particular Midrash: The first light is the creation of the universe; the second light is the redemption of the Jewish people from bondage; the third light is the light of repentance (the sacrificial rites are primarily designed to facilitate forgiveness through repentance of our sins). The fourth light is the Holy Temple and the fifth light is Torah and its commandments.
  	Looking at our verse from a rational or investigative point of view, the words “let there be light and there was light” represent the beginning of the new universe. This beginning is called  the עולם המלאכים, the region of the angels. From this lofty region evolved (downwards) all other domains below it such as heaven and earth. In order to comprehend the loftiness of the domain of the angels it is well to quote Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus in his Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3. He asks the rhetorical question: “whence were the heavens created?” He anwers: “from the light provided by G’d’s garment.” He explained to you that the very existence  of heaven attested to the truth of the original light. The reason The Rabbi perceives of “light “ as the garment of G’d is that “light” is what divides Him from all His creatures. It is similar to garments worn by man which serve to separate man’s appearance from his essence.	The fact is that G’d operates in His world by means of His delegates, His angels. Every single angel has specific tasks assigned to him. Bearing this in mind, the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is: “which particular angel or delegate did G’d employ when He created the  שמיםreferred to in our opening verse? Answer: “He employed the angel whose function it is to serve as the light providing His garment.” The heavens which are substantive in nature were created by this power inherent in light (our so-called sky). This  world of angels consists only of צורה, form without חומר, without any  substance. Those “heavens” which are substantive had need of the angel “light” which was insubstantial to create them. Form causes the creation of substance not vice versa. There are forms which are devoid of substance, whereas there is no substance devoid of form.
  	From a kabbalistic point of view, the meaning of the words יהי אור ויהי אור is that this verse does not even describe the original creation of light at all. The existence of light had already been referred to in the  verse commencing with the word בראשית. This is why the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 12 says: “Bereshit “ (the word ראשית) is also one of the ten directives with which G’d created the universe. That directive included a reference to light which at that time was still invisible, hidden. Now that the Torah reports the directive “let there be light,” this meant that the previously hidden light now became manifest. The fact that the Torah did not report that  ויהי כן, “so it came to be,” is a hint that the light was not something new; the only thing new was its visibility.	
  You should know that this “visible” light is what is called טוב, “good.” It is this light which David referred to in Psalms 31,20 when he mentioned the “goodness G’d has in store for the righteous and added the words: ‘in full view of man.’” He referred to the kind of light which had become visible. There are numerous references to this light commented upon by Midrash Tehillim 27 on the words קל ה' ויאר לנו “G’d is powerful, He shone for us;” or ה' אורי וישעי, “G’d is my light and my help. You need to appreciate that the real beginning of the creation of the physical universe commenced with this directive of “let there be light.” This occurred on the 25th day of Ellul, the number 25 corresponding to the numerical value of the word יהי. As to the statement in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 27) that the world was created in the month of Tishrey, the reference was to the creation of Adam, the first human being. Creation of man constituted the completion of the creative process and this is what the Talmud referred to. Man is the “seal” of all of G’d’s activities up until then. The Talmud could not say that the universe was created in Ellul as it concerned itself with a finished product only.
  	You should also know that the period of time that Torah preceded creation of the universe until the directive of “let there be light,” has also been hinted at in the word ב-ראשית. The letter ב in that word alludes to the two thousand years Torah preceded our universe, a period called “beginning,” i.e. ראשית. We find some proof of this in the Bereshit Rabbah 3,7 which points out that the Torah did not write יהי ערב, “let there be evening,” but only ויהי ערב, “it remained evening,” i.e. there had already been a system called time, [though time was not counted in terms we are familiar with. Ed.] We must concede that the concept of time itself was a creative act and prior to that act “time” did not exist. Nonetheless we find time prior to the creation of the universe referred to specifically in several instances throughout the Bible. When the sages spoke about “two thousand years” which the Torah preceded the universe they did not refer to days or years in the manner we count days or years nowadays. The element of “time” in that context is not subject to investigation by the human intellect. Job 36,26 referred to this phenomenon when he wrote הן קל שגיא ולא נדע מספר שניו ולא חקר; “Here G’d is greater than we can know; the number of His years cannot be counted.” Another reference to this kind of time is found in Job 10,8 הן כ-ימי אנוש ימיך  , “are Your days to be compared to human days?” or Psalms 102,28 ימי שנותיך לא יתמו, “the days of Your years are never ending.” During those “times,” it occurred to G’d to creative 1000 generations (of human history); however 974 of these generations were wiped out (compare Chagigah 13-14). This means that these 974 generations were “wiped out” from G’d’s original plan. They had not ever been created in the flesh. As a result of these 974 generations never having seen the light of day the Torah was given to the Jewish people after man existed for 26 generations. The reason G’d reconsidered His original plan was that He foresaw that the people in those generations would all be wicked. G’d advanced the giving of the Torah so that He would thereby advance the cycle that would otherwise have taken 1000 generations. This is the meaning of Psalms 105,8 “He is ever mindful of His covenant, the promise He gave for a thousand generations.” The words “for a thousand generations” mean: “at the end of one thousand generations.” These “lost “ generations are referred to by our sages in Chagigah 13 when they quoted Daniel  7,10 נהר דינור נגיד ונפיק מן קדמוהי אלף אלפין ישמשונה ורבו רבבן קדמוהי יקומון דינא יתיב  וספרין פתיחו, “A river of fire streamed before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened.” The Talmud asks” “whence did the river originate?’ The answer given is that it was the result of the sweat of the beasts. To the question where this river Dinor ended, the answer given is “on the heads of the wicked in hades,” seeing that we have a verse in Job 22,1 אשר קמטו ולא עת נהר יוצק יסודם; “how they have shrivelled up before their time, and their foundation poured out like a river.” Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov interpreted the first half of this verse as describing G’d’s anger. Rabbi Shimon ben Chasidah understands this verse as a reference to the 974 generations which had originally been planned by G’d to come into existence prior to the universe as we know it. What did G’d do with them? He suspended them in that river. Some appear in each generation and they are the ones whose main purpose in life is to mock G’d. Thus far the discussion in Chagigah.
  
  Verse 4
  
  וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, “G’d saw the light that it was good, etc.” According to the plain meaning of this verse, the word  וירא, “He saw,” means that G’d approved of what He saw and decreed that it should endure. In Talmudic Hebrew we find the word ראה, “he saw,” as a sign of approval such as when the Talmud says in Ketuvot 109 רואה אני את דברי אדמון, “I approve of the words of the sage called Admon.” You will find that these words are attributed to G’d on every day of the creation, i.e. He surveyed what had developed and approved of it. G’d decreed permanence for each of the phenomena or creatures which had come into existence. If G’d’s goodwill would depart from these phenomena even briefly they would turn back into nothingness. This is why He sealed the entire creative process (Genesis 1,31) with the words  והנה טוב מאד “and here it was very good.” These words expressed G’d’s desire that the universe would endure. As to the additional words ואת האור in our verse instead of merely the words וירא אלוקים כי טוב, they were needed as otherwise we would have thought that the words כי טוב referred to the creation of heaven and earth instead of to the creation of light. G’d did not yet decree that heaven and earth should endure seeing they were incomplete and only on the second day did the separation of heaven and earth occur when the רקיע,”firmament” was created to divide between them. Finally, on the third day, the upper waters and the waters in the lower regions were separated. This completed the process of creating heaven and earth. At that point G’d decreed that they should endure and He said: “it was good.”
  	Looking at our verse from an homiletical point of view, the question is: what did G’d see now, i.e. something new,  which He had not been aware of previously? Answer: He saw that this light was not fit for the wicked in this world to make use of; as a result He decided to hide it for future use by the righteous in the world to come .
  	A kabbalistic approach to our verse yields the following insight. The words  את האורwere meant to include something that Rabbi Akiva achieved when he “descended into the “Pardes,” regions of enquiry into the mysteries of the universe. He was the only person to emerge intellectually unharmed and physically intact from such studies as we know from Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,28 as well as Chagigah 15. It is also possible that these words were meant to convey that the souls were created simultaneously with this light. This idea is hinted at in Job 38,19: איזה הדרך ישכן אור, “which path leads to where light dwells?” And it says also (verse 21 there) “Surely You know for you were born then, and the number of your years is many.” [Nachmanides explains these verses in the manner our author understands them. Rabbi Chavell.] 
  	  ויבדל אלוקים בין האור ובין החשך G’d separated between the light and the darkness.” According to the plain meaning, the word חשך here refers to the absence of light. It is not the same as the “darkness” which we discussed earlier in connection with the words “the darkness was on the face of the deep (1,2).” We had described that particular brand of darkness as “fire.”  The Torah does not mention the words כי טוב “that it was good,” in connection with the second day. On the third day however, when G’d completed what He had done with the water the Torah mentions the word טוב, “good” twice; the first time the word refers to completion of the creative directives associated with the waters, the second time to express G’d’s satisfaction with the progress achieved on that day itself. My question concerning this is: Why should the fact that the directives concerning the water on earth had not yet been completed cause the Torah omit to mention that what had been achieved  was “good?” Seeing that the skies, as well as the angels had been completed on that day the Torah should have described this as “good?” G’d should have decreed that these phenomena should endure, just as He had in connection with the accomplishments on the first day! None of these achievements appear inferior to the ones which were deemed as deserving to endure as soon as they had been created! I believe that the absence of the word  טוב at this juncture is potent proof for the argument that this “lower” terrestrial  universe represents G’d’s main purpose in creating the universe. As long as the Jewish people perform the will of G’d, observe what is written in the Torah, our domain is the principal arena of the universe Even though G’d had completed creation of the angels already on the second day, that day was not distinguished by the description “good” being applied to it. Nothing in the celestial regions qualified for permanence until the waters in the terrestrial world had been separated from the dry land when G’d gave that directive on the third day and said: יקוו המים מתחת השמים אל מקום אחד ותראה היבשה “let the waters which are below the heaven congregate in one area so that the dry land becomes visible.” Once this directive had been carried out, the heaven, i.e. the celestial regions, qualified for permanence. At that point the Torah saw fit to describe the creation of the celestial regions as being “good.” Our sages summarise their commentary on this paragraph in Bereshit Rabbah  5,7 as follows: “seeing the work involving the waters had not yet been completed, because it had not been completed in the terrestrial regions, the Torah did not want to mention that the creation of the celestial regions was “good.” We see from here that the terrestrial part of the universe is the principal part of existence. Perhaps this is the reason that the dry land was called ארץ, seeing it was this region which completes carrying out G’d’s will and His intention when creating a physical existence, His intention when creating a physical existence, מציאות . 	[I believe that what is meant here is that the last two letters in the word ארץ are an abbreviation of the word רצון, pointing to G’d’s will, whereas the first letter א may allude to G’d as the אחד, the One and Only Unique One. Ed.] The author attributes his conclusions by pointing to Maleachi 3,12 who speaks about ארץ חפץ, the implication being that “earth performs the will of the Lord.” We also find in connection with the fourth day in the paragraph “let there be luminaries in the sky of the heaven,” that the Torah clearly hints that that the luminaries were created only for the sake of being useful in this terrestrial world. This is what is meant by the words (1,15)  להאיר על הארץ, “to provide light on earth.” This proves that the creatures of the celestial regions, though great and mighty in stature, nonetheless have been created only for the sake of the creatures in the “lower” regions of the universe. I have further proof from the mouth of Moses himself who has said in (Deut. 10,14 ) הן לה' אלוקיך השמים ושמי השמים ”indeed the heavens as well as the heaven of the heavens belong to the Lord.” The fact that Moses mentioned the “heaven” of our lower regions, i.e. the sky first, indicates that he considered it as more important to G’d than the celestial “heaven.” All these comments by our sages are homiletical comment in Sanhedrin 93, where they phrased is as: “the righteous are greater than the ministering angels of G’d.” 
  	Another homiletical comment is based on the sages there asking: “why was the word טוב omitted on the report of the second day? Because on this day the גהנם, ‘purgatory’ was created.” We surmise this from Isaiah 30,33 כי ערוך מאתמול תפתה , “for Tophet has long been ready for him, having been created yesterday.” This day was called אתמול, “yesterday,” as it was a day which had a “yesterday” but  no ”day before yesterday.” Another reason cited by our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 4,5) for the absence of the word “good” on the second day is that מחלוקת, strife, was created on that day. This is what is meant by the words(1,6)  ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים, “and it will form a divide between waters and waters.” Rabbi Tivyomi commented on this: “if even a divisiveness which served the purpose of the Lord did not deserve to be described as “good,” how much more so must divisiveness which does not serve the purpose of the Lord but is designed to frustrate His works be hateful?” From a conceptual point of view we may see that the very number “second” implies that something has become different, other than the unity implied in the word “one.” It is the source of all division and otherness. As far as the sages saying that both purgatory and strife were created on that same day, they meant to tell us that whoever is guilty of causing strife will ultimately wind up in purgatory. Seeing that both strife and purgatory were created on that day, we may view that day as one that causes damage. To implant this in our consciousness the sages (Zohar on Eykev 271) decreed that one must not commence new projects on Mondays. Not only this, but we are told in Pessachim 109 not to eat זוגות "food in "twos”, i.e. two dishes, as this is a health hazard for people. This prohibition is based on the fact that the first “Monday”, second day, was not blessed with the description “good.” It all goes back to the fact that the divisiveness introduced into the universe on that day was the first of its kind. Starting with this divisiveness, other disagreements ensued, such as  earth not complying with the will of G’d. On the third day (1,11-12) when G’d directed that earth should produce  עץ פרי עושה פרי “fruit bearing trees which are themselves edible,” all that earth produced were עץ עושה פרי, “fruit-bearing trees.” The trunks earth produced were not edible. On the fourth day, the day when the luminaries were hung in the sky, the two large luminaries soon turned into a larger one and a smaller one. Our sages in Chulin 60 relate that there was an argument between the moon and G’d concerning the sun’s superior status. G’d had to intervene and ask the moon to downsize. On the fifth day G’d had to “salt away” the female of the Leviathan as explained by our sages in Baba Batra 74. Acccording to the Talmud G’d castrated the male of that species while killing the female. and preserving its flesh (salting it away) for consumption by the righteous in the distant future. On the sixth day, the day the first man and woman were created, they sinned, causing further divisiveness and resulting in their banishment from גן עדן. We observe that divisions were manifest on every single one of the days following the second day  when such divisiveness first appeared.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   יקוו המים “let the waters be gathered together.” This directive was needed seeing that the mass which the Torah had previously called תהום was a mass of water within which particles of earth were all over the place causing this mass to be extremely murky. The element “dust” had to be raised so that earth could become a habitat fit for all kinds of land-based creatures. The two directives we observe here were the very opposite of natural law. We know hat the specific weight of dust is greater than that of water and that as a result water should have covered the earth all over. G’d decreed for water which previously was “on top” to descend and “earth or dust” which had previously been submerged to rise. This reversal of natural law is alluded to in Psalms 136,6 לרוקע הארץ על המים כי לעולם חסדו, “Who spread the earth over the waters, His steadfast love is eternal.” Providing His creatures with earth as a habitat was an everlasting act of kindness. This is the reason the Psalmist in Psalms 36,7 speaks of  צדקתך כהררי קל, משפטיך תהום רבה. “Your righteousness  is like high mountains, Your justice like the great deep.” The psalmist means that G’d demonstrated His righteousness when He gave the directive to the great deep that the waters should submerge themselves contrary to their nature in order to benefit both man and beast. We may further explain the words ותראה היבשה, “and let the dry land become visible,” to mean that the reason it is called יבשה as it could not produce any fruit as long as it was wet. Now that the dryness became visible the whole process of creating the waters had been completed. Now it was in order to refer to the result as “good.”
  	According to the Midrash  the words יקוו המים mean that the waters should be measured, i.e. the word is derived from קו, “line.” We find the word having this meaning in Zecharyah 1,16, וקו ינטה על ירושלים, “and a measuring line will be applied to Jerusalem.”  	 
  Another meaning of these words  views them as if G’d had said: יקוו לי המים, “let the waters congregate for Me.” The matter is best explained by means of a parable. (compare beginning of Bereshit Rabbah 5) A king once built a palace  and he populated it with deaf and dumb people  These people made a point of making signs by means of which they enquired after the king’s wellbeing, etc. and generally displayed appreciation of the king having provided them with a residence. The king reasoned that if these people were so appreciative of what he had done for them ,surely if he placed intelligent people in this palace they would be at least as appreciative. What happened however was that the intelligent people seized the palace for themselves instead of displaying any signs of gratitude. They claimed that the palace was theirs. Thereupon the king decreed to let the palace revert to what it had been before he had ordered it to be built. Applied to our situation in Genesis the moral of the story is that prior to the creation of man G’d was hailed by the inarticulate beings He had created. As soon as He peopled the earth with articulate and intelligent human beings they turned their back on Him so that he decreed to let the earth revert to the state it had been in prior to the creation of the universe. At the beginning of creation the waters  praised and lauded G’d their Creator as we know from Psalms 93,4 מקולות מים רבים אדירים משברי ים, “more majestic than the breakers of the sea is the Lord.” According to the Midrash there the waters referred to G’d as אדיר. Already the generation of Enosh rebelled against G’d and not too long hereafter he generation of the deluge carried its rebellion against G’d to such lengths that G’d destroyed them. G’d decided to do away with that generations of living creatures whereas He allowed lowed the waters to remain undisturbed. This is the meaning of  Genesis 7,12 ויהי גשם על כל הארץ.
  	אל מקום אחד, “to a single place.”The waters had previously extended as far far as the throne of G’d Himself. If so, how was it possible for them to be compressed into a single מקום, site? This teaches that on occasion  something small in size can embrace  and control something far larger and presumed more powerful (Bereshit Rabbah 5,5.)
  
  Verse 10
  
   ולמקוה המים קרא ימים. “And the gathering of waters He called  ‘oceans.’” The term “oceans” does not apply to the actual waters but to the hollow of the globe within which they are situated. This is why Onkelos translates these words as ולבית כנשות מיא.,meaning the dug out part. which holds the waters in one place and prevents it from overflowing. Isaiah 11,9 which reads: “and the waters cover the sea,” proves that this is the true meaning of “oceans.” Genesis 1,22 describing the habitat of the fish also supports this view. The Trah writes: ומלא  את המים בימים, “and they shall fill the waters in the oceans.” A further proof of the correctness of this interpretation is found in Kings II 16,17 ואת הים  מעל הבקר הנחשת אשר תחתיה  הוריד ,”and the tank he (King Achaz) lowered from the (bronze) oxen which were below it.” The fact that the word for ocean in our verse is inythe plural proves that it refers to the depressions in the globe that the waters are in, else the fact that the surface of the waters are contiguous would require that the Torah write the word  ים, “ocean” in the singular. The Talmud in Baba Batra 74 states that there are seven oceans.
  
  Verse 11
  
  . “Let the earth be covered with herbs.” The earth was directed to become material fit for vegetation and living creatures. However, the earth aborted part of G’d’s directive as it should have produced fruit-bearing trees with edible trunks. The Torah continues by reporting that — 
  
  Verse 12
  
   ותוצא הארץ דשא "the earth produced דשא": it does not say that “G’d made every tree  which bears fruit according to its category, etc.” The reason is that it was not appropriate to associate G’d’s name with the inferior categories of “life,” vegetation, something that is immobile. We find G’d’s name associated with the creative process again when the Torah reports the coming into existence of a variety of living creatures on earth on the fifth day (1,21) . The reason is that these creatures are useful tools of man in a variety of ways helping him to fulfill functions with his mind, not only with his body. Vegetable matter is of importance only for man’s physical existence, for his body. The soul does not need to grow.
  If you will pay careful attention to the text you will observe that the Torah mentions five distinct categories of vegetation: 1) תדשא הארץ דשא  2) עשב מזריע זרע  3) עץ פרי (a tree whose trunk should taste the same as its fruit)  4) עושה פרי, “fruit-bearing” 5)אשר זרעו בו למינהו i.e. the fruit itself the seed of which should correspond to its respective category.
  	You should realise that the number 3 is peculiar in that it  contains within it all the basic numerical units which are “one, two, or indivisible numbers.” The number 2 represents a pair, whereas the number 3 itself represents any number which is divisible only by itself or by the number 1. This number is ”distilled,” i.e. an emanation of the number “One.” Seeing it is part of that “One,” something which by very definition remains concealed,  hence the word עולם, “something hidden, concealed,” we can understand why all the creations that came into existence up until that day had remains hidden, invisible. The light G’d created on the first day had remained hidden from the creatures (as we explained on the words יהי אור.) Also the firmament, רקיע which came into existence on the second day as well as the trees of Eden which were created on the third day were hidden from the creatures on earth (compare Bereshit Rabbah 16,4). Everything which was created up until the third day is called עולם. Anything created from the fourth day on is known as שנה,” (derivative of the word שנים=two.) The reason for this is that just as the number 3 is part of the concept “One,” so the number 4 is part of the concept שנים,  “two.” After all, four is nothing except twice the number 2.  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ......  light do we see light.” Anyone who does not deserve to continue his physical life in that world and deserves to receive his retribution in the physical world of the bodies will resume physical life at the time of the resurrection, a life which is due to the domain we call אור החיים. To teach us that this is so we have been told in Daniel  12,2  ורבים מישיני אדמת-עפר יקיצו, אלה לחיי עולם ואלה לחרפות לדראון עולם; “many who have been asleep in the dust will awaken, some to eternal life others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.” Daniel speaks about “many” who will awaken; they will not all awake. Those who deserve a life in the spiritual regions will not undergo the metamorphosis of thousands of years in a grave but their souls will be transferred to eternal life immediately. Another name of this עולם החיים is נצח. This is what is meant by Psalms 16,11 תודיעני אורח חיים שובע שמחות את פניך נעימות בימינך נצח, “You will teach me the path of life. In Your presence is perfect joy; delights are ever in Your right hand.” You have learned that the hidden life of pre-universe times and the lofty regions which G’d built when He created the luminaries are the pleasures of the souls who experience the teachings of the Torah. In due course, they will again merit to enjoy these pleasures with which they had been familiar [prior to sharing life on earth inside, a body. Ed.] The former period is described as ימים, the latter as שנים. This is hinted at in our verse here (Genesis 1,14) when the Torah speaks of לימים ושנים. It is an allusion to the gradual ascent from one spiritual region to an even higher spiritual region. This whole subject becomes even clearer when the Torah described how these commandments were translated into reality. We read  (1,16)  ויעש אלוקים את שני המאורות הגדולים,”G’d made the two large luminaries;” this is a reference to the spiritual luminaries. When the verse continues with את המאור הגדול “the great luminary;” and when it continues further ואת המאור הקטן, “and the small luminary,” this is a reference to the physical luminaries i.e. the sun and the moon.
  	Looking at the plain meaning of our verses: The reason why one of the two luminaries is described as (relatively ) small is because whenever there are two phenomena both described as “great or large,” it is usual that one of the two is larger than the other. If you will examine the text of our paragraph in the Torah carefully, you will find that it explains four separate matters. 1) These luminaries are always found in the same positions which have been assigned to them initially, i.e. they are stationary and do not move. [Here too the astronomy of our author is based on  outdated concepts. The luminaries are deemed captive on the periphery of the planet and are assumed to move with it automatically. The only part of this chapter which is relevant to our times is that the moon does not have light of its own and that only the sun has been assigned by G’d to emit light. I see no point in translating discarded concepts even if the author thought he could use scripture to support the theories current in his time. Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ולמשול ביום ובלילה. “and to rule by day and by night.” The sun rules by day, the moon at night. Remember that G’d not only enabled these luminaries to provide light, but He also equipped them with the ability to exercise dominion over the creatures in the “lower” regions, i.e. they can cause damage to creatures on earth or their influence may enable creatures on earth to continue to exist. The sun contributes to our continued existence by means of its power to promote growth by day, whereas the moon has similar influence on certain plants which grow at night. Moreover, the moon controls the ebb and tide of the oceans exercising influence over wells and fountains. 
  	From a kabbalistic point of view the words למשול ביום ובלילה also are an allusion to the powers which guide these two great luminaries in turn, i.e. the signs of the zodiac. These exercise a great deal of power over the fate of mankind unless countermanded by G’d’ s personal intervention, השגחה פרטית. You will note that the two daily communal offerings presented on the altar of the Temple by the priests on a daily basis corresponded to the powers exercised by sun and moon by day and by night respectively.(compare Numbers 28,4) The Torah writes in Deut. 4,19 אשר חלק להם ה’ אלוקיך אותם לכל העמים, “which the Lord your G’d has assigned to all the (other) nations.” This is a reference to the fate of the Gentiles who are governed by forces of the planetary system (and accounts for the preoccupation of people with astrology). Instead, the Jewish people offer two daily sacrifices in order to neutralize these forces presided over by sun and moon. The Torah continues in the same passage we quoted from Deuteronomy 4,19 to contrast the factors governing the fates of the Jews by writing (verse 20) ואתכם לקח ה’  ויוצא אתכם מכור הברזל ממצרים להיות לו עם נחלה כיום הזה. “You, however, the Lord your G’d took and removed you from the iron crucible, from Egypt, in order to for you to become  a people for Him, and inheritance as of this day.” This verse sums up the difference between the forces governing the fates of the Gentiles and G’d’s personal providence in supervising the fate of the Jewish people. When the Torah (Deut. 17,3) wrote the words אשר לא ציויתי “which I did not command,” this referred to the sun and the moon whom G’d did not command to exercise this control over the people’s fates. He did however, command the צבא השמים, “the host of the heaven”, i.e. the stars “the guiding forces of sun and moon” to exercise such control.  I plan to write more about this in my commentary on the respective verse in Deuteronomy 17,3. This also explains to you the reason why fasting is effective in warding off  negative influences on man. It is similar to an animal sacrifice and requires that one prepares for it beforehand, similar to a sacrificial animal which has to be checked out prior to its becoming offered on the altar. The act of fasting reduces the person’s blood, fat and flesh, and the time (late afternoon) when one must officially prepare to observe a fast is the one when both sun and moon exercise their control on earth jointly. This is why Shmuel said  (Taanit 12) that any fast-day which the person who observes it did not so designate before nightfall on the previous day is useless. He also said that any fast-day which did not include a sunset is not called a fast-day. Conversely, the tears shed by the supplicant as part of his fast also rank as part of an animal sacrifice as the latter was usually accompanied by a libation of water. We have a long-standing tradition that the gates of tears are never locked, i.e. that even when G’d has deliberately turned aside from our entreaties because of our sins, He did not turn away from our tears (Berachot 32). Tears are a derivative of the power of water, which itself is a derivative of the emanation חסד, ”love” which is on the right (positive) side of the diagram representing the ten emanations. [The “left” side represents negative spiritual attributes. Ed.] The “right” side of G’d’s emanations is always ready to welcome repentant sinners. This is such an important principle that everyone would do well to keep it in mind.
  ולהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך     ,“and to separate between the light and between the darkness.” The verse mentions three distinct functions of these luminaries. 1) To give light; 2) to exercise dominion; 3) to provide separation. G’d assigned three lofty  purposes to these luminaries. It is clear, of course, that behind these apparent causes of what moves the universe is the real Ruler, i.e. the Creator. It is this idea which is expressed in Isaiah 55,10 where the prophet speaks of G’d as ונתן זרע לזורע ולחם לאוכל  “and  provides seed for the farmer and bread for those who eat it.” Although the prophet in that verse describes the rain, it is clear that there is a more basic force behind the rain. What the verse tells us is that the rain is an instrument of G’d at work just as the sun and the moon are manifestations of G’d their Creator at work controlling His universe This idea is elaborated on in Hoseah 2, 23-24 where the prophet writes  concerning the future: אענה נאום ה’ אענה את השמים והם יענו את הארץ.והארץ תענה את הדגן ואת התירוש ואת היצהר והם יענו את יזרעל, “I will respond declares the Lord, I will respond to the sky, and it shall respond to the earth, and the earth shall respond with new grain and wine and oil, and they shall respond to Jezreel.” The thrust of the whole verse it that although these various forces of nature all contribute their best to successful life on earth and they each fulfill their appointed task, they do not possess independent powers but are agents of the Creator without whose input none of this would take place. Similarly here. The Torah describes the visible functions of the luminaries; this does not mean that G’d had abrogated His power in favor of His agents. Had He done so, these luminaries would indeed be deities as, unfortunately, many idol worshipers believe. It is precisely in order to forestall such mistaken ideas that the Torah warns us in Deut. 4,19 “lest you raise your eyes heavenwards and behold the sun, the moon and the stars, the heavenly hosts and be lured into bowing down to them or serving them.” Had G’d wanted to invest these agents with independent powers the Torah would have described this by having G’d order them” האירו, משלו, הבדילו! “provide light!, exercise dominion! Establish separations!
  	You may recall that the sages of Israel had to write to King Talmai that the meaning of the words חלק להם   אשר (compare the quote of Deut. 4,19. 4,19) does not mean that they have the powers of deities but that their function is merely to provide light (compare Megillah 9). This was a warning to the Gentiles not to be misled into paganism through the wording of the Torah. [King Talmai of Egypt third century B.C. forced 72 Jewish scholars to translate the Torah while sitting in separate cubicles each unable to consult with the other. According to tradition they miraculously rendered the Torah into Greek using exactly the same words. Ed.] The word חלק could otherwise have been understood by Talmai and other Gentiles as meaning that G’d “engaged in power-sharing” with such heavenly bodies as the sun the moon and the stars. The fact is, however, that G’d did give the Gentiles the choice to either serve Him or to serve what they perceived to be deities. This did not, however, mean that He ever agreed that these phenomena were deities or had separate, independent  powers. The Jewish people were not given such a choice at all. Proof that this is so is found in Ezekiel 20,33 where the prophet had debated this issue with Jews who had felt abandoned by G’d in exile claiming their “Master” had sold them, i.e. “freed them from the obligation to serve Him.” Ezekiel threatened them saying  חי אני נאום ה’ אלוקים אם לא ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה ובחמה שפוכה אמלוך עליכם .“As I live, says the Lord G’d, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured fury will I rule over you.”
  	The reason the luminaries were created (made functional) on the fourth day is because the fourth day is precisely in the middle of the seven days of the מעשה בראשית our chapter deals with. Another reason is that the sun and moon undergo four changes daily in the periods of time allocated to their respective dominance. [Both day and night are divided into four time-periods  each known as a משמרת in the language of our sages. Ed.] Similarly, the month [period of lunar orbit (roughly)] is divided into four weeks. The solar year is divided into four seasons. For these and other reasons it was appropriate that the functions of sun and moon commenced on the fourth day of creation. They had to be created following the emergence of vegetation on earth which became manifest on the third day so that we would have incontrovertible proof that  G’d had preceded creation and not vice versa. If, for instance, the Torah would have reported the directive: “let there be luminaries” on the third day and the directive: “let the earth produce herbs, etc.” on the fourth day, we would have concluded that not G’d but the celestial forces had been responsible for the universe as we know it. This concept was known in ancient times as קדמת העולם, “the eternal existence of the world.” People would have had reason to believe that  the existence of vegetation had been due to the respective influence of sun and moon on the ability of plants to grow. Now that the Torah had reported the directive תדשא הארץ דשא as having preceded the command יהי מאורות there is no room for misunderstanding. This proves that earth had not existed from times immemorial but had come into existence as a result of a directive of its Creator. If there had not yet been any celestial bodies such as sun, moon, the stars, who could have promoted the growth of vegetation if not G’d?
  	Please note that in this paragraph the expression מאור, “luminary” occurs five times.  This corresponds to the five kinds of light there are. 1) The light of the day. 2) the light of the sun; 3) the light of the moon; 4) the light of the stars; 5) the light of the zodiac constellations. Only the planet sun was created in order to provide light for earth (compare Bereshit Rabbah 6,1).
  	וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, “G’d saw the light that it was good.” The belief that the system of luminaries was beneficial for the creatures on earth is based on the availability of light and darkness.  We read in Job 9,9 עושה עש כסיל וכימה וחדרי תימן, “the One who makes the Bear and the Orion, Pleiades and the chambers of the south wind.” The constellation Pleiades supposedly cools, whereas the constellation Orion supposedly causes warmth on earth. The constellations each fulfil opposite roles and are matched one against the other. Each of them helps the growth and ripening of a variety of plants and fruit in its own fashion. This is also what G’d had in mind in Job 38,31 when He had asked Job: “can you tie cords to Pleiades?” People on earth obtain an insight into G’d’s power by observing the operation of the forces of nature and marveling at the intelligence which created such a system. As a result of their appreciation of G’d’s intelligence and power they praise Him. This is what Isaiah 40,26 spoke of when he urged the people שאו מרום עיניכם וראו מי ברא אלה, “raise up your eyes to the heavens and behold who has created all these?” All of this is meant when our verse reports that G’d took a look at how His directive had been carried out and concluded that the results were good. Another reason G’d referred to all this as טוב, ”good,” is that He foresaw already the great miracle which would be invoked in the future when Joshua would bid the sun and the moon to stop orbiting until he had completed his pursuit of the Canaanites (Joshua 10,12). The wording there is שמש בגבעון דום וירח בעמק אילון, “stand still sun at Gibeon and moon in the valley of Ayalon.” Another reference to a similar miracle is found in Judges 5,20 where the prophetess Devorah describes the stars as having changed their orbit to help Barak fight Siserah.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ישרצו המים “let the waters swarm, etc.” After the Torah had completed its report about the final appearance of heaven, i.e. when both the material for the earthly heavens, “sky” and the material that earth consisted of had been formed and put in their respective places, G’d directed that the waters produce creatures capable of some movement. He used the expression נפש חיה, ”living creature,” meaning a נפש, essence of life, the fish in the oceans. Also the birds which were created from a combination of water and earth are mentioned here when the Torah wrote ועוף יעופף על הארץ, “and birds which will fly above the earth.” We know that the birds contained the raw material earth as the Torah described their coming into existence with the words ויצר ה’ אלוקים מן האדמה כל חית השדה ואת כל עוף השמים, “G’d formed from the soil all the living creatures of the field as well as the birds in the sky” (Genesis 2,19). This prompted our sages in Chulin 27 to state that the birds were created out of the רקק, “mud”. The meaning of that word is “a mixture of water and earth.” Seeing that there is such a thing as נפש without חיות, life, such as the essence of the plants, the Torah had to add the word חיה when it described what we call “living creatures.” נפש is what enables “living creatures to move.” Similarly, the element נפש is what enables plants to grow, i.e. to “move” without leaving their place on earth. [Our sages called the product of earth when it made vegetation sprout forth נפש הצומחת, “an essence of life capable only of growth; my translation. Ed.] We may therefore be correct in understanding the word נפש as “some force enabling growth by the one possessed of that force.” This explains why on the third day there was no mention of the word נפש, seeing that before the sun and moon made their appearance there had not been a manifestation of any plants growing. 
  There are a total of five different kinds of movement: 1) תנועה עולה  2) תנועה בינונית  3) תנועה תחתונה  4) תנועה משברת  5) תנועה מתפשטת   The category of movement called עולה refers to the motions of birds which have a tendency to rise into the atmosphere. The second category called בינונית includes all horizontal movement be it on earth or in the waters. The third category  refers to crawling,  i.e. “feeling one’s way hesitantly by means of touching objects for guidance.” The fourth category is movement by bipeds, on two legs. The fifth category refers to moving on one’s belly. The reason the day on which all these creatures were introduced is called the “fifth day” is because it was the day on which G’d created five categories of motion by living creatures.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויברא אלוקים את התנינים הגדולים, “G’d created the large sea-monsters, etc.” According to the plain meaning the Torah speaks about a category of fish. Seeing they are so extraordinarily large, the Torah attributes their creation to G’d Himself instead of to the water. This is in line with the Torah crediting G’d personally with creating Man when we read in 1,27 ויברא אלוקים את האדם בצלמו. “G’d created Man in His image.” In both instances the Torah intended to convey that G’d created these bodies ex nihilo, out of previously non-existent matter. Some Greek scientists, quoted by Nachmanides, claimed that they had personally observed such monsters having bodies 500 miles long. Also our sages in Baba Batra 73 describe the dimensions of these monsters as being gigantic. Rabbi bar bar Chana claims to have encountered them on his voyages. He goes on about unbelievable feats performed by these monsters. [The author lists some; I prefer to direct the reader to the folio in the Talmud.  The reader may also be interested in my treatment of the subject in my book  “the Just lives by his faith.” Ed.]
  	According to an homiletical approach the meaning of the words התנינים הגדולים refers to Leviathan, both the male and the female of the species (compare Baba Batra 74). The reason the Torah mentions the word גדולים, ”large ones,” is that Leviathan was extraordinarily large. His carcass was found in the great ocean which spans the globe. The word  הגדולים is similar in meaning to the same word applied to the “big luminaries,” which distinguished them from the smaller stars. These luminaries are several times the size of earth. It is quite possible that the absence of the usual  ויהי כן after the report of the creation of Leviathan was meant to alert us to the fact that this pair did not endure and that is what the sages meant who told us on the same folio of the Talmud that if the two had been allowed to mate they would have caused the destruction of the globe. What did G’d do? “He castrated the male of the species and killed the female, salting away its flesh for consumption by the righteous at a future time.” This is the meaning of Isaiah 27,1 הרג את התנין אשר בים. “He killed the monster which was in the sea.” This verse also testifies to the fact that there was both a male and a female Leviathan as the verse first referred to לויתן נחש ברח, and continues to speak about  ועל לויתן נחש עקלתון, והרג את התנין אשר בים. When Isaiah spoke of “He killed the monster,” this indicates that the male  was left bereft of his mate. This may have prompted King David to describe the function of the surviving male Leviathan being for G’d “to have fun with.” (Psalms 104,26). As to the exact wording of the text in Psalms,     לויתן זה יצרת לשחק בו, I believe what David meant was for Leviathan to have fun in the ocean. After all, verse 25 spoke of the הים הגדול, “the great ocean.” G’d said to Job (Job 40,25) “can you draw out Leviathan by a fishhook?” All these verses prove that only one of the species remained alive.  The reason our verse spoke about את התנינם, may have been to allude to the fish in the ocean which are to serve as food for the Leviathan. 
  On the other hand, my great teacher Rabbi Shlomoh (Aderet) felt that that the Midrash refers to a real meal which will be served to the righteous in the world to come. He understood the saying quoted in Vayikra Rabbah 7,3 by Rabbi Berechiah literally. [This is at variance with Maimonides who understood all such Midrashim as purely allegorical as Rabbi Chavell pointed out in his notes.] Rabbi Berechiah bases himself on the verse in Leviticus 7,24 which seemed to him extraneous and from which he derived that the righteous who had refrained from eating any diseased animals or any which had died of natural causes, i.e. טרפה ונבלה, would be compensated in the future by participating in a meal from the meat of the Leviathan. The text does not say that these righteous will feast on “Leviathan,” but “on the meat of Leviathan.” This word suggested to my Rabbi that the Talmud discussed a real meal. Naturally, what the sages had in mind with this meal was not something exclusively physical, designed to only provide satisfaction for the body; this would certainly not be germane to the domain of the world of the future. We know that spiritual forces are awakened and strengthened through the intake of physical food. The idea behind this feast therefore is that seeing it would be extremely satisfying from a gastronomic point of view, the spiritual benefits derived from it would be commensurate. It is not unlike the time when Yitzchak asked Esau to provide him with tasty venison to enable him to bestow a spiritual blessing on him (Genesis 27,4). We also encounter such a spiritually uplifting meal when Moses entertained his father-in-law Yitro in Exodus 18,12 where the eating is described as taking place לפני האלוקים, “in the presence of G’d,” i.e. it was a spiritual experience. Another example of such a meal is recorded in Samuel I where we are told that the young prophets stood and prophesied before Samuel as a result of having taken part of that meal. At any rate, it is likely that the meal G’d will serve the righteous in the future will have a similar effect on them. Some commentators believe that the food i.e. both meat and fish served at that meal, possesses special properties as the animals from which it will be prepared had been the original ones created during the six days when G’d made the universe. Our present world simply does not deserve that the people in it experience such delights. This is why the people who will be invited to participate in that meal will be the ones who have led exemplary lives in this life, denying themselves any forbidden pleasures. It is entirely possible that such pure foods had been prepared already when Adam and Chavah were still in Gan Eden prior to their sin. There may even have been an allusion to this when the Torah described the tree of knowledge as inspiring the desire to acquire additional knowledge (Genesis 3,4). Nowadays we are already familiar with a variety of drugs which are helpful in this regard. If that is so, then there can be no question that under the ideal conditions prevailing in Gan Eden some of the plants which were created during the six days of  creation must have possessed such power. After all, the manna which the Israelites ate during their trek through the desert, though physical food, was designed for people of an especially high intellectual level. It was meant to enable the Israelites to comprehend abstract concepts and phenomena such as angels. The manna did not contain any superfluous ingredients which had to be excreted by the body as we know from Psalms 78,25  לחם אבירים אכל איש, “each man ate bread designed for highly intellectual persons.” Our sages in Yuma 75 explain that this means that all of the manna was absorbed by the body. Our sages have found an allusion to the food which will be provided for the righteous in the future when they said in Chagigah 12: “G’d grinds manna in the heavens for consumption by the righteous.” Perhaps the period when this meal will be served will coincide with the end of the period when man [his surviving soul? Ed.] will require physical food to sustain him. Subsequent to that meal the period which our sages have described as an era during which the righteous will “sit” with their crowns on their heads enjoying the splendour exuded by G’d’s presence will commence, so that the meal served from the remains of the Leviathan will be the very last physical meal these souls will ever imbibe. Just as the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot, שמיני עצרת, is so named as it represents the pinnacle of the previous seven days of the festival as well as its conclusion, so the meal consisting of the Leviathan may be the pinnacle of physical life on earth to be followed by life of a totally different, exclusively spiritual level.
  	Looking at our verse from a rational, investigative point of view [this is still a quotation from the writing of Rabbi Shlomoh Aderet on this subject], the subject of Leviathan which G’d created male and female may be an allusion to the relationship of שכל ונפש, mind and soul. The Kabbalists have explained that man, as opposed to the angels, is not obligated to act in a certain manner. Seeing that angels are intrinsically rational beings, they have שכל intelligence, but do not have a soul. As a result they have no free choice. Man who has both נפש ושכל, is different. We may perceive of שכל as the masculine part of man’s spiritual faculties, whereas נפש represents the feminine part of these faculties. Alternatively, you may view שכל as the צורה, “form,” and נפש as theחמר , “material.” The word לויתן, “Leviathan,” means “connection;” it is a combination of the two words לוית חן, (compare Proverbs 1,9 where the word חן describes that there is an element of פאר, ”magnificence” connected with Leviathan, as well as Genesis 30,34 ילוה אישי אלי, “my husband will join me”) The intellect (masculine, active) is perceived as joining the soul, (the feminine, passive). If our sages called this “monster” לויתן, this expressed the idea that it combined both masculine and feminine properties within one whole. It was an unusual species. At other times our sages speak of Leviathan as if it were two different creatures, one male one female. Seeing that both the נפש as well as the שכל aspect of man i.e. his non-tangible components, become attached to the body of man, we can now understand why man was not created similar to the disembodied angels who are dominated by their intellect. The reason is that G’d wanted that נפש and שכל  be dependent upon one another at all times so that in fact these two forces operate as if they were disembodied entities. This is what the sages meant when they said that if the male and female Leviathan were tied to one another so that they are indispensable to one another they would ruin the universe. [the Hebrew word is נזקקים, a word which describes the dependence of male and female marriage partners on one another. Ed.] The reason is that the urge to reproduce the species would be absent in the world if its superior creature, man, were to be guided merely by intellectual powers. It is the נפש, the seat of desire, which motivates man to seek physical union with the female and thus to ensure the survival of the species. On the other hand, if intellect would exercise constant and ongoing dominance on נפש this would result in the נפש part of man to become so attached to the divine that just as the prophet Elijah [compare Elijah’s departure from earth in Kings II 2,11. Ed.] the נפש would “drag” its body with it to the celestial regions in order to cleave to G’d. What did G’d do in order to prevent either of these developments to occur? “He castrated the male, the power of שכל, and He “killed” the female power, i.e. נפש. Castration is a denial of the ability to procreate; “killing” is also a form of the denial of life. This is why our sages described the absence of something either as a form of castration or as a form of death. When the Midrash  went on to say that G’d “salted away the meat of the female Leviathan  for the righteous in the future,” the word “salted” is a simile for everything which keeps for a long time. This is why an eternal covenant between G’d and the Jewish people is described as ברית מלח עולם, “a covenant of salt for all times.” The presence of salt is insurance against loss by deterioration. On the other hand, the sages made fun of people who thought they could stash away their money thus guarding it against loss, and they advised the giving of charity as an insurance against losing one’s money. They coined the phrase (Ketuvot 66) “he who salts his money will experience that it shrinks.” The overall consideration guiding our sages in the way they depicted the Leviathan was that by depriving both male and female of the power to procreate this would lead to the depopulation of earth. By telling us that G’d salted away” the meat of the Leviathan, the sages wanted to remind us that the righteous will have a life to look forward to in the hereafter. In that world their existence would not be limited by time. &lt;bר&gt;Seeing that the origin of both נפש and שכל is in the region of water, the water created on the second day, they are also frequently described as fish, i.e. they have this in common with the fish that they both were created out of water [though out of different categories of water. Ed ] Thus far I have copied from the words of my teacher, may his light continue to shine. [Rabbi Shlomoh Aderet obviously was still alive at the time Rabbeinu Bachya wrote this part of his commentary. 1235-1310 Ed.]
  	Now to a kabbalistic approach to the matter of the תנינם. You are aware of a tradition that the angels were created on the fifth day [the view of Rabbi Chaninah in Bereshit Rabbah 1,4 as opposed to views that they were created on the second day. Ed.] The “great monsters” are viewed as the four camps in which the שכינה, the presence of G’d, may be found. The Talmud Taanit 31 called these 4 regions מחול [maybe an acrostic. Ed.] These regions serve the purpose of acknowledging G’d’s greatness in song and thanksgiving. This appears based on Judges 5,11 שם יתנו צדקות ה', ”there they will sing the salvations of G’d.” In describing what was created on the fifth day, the Torah mentions ועוף יעופף, which refer to the angels who fly all over. [the word ועוף in that instance is not understood as a noun, i.e. “bird,” but as part of the activity of flying. Ed.] The reason why the angels are compared to עוף יעופף is because already the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel describe them as having two sets of wings (Isaiah 6,2). The Targum of the word וכפלת, “you will double over, i.e. fold,” in Exodus 26,9 is ותעוף. You know that the Torah calls any bird which flies with two wings  עוף. [as opposed to flies, butterflies etc, which have more than 2 wings to fly with. Ed.] It does not matter that the act of flying is of a physical nature or merely a description of the movement by disembodied spiritual creatures such as  angels. 
  When the Torah describes these creatures as flying על  הארץ  על פני רקיע השמים "over the earth and the sky of the heaven,” the words על הארץ refer to the place upon which the angels stand, whereas the words על פני רקיע השמים are an elaboration on the meaning of the words על הארץ, i.e. in the lower regions of the universe. We find a similar use of this expression in Ezekiel 1,15 where the prophet speaks of והנה אופן אחד בארץ, “and here one wheel  was on the ground.” [Rashi understands the word there as “below,” i.e. not in the celestial regions. Ed.] Yonathan ben Uziel also renders the word בארץ there in the same sense.
  	Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (compare Zohar Bereshit 46) understands the word ועוף as a reference to the archangel Michael of whom it has been said in Isaiah 6,6 ויעף אלי, “he flew to me.” The word יעופף referred to the archangel Gavriel of whom we are told in Daniel 9,21 מועף ביעף “he was lifted in flight.” The words על פני רקיע השמים refer to the angel Uriel. This is the mystical meaning of the words מרכבו  ארגמןin Song of Songs 3,10. The intelligent reader will understand what I refer to. [The word ארגמן is understood as an acrostic of the names of the four angels א-וריאל, ר-פאל, ג-בריאל, מ-יכאל  The alternate name for Gavriel is Naftali.] 
  	ואת כל נפש החיה הרומשת “and every thing which has a living soul which moves.” this is a reference to the vision of Ezekiel of the four-faceted חיה, i.e. the phenomenon with the faces of a human being, a lion an ox and an angel. Ezekiel 10,15 mentions it as being a subject of his vision when he stood at the banks of the river Kevar
  	ואת כל עוף כנף למינהו, “and every winged bird according to its kind.” Here the Torah explained that the angels created on the fifth day were of a variety of categories, of varying degrees of holiness; some of them  were the products of the element fire, others of the element water. Some were powerful enough to overpower fire, others would be destroyed by fire if they were in on a collision course.(compare Yuma 21).
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויברך אותם אלוקים ”G’d blessed them.” These creatures required this blessing seeing that the humans would engage in hunting and killing them in order to consume them. You may ask why G’d is not reported as blessing the trees and other plants which humans and animals use to feed on? Seeing that G’d Himself had stated in Leviticus 25,21 that the produce of the field was destined for consumption by the Torah-observant Israelites, why did the produce of field and orchard not qualify for a similar blessing? We need to answer that all the living creatures were created as male and female, similar to man himself. This is why G’d blessed them that they be fruitful and multiply by begetting offspring from one another. Not so with the plants which proliferated all over the earth in great abundance. They did not require such a special blessing as they were not in any danger of extinction by hostile man. As to the reason that we also do not find a duplication of the blessing G’d bestowed to the creatures of the fifth day to those created on the sixth day, this was because the blessing G’d bestowed on the fifth day included the moving creatures not created until the sixth day. All living creatures which were not able to speak are in the same category (compare Nachmanides). You should know that the continued existence of the fish is also due to the power of this blessing; in fact this is why they did not perish during the deluge. The Torah is on record that “all the creatures on dry land perished (Genesis 7,21)” Our sages in Zevachim 113 specifically mention that the fish did not perish. even though all the trees as well as all the moving living creatures perished then. Another feature of the blessing bestowed on the birds and the fish is that they are not restricted to producing offspring to certain periods of the year but can do so on a year-round basis, something that is not the case with either trees or vegetation of the ground. Even the mammals  have a tendency to produce their young only at certain times during the year.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  תוצא הארץ נפש חיה, “let the earth bring forth living creatures, etc.  "Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 7,7 state that this is a reference to the spirit of man. [it refers to the animalistic life-essence of man] which does not share the spiritual qualities of man’s G’d given soul and therefore returns to earth upon his death. This is what Solomon had in mind in Kohelet 3,21 “and the spirit of the animal which returns to earth below.” Another meaning of this word might be that it refers to the spirit of intelligence, in which case the word  ארץhere must be a reference to the word הארץ in the very first verse of the Torah, i.e. what we described as ארץ החיים.
  	According to a Midrash the words נפש חיה actually refer to a variety of  souls, seeing that the verse continues נפש חיה למינה, בהמה ורמש וחיתו ארץ למינה. In other words not just one kind of נפש. When the Torah continues in the next verse  to describe that G’d (as opposed to earth) “made the wild beasts according to its kind, the domesticated animals according to its category and the creeping things according to their respective categories,” this verse talks about the bodies of these respective species only. The meaning of this Midrash is that the word נפש חיה in verse 24 refers to the collective life-force of the animal world. When the Torah speaks in verse twenty-five about what G’d made, this is a reference to the bodies seeing that in that verse no mention is made of the words נפש חיה .
  	Another comment in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 7,7) sees in the word נפש חיה a reference to the demons. According to that interpretation G’d did create the spirits of these demons but did not create their bodies. The Sabbath arrived before G’d had gotten around to make the bodies of these creatures. This phenomenon was meant to teach man an important lesson. If, on the Sabbath eve, close to the onset of the Sabbath, man has a chance to complete the purchase of a desirable object, he should desist. It is not appropriate for the servant (man) to insist on completing something at a time when his Maker saw fit to to desist.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  נעשה אדם, “let us make Man.” After the waters had been given the power to produce living creatures which swarmed in the ocean and, in the case of earth, it had been given the power to produce mammals, the Torah had used such expressions as ישרצו המים, or תוצא הארץ in the case of the mammals, when it comes to describing the creation of man the Torah speaks of “let us make.” According to the plain meaning of the text the subjects of the words “let us make” are G’d together with the earth which had been the subject of verse twenty four. Earth would contribute the body of Man just as it had contributed the bodies of the animals, whereas G’d would contribute the soul. We have confirmation of this in Genesis 2,7 where the Torah reports וייצר ה’ אלוקים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת רוח חיים.”G’d formed man dust from the earth and He blew into his nostrils a living soul. Thereupon man became a human being.” What G’d “blew” into man’s nostrils was a soul which originated in the celestial region. The word בצלמנו in our verse describes an attribute, such as in Daniel 3,19 וצלם אנפוהי אשתני, ”and the form of his face was contorted.” Another verse in which the word צלם describes an attribute is Psalms 39,7 אך בצלם יתהלך איש, ”man walks as a mere shadow.” The word כדמותנו on the other hand, describes the image of the form seeing that things which are similar to one another are described in Hebrew as דומים זה לזה. The thrust of the verse is to  inform us that man was to resemble the celestial beings as much as possible while at the same time resembling the creatures in the “lower” world. He would resemble the celestial beings by sharing some of their attributes while he would he would resemble the creatures in the “lower” world by his outer appearance, i.e. that his body would appear to be made from earth (This is what Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman wrote quoting Rabbi David Kimchi.) Other commentators see in the word נעשה, i.e. the plural “we will make,” a pluralis majestatis, a form of expression used by superior beings such as kings when they really only refer to themselves. They use this mode of expression to suggest that though they are only individuals they act on behalf of a multitude. Even a relatively unimportant individual such as Lavan arrogated to himself such importance when he said to Yaakov (Genesis 29,27) ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “and we shall give you also this one (Rachel).” We find another example of this mode of speech when Balak told Bileam  (Numbers 22,7) אולי נכה בו ואגרשנו “perhaps we can defeat it (the Israelites) and I will expel them.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, quoting unnamed sources, sees in the word נעשה a form of the intransitive passive form similar to what we find in Isaiah 26,18 ישועות בל-נעשה ארץ “no salvation (victories) were performed on earth.” I do not think there is a need for such contrived explanations.
  	The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5,7) approaches the matter from an homiletical point of view and has Moses ask G’d when he was told to write this text if the wording was not apt to mislead the heretics by confirming their view that there is more than one initial force at work in the universe. G’d is supposed to have told Moses: “go and write; let those who want to err, err.” 
  	An investigative rational approach sees in these words a reflection of how G’d had delegated various powers to various angels each one of whom is in charge of different segments of the universe. In the first instance He addressed Himself to an angel who presides over the other seven domains in the universe. [we had described these as equivalent to the antiquated system of the seven fixed stars. Ed.] When G’d used the plural נעשה, He simply indicated that His instructions would be carried out in conjunction with this angel who is the super-angel, so to speak. Sanhedrin 38 phrases this concept somewhat differently when G’d is described as always consulting with His entourage, פמליה של מעלה, before undertaking any major activity. The word נעשה therefore refers to G’d’s delegates in the universe. We find in Genesis 11,7 prior to G’d dispersing mankind all over the globe and confusing their uniform language that He used the plural, i.e. הבו נרדה, “let us descend, etc.” This too was a reference to this Divine entourage. In other instances, this “entourage” is called “G’d’s court of judgment, בית דינו של הקב"ה. In the case of Sodom G’d made Avraham a “member” of this court when He revealed to him His intention to execute retribution on the people of Sodom (Genesis 18,20) although we do not find this form of the plural where G’d is quoted as speaking. A third expression our sages have used to describe this reaction by G’d prior to His making far-reaching decisions involving mankind is the word נמלך, “He consulted.” There is a verse (Daniel 4,14) בגזרת עירין פתגמא ומאמר קדישין שאלתא, “the matter is by decree of the wakeful ones and by word of the holy ones;” this is an allusion to these delegates whom G’d has appointed and without “consulting” whom He does not orchestrate major changes in the world as we know it. These delegates are nothing but vessels created by His will which He employs in order to make His works manifest. It is similar to when our body reflects the will of our soul. Anyone observing man’s activities does not relate them to a robot within man but to an intelligence and willpower resident within his body. According to Amos 3,7 כי לא יעשה ה’ דבר כי אם גלה סודו אל עבדיו הנביאים, “for G’d does not do anything the secret of which He has not first revealed to the prophets,” the prophet extends the concept of G’d taking His creatures into His confidence even further. We are entitled to extrapolate that if G’d reveals such matters to his prophets who are only flesh and blood, how much more does He do so to the angels He has appointed to supervise the smooth running of the universe? Nonetheless it is evident that G’d has no need of all these agents, otherwise how could He have created the universe in the absence of such angels? Conversely, even these powerful agents of G’d have need of Him all the time.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  בצלמו, “in His image.” The term צלם refers to an intellectual achievement. When the Torah wrote the word בצלמנו this was meant to alert us to the fact that the intellectual life-force within man has been emanated from G’d’s own Holy Spirit. As a result there is a great difference between the צלם, ”the abstract image,” and the physical appearance of someone who possesses it, i.e. the תאר, the form in which it is presented. I do not agree with Rabbi David Kimchi who believed that the word צלם  is equivalent to the word דמות, “outward appearance, form.” Maimonides also agreed that there is a great difference between the two. At the beginning of his “Guide for the Perplexed,” he writes: “there are many people who understood the word צלם in Hebrew to be a description of the outward appearance which one perceives. These people are in error. In fact their error is so great that it borders on heresy. It might lead them to believe that G’d is corporeal. The fact is that the word צלם and the word תאר refer to two totally different concepts. The word תאר  refers to the outward shape and form which we perceive with our five senses, whereas the word צלם  applies to the essential core of such a phenomenon. An example of the former is found in Samuel I 28,14 מה תארו “what does he look like?” Another example is found in Judges 8,18 כתאר בני המלך, ”just like the king’s sons.” Concerning the essential core of man’s spiritual makeup the Torah wrote that he is בצלמו , “like our own core,” meaning that the spiritual disembodied essence of man makes him similar to the disembodied phenomena in the world of the angels The Torah emphasised this when it wrote  בצלם אלוקים ברא אותו ,”in G’d’s own image He created him.” We know that G’d is not physical, so the word could not refer to a physical appearance This is also the reason for Psalms 73,20 צלמם תבזה, “their image You despise.” One does not “despise” the outward appearance of a person but the inner core such an image may reflect. Clearly, the Torah wanted to tell us by using the word בצלמנו than man and G’d have something in common which is of the essence, the abstract intellectual ability of his soul. Maimonides elaborates further on this theme in his ספר מדע, fourth chapter. 	
  	There are others  who claim that the word בצלמנו means “the image which has been separated from Us.” This means “the image of our celestial world, the world of angels as well as the terrestrial part of the universe, i.e. all parts of the universe.“ Man is supposedly composed of elements of all three “worlds.” This is the reason that in many philosophical books man is referred to as עולם הקטן a “microcosm.” Job already alluded to this (Job 19,26) when he said ומבשרי אחזה אלוקה, “and though still of my flesh I will behold G’d.” He meant that through different parts of his body (3) he will be able to perceive the three parts comprising the universe, i.e. the work performed by G’d when He created the universe. Man’s head which is the seat of his intellect corresponds to the “highest” part of the universe which is the domain of abstract intellectual beings. The second part of man’s body from the neck down to his loins, is man’s middle part, and the point from which two branches, i.e. his right hand and his left hand branch out. They in turn are known by seven different names, i.e. functions: האצבע, היד, הכף, הטפח, הזרת, האמה ,זרוע “the (index) finger, the hand, the palm of the hand, the “span” (handbreadth), the “span” (distance between small finger and thumb when the fist is opened), the elbow (distance from extended middle-finger to the elbow), and the upper arm. All of these correspond in some way to the “middle” universe, the world of the galaxies. This world contains 7 primary galaxies which have the seven fixed stars attached to them. This part of man also contains the heart which is the origin of his thoughts. It is comparable to a king sitting in the innermost chamber of his palace and is comparable to the fixed star “sun” which is the center of the seven fixed stars and their galaxies. It is that star which bestows its light on this “lower” world on account of which it performs all its tasks. The third part of man begins from his loins downwards. This part contains the ability to procreate, existence as a living organism (ability to excrete, etc.) and loss (of energy). This part corresponds to our “lower” world in which death, procreation, etc. are common phenomena. Our “lower” world, as opposed to the other parts of the universe is subject to constant disintegration and renewal. After having explained this you should remember that at any place in the Torah where G’d appears portrayed as if He were possessed of physical attributes such as mouth, nose, arms, eyes, ears, etc., none of these expressions must be understood at face value, i.e. literally. They are words which teach that in the “higher” worlds there are phenomena which correspond in their functions to these organs of the human body. Every time our sages say דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, “the Torah used a syntax with which human beings are familiar,” this is what they referred to (compare Berachot 31 and many other places). 
  In other words: due to the fact that we humans experience certain feelings and emotions we are unable to properly understand beings which are devoid of such feelings. Therefore, in order to give us at least an inkling of what goes on in those worlds, the Torah employs words and concepts with which we are familiar. Once we have learned to appreciate that these terms employed for celestial phenomena are in fact merely similes, we will be able to strip these words of their terrestrial significance in our minds and see in them expressions used to describe attributes of the celestial world which correspond in some way to the meaning of these organs in our own world. Concerning this we are told in Proverbs 28,5 ומבקשי ה' יבינו כל, “those who seek out the Lord will understand all.” If the Torah had not employed expressions used in this terrestrial world to describe phenomena in the celestial regions but had employed terms reserved for application to abstract intellectual beings, most people would not have even had an inkling of what the Torah was speaking about, neither of the subject matter nor of the attributes of these beings. This is why the Torah employed terms which enable a least the educated people to understand what the Torah had in mind. Every individual has to understand these terms based on his own insight into matters super-terrestrial. The one thing that we all have in common is knowledge of the existence of the Creator. Seeing that this is so, all of us are under an obligation to serve Him. Even though the scholar derives some advantage of being more familiar with celestial beings than the ordinary person, as far as his knowledge of the existence of the Creator is concerned this makes him no different from everybody else. The philosophers have tried to illustrate this with the following parable: when a rich man arrives at the home of a man as a guest and he is accompanied by his beasts, the host feeds the rich man all kinds of delicacies, while at the same time feeding his animals food which is appropriate for them. In a similar way, the Torah expands our ability to perceive some super-terrestrial phenomena provided we have first prepared ourselves through the acquisition of both knowledge and the appropriate moral conduct.
  	A kabbalistic approach to the words נעשה אדם, ”let us make man,” sees in these words an allusion to G’d’s seven attributes. This is made clear by Bereshit Rabbah 5,3 where we are told in answer to the rhetorical question: “with whom did G’d consult? With the souls of the righteous and various phenomena representing the world already in existence The matter may be compared to a king who had a number of advisors who was not in the habit of undertaking anything of importance without consulting with his advisors. On the other hand, Rabbi Ami, in that same section of the Midrash said that G’d consulted “with His own heart;” according to him the matter is comparable to a king who had built a palace having entrusted the project to an architect but when he saw the result he was not pleased. Who was he supposed to be angry at if not at the architect? This is the meaning of the words in Genesis 6, 6 ויתעצב אל לבו, He was saddened at His heart.” Rabbi Assi, in the same paragraph, described the matter differently when he said: the matter can be compared to a king who conducted his business through a broker and was dissatisfied with the result, the broker not having realised a profit for him. Clearly, the king’s displeasure would be directed at the broker. So far the Midrash.
   	Our verse contains some profound and hidden meaning, which the Kabbalists who have tried to decipher hidden meanings of G’d’s message to man in the Torah have understood as the basis for the system of the ten emanations which include man seeing he has been created in a manner which corresponds to the structure of these emanations. When G’d said: בצלמנו, “in Our image,” the meaning is the “image” which was similar to that of the celestial regions and its inhabitants. The word כדמותנו, “similar to our appearance,” on the other hand, refers to the emanation called תפארת, “harmony,” which applies to the fact that man has a body. Let me now explain the entire  verse. Everyone who wants to have an understanding of the uniqueness and the unification of the various components man is made of should concentrate on the following: Man’s head, which is what lends whatever dignity and distinction his body deserves is equivalent to the highest emanation called כתר, “crown,” a description borrowed from the words in Psalms 119, 160, ראש דברך אמת as well as from the same word i.e. ראשו כתם פז in Song of Songs 5,11. Man’s brain and his ability to verbalise it, חכו, corresponds to the emanation חכמה, “wisdom,” which is something internal. This is what is meant by Song of Songs 5,16 חכו ממתקים, “His palate is sweet.” The word חכמה itself also alludes to the letters of the word  מוח חיך [the letter ה  is subject to being exchanged for either י  or ו under certain conditions, see Torat Chayim. Ed.] The word חיך, an allusion to the power of speech, corresponds to the emanationבינה , “insight.” This is the emanation which translates potential into actual forces. In other words, language translates thoughts into an intelligible and usable format. This is meant by Song of Songs 5,16 כלו מחמדים ”they are all a delight.” Just as in the world of emanations בינה translates the wisdom into some applicable form, so in man, language converts his knowledge into something communicable. We have already mentioned on several occasions that in kabbalistic terms the three words כתר, חכמה, תשובה  are essentially all the same thing Similarly, when it came to the formation of man, brain-power speech (palate)-language are all part of the same organ called head. The arms of man to the right and the left respectively are patterned after the emanation חכמה which is alluded to in the ספר היצירה according to which ברית הלשון מכריע בינתים i.e. the emanation תשובה corresponds to לשון, communication by means of language. This means that you have five “upper” emanations. The emanation תפארת reinforces and lends strength to all the other emanations. Concerning this emanation תפארת  Moses said in Numbers 16,22 אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “Lord of the spirits of all flesh.” Man’s feet, his right thigh and his left thigh correspond to the two emanations נצח, והוד respectively.” The organ on which circumcision is performed corresponds to the emanation יסוד also known as צדיק which is known as ברית, “covenant,” and is situated in the centre (between left and right). This covenant reconciles the opposing emanations נצח  והוד. This helps you to understand that the appropriate time for the righteous to sleep with their wives is on the Sabbath seeing the emanation יסוד is the seventh when you consider that the top three emanations (כתר, חכמה, בינה ) are lumped together as one. When Elisha ben Avuyah (known in the Talmud as “Acher,”) observed the essential unity of the body so that the emanation מלכות remained “cut off, separated,” he concluded that possibly there are two domains in the universe each one of which had control of one section of it. He did not consider that  the “odd” emanation could be the heart. concerning which G’d had said ויתעצב אל לבו, “He consulted with His (own) heart.” Concerning this “heart,” the Kabbalists (sages of the Midrash) had quoted the parable of the king and his architect. This is also what the sages had in mind when they described the Etrog, the fruit taken on the festival of Sukkot together with the other species which however is kept separate and not bound up together with them, as symbolizing the heart. Although it is not part of the אגודה, the “bunch” it nonetheless invalidates the other three species by its absence. The commandment of “take for yourselves, etc.” cannot be fulfilled without this Etrog. The intelligent reader will understand.  Once man has understood this very important insight his eyes will be illuminated and he will be able to ward off any alien philosophies which might otherwise endanger his belief in G’d and His Torah. It will be as clear to him as the sun in the sky that G’d has neither צורה  or דמות. This is what Moses told the people in Deut. 4, 15 when he referred to the revelation at Mount Sinai and said לא ראיתם כל תמונה “you did not see any visual image (on that occasion).” Moses made a point of stressing this so that we would understand once and for all that when the Torah speaks of G’d in terms of physical attributes these are only allegorical remarks.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויברך אותם אלוקים ויאמר להם אלוקים פרו ורבו “G’d blessed them. G’d said to them: ‘be fruitful and multiply.’” If what is written here were meant to be a single blessing, the Torah should have written: “G’d blessed them saying ‘be fruitful and multiply.’” He had done just that when He blessed the fish in the oceans in 1,22. Seeing that the Torah again wrote “G’d said to them,” it is clear that this referred to a separate blessing. whereas the blessing to be fruitful and to multiply was a different blessing. The only reason the Torah repeated the name of G’d was to alert us to the fact that the Torah speaks of two blessings. The first blessing was given to the body’s ability to regenerate itself so that man could live indefinitely both in body and in soul. His food and the nutrients it contained should be blessed. It should replace whatever man’s body sheds in the course of each day, reducing his vitality; as a result man would not experience the process of aging and the progressive weakness associated with that process. The doctors are all agreed that man in this universe needs to add fluids to his body in order to counteract the ongoing loss of such fluids. This loss they ascribe to two causes. 1) The air which surrounds us on all sides and the heat it contains which has a tendency to draw moisture from our bodies. 2) The internal heat of the body which also drains the fluids which man was equipped with at birth. As a consequence of these factors man’s food and drink must be balanced so as to compensate for the loss of fluids and moisture we experience on a daily basis. In our present state, the replenishment of these fluids through the intake of food and drink is not sufficient to replace all the fluids which are being lost so that as a result of this gradual loss of our vital fluids we age and eventually die. If the food and drink intake contained all the ingredients to counteract the natural diminution of our vital fluids no one would ever show signs of age or die of old age. Concerning this blessing the Torah wrote: “G’d blessed them.” He gave them a divine blessing, i.e. the use of the word אלוקים suggests that the blessing was that they should be like G’d, i.e. live forever. This is what Assaph had in mind when he wrote in Psalm 82,6 אני אמרתי אלוקים אתם, “I had said you are G’d-like.” 
  This is also the meaning of what a philosopher wrote in the book  called ספר המגלה that this first blessing given to man was that his food, though based exclusively on produce of the earth, should be sufficient in quality to counteract natural aging. As a result of such a blessing he was inherently capable of living forever. 
  This is also the meaning of the words in verse 29 “here I have given to you all the herbs containing seed on earth and every tree thereon which produces seed as food to eat.” You will note that when designating what humans were to eat, the Torah underlines the importance of these plants generating seed, זורע זרע, whereas such capability of the food generating seed is not mentioned in connection with the plants designated as fodder for the animals. There the Torah merely wrote (verse 30) כל ירק עשב לאכלה, “all manner of green herbs as food.” These foodstuffs assigned to the animals did not have the power to regenerate themselves by producing seed, hence they could not do so within the animals which consumed them. This blessing was valid for man until he sinned. Once he had sinned, his whole nature underwent a change. In the future this blessing will be restored to man and this is what Isaiah 11,7 had in mind when he described the idyllic situation at that future time when both man and beast will be eating straw. Man will once again be able to derive all the nutrients necessary for his infinite life from the very vegetable matter assigned to him at creation. This may also have been alluded to already in our verse where the Torah phrased such food as serving man “in the future,” i.e., “it will become fit as food for you.” לכם יהיה לאכלה. If the Torah had in mind only the present world it need merely have written לכם הוא לאכלה, “for you it is as food, “or לכם נתתי לאכלה, “to you I have given it as food.” The fact that verse 29 begins with the past tense and concludes with the future tense is a clear hint that the Torah tries to tell us something beyond what is immediately obvious. The additional information contained in that future tense is that in due course G’d will reactivate certain functions of the human body enabling it to absorb certain potential in the food he consumes to be used by his body so that his body completely replaces any vital fluids lost through exposure to the elements. Thus far I have quoted from the author of the book ספר המגלה.
   	The second blessing deals with being fruitful and multiplying. The reason G’d’s name is mentioned once more in that blessing is to make clear that by reproducing man becomes a partner of G’d in the universe. This is what Chavah had in mind when she said after giving birth to Cain (4,1) קניתי איש את ה', “I and G’d together have acquired a man.” Our sages in Kidushin 30 have said: “three partners between them acquired (contributed to his existence)  man. They are: G’d, man’s father and man’s mother.” The purpose of the commandment to procreate profusely is so  that the birth of the body be a prelude for the acquisition of the intelligent essence of man, his נפש השכלית. It is this intelligent essence which enables him to serve his Creator. Were it not for that, man’s superiority to the animals would be nil, i.e. מותר האדם מן הבהמה אין, (Kohelet 3,19). When the prophet Ezekiel 23,37 quotes G’d as saying וגם את בניהן אשר ילדו לי, “and also their children who have been born to Me,” he meant the children whose purpose in being born was to serve G’d. The implication of the verse is that all Israelites were born for the sake of His Holy Name, in order to serve G’d. The wicked people who see in the purpose of producing children a function of merely populating the universe, to eat and to drink just like the animals, completely misunderstood what the Torah has in mind with this blessing. Already at the time man engages in impregnating his wife with his seed he must strive to concentrate on this purpose of procreation. He must desire to draw down upon himself some of the Holy Spirit, similar to when an animal was offered up as a sacrifice. This too was done in order to draw G’d’s presence down to us in our part of the universe.
  	These two verses between them tell how G’d provided food for both man and the animal kingdom to sustain itself on earth. He decreed concerning all other living creatures that they feed only on the part of the vegetation that does not produce seed to perpetuate itself. They were not to feed on either fruit or grain or other forms of seeds. Man was not to eat meat, i.e. creatures which had once been alive, capable of moving on earth or in the air. The reason G’d did not permit man to eat meat (at that stage) was that any creatures which are equipped with the ability to move freely contain some element of a superior life-force which makes them similar to man who has an intelligent soul. Such animals possess enough intelligence to be discriminate in the choice of which foods are beneficial for them and which are harmful to them. They also possess sufficient intelligence (instinct) to avoid danger and to try and save their lives when danger threatens. When the generation of man had become corrupt in their ways and G’d had to bring on the deluge, the animals had copied man’s corrupt ways which eventually led to their meat becoming permitted to man as food. The Torah testified to the corruption of these animals in Genesis  6,13 קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ חמס, “the end of all flesh has come before Me for the earth is filled with violence.” At that time only Noach had remained righteous and he saved the nucleus of each species with him in the ark. In return for his keeping the animals alive they became his food henceforth. Even so, G’d never permitted man to consume the life-force of the animal, its נפש. This is why even Gentiles are not permitted to eat tissue from an animal while it is alive. For the Jewish people the eating of blood is also forbidden as it is essential to the preservation of the life-force, נפש. Proof that the animals too had become corrupt is found in Genesis 6,12 כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו, “all flesh has become corrupt.” Nachmanides claims that the reason ritual slaughter is required as the only method which makes the animal’s flesh permissible to the Jews is that it ensures that we will not consume the essence of the animal, its נפש. As far as the Biblical prohibition of צער בעל החיים, “not to cause pain to living creatures” is concerned, (Shabbat 128) the sages introduced the blessing which must be recited before slaughtering an animal which expressly states אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על השחיטה, “who has sanctified us with His commandments and given us the directive to perform the ritual of slaughtering.” [The author copied much of the latter half of this paragraph from Nachmanides’ commentary. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, “and G’d saw all that He had done and it was very good. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “very good” include everything that G’d had done during the entire six days. Although during those six days or stages He had characterized the end of each day as having produced results which were “good,” now that He saw the completed project it qualified for the description “very good.” 
  You must remember that every component of the universe is dependent on its continued existence on another component. Assuming that there was only a single species of living being on earth,  this species could not survive unless it had earth to subsist on. On the other hand, earth itself could not endure unless the heavens were operating normally as it depends on the celestial bodies orbiting properly. So you see every single component of the universe is interdependent on other components. Not only the terrestrial parts of the universe are interdependent but even the celestial parts are dependent on the terrestrial parts. [This is part of the meaning of the word אחד in Deut. 6,4 as the author explains there at length when he discusses the mystical implication of the word. Ed.]  Translated into our microcosm, the human being, this can be appreciated easily if we consider that legs cannot perform their functions and walk unless they are attached to a torso. This is one of the reasons philosophers refer to man as a microcosm. On the other hand, we also find the universe itself referred to as אדם גדול, when the writer wants to describe the universe and all that exists within it. [Rabbi Chavell substantiates this by quoting from רלב'ג (Gersonides) in his book מלחמות השם. Ed.] This is also what Isaiah 48,13 had in mind when he said קורא אני אליהם יעמדו יחדו, “when I call unto them they all arise simultaneously.” When addressing this verse, and the word יחדו specifically, our sages in Chagigah 12  say that it means “they do not lose contact with one another.” From all the above we may conclude that every component of this universe when considered on its own is merely a potential form of energy or entity. When viewed in this light it is not surprising that G’d reserved the description “very good,” until all components had been created and the entire universe was able to function as He had planned. It is interesting that when the Torah reported the birth of Moses in Exodus 2,2, his mother is reported as ותרא אותו כי טוב, “she saw him that he was good;” surely this is an unusual comment especially in view of our tradition that Moses had been born prematurely. The real meaning of the words is: “she was aware that he had the potential to be good.” When Moses had become a leader of the Jewish people and had proven himself over and over as an outstanding man, the Torah applies the adjective מאד, “very” to him when complimenting him on his modesty and humility. We are told in Numbers 12, 3 והאיש משה ענו מאד, “and the man Moses was very humble.” What his mother had seen as a potential and had described as “good,” had by now become “very good,” seeing he had translated his potential into an actual. The virtue (attribute)  called טוב is the greatest virtue of all and it has been reserved for G’d Himself as He alone is the true personification of “good.” We know this from Psalms 145,9 טוב ה' לכל, “G’d is good to all.” The meaning of Psalms 136,1 הודו לה' כי טוב is: “He is good for He has done good for us.”
  	Looking at our verse from an homiletical point of view, Bereshit Rabbah 9,9 sees in the description והנה טוב a reference to the יצר הטוב, the urge which tells us to be good, whereas in the word מאד it sees an allusion to the evil urge יצר הרע. What the Midrash has in mind is that but for the addition of this יצר הרע, an urge to be “independent, individualistic, etc.,” man would not engage in founding a household, marrying and raising a family; as a result of such lack of enterprise and individuality the world would soon be in ruins. The sages of the Midrash explained further: the words והנה טוב מאד are an allusion to death. Death is the reason that generations of humans feel the need to procreate in order to renew  themselves through their offspring. The sages went so far as to institute a benediction to be said in the house of mourners in which one refers to G’d as הטוב והמטיב, “as the One who is both good and metes out goodness.” 
  	The Torah reminds us by using the word וירא in connection with the word עשה that G’d had created that which He presides over including the planetary constellations in their respective orbits. The verse also contains an allusion to the fact that there are a total of nine such planetary constellations as the philosophers have said (Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed 2,9). The word והנה in our verse is a reference to the tenth planet the planet called גלגל השכל. The numerical value of the letters in the word והנה  is the same (66) as the numerical value of the word גלגל. This 10th planetary constellation is the one which is responsible for the motion of all the other planetary constellations. (Rabbi Chavell writes that he has found confirmation of this in the liturgical poem כתר מלכות attributed to Shlomoh ben Yehudah Ibn Gabirol born Malaga 1021 died Valencia 1058). In Chagigah 12 this planetary constellation is called ערבות i.e. the highest of the seven “heavens,” רקיעים which are enumerated there. The planetary constellation which encompasses all the others moves them and activates their orbits. This is the constellation which was called טוב in the Torah, the letter ט in that word alluding to the nine planetary constellations. This is why G’d used the words והנה טוב מאד when He reviewed the physical universe He had created. These words were a reference to the גלגל השכל which sets in motion the ninth planetary constellation which in turn causes the orbits of all the eight other constellations within it. By using the word מאד whose numerical value is 45, the Torah provides a clue to the observation made by our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 1,1 that there is a distance of five hundred miles between one such planetary constellation and the next one. The number 45 then alludes to the nine times 500 miles the highest of these constellations is removed from earth.
  	יום הששי, “the sixth day.” According to the plain meaning of the text the additional letter ה which prefaces the word ששי, “sixth” here is merely in deference to the fact that on that day the crown jewel of the universe, i.e. Adam, had been created. His creation marked the completion of G’d’s work of creating the universe. He had been the objective of G’d’s entire undertaking. This is why the word הששי “the sixth day,” alerts us to the fact that finally the day had arrived. Another lesson that the use of the word הששי is meant to teach us is that the day was different from all the other days which represented the number “five,” seeing that on each day the number five played a prominent role. By using the extra letter ה i.e. “five” on this occasion the Torah drew attention to the fact that this day “presided” over the other days which represented only the number “five” each as opposed to the sixth day. Let me illustrate what I mean when I describe all the other days as featuring the number “five.” On the first day we find that the Torah speaks about five different kinds of light. On the second day the Torah mentions five different kinds of רקיע, sky or heaven. It also speaks of מים, water, five times. On the third day the Torah speaks of five different kinds of vegetation. On the fourth day the Torah mentions five different kinds of luminaries. On the fifth day the Torah speaks of five different categories of motion. in relation to the various categories of living creatures. On the sixth day we learn about the five senses which distinguish man’s body, as well as about five kinds of spiritual movements and about five types of  sensory perceptions which distinguish man’s soul. We are also told about five different names applicable to the living soul (based on Bereshit Rabbah 14,11. They are called נפש, רוח, נשמה, יחידה, חיה respectively). For all these reasons the Torah sealed its report of the six days of creation with the letter ה.
  	You should consider further the reason why each of the phenomena which were created during the six days had to be created on their respective days and not on any other day. Also, you should appreciate why the day on which light was created was called יום אחד, and why the day on which the sky was created was called יום שני, etc. The reason is that on each of these days something unique  occurred. On the first day, the day light was created, this very light was meant to remind us of the One, the Unique One, the Creator. G’d Himself, in His capacity as being unique, is associated with light as we know from Psalms 27,1 ה' אורי וישעי, “G’d is my light and my salvation.” There were actually two categories of light; one existed prior to these six days, the other was something that became manifest for the first time on the first day. The day on which the sky was created was called יום שני because it alluded to the presence of a “twosome,” whereas previously there had not been any divisions. As of the time the sky (heaven) was created there was heaven on the one side and earth on the other. The description יום שני, commonly understood as “a second day,” may be just as aptly translated as “the day when two domains were separated.” Basically, what happened on that day was that the same element “water” was divided, separated into “upper waters” and “lower waters.” In other words: “what had been one now became two.” The third day was so named because on that day it became evident that the globe had been divided into three parts. One third was meant for civilisation, one third was wasteland and the remaining third was made up of water. [the author does not think in terms of how much of the globe was allocated to each of these three categories but to the division between water, habitable land, and land unsuitable for human habitation. Ed.]. The fourth day was so called as on that day the luminaries and the stars were hung in the sky; they, especially the sun, divided the year into the four seasons, the day into four periods of six hours each, and the month into approx. four weeks. The fifth day was called “fifth,” as on it the living creatures on earth were created all of whom possessed five modes of motion. The sixth day was called “sixth” as on it man who extends into all six directions of the globe was created.
  	The Talmud in Shabbat 88, concentrating on the homiletical aspect of the word הששי instead of merely ששי, concentrates on a covenant entered into by G’d with His universe according to which it would continue in existence only on condition that the Jewish people would accept the Torah on the sixth day of Sivan when the appropriate year would arrive.  
  	A kabbalistic approach sees in the letter ה in the word הששי  a reference to the sixth of G’d’s seals. G’d had sealed the activity of every day with one of His seals and on the sixth day He affixed the sixth of these seals. In addition, the previous five days were still part of the month of Ellul, seeing He had commenced creating the universe on the twenty-fifth of that month. Now on the sixth day, it was the first day of the month of Tishrey, a day that represented New Year in the future. In our prayers on that day we refer to it as the first of G’d’s creations, i.e. the first day the universe operated as a complete unit. It was the day Adam was judged, and has ever since remained the annual day on which G’d sits in judgment of mankind. Another explanation for the word הששי is that it does not refer to the previous word יום at all. Rather, it is a possessive clause and means that this day “belongs” to the sixth. It is a day known as “the sixth.” The reference is to the sixth seal of G’d we have mentioned previously. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, “and the heaven and the earth and its host were completed.” The word ויכלו has been positioned by the Torah next to the word הששי, to hint at the Ineffable Name of G-d in the respective first letters of the words הששי, ויכלו השמים והארץ. The message is that although this name of G-d has not appeared in the text of the entire chapter dealing with the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in it, this attribute of G-d nevertheless was involved during the creation from start to finish .	The reason that in the opening verse of chapter one where the creation of heaven and earth is reported the Torah made no reference to the word צבאם, “their hosts,” is that at that point the Torah inserted the word את both in conjunction with “heaven” and in conjunction with “earth.” The word את always includes something which has not been spelled out. Here, at the beginning of chapter two, where the Torah did not insert this word, the words וכל צבאם take the place of the word  את in the previous chapter. The word צבאם in its various forms alludes to angels such as in Kings I 22,19. Another instance where the word צבא מרום clearly refers to the angels is in Isaiah 24,21 וכל צבא השמים. The reason that the Torah wrote the word in the singular, i.e. צבאם, instead of צבאותם, is that we have a tradition that each nation has a representative at the celestial court, an angel called שר. When G-d engages in destruction of the nation represented by such an angel, He does not proceed until He has first neutralized that angel. The source of this tradition goes back to Shir Hashirim Rabbah end of chapter eight. In other words, the Torah refers to these forces as individuals although they represent a multitude of people. The Torah did not mention the word ברא, “He created,” in connection with either the angels the human souls which had not yet been assigned bodies in order to teach us that all parts of the universe are interconnected. The entire universe consists of three parts 1) The world of the angels; 2) the world of the planetary constellations, “outer space,” in our language; 3) the atmosphere and earth, our habitat. The world of the angels acts as the soul of the planetary systems, whereas the planetary system  exerts its impact on our terrestrial part of the universe. We have a clear verse in Hoseah 2,23 which spells this out. אענה נאום ה', אענה את השמים, והם יענו את הארץ. ”I will respond declares the Lord, I will respond to the heaven, and it shall respond to the earth.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “G-d completed on the seventh day etc.” The plain meaning of the verse is certainly not that G-d completed His work on the seventh day itself. If this were the meaning it would mean that G-d performed creative work on at least part of the Sabbath. The meaning of the words is that as soon as the Sabbath started G-d had already finished whatever He had been in the process of doing. An example of a similar construction can be found in Exodus 12,15  אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם, “but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.” The intention in that verse is certainly not that we are to wait until the first day of Passover to remove the leaven. The intention is that we should ensure that when the first day of Passover commences we had already removed all our leaven.
  	An homiletical approach to these words is offered by Rabbi Shimon in Bereshit Rabbah 10,10. He says that the wording of this verse teaches that whereas it is impossible for a human being to precisely know when Friday ends and the Sabbath begins, G-d who knows the times (He has created) with absolute precision need not therefore add extra minutes before the onset of the Sabbath and abstain from work during them, as there is no fear He would violate the commencement of the Sabbath. Seeing that G-d completes His work only at the precise moment the Sabbath commences, this might be viewed by man as if He had continued working into the Sabbath.
  	A kabbalistic approach to our verse sees in these words an allusion to work G-d will complete during the seventh millennium, i.e. after the earth as we know it will have reverted to its primeval state at the end of the sixth millennium. This corresponds to what our sages have said in Rosh Hashanah 31 that this earth [commencing with the creation of Adam, Ed.] would endure for six thousand years which would be followed by one thousand years of destruction. וישבות ביום השביעי, “He rested on the seventh day.” The term שבת is applicable to anyone who rests temporarily and expects to resume his regular activities. on the following day. In this instance it means that G-d will resume creative activity after the seventh millennium. This is the reason the paragraph concludes with the word לעשות, i.e. “to do” or “to complete.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי “G-d blessed the seventh day.” Rashi explains this by saying that the blessing consisted of the manna [which the Jewish people would not need to collect on the Sabbath during their wanderings in the desert, Ed.]. He also sees the word “He sanctified it,” as applying to the fact that manna did not fall on the Sabbath. With all due respect to his fame as a commentator, I do not believe that an interpretation which delays the effectiveness of a blessing for two thousand years into the future is what the Torah had in mind here. I believe that the blessing referred to a new phenomenon which became manifest on that day, namely that the light remained active throughout the twenty four hours of that day. On the Sabbath there was no visible difference between day and night and that is the reason we do not find the words “it was evening, it was morning,” in connection with that day. When the Torah added the words ויקדש אותו, “He sanctified it,” this means that G-d set the Sabbath apart, distinguished it from the other days. Whenever something is set apart from the norm the term “sanctified” is appropriate. When G-d instructed the Jewish people to be distinct, separate from the nations of the world (Leviticus 119,2), He used the phrase קדושים תהיו, “be holy,” i.e. be distinct, remain separate.
  	Looking at our verse from a kabbalistic point of view, the words יום השביעי refer to the seventh emanation which is called  עולם הנשמות, “world of the souls,” as it is the region in which the powers of the soul are rooted. This region therefore may aptly be described as the fountainhead of all blessings. During the six days of the week the soul may be compared to someone who is merely a guest  without a home. On the Sabbath the soul is like a guest who has found a home. This is why the Torah used the word ויברך ה' את יום השביעי, “He conferred a blessing on that day,” i.e. the soul derives a blessing from its source  on that day. As to the words ויקדש אותו, the meaning is that the blessing the Torah spoke of originated in a separate domain.
  	אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות. “which G-d had created to do.” The word לעשות in this instance refers to work which G-d did on the sixth day though it had originally been meant to be done on the seventh day (based on Rashi). Nachmanides sees in the sequence of the words  שבת מכל מלאכתו אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות a hint that as of that day G-d no longer engaged in either the kind of creative activity He had engaged in on the first day when He created ex nihilo, nor the kind of activity He continued with during the remainder of the six days when He converted original matter into more refined matter. 
  It is also possible to explain the words אשר ברא אלוקים, as referring to G-d “sealing” the whole מעשה בראשית, seeing that the repetition of the word אלוקים here needs justification. The Torah repeated these words in order to ensure that the reader would attribute the entire work of the six days of creation to a single Creator. He who had started it also completed it. The word לעשות on the other hand, teaches that He who had originated matter now instructed the various parts of nature to continue His work in accordance with the rules He had laid down.
  	We have already mentioned a kabbalistic view of the additional word לעשות when we spoke about the seventh millennium. King David also hinted at such future developments when he composed his hymn (Psalm 92) entitled מזמור שיר ליום השבת., “a song for the Sabbath day.” During the course of that hymn he speaks of “the righteous who will bloom like a date-palm, like the cedar tree in Lebanon.” Intelligent readers will understand the mystical meaning of these words. [a reference to developments after the seventh millennium. Ed.] 
  	In the 51st chapter of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer we read: “heaven and earth will undergo a metamorphosis and will reappear in a renewed version.” The verse in scripture from which this is derived is Isaiah 34,4 ונגולו כספר השמים, “and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll,” i.e. like man who reads a scroll and rolls it up when he has come to the end. Similarly, when the time comes, G-d will “roll up” the heavens like a book The prophet also speaks of a similar development occurring to earth when he said  והארץ כבגד תבלה, “and the earth will become moldy like a garment” (Isaiah 51,6). The earth is compared to man who disrobes and folds up garments and then opens them and wears them again. G-d will perform something analogous to this with earth when the time comes. The root בלה is used in a number of scriptural verses to describe a process of destruction preceding a renewal. Rabbi Eliezer says specifically that this will be the process experienced by heaven and earth, and that just as we find in nature that a leaf will wither on the vine, or that the fruit will shrivel on the fig tree (Isaiah 34,4) only to be regenerated, so this will happen to the universe G-d has created. The lesson to be learned from such a phenomenon is that there is a G-d who causes disintegration but that He Himself is not subject to such disintegration. Thus far Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer.
  	You must appreciate that the first seven days (including the Sabbath) of creation are intended to acquaint us both with what happened once and with what will happen again. They are symbolic of the six thousand years the universe will endure in its present form and the one thousand years during which it will undergo a total transformation. Bereshit Rabbah 8,2 states that in G-d’s calendar one day is equivalent to a thousand years in our calendar. This insight is based on Psalms 90,4 כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול, “for one thousand years in Your eyes are like yesterday.” It is clear that there is an allusion to something which will occur in the future in the millennium corresponding to the report of every single day of the creation as portrayed by the Torah. The first day on which light was created alludes to the first millennium during which Adam was alive. Adam was considered the light of the terrestrial world. When you consider that in the report of the first day the Torah mentions light five times and darkness only three times,  you can understand that during this millennium light, i.e. goodness and peace, gradually asserted itself over darkness and the evil which darkness symbolises. The second day of creation, on the other hand, symbolises the second millennium during which the deluge occurred. This is the reason that the word טוב does not occur in the report of that day of the creative process.This is also why we do not find the words ויהי כן, “it remained thus,” until the end of verse seven instead of immediately after the directive in verse six that a heaven should become manifest. Our sages considered the absence of the mention ”it was good” on the second day as so serious that they discouraged people from commencing major undertakings on Mondays, the second day of the week. It is not appropriate for man to commence an enterprise on a day when G-d “lost” His world to the deluge. If you have been under the impression that our sages discouraged new undertakings on Mondays because they considered this a bad omen, please reconsider. The fact is that the evening of the second day (Sunday night) commences under the aegis of the horoscope צדק (Jupiter), whereas by day the second day of the week is under the aegis of the לבנה, the moon, both of which constellations are positive; these planets symbolise light and uprightness. It would therefore be appropriate to commence undertakings on such a day which seems to augur well for people. How then could the sages have forbidden such a thing except for man to commemorate G-d’s dismay at the need to have destroyed so many of His creatures? The third day corresponded to the third millennium; on that day the word  כי טוב occurred twice. The first time the words occur they symbolise the cancellation of the decree to destroy the earth by means of a deluge; the second time these words refer to what occurred in the year 2448 when G-d revealed Himself to His people and gave them the Torah Just as G-d had given permission to earth on the third day to produce vegetation and that vegetation had remained hidden at the threshold of earth waiting to reveal itself until Adam the crown jewel of creation came into existence, so the third millennium was reserved for the Jewish people who are reported in Exodus 1,7 to have been fruitful and to have been multiplying in Egypt during that millennium. The sanctity and spiritual superiority of the Jewish people had remained hidden from the world until they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. The fourth day of creation corresponds to the fourth millennium, the period during which the Jewish people accumulated more wisdom than any other nation. The two great luminaries allude to the written and the oral Torah respectively. The “great luminary” symbolises the written Torah, whereas the “small(er) luminary”, the moon, symbolises the oral Torah. The stars which are always considered as part of the moon’s domain, represent those parts of the oral Torah which, though not necessarily the last word in halachah, nonetheless provide great moral lessons for the Jewish people. The fifth day symbolises the period during which the Jewish people were in exile amongst the nations of the world who have been compared to נפש החיה הרומשת על הארץ, ”the living creatures  which crawl on earth.” This is the reason that the words ויהי כן, “it remained thus,” are absent at the conclusion of the Torah’s report of what transpired on that day. It is a hint that our exile will not go on forever, but that in the end we will experience redemption. The sixth day corresponds to the sixth millennium (which at the time of writing by our author was barely 50 years old). Just as the Torah reports at the beginning of its report of that day that the earth brought forth all manner of animals including those that creep, so the sixth millennium finds us in exile at its beginning. The various beasts were created before the “sun” shone on earth, a period when they reigned supreme on earth. This is the meaning of Psalms 104,22 תזרח השמש יאספון, “once the sun shines they will be gathered in.(to their dens). ”Adam was created after the sun had begun to shine as this was the time when he would rule. The psalmist in Psalms 104,23 again refers to this when he says יצא אדם לפעלו, “Adam will set out to do his work.” Just as Adam took control on the sixth day of creation, something alluded to in the words “let us make Adam,” so the Messiah will arrive and take control of the earth during the sixth millennium after a tenth of that millennium has passed, corresponding to the hour at which the sun rises in the morning. The reference is to the משיח בן דוד, the Messiah who is the descendant of David, the final Messiah. It has been written of this Messiah וכסאו כשמש נגדי, “and his throne is as the sun before Me.”(Psalms 89,37). It is he who is meant when the Torah spoke of Man as being made in the image of the Lord. Daniel 7,13 describes him as ארו עם ענני שמיא כבר אנש אתי הוה , “and behold! With the clouds of heaven, one like a man came.” This is presumed to occur 118 years into the sixth millennium if Daniel’s prediction in chapter 12 ,17 will prove accurate... [Seeing that the commentators obviously misunderstood Daniel’s calculation of when the Messiah would come, as the time has long passed, I have omitted explaining how our author believes that Daniel arrived at his calculation. Ed.] 
  	...The seventh day corresponds to the seventh millennium, which will be all Sabbath. All this will occur after the arrival of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead will have been completed. All the people resurrected will participate in this “Sabbath,” and will enjoy indescribable physical and spiritual pleasures. 
  I believe it is this period to which both Hillel and Shammai alluded when they said (Beytzah 16) מחד שביך לשביתך, “from the first day (of the week) prepare already for your Sabbath.” This statement did not only refer to the need to prepare superior food to honour the forthcoming Sabbath physically, but it also meant that we are to prepare ourselves spiritually at all times for the eventual Sabbath in that millennium. Although Hillel phrased this principle differently, both scholars alluded to the same thing. Our mental focus should not be restricted to the  daily problems but we should prepare ourselves spiritually for the  millennium which bears the name “Sabbath.” 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, “These are the products of heaven and earth.” It is well known that heaven and earth between them comprise all creatures which possess a body. 
  According to the plain meaning of the text they are here described as  תולדה, “product,” to remind us that they were “born” just like babies are born, i.e. they had parents, they were not eternal. The word is designed to deprive all those who believe in the eternal existence of the universe of a basis for their theories.
  	From an homiletical point of view, (Shemot Rabbah 30,3) the critical word here is the word אלה, “these.” Whenever this word appears in the Torah it represents a break in continuity with what had been written prior to that  word. This word is also the basis of the statement by our sages that G-d had been building and destroying a number of worlds prior to creating the present one. At that point, He had saidדין הניין לי ודין לא הניין לי , “these please Me whereas the others do not please Me” (Bereshit Rabbah 3,9). The wording “He created and destroyed,” is not to be understood literally; it means that G-d looked at various plans of various universes He had contemplated creating and after finding them inadequate  He went back “to the drawing board,” to plan an even better universe I have discussed the matter already in connection with the words יהי אור.
  	Other comments in the Midrash there concentrate on the spelling of the word תולדות. First, the very word תולדות teaches that whereas previous plans by G-d had been shelved, the present world had been found worthwhile to translate into practice. There are only two instances where the word תולדות is spelled with both letters ו such as here The second instance is in Ruth 4,18 when the descendant of David, Peretz, the ancestor of the Messiah of davidic ancestry is mentioned. When that happens, G-d will banish death from earth. The spelling that we encounter in both these instances is that at the beginning of the word the letters ת-ו are in the reverse order of their appearance at the end of the same word, i.e. ו-ת. At the time G-d created the present world the angel of death had not been assigned any authority. After man sinned, the angel of death was given wide-ranging powers so that as of that moment all future “products,” תולדות, were spelled defective. With the birth of Peretz the son of Yehudah, the ancestor of the Messiah, a person had been born who would (through his descendant the Messiah) banish death once more from earth. This is hinted at by the spelling of the word תולדות in connection with mention of his eventual offspring The source for our tradition that death will be banished from earth at that time is Isaiah 25,8  בלע המות לנצח, “He will  banish death forever.” 
  	From a rational, investigative point of view, the appearance of the two letters ת in our word where they appear as if facing one another, suggest that heaven and earth are in opposition to each other, the first letter ת referring to heaven, the second to earth. This concept is found in Proverbs 25, 3 where Solomon wrote  השמים לרום והארץ לעומק. “As the heavens in their height, so the earth in its depth.” In order to ensure that we do not remain with the thought that earth is inferior to heaven by definition, the Torah reverses the order in which the names heaven and earth appear in the very next line by writing ארץ ושמים, in that order. All phenomena in the universe are the product of the same Creator; one part is not inferior or superior to the other. Heaven “faces” earth, i.e. is oriented towards earth, and earth faces heaven, i.e. is oriented towards heaven. It is even possible that this was what G-d had meant to tell Moses when He answered his question in Exodus 3,13-14 concerning which name of G-d he should mention to the Israelites when identifying himself as G-d’s messenger. At that time G-d described Himself as אהיה אשר אהיה, ”I shall be (remain) who I am.” He meant: “I will always respond in kind to whatever you (the Jewish people) will do. If you will give charity, as you are directed to by the Torah in Deut. 15,8, פתוח תפתח את ידך, ‘be sure to open your hand (to the needy),’ I shall distribute charity, as is written in Deut. 28,12 יפתח לך ה' את אוצרו הטוב, ‘G-d will open for you His good treasure.’”
  	בהבראם, “when they were being created.” Our sages in Menachot 29, seizing on the fact that the letter ה in this word is written in smaller script, explain “He created them (heaven and earth) with the letter ה. 	Looking at the word as plain text, the meaning is that G-d did not experience strain or fatigue as a result of having created heaven and earth. Amongst all other letters in the Hebrew alphabet there is not a single one which does not require some form of exertion, i.e. moving the muscles of mouth, tongue or throat, in order for us to formulate it and say it audibly except the letter ה. This idea is hinted at in Psalms 33,6  בדבר ה' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם, “by the word “heh” the heaven was made and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts.” David meant that no exertion is needed in order to pronounce the letter ה; it suffices to exhale with the breath of one’s mouth, an involuntary “activity.” The message of the full verse in Psalms is that although the Torah describes that G-d performed many activities, i.e. ויעש, עשה, when He created the universe, it affected His state of being no more than the exhaling of the letter  ה affects a human being’s fatigue. In other words, when G-d said “let us make נעשה  אדם,” He exerted only as much energy as is needed to exhale with one’s mouth.
  		Looking at the word בהבראם from an homiletical point of view, you will observe that the letters in that word are the same as in the name אברהם, although they are arranged differently. This prompted Rabbi Yudan to say in Bereshit Rabbah 12,8 that the universe was created for the sake of Avraham. Should you be perplexed at such an inference, I refer you to Psalms 89,3  עולם חסד יבנה, “the universe was built on loving kindness,” or Michah 7,20   חסד לאברהם. Both of these verses equate Avraham with loving kindness. What the sages of the Midrash meant therefore was that Avraham personified the very attribute G-d employed in creating mankind, i.e. the universe. We may therefore say without hesitation that the universe was created for Avraham, i.e. for the likes of him.
  		A kabbalistic approach to the word בהבראם, understands it to mean that He (G-d), created it with the letter ה. This letter is the last letter in the Ineffable four-lettered name of G-d, and it is written in smaller than usual script in the Torah; it was emanated from the energy which is part of the attribute of אלוקים, and it was this part of G-d’s “energy” which created the universe On other occasions this part of G-d’s “energy” is called יד ה', “the hand of G-d,” such as in Isaiah 66,2 ואת כל אלה ידי עשתה, “and all of these (phenomena, the universe) My hand has made.”  We find a verse with a similar meaning in Job 12, 9  מי לא ידע בכל אלה כי יד ה' עשתה זאת? “Who amongst all these does not know that the hand of G-d has made all this?” Whenever the wordאלוקים  is mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, it refers to the emanation called תשובה, i.e. the first letter ה in G-d’s Ineffable Name. It is this letter and what it represents that we speak of in our prayers on New Year’s day which is the Day of Judgment, the anniversary of when the universe was completed. This emanation תשובה extends (presides) for the duration of the Ten Days of Penitence which are called  עשרת ימי תשובה. This is why our sages have inserted a paragraph in the principal prayer עמידה during these days in which we acknowledge G-d as מי כמוך אב הרחמים, “who is like You father of mercy?” The reference  is to the two letters ה, i.e. א, ב הרחמים which appear in the Ineffable Name. The letter ה is the letter which was added to Avraham’s name when it was changed from אברם to  אברהם The addition of that letter enabled him to procreate [together with Sarah, seeing he had fathered Ishmael before that letter was added to his name. Ed.]  Our sages have said (Bereshit Rabbah 44,12) “Avram could not produce viable sperm, Avraham could.” I will explain this further on Genesis 29, 32 in connection with the words והיה שמך אברהם in Genesis 17,5-6. Here the Torah simply drew attention to the fact that the very letter which was instrumental in creating the universe was the one added to Avram’s name in order to give him the ability to produce his son Yitzchak. He who had created the laws of nature is at liberty to change these laws when it suits Him. There is no power which is able to prevent Him from exercising His will.
  	ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ ושמים “on the day the Lord G-d created earth and heaven.” G-d’s Ineffable Name had not been mentioned up until now during all the events of the first six days. From a purely textural point of view, פשט, the name אלוקים is appropriate for matters connected with laws of nature, (the numerical value of the word =86, the same as the Hebrew word for nature, i.e. הטבע), and it testifies to G-d introducing some new element, whereas the Ineffable Name alludes to the fact that G-d is eternal and had never been preceded by any phenomenon. The Torah did not mention this name of G-d as it wanted to concentrate on the fact that new phenomena came into existence during the six days of creation. Had it been the intention of the Torah to inform us first and foremost on the fact that G-d preceded any phenomenon, it should have introduced G-d’s Ineffable Name as a reminder that He is the “Eternal.” Inasmuch as the Torah was primarily concerned with revealing that which G-d chose to reveal, it used only the name אלוקים  during that stage of its report.
  	The Midrash sees in the fact that the Torah chose to use only the name אלוקים  during that part of its narrative, proof that originally G-d had planned to involve only His attribute of Justice, i.e. the מדת הדין, in the creation of the universe. When man was created and G-d realised that he could not survive if only the attribute of Justice were active in the world, G-d co-opted the attribute of mercy.
  	From a rational, investigative point of view, we must remember that the universe is comprised of 26 different categories of phenomena. They are: 10 phenomena which are totally abstract, of a purely intellectual nature (the ten levels of angels mentioned by Maimonides in his Yesodey Hatorah) Then there are the nine planetary constellations. Add to these the four raw materials earth is made of. Add to these the נפשות, the three different levels of souls, i.e. נפש, רוח, נשמה, and you have a total of 26 basic phenomena. This number corresponds to the numerical value of the letters in the Ineffable name, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה. It is a known fact that these various parts which constitute the universe did not assume their final and completed format until the sixth day. As a result, it was not appropriate that G-d associate His name as the attribute י-ה-ו-ה with something defective and incomplete. You should appreciate further that the 26 parts of the universe we have mentioned are all included in what the four-lettered name of G-d stands for; in fact they are included in the three letters making up that name (each letter symbolising one of the three worlds, the world of the angels, the world of the planetary system, and our terrestrial universe), seeing that the letter ה  appears twice in that name.
  	A kabbalistic approach  views the activity which resulted in the universe materialising as totally dependent on the Creator Who is both the labourer and the architect (referred to in Bereshit Rabbah 1,1). In that parable we had said that a king who builds a palace does not do so merely by relying on his own knowledge, but he employs experts to advise him. The architect in turn does not build without first having used his mental and intellectual faculties. This is the deeper meaning behind the words of Solomon in Kohelet 2,12  כי מה האדם שיבא אחרי המלך את אשר כבר עשוהו, “for what can man who comes after the king do? It has already been done.” The crucial word is עשוהו instead of עשהו. The plural is a reference to G-d together with His בית דינו, “His court of advisors” (compare Kohelet Rabbah 2,14). 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  וכל שיח השדה “and all the trees of the field, etc.” The Torah should really have written the words עצי השדה instead of שיח השדה, “shrubs of the field.” The reason the Torah chose the expression שיח is connected with Genesis 24,63 ויצא יצחק לשוח השדה, Yitzchak went out to the field to pray.” The expression שיח refers to prayer. The Torah hints by the use of this word that all the trees and plants pray to G-d, i.e. praise Him and acknowledge Him. Our sages have also based this on Psalms 65,14 יתרועעו אף ישירו, “they raise a shout and break out in song.” David had been speaking about pastureland in that Psalm. The “song” attributed to the plants is their praise of G-d. G-d had wanted that all is creatures including the plants praise Him.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ואד יעלה מן הארץ, “and a mist would rise from the earth.” The plain meaning is that these words refer to the steam which rises from the moisture of the various concentrations of water on earth. As they usually contain some solid particles from earth, the Torah called it אד “mist.” Seeing that the rain results from this moist mist and the clouds accept it, the cloud itself was called  אד as we find in Job 36,27 יזוקו מטר לאדו, “which cluster into rain, from His mist.”
  	An homiletical approach views these words as a reference to the ענני הכבוד, “the clouds of G-d’s glory” which were gathering strength and rising. According to the Midrash, the words מן הארץ which are mentioned in our verse first and the strengthening of the clouds of glory are an allusion to the great honour these clouds receive from G-d Himself. This is what our sages in Chulin 60 referred to when they said concerning the herbs, that at that time the angel in charge of the world opened his praise of the Lord with the words: יהי כבוד ה' לעולם ישמח ה' במעשיו “May the glory of G-d last forever and may He derive joy from His works” (Psalms 104,31). The angel said these words as a form of prayer, just as a similar expression in Kings I 8,57 when Solomon said יהי ה' אלוקינו עמנו, “let the Lord our G-d be with us.” The meaning of the words ישמח ה' is “so that He will have reason to rejoice.”
  	והשקה את כל פני האדמה, “and it provided irrigation for the entire earth.” The reference is to the planetary system and all that is below it and exerts influence on life on earth. The additional word כל, “all,” is the reason the sages said in Sanhedrin 35 that the dust of the earth was collected from all four corners of the earth.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם עפר מן האדמה. “G-d formed Adam from the dust of the earth.” After the Torah mentioned the creation of Adam already in its report of what was created on the sixth day, it now returns to the subject and fill in details about how he was created. The Torah detailed the first stage of Adam’s creation  when it wrote in Genesis 1,27 “G-d created Adam in His image.” That first stage of man’s creation consisted of using dust from the earth. Now the Torah describes a further stage in Adam’s coming into being by describing this process as וייצר, “He formed him,” i.e. He made him into a Golem, a man-like form lacking vital statistics  G-d blew a soul of life into Adam’s nostrils from His own Holy Spirit. The reason that the Torah had not mentioned this detail in its narrative of events of the sixth day is because the Torah did not want to interrupt the report of the creation of physical matter by introducing the creation of spiritual and therefore abstract matter at that time."Basically, the entire narrative concerned itself with matters of a physical nature. Even the blessings bestowed on the creatures including man referred to matters that are physical such as procreation, populating the earth, and the blessing that man was to exercise dominion over the other creatures in nature and to conquer the hidden treasures of nature concerned matters material, not matters which are of a spiritual character. The soul, נפש, i.e. man’s lowest abstract life-force, is involved in all these matters only inasmuch as it has been provided by G-d with a natural urge to accomplish certain things. This urge, by itself, is not something spiritual. It dies when man’s body dies. It is the life-force which man shares with the animals. It would have been inappropriate to mention an eternal soul side by side with phenomena which are destined to die, as was anything created during the six days. These six days could be described as the days destined to end in death. Only the Sabbath elevated man to the level of נצחיות, “infinity.” The soul which distinguishes man from all the other creatures in the terrestrial universe was not mentioned until after the Sabbath was mentioned as it was the Sabbath which infused man with this potential of “infinity.” This is why the Sabbath is also known as “the day of life. (we pointed this out in connection with our discussion of the seventh millennium on verse 3)
  	A kabbalistic view of our verse couples the words וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם  and ויטע ה' אלוקים גן בעדן in the next verse together It would be similar to Chronicles I 4,23 המה היוצרים ויושבי נטעים, “they were the potters, who dwelt at Netaim, etc.” The word היוצרים in that verse corresponds to the word וייצר in our verse, whereas the word נטעים corresponds to the word ויטע. 
  You need to do a little research to understand what was meant in Chronicles where the verse concluded with the statement  עם המלך במלאכתו ישבו שם " ”with the king to help him with his work they dwelt there.” Consider that in chapter one the Torah had written in connection with man’s creation “let Us make a human being in Our image,” and had continued: “G-d created man in His image.” At that time the word עפר, “dust,” had not been mentioned at all. G-d had never said: “let Us make man out of dust. or out of the soil.” The reason was that everything connected with the creation of man contains both revealed and hidden aspects. That which impacts on the creatures in the “lower” world has been revealed. That which impacts only on the beings in the “higher” worlds has remained hidden. This is why we are forced to arrive at our knowledge of what the text has seen fit to conceal by careful study of what the text has seen fit to reveal. When we are told in our chapter ויטע ה' אלוקים  followed by the statement that man was placed in the garden the Torah speaks of, this means that man has a residence in celestial regions also. Obviously, in that connection we do not expect the Torah to mention things which exist only on earth such as soil and dust. In chapter five, however, where the Torah again reports the creation of man and even says that he was created to resemble G-d, בדמות אלוקים עשה אותו,  this refers to the word ויצמח in verse 9 of our chapter here where the Torah speaks of earth and dust, i.e. refers to man’s terrestrial habitat. It is quite easy to understand then that the verse which speaks of planting man in his celestial habitat mentions neither trees nor garden. This is reserved for verse 9 where the expression used by the Torah is ויצמח. What we learn from all this is that the whole of the story of creation is one that played on two levels, so that what have been described as the products of heaven and earth at the beginning of our chapter are inseparably interwoven with one another.
  	עפר מן האדמה, “dust from the earth.” During the first hour of the sixth day the earth and dust from the various parts of the world were assembled. During the second hour this earth was made into some form of dough, kneaded. During the third hour the various  parts of the body were structured and textured. During the fourth hour a living soul was breathed into Adam. During the fifth hour he stood on his legs. During the sixth hour he named the various animals. During the seventh hour he was presented with his wife Chavah. During the eighth hour Adam and Chavah performed marital intercourse on a bed and when they had completed this act of procreation four of them got up from the bed. [Chavah had given birth to Cain and Hevel. Ed.] During the ninth hour Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree of knowledge. During the tenth hour, both Chavah and Adam sinned by eating from that tree. During the eleventh hour they were judged (they were told their punishment). During the twelfth hour  he was expelled and left Gan Eden. This is what is meant by Psalms 49,13: אדם ביקר בל ילין, נמשל כבהמות נדמו, “man did not spend a night in honour; he is like the beasts that perish.” This is how the verse was interpreted in Sanhedrin 38, and also in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 11. What we are to learn from this paragraph in the Talmud is that the hours of the day allocated to the creation of and progress of Adam, the first human being, corresponded to the progress of the creation of the universe during the six days. When the Midrash speaks about the raw material of man, dust, being assembled during the first hour of the sixth day, this corresponded to G-d’s directive on the first day “let there be light.” At that time, abstract concepts, אצילות, had not yet been separated from matters material. There had not been any kind of separation of any of the potential forces of energy in the universe from one another. During the second hour, when some limits had been imposed and some separation had been decreed, man’s body was separated through “kneading” his raw material into where his head, his legs, his arms, etc. were to be. [Interestingly enough the Hebrew word for kneading has the same root as the Hebrew word for “limit,” “frontier,” etc, i.e. גבל. Ed.] This corresponded to G-d’s directive on the second day “let there be a firmament in the sky so that it separates one kind of water from another kind of water.” The third hour, when Adam was assigned different organs corresponded to the third day on which different parts of earth became visible. The fourth hour when Adam was given his soul corresponded to the fourth day of creation when the luminaries became operational After all, what the sun is to earth, the soul is to the human body. The fifth hour, the hour when man was finally able to stand on his feet, corresponded to the fifth day, the day the angels were created. We have it on the authority of the prophet Zachariah (Zachariah 3,7) that angels are considered as “merely standing.” [they cannot progress spiritually. Ed.] The sixth hour when Adam named the animals corresponded to the sixth day when he came into being. The seventh hour when Adam was given his mate, Chavah, corresponded to the Sabbath who is Man’s “queen” in a spiritual sense. 
  	Bereshit Rabbah 14,7 addresses the repetitive wording עפר מן האדמה by saying that this is to tell us that earth is composed of male and female matter. The male matter is known as עפר, the female matter as אדמה. Not only earth, but all phenomena on earth, be they inert vegetable matter or animals, are composed of male and female parts. Another  reason cited by the Midrash for the repetition of the word עפר, i.e. the addition of the word אדמה, is that this word refers to a special earth, the earth from the site of the Holy Temple. This is important as it reminds us that G-d created us from the source of our eventual atonement, the Temple being the source of our atonement. The Torah in Deut. 32,43 specifically mentions that the earth of that site brings atonement, וכפר אדמתו עמו, “its earth will bring atonement for His people.” Another allusion to this atonement is the fact that the Jewish people were commanded in Exodus 20,24 to construct their altar out of  earth, אדמה, to drive home the point that the altar which is the instrument of our atonement was capable of doing this thanks to it being constructed out of אדמה. 
  Adam was to remember where exactly he originated from and to where he would return to if he became sinful and would be expelled from Gan Eden. This is the meaning of 3,29 “to work the earth that he had been taken from.” Here the Torah already previewed man’s descendants and their habitat when it wrote quoting Cain in Genesis 4,14 הן גרשת אותי היום מעל פני האדמה, “here You have expelled me this day from the face of the earth.” Cain added  ומפניך אסתר, “and I have to hide from Your benevolent presence.” He was referring to G-d’s presence, the שכינה. We find similar expressions for that meaning of “G-d’s presence [as opposed to “hiding” from G-d, something already Adam had found to be impossible. Ed.] in Psalms 24,6 מבקשי פניך, “the ones who seek out Your benevolent presence.” Another similar construction is found in Psalms 27,8  את פניך אבקש, “I will seek out Your benevolent presence.” This is also what is meant in Genesis 4,16 ויצא קין מלפני ה', ”Cain left the benevolent presence of G-d.” We find another verse telling us something similar when the prophet Jonah with whom G-d had communicated tried to escape this closeness to G-d. The Book of Jonah 1,3 describes his behaviour in these words ויקם יונה לברוח תרשישה מלפני ה', ”Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the benevolent presence of G-d.” It was Jonah’s intent to escape the very part of the land of Israel where G-d’s benevolent presence is manifest. Once he would accomplish this he was confident that G-d would not communicate with him further and he could abort the mission G-d wanted him to undertake.
  	 ויפח באפיו נשמת רוח חיים, “He blew in his nostrils a living soul.” You should know that the nose is an instrument of the soul. The soul enters man by way of his nose and it leaves him by the same route. This is why the sages in Yuma 85 have stated that if someone takes a fall that one has to examine him including his nose. This is based on Genesis 7,22   כל אשר נשמת חיים באפיו ....מתו “all who had the spirit of a living soul in their nose...died.” It is one of the wondrous phenomena of the creation of man that you find the letter ש  associated with this instrument (organ) [the fact that the nose is divided makes it appear like a letter ש.] This is an allusion to the name of G-d  שדי which in this manner is engraved on the body of every human being who has been circumcised. This is the mystical meaning of Job 32,8 ונשמת שדי תבינם “the breath of Shaddai that gives them understanding.” We know that the nose is the organ by means of which we smell and that the soul derives pleasure from certain fragrances. This is the reason the Talmud Berachot 51 prohibits us from even smelling incense or other fragrances intended for idolatrous purposes. The smell of any fragrance leaves behind a memory. We have it on the authority of the Torah in connection with the sacrificial offerings Leviticus 6,8 that smell acts as a reminder. ריח ניחוח אזכרתה לה', “its pleasant fragrance is a memorial (portion) unto G-d.” [The person in whose name this frankincense has been offered will be remembered by G-d as having accumulated a merit. Ed.]
  	You should so be aware that the scientists are divided in their views about the nature of the soul. They have written innumerable volumes about this subject. Some of them [Maimonides in his introduction to Pirke Avot, chapter 1] claim that the soul is a single force which however has three sub-categories. 1) the category which houses our desires, something we have in common with all the animals. 2) the source of growth, something possessed both by animals and all manner of plants. 3) the ability to think coherently, the soul of wisdom. All these functions are part of a single soul. Other scientists-philosophers [Avraham Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Kohelet 7,3] claim that there are three distinct souls operating within man all of which are distinct from one another. The intelligent soul is an entity of its own, the potential to grow is an independent force. The animal kind of soul, which is the seat of all desires, i.e. the desire to eat, drink, procreate or simply indulge in sex, as well as the desire to sleep, are all part of the animalistic soul in man and constitute a separate soul. They are a part of what man has in common with the animal kingdom. The seat of that particular soul is the liver. This “soul” is called on occasion נפש, and on occasion  רוח Its seat is in the liver. In Deut. 12,20 it is called  נפש when the Torah writes כי תאוה נפשך לאכול בשר, “when your “soul” desires to eat meat, etc.” On the other hand, we find that Solomon writes in Kohelet 7,9  אל תבהל ברוחך לכעוס, “do not let your spirit be eager to become angry.” He also wrote in Proverbs 29,11 כל רוחו יוציא כסיל, “a fool vents all his feelings.” The נפש הצומחת is the force that enables man to grow physically. He shares such a force with all the trees, etc. Just as trees possess such built-in powers, man too possesses such a growth potential. As distinct from the seat of all desire which is presumed to be in the liver, this force does not have a specific location but is present in all parts of man‘s body. It remains active until a certain point in is life. The soul of intelligence is something exclusive to man, something he shares with beings in the higher worlds, beings which live forever in their sacred domains The seat of this soul is in man’s brain, and it is generally referred to as נשמה. This is what the Torah described in our verse as the נשמת חיים  which G-d “blew” into Adam’s nostrils. We also have a verse in Isaiah 42,5  נותן נשמה לעם עליה, “He gives a soul  to the people on it (earth).” There are numerous similar verses throughout the Bible. According to the view of the philosophers who believe that each person has three separate souls, we find support for our sages in Sanhedrin 65  who report that the famous teacher Rava created a human being. When he brought this creature before Rabbi Zeyra, Rabbi Zeyra spoke to him whereas the creature could not answer back. Thereupon Rabbi Zeyra said to that creature (Golem): “you are man-made; go back to the dust you have been made of.” This passage in the Talmud is proof that man has three distinct souls. Rava, who was familiar with Kabbalah, and had studied the Sefer Yetzirah, had infused this creature with the “soul” which governs motion. He was unable, however, to provide his creature with the power of speech. The power of speech stems from the soul called חכמה. 
  However, our verse here is proof that there is only one overall soul, but that it contains three different potentials without these different abilities having different origins. The reason is that Adam, as distinct from subsequent human beings, was merely a clod of earth; this is why the Torah went on record in Genesis 2,7 וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם עפר מן האדםה, “G-d fashioned man dust from the earth;” as soon as Adam’s form had materialised G-d “blew” into him this soul of which it is said  ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, “man then became a living creature,” i.e. he became able to move. just as the fish and the animals of which the Torah had said that they had become שרץ נפש חיה, “a swarm of living creatures.” This is the meaning of the word חיה, that thanks to this “soul” Adam became a living creature whereas originally he had been inert unable to move, just like a stone. Regardless of which view one has of the soul, all Jewish sages and philosophers are agreed that the part of the soul which survives physical death is the נפש החכמה, “the soul which is rooted in the emanation חכמה.” 
  Many philosophers have cited various proofs for this. I will quote only two from a large selection of such proofs. The first miraculous aspect of that soul is the fact that it is able to know many things which transpire in the universe, be it in the atmosphere, on earth or in the waters, without the benefit of eyesight, a sense of hearing or any other sensory organs to guide it. The five sensory organs or abilities are something which serve only the physical part of creatures such as the animals.or even human beings. They are like tools in the hands of an artisan. Whereas the physical eye perceives that the sun is high in the sky, the “eye” of the נפש החכמה, the spiritual soul, recognises that the sun is 170 times the size of our globe as the great scholar Rabbi Moses ben Maimon has written at the beginning of the third chapter of his Sefer Hamada. Whereas the physical eye sees many shapes inside the water, the “eye” of the spiritual soul is well aware that the true appearance of these shapes in the water is quite different from how they appear to the physical eye of a beholder. If the five senses had been intended to serve our spiritual soul to perceive and define the phenomena in this world, then whatever is at the periphery of the universe would be devoid of meaning and useless as none of the five senses with which living creatures have been equipped would be able to perceive and evaluate such phenomena  (compare Jeremiah 16,19). 	The spiritual soul of man as a tool of perception does not deceive him, neither is it limited in its ability to deliver a true picture of things as they are. The function of the spiritual soul within man’s body is simlilar to that of the sailor (or captain) on board of a ship. When such a captain leaves the boat, he does not cease to be a captain. Similarly, when the spiritual soul departs from man’s body when the body dies, it lives on. On the other hand, the so-called soul which is merely נפש חיה in the language of the Torah, is unable to exist on its own once the body it has inhabited has died. One of the reasons for this is that the five sensory organs contain elements of physical matter and it is impossible for such phenomena to be active unless they are within their “habitat,” i.e. a body made up of similar matter. The spiritual soul, on the other hand, is not subject to such limitations as it originates in an abstract world, a world in which physical matter is not needed. It possesses insights both into celestial matters as well as into matters which are earthly in nature. It is able to do all this only because it is of a purely spiritual character. When this spiritual soul is interested in acquiring knowledge about earthly matters, it uses man’s five senses in order to acquire such knowledge. When the same soul is desirous of expanding its knowledge about supra-terrestrial matters it employs its intelligence and its wisdom. Once this spiritual soul leaves the body it has inhabited until the death of that body it can no longer use the terrestrial “soul” i.e. its five senses to perceive matters that pertain to the terrestrial universe. seeing that it has lost touch with these senses which have expired together with the body they inhabited. All of this is proof that the spiritual soul of man survives after the death of its body. The second remarkable phenomenon is this: When a child is small it knows absolutely nothing. As the child grows up it is able to absorb progressively more knowledge and wisdom from its spiritual soul. Whatever such an individual acquires from its spiritual soul will not escape from any of the three parts he is composed of, neither from his body, nor from his נפש חיה, (a combined form of body and primitive life-force) nor from his spiritual soul. He does not have a fourth part. By rights, a person ought to acquire more and more intelligence and knowledge in proportion to his physical growth and good health, seeing that this appeared to have been the process by which he matured for the first 2 decades of his life. By the same token we could reason that a person who has a weak body must necessarily lag behind in intellectual and spiritual achievements. In practice, however, we frequently observe the very reverse to be the case. Frequently we notice that people who suffer physical afflictions do not simultaneously lose their intellectual and spiritual powers. They remain mentally and spiritually at their best until the day the body dies. This proves conclusively that the acquisition of wisdom and knowledge, i.e. abstract forms of values, is quite independent of the body or even the נפש חיה of a person combined with his physical prowess. If this is so, this is proof positive that man’s mental and spiritual capacities are due to a higher form of soul, that which we have called the נפש החכמה, the spiritual soul. The body has absolutely no share in the mental and spiritual development of a person except that it serves as the vessel, the container within which such mental and spiritual forces are able to function and to make it the base of their operations. Dead people do not possess any mental or spiritual energy. The existence of such mental and spiritual energy is exclusively due to the living. It is clear then that what we have called נפש, or נפש חיה, is a phenomenon that lives only within what we call “nature,” for it is certainly true that this “natural soul” is able to absorb חכמות, wisdoms of a variety of degrees. When the body dies it dies as part of “nature,” and “nature” is unable to receive any input from such a dead body (i.e. the wisdoms it used to possess). We have therefore established two remarkable principles: 1) man is composed of two major components or essences. Part of man’s essences lives as an integral part of “nature,” in fact due to the existence of “nature.” Without nature that part of man simply could not exist. 2) The second part of man’s essence dies through the very fact that it is bound to “nature.” This second part is the body. The reason both the soul and the body share such experiences is that they have been joined together so that (to a limited degree) each one has to share the experiences of the other. The body gets an inkling of what life’s potential is all about because it has become joined to the soul. The soul experiences what death is all about because it has become tied to the mortal body. Death may be considered as a punishment for the soul who has allowed itself to be misled by the body. It follows that essentially the soul is supposed to live forever; its death is incidental. The reverse is true of the body which essentially is mortal but lives temporarily by merit of the soul it hosts. Once body and soul part company, each one resumes its natural destiny, i.e. the body dies and the soul lives on forever. In both cases this separation means that a temporary, unnatural union or partnership has been broken up, each partner returning to its essential habitat.  Although we have indulged in quoting philosophers and a few of their arguments concerning the nature of the soul, and we have even cited some of their more impressive arguments to prove their theories, the major foundation of our beliefs remains our holy Torah which is the source of our life. All true philosophers derive their wisdom only from the Torah. True wisdom is always the fruit, i.e. the product of profound Torah-study. The matter of the survival of the soul after the death of the body is made plain by the very fact that the soul G-d infused in Adam was called נשמת חיים, “a soul of life.” This means that the soul was “hewn” from the very source of life. The reason is that we know that the soul is derived from the source of wisdom, the emanation חכמה. The word חיים when part of the term נשמת חיים, reminds us of Job 32, 7-8 אמרתי ימים ידברו, ורוב שנים יודיעו חכמה.אכן רוח-היא באנו. “I thought: “let age speak; let advanced years declare wise things. But, truly it is the spirit in men.” We find that in Job the words חכמה and רוח appear side by side. The author is trying to tell us that רוח, “the spirit, the soul,” is the source of חכמה, wisdom. If our verse saw fit to call the soul נשמת חיים, this is an allusion to Kohelet 7,12 והחכמה תחיה בעליה, “and wisdom (the emanation of wisdom) preserves the life of those who possess it.” This is also what G-d assured the prophet of when He told him to promise the High Priest Yehoshua that his soul would be in the company of the angels  if he would observe G-d’s commandments (Zachariah 3,7) The wording is ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה, “and I shall enable you to be able to walk amongst these who are stationary.” We have explained repeatedly that the angels are spiritually stationary as they do not possess an evil urge the defeat of which would enable them to make spiritual progress. If you correctly understand the verse in Kohelet which Solomon said in his great wisdom you will also understand the lofty spiritual plateau, its foundation and its mystical significance. Although at first glance the verse ומותר האדם מן הבהמה אין, “man’s advantage over the beasts is nil,” in Kohelet 3,19  sounds rather banal, it contains deep insights. What Solomon meant was that the very advantage that man enjoys over the animals is derived from a domain called אין. The advantage of man over the beasts derives from the intelligent soul man possesses which derives from חכמה which symbolises the letter י which combines with the letter א and which in turn symbolises the uniqueness of the Creator, i.e. the רצון, “the Will” of the Creator. The words ויפח באפיו, “He blew into Adam’s nostrils,” are to alert us to the fact that this soul was not part of the basic four elements the terrestrial universe is made of [although רוח, “wind or spirit” is one of those four elements. Ed.]. Man’s soul shares five characteristics with G-d (compare Berachot 10). It is similar to G-d in all its virtues, at the same time being superior to the soul of the angels. The reason is that the soul of man was created on the first day of creation as compared to the angels who were created only on the second day. It is an accepted rule that phenomena which were created sooner are superior to those which were created later. We have an explicit statement in Sanhedrin 93 that the righteous are superior to the angels. To sum up: whatever man’s mouth can tell about the attributes (virtues) of G-d to the extent that he is the Creator is possible only because the soul of man is a direct creation of this Creator. A famous unnamed scholar has said: ”know your souls so that you may gain knowledge about your G-d.”
  	ויהי האדם לנפש חיה,”man became a living creature.” During the entire report about the creation you will not find that the word ויהי was applied directly to something which had been created, except to light and to man. In both these instances the Torah wrote ויהי אור, or ויהי האדם respectively. The message is that man’s soul will endure forever just as the original light will endure forever as both had been created on the first day. This fact inspired the liturgical poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi in a poem commencing with the words ברכי נפשי את ה' to write תקן נשמות עם האור הראשון תחלת דבר ה' “G-d established the souls together with the original light, the first of G-d’s creative activities.” The meaning of the whole verse is: “the main purpose of the existence of human beings is on account of their spiritual soul.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויטע ה' אלוקים גן בעדן. “The Lord G-d planted a garden in Eden.” According to the plain meaning פשט, the Torah attributed the planting of this garden to G-d Himself, personally. He did not bring a variety of trees from different parts of the globe and placed them in this garden, but the very trees were His handiwork, designed to glorify Him. Accordingly, David referred to these trees as עצי ה', “trees of the Lord,” in his Psalm 104,16 where he wrote ישבעו עצי ה' ארזי לבנון אשר נטע, “The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon, His own planting.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 15,1 interpreted these words to mean that G-d gave these trees the ability to endure indefinitely and never to become victims of decay. These trees did not need irrigation nor did they have to be pruned. Had this not been so, who would have tended them after Adam was expelled from that garden? They were the personification of what is written in Ezekiel 47,12: לא יבול עלהו ולא יתום פריו לחדשיו יבכר כי מימיו מן המקדש המה יוצאים, “its leaf will not wither nor will its fruit give out, every month it will yield new fruit, for its waters emanate from the Sanctuary. Our verse provides a further detail concerning this garden by writing מקדם, ‘from an easterly location.” This word supports our long held belief of the beneficial effect of winds originating in the east. of the earth seeing that Paradise had been planted in that part of the globe. It is a well known fact that the best fruits grow in the East. This knowledge has been implanted in us by the Torah when Moses in his blessing to the tribe of Joseph wrote in Deut. 33,14 וממגד תבואות שמש, “and with the bounty of the sun’s crops.” Seeing that all crops depend on the sun, Moses must have had in mind the area where the sun rises, i.e. the Eastern part of the land of Israel. Our sages (Yuma 21?) may have referred to this phenomenon when they said that the east wind has a beneficial effect on the minds of men, providing a sense of mental equilibrium, a sense of energy, etc. It brings with it a better kind of air. For these reasons וישם שם את האדם אשר יצר  “G-d placed man whom He had fashioned in there.”
  	A kabbalistic approach to our verse understands the meaning as follows: The words ויטע ה' אלוקים גן בעדן מקדם refer to a planting which had taken place a long time ago, hence the word מקדם, “since primeval times.” Had G-d planted the garden at the time described in the story, He would simply have had to give a directive such as He did during the reports of creation in chapter one. The fact that the Torah does not do this but describes G-d  as “having planted it”, rather than as having commanded it to come into existence is proof that the garden preceded the creation of the universe. In fact, this “planting” had already been alluded to in the very first word of the Torah, the word בראשית. Keeping in mind that this garden dated back to an era preceding that described in the Torah in chapter one, the words “He placed there the human being whom He had fashioned,” must have a different connotation. The words אשר יצר are a reference to the source of man, i.e. his soul. We have already explained that man’s soul originated in the emanation חכמה. We can now appreciate that the refined souls originate in the East. This is the meaning of the statement we find in the Sefer Habahir (by Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah) that the זרע of Israel, i.e. its descendants originated in the Eastern parts of the universe  because the marrow in the spinal cord comes directly from the brain from which it is transmitted to the male organ and converted into semen. We find proof of this in Isaiah 43,5 כי ממזרח אביא זרעך וממערב אקבצך, “for from the East will I bring your seed (descendants) and from the West will I gather you in.” The prophet tells us that when Israel will be good, will perform G-d’s commandments, their souls will (once again) originate in that Eastern region. If, however, they will fail to live up to G-d’s expectations, their seed, i.e. the seed, (the souls of their children) will be gathered up from the Western part of the universe. [according to Rabbi Chavell this is an assurance that the original light, though hidden from mankind after the sin, has never been removed from earth but has only been stored in areas inaccessible to us.] When we read in Kohelet 1,4, דור הולך ודור בא, “a generation goes and a generation comes,” this means that all the souls have already been assigned to this world and until each one has been hosted by a body the redeemer cannot come. What did the prophet mean in the second half of his verse when he said ממערב אקבצך, “I will gather you in from the West?” It means that Israel will be  gathered in, “protected” from the very attribute which always displays a tendency to be attracted by the West. Why is it called “West?” Because there all the seeds intermingle. [I believe this is a way of saying that sanctity is being compromised by intermingling with souls who originate in spiritually negative areas. Ed.] The attribute described as “East,” is a reference to the emanation תפארת, “harmony,” the central line (of the emanations). [Rabbi Chavell refers the reader to the commentary of Levush on Recanati 8,1 for a more profound appreciation of the author’s comments.] From that region the souls travel to the foundation of the universe, a region known as ברית, “covenant.” This is why the author of the Sefer Habahir wrote that the seed comes to the Israelites by means of  the spinal cord which gets its input from the brain travelling down to the male member. The attribute called West is the עטרה, ‘crown,” may be the reason why our sages in Baba Batra 25 said that the שכינה, “the presence of G-d’s supervisory attribute,” is in the West. Just as the seed travels from the brain through the spinal cord to the male member, so the soul wends its way from the region known as תשובה via the קו האמצאי,“central line,” which is the Eastern part of the universe and it arrives by way of the West. I believe that the prophet Isaiah alluded to this when he said in Isaiah 48,1 שמעו זאת בית יעקב  הנקראים בשם ישראל, וממי יהודה יצאו, “listen to this O house of Yaakov who bear the name Israel and who have emanated from the waters of Yehudah.” The expression “who have emanated from the waters of Yehudah,” means “from the seed of Yehudah.” The reason the prophet called Israel “Yehudah,” is because the flag of Yehudah represented the Eastern part of the encampment of the Israelites in the desert. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  ויצמח ה' אלוקים מן האדמה, “The Lord G-d made grow from the earth, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words prove that there is such a thing as Paradise on earth and that it contains a tree of knowledge as well as a tree of life. The fruit of the tree of life causes those who eat it to enjoy long life, whereas the fruit of the tree of knowledge instills in those who consume it willpower and freedom of choice. to do either good or evil both in matters physical as well as in matters spiritual. Our sages in Pessachim 6 said concerning this “לא שנו אלא שדעתו לחזור, the ruling applies only to someone who had resolved to return to his home during the festival of Passover.” [The author uses the word דעתו in the Talmud where it refers to someone making a voluntary decision as proof that here in our verse too the term עץ הדעת, does not mean “the tree of knowledge,” but means ‘the tree permitting man a choice.” Ed.] We find support for this meaning of the word דעת in Psalms  144,3 מה אדם ותדעהו, “what is man that You should have granted him grace?” In other words: “why have You extended Your goodwill, Your love to man?” The meaning of the term עץ הדעת then is the tree which causes G-d to relate to man with either favour or disfavour.” Originally, G-d had withheld this kind of choice from Adam as he had been ‘programmed” in his deeds prior to his sin. This does not mean that he was not free to sin but that his actions were guided exclusively by his intellect thus practically excluding  sin as he had not been subject to temptation from within. Once man had sinned, i.e. had eaten from the fruit of that tree, he became possessed of an independent will, i.e. obedience to G-d’s will was no longer automatic, dictated by his intellect. The new-found “independent will” meant that he had acquired an attribute reserved for G-d, an attribute that he could handle only at great potential cost to himself.
  	ועץ החיים בתוך הגן, “and a tree of life in the midst of the garden.” The Torah made a point of describing the location of this tree as “in the midst of the garden,” as opposed to the precise location of the tree of “desire,” which has not been spelled out. 
  A closer examination of the text which placed the two words בתוך הגן exactly between the words עץ החיים and עץ הדעת טוב ורע, makes it clear that both these trees stood next to one another. Although there were two trees, and it is physically impossible for both trees to be precisely in the centre of the garden, we must assume that they had a single trunk and that the two trees branched out at a certain point above the ground, one side becoming the עץ החיים, the other the עץ הדעת. The Torah continues by describing rivers which originated in that garden, describing their parameters and the countries which surrounded the garden. There were a total of four rivers which were all branches of a single river which flowed out of Eden. As long as that river was a single river its function was to irrigate the garden. Subsequently, this river split into what the Torah called ארבעה ראשים, “four headwaters.” You are aware already that though the Torah describes a scenery on earth when describing Gan Eden and what is related to it, the manifestations described by the Torah are metaphors for phenomena in the celestial regions.
  	A Midrashic, homiletical view of our verse sees in the four rivers a reference to four kingdoms: The river Pishon is a reference to the king of Babylon, seeing that we have a verse in Chabakuk 1,8  ופשו פרשיו, “describing the riders of the army of the Chaldeans (Babylonians). The land of Chavilah which our verse describes as being surrounded by the river Pishon is none other than the land of Israel, a land which the king of Babylon will ascend, and across which he and his army will spread out. This is based on Bereshit Rabbah explaining Psalms 42,6 הוחילי לאלוקים כי עוד אודנו, “Have hope in G-d for I will yet praise Him for His saving presence.” אשר שם הזהב, “where the gold is.” The “gold” referred to here are the words of Torah which have been extolled as הנחמדים מזהב ומפז רב, “more desirable than gold, than much fine gold.” (Psalms 19,11). We are taught by this verse that the quality of Torah studied in the land of Israel is superior to Torah studied elsewhere as is the wisdom acquired in the land of Israel. שם הבדולח ואבן השהם, “there can be found the <i>bedolach</i> and the <i>shoham</i> stone.” These are names of gems and they symbolise different disciplines of Torah study such as מקרא, משנה, תלמוד, הלכות, תוספות ואגדות, “Holy Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halachot, interpretations and aggadic material.” ושם הנהר השני גיחון, “and the name of the second river is Gichon.” This is a reference to the kingdom of the Medes, whereas the third river חידקל is a reference to the kingdom of Greece which imposed a particularly draconian rule on the Jewish people in Israel. The fourth river, the river Euphratus, represents the Roman Empire which oppressed the Jewish people inordinately. The word פרת is equated by the Midrash with the word הפרה, “breach (of trust).” Alternately, the name of the river symbolises the final destiny of the Roman Empire as alluded to by Isaiah 63,3 פורה דרכתי לבדי, “I trod out a vintage alone.” [The prophet describes the red-stained clothing of Israel returning from defeating the kingdom of Edom (Rome)].
  	A kabbalistic approach to Gan Eden. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of the celestial regions are the emanations  תפארת  and עטרת, and man’s sin consisted of a sinful deed as well as a sinful design. His sin in deed consisted of eating from the tree and what it represented. 
  When Adam sinned this was not a denial of the supremacy of G-d, an heretical act,. Even though he had seen the tree of life next to the tree of knowledge, he did not consider the tree of life as essential but he considered the tree of knowledge the key to his existence. Inasmuch as the tree of knowledge provided the key to all opposites in the universe and enabled those who had consumed its fruit to perform all kinds of activities both in the terrestrial as well as in the celestial regions, this is what he considered as essential. This is why the verses describing the tree of knowledge and its allure (3.2-6) spoke of its fruit, whereas no mention of fruit is made in connection with the tree of life. Adam’s sin consisted of  קצץ בנטיעות, “pursued alien philosophies” (the expression applied to the heresy of Elisha ben Avuyah in Chagigah 14). Literally, the expression means that Adam “curtailed the beneficial influence of saplings G-d Himself had planted and which had been imbued with a unique divine potential.” Adam’s “cutting” this sapling was the cause that this potential contained in the sapling “withered and it dried out and perished.” As a result it was appropriate that the sapling in question revenge itself on Adam. This explains that the fitting punishment for Adam was death, i.e. that he himself would wither and dry out. Death meant that his soul and body would become separated, just as he had separated the divine part of the tree of knowledge from its earthly part. There have been several people whose sin has been described in similar terms by our sages. When Nadav and Avihu entered the Holy of Holies carrying man-made fire and offering incense they had not been bidden to offer, the Torah (Leviticus 10,2) records that “a fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed them.” Their death consisted of their bodies remaining intact but their souls being not being “burned” by the fire which entered through their nostrils separating their souls from their bodies. [Our author there makes a point of insisting that the souls could not have been burned seeing that even after their deaths they have been described by the Torah as “intimates of G-d.” Ed.] According to Chagigah 15, Elisha ben Avuyah (better known as Acher) was guilty of the same type of sin as Adam. (compare Chagigah 15) His mistake was that he thought he had proof that there were separate origins of celestial authority. On the other hand, the sin of the generation which built the Tower was of a different dimension. Those people literally denied celestial authority altogether. This is why they were punished as testified by the Torah in Genesis 11,5 “G-d descended to look...and He confused their language, and dispersed them.” They were not punished in the same way as Adam who had קצץ בנטיעה, as it would have been inappropriate to avenge G-d Who could not have been harmed by their actions. I will explain this further at the appropriate place. When Adam repented and saw that G-d receives the penitents with His attribute שמאל, “ he sacrificed an ox corresponding to that attribute of G-d, i.e. source of his sin. [G-d had after all, placed within man the theoretical ability to sin already when he created him. This theoretical ability to commit a sin was due to an input of the “left side” of the diagram depicting the various emanations. Ed.] ונהר, “and a river, etc.” According to the Targum the Hebrew word אור, “light,” equivalent  to the aramaic נהורא, “light.” [The kabbalists consider the letter ו at the beginning of the word ונהר as part of the noun and not as a preposition such as “and.” Ed.] The Torah therefore tells us that a “light” comes forth from Eden, and that this light originates in the region known as אין סוף, “G’’d’s Essence.” The meaning of the word מעדן is that it emanates from regions which are not bounded by any boundaries, or which defy further definition by man. The region has been so named by our sages because they cannot define it . It is beyond the outermost boundaries of our understanding. We do find allusions to this such as in Job 25,5 “even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in His sight.” [Bildad, the speaker in this verse, describes “light” as we know it as far inferior to light in the celestial regions. Ed.] The words  ולא יאהיל in that verse refer to G-d’s ability to withhold the light of the moon. It is contrasted with the light emanating in אין סוף which is never withheld and this is why the word describing whence this light emanates is in the present tense, i.e. יוצא, “it comes forth,” instead of the past tense יצא, “it came forth,” which is what we would have expected. להשקות את הגן, “to irrigate the garden.” This task would be performed by the emanation עטרת. [In more modern descriptions of the emanations this emanation is called מלכות, compare Rabbi  Moshe Cordovero chapter 23 of his פרדס רמונים. Ed.]  You are aware that for practical purposes all the emanations are unified, there is no division within them. However, starting with the emanation עטרת, or מלכות  “downwards,” i.e. into the realm of the physical universe including the disembodied creatures such as the angels, “separations” are the order of the day. This is what the Torah means when it states that משם, i.e. from there on the “light” was divided into four categories. This is a reference to four separate “camps.” These “camps” provide “energy” for the four “rivers” or “lights” of Gan Eden. Thence this energy or different forms of energies are channeled to the four kingdoms on earth. May the Lord continue to enlighten us with the light of His Torah.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  לעבדה ולשמרה, “to work it and to preserve it.” The plain meaning of this phrase is that seeing that G-d had already assigned to man what he was to eat, i.e. vegetables and fruit, He now placed him in the garden so that he would practice the art of gardening and plant all manner of crops therein. He was also encouraged to plant all kinds of fruit (trees). He had been placed in that garden in order to enjoy it and to experiment therein at will. His daily food consisted of the fruit provided by the trees in that garden. He would drink from the rivers traversing Eden, whereas he would use the ענני הכבוד, “divine clouds of glory,” as his clothing. His position in that garden was most distinguished. His primary preoccupation was with spiritual delights whereas he spent relatively little time engaged in pleasurable physical pursuits. He enjoyed a most serene state of mind as both his mind and his body cooperated fully in being servants of the Lord. The reason that G-d had withheld from him the fruit of the עץ הדעת, was to spare him the mental and physical tension which he would experience once he experienced lust, greed, etc., all phenomena which are part and parcel of a true freedom of choice, בחירה. At that point, prior to Adam experiencing the need to eat from the tree of life, G-d had not had any reason to deny that tree to him as he was not going to die even if he did not eat from that tree. Once he had sinned, the fact that he had eaten from the forbidden fruit caused him to become far more preoccupied with concerns of the body at the expense of his pursuit of spiritual values. In short, he experienced the same limitations and handicaps when pursuing spiritual pursuits which we are familiar with nowadays. Seeing that he had reversed the order of priorities G-d had assigned to him as his purpose in life, G-d now reversed the order of what He had ordained for him so that his lifespan was reduced and the angel of death attained authority over him.
  	You should know that in the future, after the resurrection of people who deserve to be resurrected, these people will once again experience the idyllic conditions which prevailed in Gan Eden. At that time man will once again be occupied primarily with spiritual pursuits and will devote only relatively little energy to matters pertaining to his body. At that time man will resume either very long life, or never-ending life, as the universe will then revert to its original state of perfection. The words לעבדה ולשמרה, “to work it and to preserve it,” refer to the soil of the garden. [The word אדמה, soil is feminine, hence the feminine endings in לעבדה ולשמרה .]
  	Viewed from an homiletical point of view, you might well ask what possible “work” there was in such a perfect garden in which all the trees had already grown and produced fruit without any input by man? Moreover, G-d had even provided irrigation by means of rivers so that man certainly did not have to perform any “labour,” something always associated with the word לעבד? We therefore need to understand the word לעבדה  as a reference to Torah study and the word לשמרה  as a reference to observance of the Torah’s commandments. This is why such observance is referred to in Genesis 3,24 as לשמור את דרך עץ החיים, “to guard the path of the tree of life.” We have other verses in Scripture which refer to Torah and the observance of its statutes as the “tree of life,” such as Proverbs 3,18  עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, “she is a tree of life for those who take hold of it.” Another Midrashic explanation sees in the words לעבדה ולשמרה, a reference to the Sabbath, seeing that the Torah described the six weekdays as days on which we are to work; (compare Exodus 20,9 ששת ימים תעבד, “for six days you will work, etc.”). Still another Midrashic explanation sees in the words of our verse a reference to the sacrifices The word לעבדה paraphrases Exodus 3,12  תעבדון את האלוקים על ההר הזה, “you will offer sacrifices to G-d on this Mountain.” The word ולשמרה is also a reference to certain sacrificial rituals as it  paraphrases Numbers 28,2  תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו, “you will guard it to sacrifice for Me at its appointed season.” 
  	A kabbalistic approach to our verse: We need to understand why the Torah used the letter ה each time at the end of these words. The normal grammar would have required the letter ו each time, i.e. לעבדו ולשמרו, seeing the words refer to the garden which is masculine in Hebrew. Actually, both the letters ה in this instance are an allusion to the two letters ה which are part of the four-lettered ineffable name of Gd. Concerning such considerations, the Torah wrote in Exodus 23,21 השמר מפניו, “take heed on account of the letters ו which have been replaced by he letters ה. The intelligent reader will understand to what I refer. [according to תורת חיים, the word in Exodus should be read מפני-ו, “on account of the ו.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויצו ה' אלוקים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל , “the Lord G-d commanded Adam: “you may surely eat from every tree of the garden.” According to the plain meaning of the text, Adam was commanded two separate commandments here, a positive as well as a negative commandment. The positive commandment was spelled out in the words “you shall eat from all the trees of the garden.” The negative commandment was contained in the words ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, ”but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you must not eat” (verse 17).
  	From an homiletical point of view these verses contain what are known as the seven Noachide laws, i.e. seven laws applicable to all mankind. [These seven commandments are enumerated in Sanhedrin 56]. They are: “the prohibition of idolatry, bloodshed (murder) incestuous sexual relations of certain categories; blasphemy; robbery; consumption of living tissue of an animal, and the institution of a judiciary to deal with violators of these commandments. These laws are alluded to in our text and are derived as follows: The word ויצו refers to idolatry as we have a verse in Hoseah 5,11 where the word  צוis synonymous with idolatry, viz: כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו, “because he has gone after futility.” The word השם alludes to blasphemy; the Torah states in Leviticus 24,16 ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, “and he who curses the name of the Lord shall be put to death.” The word אלוקים in our verse refers to the establishment of a judiciary system. The parallel verse in Exodus 22,27 says: אלוהים לא תקלל, “you shall not curse a judge.” The words על האדם, are an allusion to the prohibition of bloodshed, murder. The parallel verse is found in Genesis 9,6 שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, “he who spills the blood of a human being shall have his own blood spilled by a human being.” The word לאמר alludes to forbidden sexual relations. The inference is based on Jeremiah 3,1 לאמר הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר הישוב אליה עוד הלא חנוף תחנף הארץ ההיא?, “to say: if a man divorces his wife, and she leaves him and marries another man, can he ever go back to her? Would not such land be defiled?” The words מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל, “from every tree of the garden you shall surely eat,” is an allusion to the prohibition of robbery, i.e. man requires G-d’s express permission to partake of matters in this world. Finally, the words  ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, “but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” are an allusion not to eat a living animal’s tissue. The lesson derived from the words of our verse is: “from a certain object you must not eat part thereof.” So you see that the basic seven Noachide laws are all alluded to in some form or other in our two verses. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  מות תמות, “you will surely die.” The words in this verse do not mean that Adam (or anyone else) would die immediately on the very day he would eat from that tree; rather the meaning is that as soon as he would eat from that tree man would become mortal, would forfeit his right to live on earth indefinitely. According to our sages in Shabbat 55 man had been meant to live forever just like the angels. 
  Philosophers, on the other hand, believe that man was destined to die a natural death. They believe that it is axiomatic that any creature which is a composite of a number of raw materials is bound to disintegrate sooner or later and to break up into its constituent parts. According to the view of these philosophers-scientists the repeated מות תמות is a reference to the natural death that most people die from. They mean that even without the sin man would have died sooner or later. As a result  of man’s sin, premature death was decreed for him, i.e. death at the instigation of heaven instead of as a result of natural forces governing our terrestrial universe, whenever man would become guilty of specific sins which carry such a penalty. The reason the Torah repeats the reference to death, i.e. מות תמות is to tell us that from that moment on man would be subject to two kinds of natural death. We have a clear verse in Scripture detailing this. In Samuel I 26,10 we read: כי אם ה' יגפנו או יומו יבא ומת או במלחמה ירד ונספה, “and the Lord Himself will strike him down, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go down in battle and will perish.” When David spoke of “or his day will come,” he referred to natural death. Seeing that death had now been decreed upon Adam (man), G-d had to prevent him from attaining an unlimited lifespan by means of his eating from the fruit of the tree of life. The tree was called “tree of life,” because eating from its fruit conferred freedom from death upon those who ate from it until their bodies would disintegrate through natural causes such as we have described. It did not protect the person who ate from it against natural forces in the universe, only against death from other than natural causes. If the Torah speaks in Genesis 3,22 of “man living לעולם, forever,” if he were to eat from that tree, this does not refer to infinite, eternal life. The word’s meaning is similar to Exodus 21,6 ועבדו לעולם, “he will serve him permanently,” where the word לעולם obviously also cannot mean literally “forever.” Another example where the word לעולם clearly does not mean “forever,” is found in Samuel I 1,22 where Chanah speaks about her son living in Shiloh under the guidance of the High Priest Eli לעולם. According to the view of these philosophers-scientists, if G-d had already denied the fruit of the tree of life to Adam originally, and he had ignored that prohibition and had eaten from it, how could G-d have warned Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge on pain of death if he had already granted him an infinite lifespan through his having eaten from the tree of life? These philosophers claim to have proofs to support their opinions. I would have  recorded two or three of their “proofs” were it not for the fact that their approach to the text is totally different from that of our sages, and it is not appropriate for us even to consider an approach which is diametrically opposed to the view of our sages as the latter base their views directly on the pronouncements of our prophets (Avodah Zarah 5). Our sages state unequivocally that if Adam had not sinned he would have lived forever. This view is supported by Psalms 82,6 אני אמרתי אלוקים אתם ובני עליון כלכם, “I (G-d) said that you are divine beings and that all of you are sons of the Most High.” The remarkable thing in that Psalm is that Assaph did not quote G-d as saying: “you are like a divine being,” or like the sons of the Most High.” He referred to an actual divine quality possessed by Man (Adam) i.e. his immortality. Scripture contains many other verses along the same lines.
  	According to the plain meaning of the text the words מות תמות, i.e. the repetition of the death threat, is nothing more than something stylistic. We find such apparent duplications throughout the Bible. Our sages have explained this when they said that “the Torah employs a syntax which is similar to that of human beings” (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8). When people want to emphasize something they repeat it. 
  	Viewed from a homiletical approach, the Torah emphasizes the word ביום. It is meant to refer to a day in G-d’s calendar, i.e. 1000 years in terms of our calendar. In order that G-d’s word when He created Adam should not have been wasted, He granted Adam a “day” of His  own calendar, and Adam lived close to 1000 years. He was only 70 years short of G-d’s day when he died, but in terms of our lives nowadays these 70 years represented a whole lifetime, so that he died on the day he ate, i.e. being deprived of a life span.
  	A kabbalistic approach to our verse concentrates on the repeated appearance of the word “death” when the Torah spoke of מות תמות. It is understood as the warning of two deaths, a physical death of the body and a spiritual death of the soul. We find a repetition of the word “died,” when the Torah reported the death of the two older sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu in Leviticus 16, 1 אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וימותו. We find a similar repetition (implication) of the word “death” when Moses prayed for Reuven in his final blessing (Deut. 33,6) and said יחי ראובן ואל ימות, especially when you consider the translation of that verse by Onkelos. He translates: ומותא תנינא לא ימות, “let him not die a second death.” You may also view Avraham’s life and death as fulfillment of the warning מות תמות, “you will die twice.” Avraham is viewed by some of our sages as the reincarnation of Adam who bequeathed him 70 years of his life. He resembled Adam in that G-d called him אב המון גויים, “father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17,5), and, just like Adam he has been described in Joshua 14,15 as האדם הגדול, “the great human being.” He resembled Adam spiritually in that he spent the early years of his life as an idolater whereas he became a penitent just like his ancestor Adam. This is an alternative view to that of the Midrash (Yalkut Tehillim item 843) according to which Adam had bequeathed 70 years of his life expectancy to David whom G-d had shown him as destined to die at birth.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, “it is not good for man to be by himself, etc.” Up until this point, the Torah had mentioned each time “it was good,” seeing that the “good” in question referred to the continued existence of the various species G-d had created. In the case of Adam, who was unable to procreate seeing he did not have a mate, the Torah had to describe his state of being as לא טוב, “not good.” The meaning of the verse is: “it is not good that man and woman remain attached to each other like Siamese twins”, i.e. one body with two faces (heads) This is what the sages meant when they said in Berachot 61 that the human species was created as a body with two heads seeing that the Torah testified that G-d had created them זכר ונקבה, “male and female” (5,2). Their body was so constructed that it possessed both male and female genitals. The second head assisted the first head in achieving the act of procreation. This is the reason that when G-d separated the bodies, He referred to the new body as the one which had previously been an automatic עזר, “helpmate,” to become עזר כנגדו, “a helpmate which corresponded to him (the male), i.e. an independent person with independent willpower. [The author’s description of this passage thus far is based completely on the commentary of Nachmanides. Rabbi Chavell]. If we are to accept this interpretation (by Nachmanides), we would have to attribute to G-d a complete change of mind from what He had planned originally when He created Adam. It is quite unacceptable to attribute such a change of mind to G-d. 
  The fact is that the words: “it is not good that Adam be alone,” reported in our verse were not “spoken” by G-d after He had created Adam, but already prior to G-d actually having created Adam when the plan to create man had been conceived by G-d. As soon as G-d entertained that thought He added that it was not suitable that man should be the only type of inhabitant of earth just as the angels are the only inhabitants of the celestial regions. Rather, just as the other creatures in our terrestrial universe were created in pairs and reproduced themselves, so Adam (man) too should have a partner and he and she would reproduce and be subject to death as are all the other creatures in our” lower world.
  	At this point in the narrative the Torah reports on the creation of woman, the fact that her raw material was identical to that of Adam as G-d took one of Adam’s sides to construct her body. There is no question of reconsideration by G-d of His original design in planning man. In Berachot 61 Rabbi Avuhu addressed the apparent contradiction by the words “male and female He created them,” whereas  in Genesis 1,27 the Torah reported    “He created him.” The meaning is that originally G-d had planned to create man and woman separately whereas upon further reflection He created them with a single body. The fact is that we observe that ultimately G-d carried out His original plan of creating two separate human bodies, a male and a female one. This gives the impression as if Rabbi Avuhu thought hat G-d did indeed reconsider and change His  desire.
  	My wise teacher Rabbi Shlomoh Aderet, may his soul rest in peace, wrote that this matter has to be approached from two separate aspects each one of which is true and accurate. When Rabbi Avuhu said that originally G-d planned to create man as two separate bodies, male and female, just like the animals, this  must not be taken at face value. All allegorical statements were never expected to be taken at face value but were meant to help us understand abstract matters by explaining them in terms of phenomena we are familiar with. Rabbi Avuhu wanted to illustrate that G-d planned to create the species of man in the most perfect manner possible  and this is why he spoke about G-d entertaining different thoughts at different times in order for the eventual translation of those thoughts into creative action to reflect that man’s creation had been well planned down to the last detail. When he spoke about G-d “originally” planning to create two separate human beings, he wanted to explain to us that G-d wanted both man and woman to be independent personalities who would at the same time draw on each other for support. He meant for us to picture the function of the male and the female of the species to be similar to the relationship between sun and moon, for instance. Having given due consideration to these factors, G-d decided that it was not good that man, the crown jewel of His creation, should be the only active factor in the universe whereas the woman should be no more than a receptacle, a servant, just like the moon which only acts as a receptacle for the sun’s rays. This is why Rabbi Avuhu said that on further consideration G-d decided to create man with a single body, i.e. the male. However, although the female eventually was separated from him and they became two bodies, the female is not considered as having been a separate act of creation as she was formed from matter which was peripheral to Adam seeing that he survived as an entity although the part woman was made of was removed from him. This is why some sages  (Berachot 61) have described woman as having been made out of man’s ”tail.”
  	Another interpretation of Rabbi Avuhu’s statement goes as follows: When G-d contemplated creating man and woman as two separate bodies, His concern was that they should be male and female just like all the other animals. On the other hand, [what is termed as His “later” consideration], it was important to G-d that woman should be perceived as being made of the very same raw material as her husband, thus creating a natural affinity between man and wife [not like the animals]. As a result, woman would be viewed by her husband as if she were one of his very own limbs [and he would treat her with the same consideration as he treats his own organs. This may be why in Jewish law we have a saying אשתו כגופו, that even in legal terms very often “the wife is considered an extension of her husband’s body.” Ed.] Thus far the words of my revered teacher.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  וכל אשר יקרא לו האדם נפש חיה הוא שמו, “and whatever the man called each living creature that remained its name.” According to the narrative in Bereshit Rabbah 17,4 G-d paraded the various animals before Adam and he gave each one a name after he had studied their respective characteristics. By means of this ability to characterize each creature, he demonstrated his superior wisdom, i.e. that he was indeed a creature who had been created directly by G-d Himself, i.e. בצלם אלוקים. 
  In light of this Midrash it is clear to me that the wisdom of Adam was reflected in the names he gave to the animals, each name alluding to its outstanding characteristic, that which made it different from other creatures. Every single letter Adam chose in naming these animals reflected a special meaning. When the Midrash said: “due to his wisdom Adam recognised the nature of the lion, אריה,” this means that he was aware that the lion was the king of the animals due to its fearless posture. This concept was carried so far that eventually some of our prophets describe the greatness and fearlessness of G-d Himself in terms of a creature whose essence we understand, i.e. in terms of the lion (compare Hoseah 11,10) אחרי ה' ילכו, כאריה ישאג, “they will follow the Lord because He shouts like a lion.” The letters א-ר-י-ה which Adam selected when he named the lion were chosen by him as all these letters represent spiritual values. The letters א-ה-י are all letters which appear in one or the other names of G-d. or even in a single name of G-d such as the name א-ה-י-ה. The letter ר represents רוח, “spirit, i.e. “Holy Spirit.” So you will note that the prophet was not being irreverent when he drew a comparison between G-d and a lion, or vice-versa. A similar consideration prompted Adam to name the eagle נשר, as he recognised that the eagle amongst the birds was what the lion is amongst the mammals on earth. The eagle’s ability to fly higher than any other bird makes it the king amongst the birds. We have a tradition that when an eagle completes his tenth year he flies so high that he approaches the planet  which is the source of fire. Due to the excessive heat in that region he dives into the sea having already lost his feathers. Subsequently the eagle renews itself as before. This process repeats itself once every ten years until the hundredth year. At that point, the eagle flies even closer to the source of the fire and as a result drops into the sea and dies. This is what Rav Saadyah Gaon wrote (in connection with Psalms 103 5). At any rate, Adam, who was aware of the nature of that bird, named it נשר, the letter ש representing the word אש, “fire,” the letter ר symbolising רוח, “Holy Spirit, and the letter נ symbolising נפילה, the fact that it “falls” into the sea. The eagle’s name in Hebrew therefore alludes to its role in history and its eventual demise; this is also what Adam is reported as having said (according to the Midrash we quoted) לזה נאה לקרותו נשר, “this creature would appropriately be called נשר.” The reason why the Midrash quotes Adam as saying נאה לקרות, is that the word נאה is understood to mean נאות וראוי, “suitable.” When it came to naming the donkey, Adam called it חמור. Adam had recognised that that animal was extremely dull-witted, more foolish than all the other animals. This is why he chose a name which is closely related to the word חומר, i.e. “matter, material.” An additional reason for that name is the fact that the donkey is a beast of burden employed to carry sacks of grain. Grain is measured in terms of a weight called חומר, as we find in Hoseah 3,2  חומר שעורים “a chomer of barley.” When Adam had concluded naming the animals, G-d asked Adam: “what is My Name?” Adam replied: א-ד-נ-י. When G-d asked him what had made him decide on that name, Adam said: “because You are the overlord of all creatures.” This is what is meant when Isaiah 42, 8 writes: אני ה' הוא שמי “I am the Lord; that is My name.” The repetition of the words “that is my name,” is a reference to the time that Adam had “named” G-d. If you were to ask where we find that Adam applied the four-lettered name י-ה-ו-ה  to G-d, you will find it by removing the  ח [According to תורת חיים our author means that you only have to deduct the letter ח from the word חיה, and you are left with the letters י-ה. When you write these letters as words, i.e. יוד הא, the numerical value (26) equals that of the four-lettered name of G-d.] 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויסגר בשר תחתנה, “He filled in flesh in its place.” With reference to the letter ס in the word ויסגר, Bereshit Rabbah 17,6 writes that as soon as Chavah was created Satan was created alongside her. We did not find the letter ס which symbolises Satan [the סיטרא אחרא, “the spiritually negative section of the emanations in kabbalistic language, Ed.] until we came to this word in the Torah. If you were to point out that the letter ס already appeared in 2,13 where the Torah speaks of the rivers flowing around  the whole land of Cush, סובב  את כל הארץ כוש, the letter was used there only in connection with the rivers, not in connection with the creation of either man or woman and their fates.
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע, “the Lord G-d built up the side, etc.” Both names of G-d are used to show that now the world was complete. When the Torah describes the creation of man in detail we also find the words וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם. This was justified as Adam already incorporated within himself all the potential of the female of the species except that this potential had not become manifest. The potential capability of woman is hidden within the male, whereas the manifestation of man’s potential comes to the fore within woman. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote in Genesis 46,15  אלה בני לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב, “these are the sons of Leah which she bore for Yaakov.” In that verse the sons are attributed to Leah. Immediately following that statement the Torah adds: ואת דינה בתו, “and Dinah his daughter.” We see that the female children are attributed to the father. You will note that the Torah employs similar language in Leviticus 12,2  אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, “when a woman fertilizes semen she will give birth to a male.” On the other hand, the Torah continues there ואם נקבה תלד וגו'. “and if she gives birth to a female, etc.”
  	When you review the creation of man you will find that two of the ten directives (when you exclude the word בראשית as a directive) G-d issued when creating the universe pertained to the creation of man, i.e. the male and the female. The first directive is ויאמר אלוקים נעשה אדם. G-d said: “let us make Adam.” The second directive is ויאמר ה' אלוקים לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, אעשה לו עזר כנגדו, “it is not good for Adam to remain solitary, I shall make him a helpmate who corresponds to him.” Please remember that the tenth of the directives involving the creation of the universe was the directive to create Chavah.
  	There are sages who count the 10 directives according to the following sequence: five directives were issued on the first three days of creation; another five were issued during the next three days. If so, then they could not have included the directive in 1,29: ”here I have assigned to you   all the grass which produces seed ...as food for you.” As far as we are concerned, the word בראשית itself is one of the ten directives whereas the directive “let us make Adam,” is the ninth directive and the directive “it is not good for Adam to be solitary, etc.” is the tenth directive. I do not consider either of the statements: ”be fruitful and multiply,” or the statement: “here I have assigned to you as food, etc.,” as one of the directives which form part of the ten directives which brought the universe into being.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  זאת הפעם, “this time, etc.” The plain meaning of these words is: “this is the only time bone is being taken from my bone.” From now on it will not be necessary to remove part of man’s bone or flesh to provide him with a mate. Henceforth regular procreation will provide a supply of males and females in the world. This is Rashi’s comment on our verse. [not in our editions of Rashi. Ed.] 
  	From an homiletical aspect the words עצם מעצמי may refer to Adam having the feeling that the bones of his wife were harder than his own i.e. “her bones are more bony than mine.” The reason for this would be that they had been constructed out of bones whereas his own bones had been constructed out of the dust of the earth. This may also be the reason that the Torah wrote וייצר, when describing the formation of Adam as the word is similar to יוצר, “a potter,” someone who uses soft clay as his raw material. When the woman was formed however, the Torah used the expression  ויבן, “He built,” instead of וייצר, “He shaped like a potter.” The term ויבן reminds us of a builder who builds a solid structure, something made of hard materials, not of clay. Perhaps this is the reason that the psalmist in Psalms 103,13 speaks of G-d being merciful to His בנים, “sons” as a father is merciful, whereas when describing toughness, Proverbs 31,1 speaks of משא אשר יסרתו אמו, “a rebuke administered by his mother.” The mother, being made of sterner stuff, admonishes instead of displaying pity. This paragraph made it clear that Chavah was created within Gan Eden and that it was there that Adam’s side was taken from him. He himself had been created outside the garden and had been transplanted  there by G-d.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  והנחש היה ערום, “and the serpent had been sly, etc.” The reason that the words ואשתו in the last verse and the word והנחש in this verse appear side by side is that Satan had been created together with woman. Woman may be perceived as the body, the personification of the evil urge. [the evil urge is an abstract concept. In order for it to become effective it needs a “body.” Woman, or better the first woman, became that “body.” Ed.] Woman proved “easy” to mislead into sin. The numerical value of the letters in the word  הנחש is 364 after allowing 1 for the whole word, whereas the letters in the word השטן add up to 364.
  	 Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 26,2 quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni as saying that when the serpent was asked: “why are you always found near the fences?” It answered: “because I was the one that breached the fences of the universe.” When asked further: “why are you constantly sticking out your tongue?”, It answered: “He makes me do it.” When asked: “why is the bite of any other free roaming beast not lethal whereas your bite is lethal?” The serpent answered: “do you suppose that I do anything of my own free will which has not been ordained for me from above?” The latter question is reflected in Kohelet 10,11 אם ישך נחש בלא לחש ואין יתרון לבעל הלשון, “if there were to be found a snake which bites without being provoked (from above), what purpose is there to the art of the snake-charmers?” When the serpent was asked further: “why is it that when you bite a single organ all other organs are affected by that bite?” The serpent answered (angrily) “why are you asking me instead of asking why the people who merely speak evil are able to kill without biting? Such people open their mouths here (Palestine) and the lethal effect of what they said is felt as far away as Rome!”
  	אף כי אמר אלוקים, “did G-d really say, etc.?” The very first word the serpent uttered was the word אף. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 19,2 commented on this: “four people began their remarks with the word אף, and all four of them perished through אף, divine anger. The four are: the serpent, the chief of the bakers (Genesis 40,16), the community who partook in Korach’s uprising (Numbers 16,14)  and Haman (Esther 5,12).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  והייתם כאלוקים יודעי טוב ורע, “and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil.” From this it would appear that prior to his sin Adam did not possess the ability to distinguish good from evil. If that were true, then what happened here would violate a Talmudic principle, i.e. that a sinner should not be allowed to benefit by his sin. It is clear to me that one must not understand the verse to mean that Adam did not know the difference between right and wrong prior to his sin any more than do the animals. The meaning of the words: “you will be like G-d,” is appropriately translated by Onkelos who renders these words as: ותהון כרברבין חכמין בין טב לביש, “you will become possessed of superior wisdom knowing what is good and what is evil.” There can be no question that at the time G-d created man He had equipped him with a superior intelligence. This is the meaning of Genesis 1,27 “He created him in the image of G-d.” The word צלם in that verse is a reference to intelligence. If G-d commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge, the reason He did so was precisely because man was intelligent enough to distinguish between truth and untruth. G-d is not on record as commanding animals what to do as they have no intelligence. The problem is that knowledge of good and evil is not something within the realm of intelligence. When man is asked to define heaven he does not say “heaven is spherical and beautiful;” when asked to define earth he does not say: “earth is flat and ugly.” He would make statements which confirm or deny the truth of something, not its moral potential. 
  Prior to his sin, Adam’s intellect was totally spiritually oriented; it was not concerned with matters of the body. He was not even familiar with such matters. He was completely unaware of the carnal implications of nudity, etc. He considered his genitals as organs  no different from all his other organs. Once he had sinned, and suddenly experienced the sex drive as an instrument of physical gratification, i.e. “he saw that the tree was good to eat and a pleasurable experience for the eyes,” he was immediately punished by being stripped of his ability to use his intellect objectively; from that moment on, considerations such as physical desire, appreciation of physical beauty or ugliness clouded his previously pure intellect. This is why the serpent spoke of “you will become intimate (an alternate meaning of ידע) with good and evil.” The serpent had been careful not to say: “you will know truth and falsehood,” or words to that effect. You should pay special attention to the wording of verse seven ותפקחנה עיני שניהם וידעו, “the eyes of both of them were opened, etc.” The Torah deliberately did not write that as a result of this opening of their eyes ויראו, “they saw,” but it wrote וידעו, “they knew”  that they were naked. What they suddenly “knew” they had already “seen” previously. The Torah wanted to emphasize that they now “saw” something they had been aware of previously in a totally new light. What had previously not been shameful had suddenly become something shameful. The reason was that they had overstepped the boundaries and displayed a tendency to derive physical pleasure from something G-d had denied them. They had displayed a desire to be more animal-like in their cravings. As a result, their punishment consisted in their being allocated animal-like food as we find in verse 18 “you will eat the grass of the field.” [Previously, as pointed out  in connection with 1,29, they had been allocated only the kind of herbs which produced self perpetuating seeds, as distinct from the food allocated to the animals.] 
  
  Verse 6
  
  ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וגו', “the woman saw that the tree was good as food, etc.” The sages (Berachot 40) disagree as to the exact nature of this tree. Some say it was a fig tree and they base themselves on the fact that immediately after eating from the tree Adam and Chavah are described as covering their genitals with fig leaves (verse 7). They feel that this shows that the very thing which had become their downfall now had become the instrument of their rehabilitation.Other sages believe that the tree in question was the grapevine. This is why we read in Bereshit Rabbah 19,8 Chavah squeezed the juice from the grapes and brought it to her husband. Seeing that its appearance was red like blood, their blood would be spilled and the blood of the whole universe, tit for tat, measure for measure, the punishment fitting the crime. The blood of the female of the species which would be spilled at regular intervals is the menstrual blood. This is also the mystical dimension of Deut. 32,14: “and the blood of the grapes you will drink as if it were delicious wine.” The Torah called the grape “blood,” seeing that grapes had brought blood into the world. Still another view is that of Rabbi Abba from Acco in Bereshit Rabbah 15,8 who believes that the tree in question was the Etrog tree, the citron fruit. Other scholars were aghast at all such suggestions, saying that there can be no question that G-d did not reveal  the nature of this tree to any man living or in the future. As proof for their view that the Torah deliberately concealed what tree it was they cite Leviticus 20,16 ואשה אשר תקרב אל כל בהמה לרבעה אותה והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה. “And a woman who approaches any animal for it to mate with her, you shall kill the woman and the animal, etc.” To the question that if the woman has sinned why should the animal be killed also, what sin did it commit?” The answer given is that the animal must not be allowed to survive as otherwise people would point to it saying: “this is the animal which caused a certain woman to be executed.” If G-d had been so concerned with the honour or dignity of His creatures, would He not be equally concerned with His own honour and not reveal that He Himself had been the cause of man’s death by allowing man to point to that tree?
  	When looked at from a kabbalistic point of view, the tree was indeed the Etrog tree something which is hinted at in the words  ונחמד העץ להשכיל, “and the tree was a desirable means to gain insights.”  Onkelos translates these words as ומרגג , “that the fruit was exceptionally beautiful and desirable.” [You will note the similarity in the word מרגג and the word אתרג. Ed.] The nature of that fruit was that it excited and dominated one’s intellect. This is also the way the Targum translates the verse in Leviticus 23,40  ולקחתם לכם פרי עץ הדר, as פירי אילנא אתרוגין, again using the word אתרוג to describe an especially beautiful fruit  We may thus understand verse 18 where the curse (punishment) for eating from such a beautiful tree is that henceforth the earth will sprout forth thorns and thistles as another example of the punishment fitting the crime. [according to תורת חיים, our author may have intended to point out the numerical value of the combined words קוץ ודרדר as equaling the numerical value of the word אתרוג.] 
  	וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, “and that it was a delight for the eyes, etc.” It is possible that the three characteristics טובה, תאוה, and חמדה, which are mentioned in this verse are all part of the sensory perceptions which when combined result in the gaining of new insights, i.e. להשכיל, a word which follows immediately afterwards. Considering the fact that original man was a totally intellectually oriented creature, the Torah wanted to remind us that at that stage (before the sin) whatever motivation prompted Chavah and Adam to eat from this tree was the desire to gain further insights, להשכיל. This would correspond to Psalms 38,10 ה' נגדך כל תאותי, “You G-d are aware that (nearness) to You is the objective of all my desire.” According to this interpretation it was the intellect which dictated to them to eat what G-d had withheld from them. Whatever his or her motivation, the fact remains that Chavah (and Adam) violated G-d’s will as expressed by His prohibition. Just as his intellect had told him that the fruit of that tree held promise of further insights, the same intellect had also told him that the acquisition of such insights was clearly against G-d’s will, else why would He have forbidden its fruit? The commentators who presented the view we quoted only wanted to emphasise that the sin was not due to an overpowering urge by the יצר הרע, the force within man which moves him to assert his independence. At this stage the יצר הרע tempted Adam in the shape of his wife Chavah. He was misled into believing that what he did was in order. After having eaten from the fruit of that tree Adam began to experience a new sensation altogether, a sensation which became an integral part of him from then on. This was  the sex drive which is a drive originally  nspired by the commission of a sin. Do not ask that if indeed this drive was and is responsible for sinning and Adam and Chavah did not yet have it before they ate from that tree, how did they come to sin? The fact is that even angels who most certainly do not have a sex drive and are motivated purely by intellectual considerations also sin on occasion. One example is found in Genesis 19,13 where the angels who had been commanded to destroy Sodom and to save Lot described themselves as if it were they who were destroying Sodom and not G-d. They told Lot: כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה, “for we are about to destroy this place.” 
  We also find an interesting comment by our sages (Tanchuma Parshat Shoftim 18) that the line in Exodus 23,21 where the Torah speaks of an angel “who will not forgive your sin (if you commit it),” belongs to a group of angels which never sin. If so, there must be others who do sin on occasion. We also have a verse in Job 4,18 הן בעבדיו לא יאמין, ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה, “He cannot trust His own servants and casts reproach on His angels.”
  	ותתן גם לאישה עמה, “and she also gave to her husband with her and he ate.” The word עמה in this verse teaches that Chavah had an evil intent in that she wanted her husband to become guilty of the same sin. [According to Rashi, she did not want to die and for Adam to marry another woman.]. 
  	According to Bereshit Rabbah 19,5 the word גם teaches that she also gave to all the animals from the fruit of that tree. According to that Midrash there was only a single bird called חול which did not eat from the fruit of that tree. This fact is alluded to in Job 29,18 ואמר עם קני אגוע וכחול ארבה ימים, ”I thought I would die together with my family (my nest), and be as long-lived as the bird חול, phoenix.” According to Rabbi Yudan this bird has a life span of 1000 years. At the end of that time  fire erupts in its nest and less than the size of egg of it remains before it regenerates itself. 
  	ויאכל, “and he ate.” At this point Adam sinned seeing G-d had warned him previously ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, “and you must not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2,17).” The one warning applied to earthly matters such as not to eat from the fruit in order not to ingest the source of the evil, carnal desires etc.; the other warning pertained to celestial matters, that as a result of eating from the tree and obtaining new insights he should not speculate about the origin and essence of G-d. From a practical point of view the word ממנו also included the prohibition not to use the branches of that tree to plant a duplicate, etc., etc. Philosophically speaking, Adam was not to make the mistake made later by  the generation of the Tower who thought that there was no one beyond in the heavens. By writing the single word ויאכל, the Torah described his sin on several levels. Eating something, consuming it, is equivalent to destroying it.  Adam destroyed two conditions which had prevailed on earth prior to his eating from that tree. He ate from the tree thereby destroying something of a terrestrial nature; he ate, i.e. he destroyed something of a spiritual nature, something the sages called קצץ בנטיעות, or something that our author calls here קצץ בדוגמתו למעלה, “he impaired his parallel spiritual image in the celestial regions.” Inasmuch as his spiritual image in the celestial regions received its input from the “left” part of the emanations, the seat of the attribute of Justice, it became necessary for him to offer an ox with only a single horn as expiation after he had done  תשובה, repentance, in order to demonstrate that he recognised the Unity of G-d and did not believe that G-d had partners, i.e. that there was a power-sharing arrangement between the various מדות, “attributes” of G-d. In order for Adam to learn this lesson G-d especially made available to him an ox which had a unicorn on its forehead. The word קרן, “horn” in Hebrew is equivalent to כח, “power.” The strength of an ox is concentrated in its horns. The unicorn was in the centre of that ox’s forehead, the centre of its body, in order to symbolise  the קו האמצעי, “the centre line,” [a kabbalistic concept pertaining to the diagram of the emanations, Ed.] The purpose of that  “line” is to unify the “lower” and the “higher” regions. This is the meaning of the enigmatic though well known Midrash based on Psalms 69,32 ותיטב לה' משור פר מקרין מפריס, “that will please the Lord even more than the ox, i.e. bull whose horns protruded beyond its hooves.” The verse from Psalms we quoted contains a double entendre as the word מקרין though spelled with the letter י , is read as if it were written without the letter י.The first (regular) spelling would symbolise the strength radiated from the animal, whereas the defective spelling, i.e. the way we read the word suggests that the ox in question had only one horn, mi-keren. When the Israelites sinned in the desert and they made the golden calf they had to sacrifice an ox in atonement for their sin as we know from Leviticus 9,3  קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת ועגל וכבש...ושור ואיל לשלמים, “take a he-goat for a sin-offering; a calf and a lamb,...and an ox and a ram for a peace-offering, etc.”  From that time on, the Israelites were commanded to take the four species including the Etrog in the month of Tishrey,  the month in which man was created, in order to combine all these species. These four species were a symbolic offering atoning for the first sin man had committed around that time of year. In all other instances of publicly paid for sin-offerings on the festivals, a bull or bulls are included in the Torah’s list of such offerings. The same applies to the sin-offerings on New Moon. All of this was to teach that when doing penance it is appropriate to use the instrument with which one had sinned to effect forgiveness. This is also the reason why the Torah repeats the otherwise unnecessary word הפר a second time in Leviticus 4,4 והביא את הפר אל פתח אהל מועד, ושחט את הפר לפני ה'. “He (the priest) shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall slaughter the bull in the presence of the Lord.” Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 5,6 explain the extra word הפר instead of simply אותו in this vein. The matter may be illustrated in the form of a parable: when a friend offered a gift to the king, the king told him to display the gift at the entrance of his palace so that everybody would become aware of the valuable gift that his friend had given him. The ”gift” in the parable is the תשובה, repentance, which consisted of the same category of item with which the friend had previously offended the king. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה, “more than any domestic beast or free-roaming animal in the field.” According to the plain meaning of the text G-d said to the serpent that inasmuch as “you used to be more wily than all the other beasts, now you will be downgraded to a level even lower than all  other beasts, having to crawl on your belly, etc.”
  	Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 19,1 also approached the verse from this angle when they said: that what had been ערום מכל, now became ארור מכל, “the most wily became the most accursed.” Following an homiletical approach, the sages claim that the serpent’s time of gestation is seven years. The Talmud Bechorot 5 claims that the words “more than any other beasts, etc., and more than any free-roaming animal,” are  basically superfluous as if the serpent is more cursed than the  domestic animals it is only logical; because of this they concluded that the time of gestation of a serpent is seven years. [Rashi on that statement in the Talmud explains that a domestic animal such as a goat requires seven months of gestation whereas a cat requires only fifty-two days of pregnancy. The relative ratio of domestic animal to free-roaming animal therefore is one of seven to one. If the serpent is proportionately more cursed than even the regular free-roaming animals under normal circumstances (or at least the ones with the longest period of pregnancy), this means that the serpent has to carry its egg for seven years. Ed.] Actually, the Torah should have first mentioned categories of animals which are relatively little cursed, i.e. which have a short period of gestation followed by those animals which have a longer period of gestation. The fact that the Torah reversed this pattern indicates that it wishes to stress something. The matter sounded so hard to believe that we have Rabbi Joshua who indulged an heretic who refused to believe all this by making an experiment which proved that our sages were correct in their assessment. 
  	על גחונך תלך ועפר תאכל, “you will crawl on your belly and eat dust, etc.” The punishment matched the crime. The serpent had been instrumental in bringing man down from his lofty heights. As a penalty the serpent itself experienced being demoted when compared to its former stature. Whereas the Torah mentions the loss of height by the serpent and the fact that it would henceforth subsist on dust, an inert material, it did not mention the fact that henceforth the serpent would be deprived of its ability to speak. Actually, the loss of that ability would have constituted the most severe part of its curse. If the serpent was not punished by loss of communicative powers there must have been a special reason for this. The fact is that the serpent was predestined for trouble and retribution. The very fact that it was introduced by the Torah as being the most crafty of all the animals of the field predestined it to become Satan’s partner. It manifested visible superiority over the other animals but at the same time also concealed its propensity for evil. When G-d downsized it from its previous lofty and upright posture, He also reduced the power for evil it possessed at the same time. In kabbalistic terms, He reduced it  by three times three levels of emanations. For we know from Psalms 5,5 כי לא קל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע, “for You are not a G-d Who desires wickedness; evil cannot abide with You.” As a result of such considerations, the serpent was expelled from three regions of three encampment each. [The encampment of the Israelites in the desert consisted of three distinct areas of relative sanctity. Similarly, in the higher regions there are other such groupings of three, each representing different levels of holiness. Our author speaks more about this at the end of his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. Ed.] The expulsion of the serpent from such regions may be compared to the expulsion of the person afflicted with the dreaded צרעת, “a skin eczema due to anti-social behaviour,” from the three encampments of the Israelites in the desert. The serpent suffered expulsion from parallel regions in the celestial regions. 
  You are familiar with the concept that the power of speech enables those who possess it to spread slander about its Creator. It is only logical therefore that if the punishment were to fit the crime, such creatures had to be deprived of their ability to repeat their sin. This would be accomplished by banning them from areas of sanctity. Our sages have coined the phrase that anyone who tells untruths or gives patently unsound advice, is considered as having dust in his mouth. We find that the Talmud Baba Batra 16 labeled the mouth of Job as consisting of earth as he too slandered his Creator.
  	כל ימי חייך, ”all the days of your life.” The Torah tells us here that this curse would continue throughout the serpent’s lifetime. It would continue even during the messianic era when the enmity between man and beast would subside and, according to Isaiah 11,8 “an infant would play over a viper’s hole”, the serpent would still not become rehabilitated. The punishment of having to eat dust also continues beyond the messianic era as we read in Isaiah 65,25 זאב וטלה ירעו כאחד ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן ונחש עפר לחמו, “the wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent’s food shall be earth.” This is the reason the Torah stresses here that the serpent will eat dust כל ימי חייך, “for all the days of your life.” This expression alludes to messianic times. It is similar to Deut 16,3 למען תזכור את יום צאתך ממצרים כל ימי חייך, “in order that you may remember the day that you went out of Egypt all the days of your life.” Our sages interpreted that expression as also applicable to the time of the arrival of the Messiah and beyond, by stressing that if the Torah had not included the word כל “all,” the messianic period would not have been included (Berachot 12). 
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואיבה אשית, “and I will put enmity, etc.” Actually, we do not hate the serpent more than any of the other reptiles and creepers. The verse only hints that the body [the very existence, Ed.] of the serpent was already predestined to harbour within it calamity for man, as we indicated in our commentary on the previous verse. This manifested itself when the serpent seduced Chavah and through her death was decreed on the whole species of mankind. This is the deeper reason of the ongoing enmity between human beings and the serpent. We see in the serpent the cause for our eventual death. This is also alluded to by the fact that on another occasion the Torah called the serpent שרף, a name also applicable to the angel of death who is referred to as the angel שרף, in Isaiah 6,6. Another verse where the serpent is referred to as שרף is in Numbers 21,6 את הנחשים השרפים. The reason the snakes were called by that name was that they were direct descendants of the original serpent about which we read here. Therefore the verse continues: הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנה עקב, “he will strike your head, and you will strike at the heel.” In this instance the Torah permits man to attack the animal even if it did not pose an immediate threat to him. The word עקב need not be understood literally, but is an allusion to man’s final day, his death. You are already familiar with what we learned in Baba Batra 16 that serpent-Satan and death are merely different sides of the same coin.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  הרבה ארבה עצבונך, “I will greatly increase your pain, etc.” Actually, the Torah should have written  עצבון הרונך“the pain associated with your pregnancy.” 
  It is possible that the two words represent two different experiences. The meaning of the word עצבונך, may be the normal menstrual pains, something that women experience regardless of their being pregnant. Our sages in Niddah 40 have said that at the time of her menstrual cycle a woman’s head and limbs feel exceptionally heavy. Seeing that this is a recurring phenomenon which occurs month after month may have prompted the Torah to repeat the word הרבה ארבה, as if to say “I will make it occur many times.” On the other hand, the word הרונך, “your pregnancy,” includes the pain associated with pregnancy. The pain associated with the actual birth of children is described by the words בעצב תלדי בנים, “you will experience pain when giving birth to children.”
  	ואל אישך תשוקתך, ”and your craving will be for your husband.” The unusual thing here is that normally, when someone is in a subordinate position such as a slave to a master, the slave tends to use every opportunity to flee from the master. G-d decreed here that the natural orientation of a woman would be the reverse. She would pine for her husband, seek out his presence and nearness. She would be his willing subordinate.
  	והוא ימשול בך, ”and he will rule over you.” This punishment that the husband would be the dominant figure in the husband-wife relationship and that he would issue instructions to her was decreed as the fitting response to the fact that she had ordered him to eat from the fruit of the tree.
  	Chavah (woman) was cursed in five different ways. 1) the pain accompanying menstruation. 2) The discomfort experienced during pregnancy. 3) The pain experienced when giving birth. 4) The feeling of being dependent on and having a craving for her husband. 5) Having to accept instructions from him. Our sages also said in Niddah 19 that there are five different kinds of blood which originate in a woman’s body which are ritually unclean. They correspond to five parts of desire which were involved in the sin of eating from the tree. They are 1) looking at the tree and its fruit with her heart; 2) the desire inspired by the eye; 3) the desire to acquire additional intelligence; 4) the actual eating of the fruit; 5) giving of the fruit to her husband. These five parts of the sin are clearly spelled out in verses six and seven. “The woman saw that the tree was good as food, and that is was desirable for the eyes (to behold); that it was designed to obtain insights. She took from its fruit and she ate; she also gave to her husband to eat with her.”
  	An homiletical approach to the words הרבה ארבה is found in Bereshit Rabbah 20,13 where it is stated כל שישנו בהרבה ישנו בארבה; we may understand this as follows: “whenever an embryo spends an extended period of time within its mother’s womb it will likely become a viable baby.” The numerical value of the letters in the word הרבה add up to 212. If an embryo has been carried by the mother for no less than 212 days it may survive birth unassisted. Actually, 212 days are three days more than seven months. They are accounted for by the three days before true pregnancy commences, i.e. sometimes it takes up to three days for the male sperm to fertilise the female ovum The third day is included in the count of seven months, i.e. 210 days. The word בארבה hints at the differential between these two periods of time. The day when the ovum is fertilised is included in the calculation of the pregnancy.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  אשר צויתיך לאמר, ”which I had commanded you to say, etc.” The addition of the word לאמר is a reminder to Adam that he was supposed to also have cautioned the animals against eating from that tree.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  אל עפר תשוב, “and to dust you shall return.” The deeper meaning of this verse is reflected in the words of Elihu to Job in Job 34,36. The intelligent reader will understand what I mean. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, understands the whole return to dust as a preliminary for man’s total rehabilitation from sin, a popular concept in all kabbalistic literature. Ed.] Bereshit Rabbah 20,26  emphasizes that instead of the Torah writing תבא, “you will come,” it wrote תשוב, “you will return.” This is a reference to the eventual resurrection seeing that the words עד שובך אל האדמה already mentioned the first return to dust, original death. We may also see in this wording an allusion to Avraham who had said of himself that he was עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes,” and to whom Adam bequeathed seventy years of his allocated time  on earth.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויקרא האדם שם אשתו חוה, “Adam called the name of his wife Chavah.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חוה means “talking,” based on Job 15,17 אחוך שמע לי, “I will hold forth, listen to me.” This was another example of Adam displaying his great wisdom when naming creatures. He immediately realized that woman was prone to talk a lot. The fact that most women are very talkative may have been inherited from the first woman. When Adam added the words כי היא היתה אם כל חי, “for she had become the mother of all חי”, this was a reference to all living creatures equipped with the power of speech. He meant to exclude all the living creatures which did not possess intelligence.
  Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 20,11 sees in the word חוה something analogous to חויא, “serpent.” Seeing she was named thus we can understand why the נחש, the male of the species copulated with her. Based on this our sages have taught us that a person’s name has far ranging influence on what happens to the bearer of that name.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור. “The Lord G-d made leather coats for man and his wife.” According to the plain meaning of the text, G-d made superior kinds of garments for them, garments which would cover their entire bodies and which would make them look distinguished. This had become necessary as their inherent dignity had turned to shame (compare Psalms 4,3  עד מה כבודי לכלמה, “how long will my honour be shamed?”) as long as only their genitals were covered by the fig leaves. Perhaps this leather was made from the animal called Tachash  which the Jewish people used as a covering for the Tabernacle in the desert . According to Tanchuma on Parshat Terumah 6, the Tachash had been created only for that purpose at the time. Possibly, here too, the animal out of whose hide these coats of Adam and Chavah were made had been created only for that purpose. According to Shabbat 28, the Holy Ark and other vessels of the Tabernacle were wrapped in the skin of the Tachash when they were being transported. Afterwards, these covers were hidden, never to be found again. Apparently this skin was multi-coloured. This would  help to make anyone dressed in it look very distinguished.Onkelos translates עור תחש as ססגונא “a multi-coloured skin.” The opinion of our sages appears to be that these garments had pictures of all the birds of the world and that Adam bequeathed them to his son Cain. When Cain was killed, they passed over to Nimrod; this is the meaning of Genesis 10,9 והוא היה גבור ציד “he was a very prodigious hunter.” At the death of Nimrod, these garments became the property of Esau. When the Torah speaks of these valuable garments which Esau entrusted to his mother (Genesis 27,15), the word חמודות, “desirable,” means that Esau (also a hunter) had long desired to obtain these garments from Nimrod.
      Now to a homiletical approach. In Bereshit Rabbah 20,29 the copy of the Torah in the possession of Rabbi Meir, had the word “OR” כתנות עור spelled אור, “light.” The meaning of this comment is that G-d dressed Adam and Chavah in clothing consisting of different degrees of “light.” This “light” was a derivative of the אור העליון, “light in the celestial spheres,” similar to the rays of light which Moses’ forehead emitted when he came down from Mount Sinai (Exodus 34,29). In Gan Eden such light still prevailed. The quality of the clothing given to the person so clothed relates in some degree to the quality of He who provides such clothing, in this instance G-d Himself. It was G-d’s intention for this clothing to exist indefinitely and for the wearers to be similar in stature to the angels.	
       וילבישם, “He clothed them.” It would have been more appropriate for the Torah to write כתנות עור ללבוש,  ”coats of leather to serve as clothing.” This is the way Yaakov described it when he asked G-d for בגד ללבש, “clothes to wear” in Genesis 25,20. According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah simply wanted to relate the fact that they were being clothed to G-d Himself to show G-d’s loving concern and His pity for His creatures. Even though they had sinned, this did not mean that G-d no longer related to them with feelings of fondness. He, personally, engaged in the act of dressing them. We find that G-d related similarly to the Jewish people in the desert when He personally provided them with manna. G-d is on record with these words that he Himself made the manna rain down from heaven. We read in Exodus 16,4 “Here I will make manna rain down for you from the heaven.” This was in spite of the fact that the Israelites had committed a sin similar to that of Adam and Chavah He did not cease to relate to hem lovingly. He never stopped providing them with manna during all the forty years in spite of grievous sins committed at one time or another. This is what Ezra referred to when he said (Nechemiah 9,20)  ומנך לא מנעת מפיהם, “and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouths.” From this we learn that legally speaking, G-d would have been entitled to deny them the manna. We find that G-d performed the miracle of splitting the sea to save the Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians even though there were idolaters among them. This is the meaning of Zechariah 10,11 ועבר בים צרה, “he crossed the sea with an idol.” (Sanhedrin 103 understands the word צרה in that verse as a reference to the idol used by the fake Levite Micah hundreds of years later). All of the items mentioned reflect the love of G-d; this is the meaning of Daniel 9,7 לך ה' הצדקה ולנו בשת הפנים, “Yours, O Lord is the righteousness, and ours is the shamefacedness.
  	From a homiletical point of view, the word וילבישם refers to the priestly garments worn by the High Priest. We have the identical expression in Leviticus 8,13  where Moses is reported as dressing the sons of Aaron in the clothing they wore when performing their priestly functions. It is a well known fact that the High Priest wore eight garments when on duty. When you count the number of words in our verse you will find that it contains eight words. You will appreciate the allusion in this. The word וילבישם is the eighth word in that verse.
  	Looking at our verse from a rational-investigative point of view, this paragraph contains definite allusions to the Torah and its commandments for the sake of which man was created. There is also an allusion to body, soul, and the evil urge. We also find in this paragraph allusions to resurrection of the body and to the whole subject of reward and punishment as it applies to both body and soul. There is even an allusion to the eventual removal of the evil urge from the world. Let me now deal with these various allusions in general and you will be able to apply these rules in detail to specific situations.
  	The paragraph begins with  ויקח ה' אלוקים את האדם ויניחהו בגן עדן לעבדה ולשמרה. “G-d took Adam and placed him in Gan Eden in order to work it and to preserve it.” The words גן עדן are an allusion to the Torah. Just as the garden had its origin in Eden, so the Torah has is origin in the regions of celestial wisdom which is called Eden. The principal reason man was created was in order to preoccupy himself with Torah, i.e. to study it and to observe it.
   It follows that the two trees in the centre of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, refer to the positive and the negative commandments which are rooted in the Torah. The word האדם is an allusion to intellect an abstract part of man. G-d did not consider it good for this intellect to be alone as it needed an instrument by means of which its achievements could become manifest and which would be his assistant when performing the commandments of the Torah. This instrument would be matter rather than something abstract like the intellect. Seeing that man had been created as a combination of body and spirit it needed a partner in order to ensure the continuity of the species by means of offspring. This is similar to the body being a partner to the intellect in matters pertaining to intellectual pursuits. The helpmate in question was woman. The very name of woman contains an allusion to גוף, body. Solomon compared matter to woman when he said in Proverbs 2,16  להצילך מאשה זרה, “to save you from the alien woman.” He meant that matter by definition is not part of the intellect, but it is necessary in order to become the receptacle of the intellect’s activity. Woman is such an instrument. Matter reflects the form and accepts the shapes the intellect dictates to it. The serpent i.e. נחש, represents an allusion to the evil urge, as we find the word מ-נחש which expresses an attempt to seduce and to put man to a test. The serpent began the dialogue with the woman, i.e. it addressed itself to חומר, matter. It began with the word אף, anger, seeing that anger and wrath are derivatives of the power of Satan. Now to explain what it was exactly that the serpent was saying: אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, “if G-d has said that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden, this is equivalent to denying you any physical gratification at all. You would not benefit from all the good things to be found in the world. How could G-d have commanded something like this?” This was typical of the tactics of seduction employed by the evil urge, by Satan. The reason that he serpent spoke with woman and not with man is simply that the evil urge always addresses the physical side of man, i.e. the חומר, the material. It never tries to match wits with the power of the שכל, man’s reason.
  	Woman said to the serpent: “we may eat from the fruit of the trees of the garden.”  This was the reply of the material side of man to its potential seducer; in other words: “we have not been denied gratification of the body by means of the senses when this gratification serves the purpose of maintaining our health by eating and drinking.” She continued: “however, G-d warned us concerning some specific gratification which we are to indulge in only in order to assure the continuity of the species. If we were to transgress that commandment both our body and our soul would die.” 
  Thereupon the serpent said to the woman in the classic words of the evil urge which appeals to the physical part of man :לא מות תמותון, “you will surely not die on account of indulging in a physical pleasure as the body cannot exist without such pleasures. G-d knows full well that on the day you eat from this tree your eyes will be opened;” the serpent meant that every time Chavah would indulge in physical pleasures she would grow in intellectual power also and she would experience free choice between good and evil. At this stage, the serpent became even more seductive and said:  ”Try  only a single time to enjoy the fruit of this tree and you will immediately experience its beneficial effects for your eyes will be opened to new vistas. As soon as you will be able to distinguish between good and evil you will turn away from everything which you have recognised as evil and will pursue only what is good.”  What the serpent was hoping for, of course, was that once man would know to separate good from evil, he would also choose evil on occasion. 
  When the Torah continues ותרא האשה  ”the woman saw, etc., ”this does not refer to “seeing with the eyes,” but to “seeing with the heart.” Woman, who was predominantly חומר, matter, naturally “viewed” matters from a physical, material perspective following the inclines of her heart. As a result she concluded that the tree was good as food, i.e. that it was worth while to preoccupy oneself with the pursuit of physical gratifications. The word מאכל, “food,” in the verse includes gratification of the body through the act of mating. When Solomon describes the temptress in Proverbs 30,20 he writes אכלה ומחתה פיה, “she ate and wiped her mouth, saying: I have done no wrong.” This verse is merely a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The meaning of the words וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, “and it is a source of desire for the eyes,” means that heart and eyes always collaborate before a sin is committed. The eyes are “the brokers” of sin. This is why the Torah warned in Numbers 15,39 ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם, “and do not explore after your hearts and after your eyes after which you stray.” ותקח מפריו ותאכל, “she took from its fruit and ate.” This means that woman, i.e. חומר, engrossed herself in physical pleasures until she obtained the new insight and then she gave to her husband. The meaning of the words: “she also gave her husband with her and he ate,” is that just as the serpent had seduced woman it had also seduced man. According to the plain meaning of the text it was Chavah who seduced Adam. After all, we are not allowed to use homiletical material to change the plain meaning of the text, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו (Shabbat 63). Nonetheless, what the Torah describes here is not only what happened between Adam and Chavah but it describes a blueprint of any future seduction instigated by the evil urge. The first stage of such seduction involves an appeal to the physical part of man to enjoy the pleasures offered by the physical universe. Once the physical part of man has been won over, it will then entice the intellectual part of man to rationalise what the seducer has said. 
  	ותפקחנה עיני שניהם, “The eyes of both of them were opened, etc.” The Torah simply describes a customary process, involving the intellectual faculties of man, i.e. that after body and soul have sinned they become aware of the wrong they have done, that because of the wrong they have done they have lost stature. They realize that they have allowed their cravings to dominate them. This is the process described here as “their eyes were opened.” This “opening” does not refer to their gaining of additional insights. On the contrary, they now became aware of a failing. When their eyes were “opened,” they realized that they had actually lost something, that instead of achieving something new they had lost something they had previously possessed. They realized how fortunate they had been when they were not enslaved by various physical desires, whereas now they had to struggle to become free of these cravings which had become as indispensable for them as clothing. This  is the deeper meaning of the word וידעו, they were drawing on the powers of the עץ הדעת, “the tree which communicated this intimacy with good and evil.” A wealthy man usually does not appreciate all the advantages he enjoys but he takes them for granted. It is only when he is deprived of them that he realizes in retrospect how fortunate he had been while he possessed what is now lost to him. This is precisely what happened to Adam and Chavah. Their “eyes were opened,” they now appreciated what great stature they had possessed prior to their sin. כי ערומים הם, “that they were naked.” The very power of desire which now “clothed them,” made them condemn a certain state which previously they had not seen fit to condemn. As a result of their sin both their bodies as well as their intellects felt exposed, bereft of the protective cover provided by knowledge that one has lived meritoriously. At that point they understood that G-d’s warnings had been justified and they felt ashamed for having transgressed it. Their feelings of shame were like those of a thief who has been found out (compare Jeremiah 2,26).Their feeling of shame and embarrassment included the fact that they had not observed the prohibition of the Torah’s commandments, seeing the Torah was comparable to a garden. This is the meaning of “they heard the sound of the Lord G-d moving about in garden in the breeze of the day; and man and his wife hid himself  on account of the Lord G-d.” The word האדם here refers to man’s intellectual powers. The “sound of the voice of the Lord G-d” which the Torah mentions here is a reference to the heavenly tribunal to which all creatures will have to answer after death when they are ordered to appear before the King of Kings. This is the meaning of G-d asking in this verse איכה, “where are you?” G-d referred to the moral level which man had sunk to. In the future, when examining man after his death on earth, He will want to know to what level of Torah study and observance man had risen to during his life on earth. The additional letter ה at the end of the word איכה, is an allusion to the five Books of Moses. We find a similar construction in Psalms 139,8 ואציעה שאול הנך, “and when I descend to Sheol You are there too. The extra letter ה at the end of the word ואציע is a hint that man will be examined for how he related to the five Books of Moses.
  	When the Torah reports Adam (man) responding  את קולך שמעתי  בגן, “I have heard the sound of Your voice in the garden,” this was a response by man’s intellectual faculties and is to be understood as if he said “I have understood Your intention when You called out my name and I have heard the warnings which are written in the Torah.” The word ואירא, “I was afraid,” refers to the fear of the Day of Judgment. When Adam added כי עירום אנכי, “for I am naked,” this was an admission that he felt inadequate, had not fulfilled the Torah’s commandments. He had neither Torah study nor Torah-observance which he could cite in defense of his actions. This is the deeper meaning of why he said אנכי  instead of אני. [The word is a reference to the first word in the Ten Commandments.] When he added ואחבא, “I hid myself,” it means “I was ashamed.” It is natural for a person who is ashamed of something to hide from the one he is ashamed of. מי הגיד לך  , “who has told you?” G-d wanted to know who was the cause that he felt exposed, bereft of merits.   המן העץ אשר ציויתיך, “Did you by chance eat from the tree which I commanded you?"  Did you violate My commandment and did what I prohibited you to do?
  Adam answered: “the woman that You have given me, etc.” Adam’s intellectual faculties responded to the question saying: “indeed I did violate Your commandment. As to he reason? It was the woman You gave me, i.e. the חמר, the material part of me which violated Your commandment.” She was supposed to be my helpmate and instead Your intention was foiled. She (the חומר, the material part), is the cause that I have experienced this terrible pain.” The reason the Torah added the letter ה at the end of the word נתתה, “You have given,” is an allusion to the five senses which comprise the perceptive powers of the physical part of man, the חומר. In other words, Adam (man) blamed the addition of powerful physical material for his failure. He (his wife, also part of “man,”) added further that the serpent had seduced him (her, respectively). This simply meant that Adam and Chavah blamed the seductive powers of Satan for having been seduced. Their argument was that חומר, physical material, without the addition of the seductive powers of Satan would not be something harmful at all. Thereupon G-d first of all cursed the serpent, read “evil urge,” condemning it to henceforth crawl on its belly; this was a tremendous demotion as up until then the serpent (read Satan) had conducted itself like a king, and even Solomon referred to him a מלך גדול in Kohelet 9,14. It is a mark of a king that he walks upright holding his head erect. The serpent now lost this ability. This brought in its wake a greatly reduced ability of the serpent (read evil urge) to seduce man as it could no longer give itself airs fooling man about its true nature.
  	ועפר תאכל כל ימי חייך, “and you shall eat dust as long as you live.” The period of which the Torah speaks is the period of the resurrection when the serpent will no longer be allowed to feed on other creatures as it does nowadays. It was sort of a challenge. We had explained that “to eat means to destroy.” G-d told the serpent, the seducer, Satan, that in the days of the resurrection it would have to restrict its activities to he dust, if indeed it were able to seduce dust to sin. It would no longer be allowed to seduce living creatures. ואיבה אשית, “and I will put enmity, etc.” When you hate someone you keep your distance from that person. The purpose of G-d making enmity between man and Satan (serpent) a natural state of affairs was to ensure that they would keep apart as much as possible. This state of affairs would not be achieved until the days of the resurrection The message is that at that time even the חומר, the material side of man, would be totally pure, not accompanied by any input from Satan. This idyllic state of affairs has been forecast in Kings I 5,18  when Solomon sent a message to Chirom in which he said  (amongst other things) ועתה הניח ה' אלוקי לי מסביב, אין שטן ואין פגע רע, “But now the Lord my G-d has given me respite all around; there is no adversary and no one to cause harm.” Our verse is an allusion to the distant future forecasting the destruction of the power of the seducer, the evil urge. Another scriptural reference to that distant future is found in Isaiah 25,8 בלע המות לנצח, “He will destroy death forever.” Next G-d punished the חומר, the representative of everything material, in this instance Chavah He said הרבה ארבה עצבונך וגו' “I will greatly increase your pain, etc.” This means that “because you were not careful to resist the seduction of the evil urge I will punish you. Just as you had had indulged in bodily pleasures and increased your enjoyment of vain values, now you will experience pain even when engaged in fruitful activities such as having children.” This is the reason the words הרבה ארבה appear twice. Again we see the punishment fitting the sin, i.e. you indulged in too much pleasure only in order to suffer too much discomfort.  ולאדם אמר כי שמעת לקול אשתך, “and to Adam He had said: “because you listened to the voice of your wife, etc.” G-d meant: “you are being punished because you preferred to heed the call of the physical part of man over My commandment.” ארורה האדמה בעבורך, “the earth has now been cursed for your sake.” This was an additional form of cursing the חומר, physical matter, which reflects the productivity of man’s intelligence. This חומר is now being called אדמה, “earth,” G-d added: בעצבון תאכל לחם, “through pain or suffering will you eat bread.” Adam’s punishment was that his intellectual prowess could no longer make the חומר, the physical matter, do its bidding without his encountering opposition. even in the days of resurrection. This was indeed a very harsh curse, and we have already been told in Daniel 12,2 that even during the days of the resurrection not all people will enjoy the same privileges. Some will be resurrected in order to lead a life of infinite duration, whereas others will be resurrected in order to face everlasting shame and abhorrence. This is the meaning of the words: ורבים מישיני אדמת עפר יקיצו, אלה לחיי עולם ואלה לחרפות ודראון עולם. When G-d added כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב, this was an explanation to Adam that seeing he had allowed the physical part of himself to dominate him it was natural that in the end his intellectual part would share the fate of his חומר and he would die and disintegrate. As far as the concluding words of the entire episode i.e. כתנות עור וילבישם are concerned, they are needed seeing that the Torah had spoken about the future generations during the resurrection who would enjoy infinite life. [Seeing that this generation, i.e. Adam and Chavah, had now forfeited their right to infinite life on earth, these words were reassurance for that future time. Adam and Chavah had repented, hence G-d related to them  accordingly. Ed.] 
  	It pays to look closely at the verses in which G-d’s punishment for Adam and Chavah are described. Whereas G-d’s name is mentioned in connection with the curse of the serpent, the Torah refrains from mentioning G-d’s name in verses 15-19 when the punishment meted out to Adam and Chavah is described. G-d is referred to repeatedly only in the third person as “He.” This teaches that G-d makes every effort to prove that evil never originates with Him. Hence He is careful to dissociate His name from it. By contrast, when it came to describing infinite life in the future as symbolised by the last verse in the paragraph, the Torah makes a point of attributing theseכתנות עור  to ה' אלוקים, to G-d personally, directly. This whole verse, although phrased in the past tense, actually is a reference to the future as we find in connection with many prophecies. [According to Nachmanides, the reason for this is to lend emphasis to the prophecy, to assure the reader it is so certain to come true that it may be described as if it had happened already.]  I believe that the appropriate translation of the word ויעש in the verse ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם, is: “He made something entirely new; He created a new concept.” The words אדם and אשתו are not to be understood literally but refer to the שכל and to the נפש respectively. It is quite possible to think of man and woman in terms of שכל, and נפש respectively, the former the innovative enterprising active force symbolising the male, whereas נפש is a more passive responsive spiritual force and therefore symbolises woman. The נפש accompanies the שכל just like a woman accompanies the male. My revered teacher Rabbi  Shlomoh Aderet may his light continue to shine, has similarly explained  the matter of Leviathan and its mate, i.e. that these terms are similes for the concepts of שכל and נפש. The verse introduces a vision of a future life on earth after the resurrection. G-d goes on record that when that time arrives He will make a new creation for שכל and נפש. This will be known as כתנות עור, i.e. as “bodies,” The word וילבישם “He dressed them,” means that at that time G-d will provide a body for שכל ונפש who are the first part, the intangible part, in man’s resurrection. We find a parallel concept in Job 10,11 עור ובשר תלבישני, “You will clothe me with skin and flesh.” In our verse too, G-d envisages a future when שכל ונפש will be clothed with a body, as a result of which he will become a new kind of human being. Isaiah 15,22 speaks about a “new earth” in those days. I have found support for my view in Tanchuma on Parshat Lech Lecha where G-d’s promise in Genesis 12,2 ואעשך אותך לגוי גדול, “I will make you into a great nation,” is interpreted as G-d saying to Avraham: “I am going to create for you a new creature.” The word ויעש as describing a new creation has been used already at the very beginning of Genesis (1,7) when the Torah describes the creation of the heavens in these words: ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, “G-d created the heaven.” A further meaning of the words כתנות עור, “leather coats”, is the exchangeability of the letters ע and א. When we mentioned earlier that the text of Rabbi Meir’s Torah scroll had the word עור spelled with the letter א, the allusion contained in that statement was that אור , “light,” may be a fitting substitute for עור, “skin” as a garment. In the future G-d would clothe שכל ונפש, intelligence and the emotional part of man soul, in a variety of rays of light all derived from the celestial regions. In connection with Moses’ skin radiating light from the celestial regions, our sages interpret the word אהל in Exodus 33,7 ומשה יקח את האהל, “and Moses would take the Tent , etc.” as being analogous to Job 29,3  בהלו נרו עלי ראשי, “when His lamp shone over my head.” This corresponds to my first explanation of the words האדם ואשתו, that the entire paragraph is full of allusions to  נפש and גוף, “body and soul,” respectively. This is why the Torah did not write simply ויעש...כתנות עור ללבוש, “He made...leather coats to wear,” but it wrote ויעש...כתנות עור וילבישם. Only G-d Himself is able to bring about this combination of body-soul-intellect as proven by the words “He clothed them.” 
  
  Verse 22
  
   הן אדם היה כאחד ממנו, “now that man has become like one of us; etc.” according to the plain meaning of the text the word  ממנו, “of Us,” is a reference to the angels. However, if that were the only true explanation the Torah should have written “like one of you.” However, due to G-d’s humility, He wrote “like one of Us.” The real intention of the verse is to say that originally, היה, “he had been,” like one of Us due to his superior intellect and due to this intellect not being hindered by the evil urge. Now, that he had sinned and become possessed of the desires of the flesh, however, he was no longer like “one of Us.” 
  	ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now lest he put forth his hand, etc.” G-d meant that now that He had decreed for man to be mortal there was concern that he would try and neutralize this by eating from the tree of life and assure himself of living forever.
  	From a homiletical approach the words הן האדם היה mean “he was like a twenty year old;” [we have a tradition that although man becomes accountable to a human tribunal already at thirteen years of age, he does not become accountable (is not considered mature) to a celestial court until he has attained the age of twenty]. This is the reason that of the generation of Israelites in the desert who had sinned by accepting the majority report of the spies only people over the age of twenty were condemned to die in the desert (Numbers 14,29). Adam’s case was different. Although he had been less than a day old when he ate from the tree of knowledge G-d had punished him as if he were already twenty years old. The Torah therefore tells us here that he had been created with the maturity of a twenty-year old so that he qualified for punishment immediately. Incidentally, the very word היה has a numerical value of 20 so that we have an allusion in the text that Adam was considered at creation as if he were fully mature, the equivalent of a human born by woman after 20 years.
  	According to the views of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon in Bereshit Rabbah 21,5 the words כאחד ממנו, “like one of Us” mean “like the Unique One in the world.” The word אחד in Deut 6,4 שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד, means “the One, the Unique One.” The other Rabbis quoted in that Midrash believed that the word אחד in our verse refers to the archangel Gavriel seeing we have a verse in Ezekiel 9,2 where that angel is referred to as אחד. The full text there is ואיש אחד בתוכם לבוש בדים וקסת הספר במתניו, “and one man amongst them clothed in linen with a slate of the scribe at his hips, etc.” According to Shabbat 55 the man referred to in that verse is the archangel Gavriel. This is based on the emphasis of the verse in Ezekiel on that angel’s “clothing.” Bereshit Rabbah  21,8 understands this as something which is integral to that angel, not something peripheral such as when we describe a human being’s clothing. It is similar to a certain insect called קמצא, snail, whose clothing is an integral part of it. Similarly, Adam’s original clothing (the divine rays of light) were an integral part of him. It is well known that the meaning of the word אחד when spelled with the vowel segol is different from the same word when spelled with the vowel patach. The former is intransitive whereas the latter is transitive, i.e. it is always a genitive, a possessive form. An example of the latter is found in Daniel 10,13 אחד השרים הראשונים, “one of the foremost princes.” Daniel describes the angel Michael as one belonging to the hierarchy of the other angels. We have a similar verse in Genesis 32,23 where the Torah speaks about Yaakov taking his  eleven children across the river Yabok. The wording is אחד עשר ילדיו. There are many other examples of the word when spelled with the vowel patach meaning that the “one-ness” of the word אחד is really only relative. In the verse in Ezekiel where the word אחד appears with the vowel segol, however, Rabbi Yehudah views this as justification to compare the angel Gavriel in some respects to the “Unique One of the world,” i.e. G-d. Rabbi Yehudah was of course aware that the Torah scrolls from which we read do not distinguish in the spelling of the word Echad and the word Achad, seeing that there are no vowels shown in the text. It is therefore possible to read our verse as “here man has become like echad of Us,” i.e. “like the Unique One amongst us,” instead of as achad of Us.” The other sages who understand the word “of us,” as referring to the angel Gavriel simply base themselves on the fact that the traditional reading of the verse has the word אחד read as achad, and not as echad. There could not therefore be an allusion here to G-d the Unique One. This still requires that these sages deal with the vocalisation of the verse in Ezekiel where even the angel Gavriel seems to be accorded a status of being “unique,” seeing the word אחד there is vocalised with the vowel segol. We must conclude that they saw in this wording only something metaphorical. They understood the word as symbolising the clothing of the snail we mentioned previously. Just as that clothing is integral to the creature, so, even though the angel Gavriel represents the punishing agency of G-d both when he went to destroy Sodom, as well as in the story in Ezekiel, he has attached to him least a smattering of the attribute of Mercy. This attribute is alluded to by mention of the white linen he is garbed in. The important lesson in all this is that the attribute of Justice even when predominant is always tempered by the attribute of Mercy.
  	A kabbalistic approach to our verse: The word  היה in הן היה האדם is similar to the wordsהיה  ומשה in Exodus 3,1, or to איש היה at the beginning of the Book of Job. In both those instances the word היה (as distinct from ויהי) indicates that what is being reported here is not something original, something the like of which had never existed before. This is the reason that the birth of Chavah’s children is reported as the result of והאדם ידע את חוה, “Man had been intimate with Chavah.” This intimacy had occurred previous to the children being born, or better, he had already known how the mechanism of procreation works and had acted accordingly. When Rabbi Yehudah had interpreted the כאחד ממנו as if the word אחד had been vocalised with the vowel segol, he may have seen in the verse an allusion to the קו האמצעי the emanation which combines the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy. This is something unique to G-d, the יחידו של העולם. This may also be the hidden meaning of Song of Songs 3,10 עמודיו עשה כסף, רפידתו זהב מרכבו ארגמן.“ Solomon meant to describe a variety of light (colours). This is also an allusion to the various components which make up a human being, i.e. the יצר הטוב and the יצר הרע, the spiritually positive urge and the spiritually negative urge. Our sages described this by another metaphor when they said in Shabbat 119 that when man returns from the synagogue on Friday night he is accompanied by a “good” angel and by a “bad” angel. The former is on his right side, the latter on his left. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  את הכרובים ואת להט החרב המתהפכת ’”the cherubs and the flashing blade of the sword.” After G-d had expelled man from Gan Eden He placed the “cherubs,” i.e. angels (according to Rashi based on Shemot Rabbah 9,10) in the direction of the tree of life. In this verse the fear of the Lord is expressed by the metaphor להט החרב המתהפכת. The purpose of this was to create a barrier between the tree of life and man. It is noteworthy that the Torah wrote ואת להט החרב instead of simply ואת החרב המתהפכת. It is a well known fact that להט is something intangible, but it is an attribute of חרב, “sword” something very tangible indeed. The combination of the two is something which inspires great fear. Everyone who looks at that spectacle is reminded forcefully of death when he beholds this spectacle. G-d’s intention was to create an atmosphere which would discourage  the pursuit of the tree of life and the attainment by man of an infinite life span on earth. G-d did not want His decree that man would be rehabilitated only through the death of his body to become null and void. Another way of understanding the word הכרובים is that it symbolizes the seven angels who preside over the various compartments of Gehinom, hades. The word כרובים is in the plural and the minimal plural is two. The extra letter ה in front equals 5 so that 2+5=7. Based on such an approach, the entire verse may be explained as follows: “The angels who have been placed in charge of Gehinom, the fiery regions where the wicked keep turning themselves over like meat on a spit, i.e. המתהפכת.” Our sages have explained this in similar terms  i.e. that the word להט is another word for Gehinom, the place where justice is meted out to man after death. The word appears in that sense in Maleachi 3,19. We have a tradition that both the angels and Gehinom were created on the second day. On the other hand, the Gan Eden on earth was created on the third day. Although man has been created later, he possesses the potential to defeat  the forces that were created on the second day through his observance of the Torah’s commandments. When that is the case, there is no barrier between man and the tree of life. On the contrary, then he may approach the tree of life and live forever (compare verse 22)
  	We also learn from this verse, especially the words, את הכרובים, that these angels are the ones we refer to in our prayers as חיות הקדש. These names of the angels are mentioned in Ezekiel 10,20 היא החיה אשר ראיתי....ואדע כי כרובים המה. “This is the Chayah which I have seen,...and I realized that they are the cherubs.” It is a fact familiar to kabbalists that every Chayah has 16 facets,  four in each direction of globe, as it is written in Ezekiel 1,6 וארבעה פנים לאחת, “one of them had four faces (facets). Seeing the word פנים consists of the singular פן, the rest is merely a plural ending. Hence four times פן in four directions each time totals 16. These cherubs are something intangible which flashes from the sword which seems in constant motion, turning over and over. This is what is meant by the words ואת להט החרב המתהפכת i.e. G-d’s angel Chayah, the one with 16 facets. This angel symbolizes His attribute of Justice. You must understand how it is possible that this angel is called להט, suggesting it is a great power, whereas according to our verse here this להט appears as something subordinate, an adjective, something “carried” by the sword. This is always the case with the angels called חיות הקדש. Although they appear to be carriers of the glory of G-d, the fact is that the glory of G-d carries them. You have also learned already that the four letters of the Ineffable name of G-d which represent the pinnacle of all intelligence are alluded to here, i.e. the highest of the ten emanations is represented by the letter י at the beginning of G-d’s name and the remaining letters ה-ו-ה correspond in their numerical value (16) to the 16 facets of the חיות הקדש that we have discussed. The Torah which is called עץ החיים, “the tree of life,” has been given to us by means of 16 covenants, 13 of them are mentioned in connection with the ritual of circumcision, whereas the word ברית, covenant, appears three more times in connection with the Torah’s report of the revelation at Mount Sinai where we received the Torah.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו, “and man had been intimate with his wife Chavah, etc.” After Adam had realized that he had been expelled from Gan Eden, that death had been decreed for him, and that he would not live indefinitely, it became necessary for him to have sexual relations with his wife in order to assure himself of children for posterity. You should remember that the Torah usually calls the act of marital union ידיעה, “(carnal) knowledge.” The reason for this is that the seminal fluid of man originates in the brain, the seat of his wisdom and knowledge. In addition to this, the desire to engage in sexual intercourse was the result of man having eaten from the tree of “knowledge.” Hence the use of the word ידיעה, “knowledge,” to describe such relations is most appropriate.
  
  Verse 2
  
  וקין היה “and Kayin had become, etc.” We would really have expected the Torah to write ויהי קין עובד אדמה, similar to the Torah’s describing Hevel’s vocation as ויהי הבל רעה צאן, “Hevel became a shepherd of sheep.” The reason the Torah changed its style in describing the respective vocations of the two brothers was that there was a cardinal difference between the vocation of the one and the vocation of the other. Hevel was a righteous person whereas his brother Kayin was a wicked person. The whole episode teaches that good and evil have the same root. The root by itself is totally good; after all when Adam was created he was totally good. Nonetheless we observe that from such a good “root,” two sons with totally different personalities emerged.  Seeing that both wicked people and good people developed out of the same root is proof that there was only One Creator, that evil and good are not separate domains, that there are no two competing deities in this world, one promoting the source of all that is good and promoting it, and one which is the root of all that is bad and promoting same. In fact, if you look at Isaiah 45,7 עושה שלום ובורא רע, אני ה' עושה כל אלה, “Maker of peace, Creator of evil, I the Lord am doing all this,” G’d realised that unless He, personally, took responsibility for being the originator of anything good and evil, people would believe that there must be two totally separate domains, two totally diverse prime causes. An additional reason why the Torah had to write  וקין היה עבד אדמה is because the potential of a personality such as Kayin had preceded his birth; he had not invented it. [Rabbi Chavell quotes an interesting numerical value of the combined words עבד היה is the same (96) as that of the planet מאדים, Mars, which stands for bloodshed, for war. This would be an additional reason for the Torah having written קין היה, instead of ויהי קין וגו'..]
  
  Verse 3
  
  מפרי האדמה, “from the fruit of the earth.” He should have brought of the first ripe fruit of the trees (of one or all of the seven species for which the land of Israel is famous instead of fruit grown in the earth). The Torah reveals Kayin’s avarice, his stinginess. This is why the Torah refrains from mentioning that the fruit he brought were from the first ripe fruit of the earth. The manner in which the Torah describes his offering is meant to convey that he selected the poorest type of produce, flax, rather than the best. Our sages in Tanchuma claim that he brought flax-seed. They derive this from the text seeing that the Torah mentions Kayin’s offering only briefly while devoting more space to describing the offering of Hevel. The Torah also stresses that Hevel brought from the firstlings of his sheep and their most perfect ones. Hevel brought firstlings from a category of product which was fit to serve as an offering for G-d. Kayin, on the other hand, offered produce which is not even fit to serve as an offering. Moreover, even the fruit which he did bring were the poorest quality of that category he could find. Bereshit Rabbah 22,8 compares Kayin to a bad land tenant who consumes the best produce of the owner’s land himself, giving the owner only the inferior part.
     מנחה לה'., “as a gift for G-d.” This offering was presented on the fiftieth day after the world had been created. Both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer who had disagreed as to the date on which the world was created, agree on this. They agree that Hevel lived for no more than fifty days. 
  Seeing these two scholars agree on the number fifty on which the first “gift-offering” was presented to G-d, we can understand why the Torah legislated that the Jewish people offer a similar public gift offering on the fiftieth day after the Passover and why it is called מנחה חדשה “a new gift-offering.” We are to commemorate the date on which Kayin and Hevel offered a gift to G-d. This offering which we offer on Shavuot is like an acknowledgment of the truth of the Torah’s report of what happened to early man. G-d’s prediction and promise to Kayin that he (or any human being) could regain good standing in the eyes of G-d if they complied with G-d’s rules for proper conduct was borne out by the history of the Jewish people.
  The entire episode teaches that G-d directs and supervises the world and that there is a system of reward and punishment. The Jewish people received the Torah on the fiftieth day after the Exodus at which time they became G-d’s most favoured nation. Kayin, who murdered  on the fiftieth day was cursed whereas Hevel received his reward for good conduct in that his soul was reincarnated in Moses’ body and he was even instrumental in bringing the Torah to the Jewish people. In due course, the power of the evil urge will be broken on the fiftieth day (in terms of G-d’s calendar, after 7 times 7.000 years in terms of our years.) [The author elaborates on this in his commentary on Parshat Behaalotcha and in his commentary on Parshat Behar.]  Everything G-d does is based on the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that “the punishment (or the reward) is appropriate to the nature of the sin.” Everything G-d does is based on justice as we also know from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” This is also the reason that the Torah prohibits the presence of leavened dough as part of the gift-offering as leavening is an allusion to the evil urge. Leviticus 6,10 states specifically that gift-offerings must not be baked in such a manner that their dough has time to rise. The only time the Torah specifically commands such a gift-offering to consist of dough which has been leavened, has been allowed to rise is in Leviticus 23,17 where this offering of the שני הלחם “the two breads” of the Shavuot festival is legislated. The reason is that this offering looks forward to the יובל הגדול, “the great Jubilee year,” when the evil urge will no longer be part of this universe.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . וישע ה', “G-d turned, etc.” He turned His personal attention to Hevel and his sacrifice with the result that heavenly fire descended and consumed it. This reminds us of Psalms 20, 4 יזכור ה' כל מנחותיך ועולתך ידשנה סלה, “May the Lord receive the tokens of all your meal-offerings, and approve of your burnt-offerings, Selah.” He did no such thing for Kayin’s offering.
  
  Verse 5
  
  . ויחר לקין מאד ויפלו פניו, “This annoyed Kayin very much and his face fell.” Kayin and Hevel were both familiar with the mysticism underlying the ritual of offerings to G’d. They both offered their respective sacrifices in honour of the Lord G’d and Him only. Up until this point in the Book of Genesis we have only encountered two names for G’d; either He was called אלוקים, or ה' אלוקים. Now, in connection with the offering, we encounter the Ineffable four-lettered Name by itself for the first time. The Torah refers to the destination of the offering as מנחה לה'. When each the brothers had offered his respective sacrifice, it turned out that Hevel’s offering  had been accepted by G’d whereas Kayin’s offering had not. At that point, Kayin began to develop doubts about the whole system of reward and punishment. This is why G’d saw fit to explain the system to him, i.e. that the entire universe is run and judged by this system of reward and punishment. This is why G’d saw fit to explain the system to Kayin by addressing him personally as we see in the next verse.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  .הלא אם תיטיב (מעשיך) שאת, “surely if you improve (your deeds) you will be forgiven.” The word שאת is similar in meaning to Numbers 6,26 ישא ה' פניך, “may the Lord lift His countenance toward you.” G’d chose this expression as it is the reverse of ויפלו פניו, “his face fell.”  
     ואם לא תיטיב, “but if you fail to improve (your deeds) you will find the sin at the very entrance of your grave.” G’d told Kayin that though in this life punishment may not be immediate, as you as you die you will be punished for the sins you committed and have not been punished for while on earth. This punishment will take place in the world of the souls. An alternative meaning of the words לפתח חטאת רובץ, may be that it is an allusion to the physical pain inflicted upon sinners even while they are in their grave. The words ואליך תשוקתו mean that you will have a natural disposition for listening to the evil urge; however, ואתה תמשל בו, “you are able to rule over it, control it.” If you want to listen to the voice of the יצר הטוב, “the urge to be good and to do good,” G’d promises that you will be able to counter the influence of the evil urge. This is what Solomon said in Kohelet 9,15: ומלט הוא את העיר בחכמתו, “and he saved the city through his wisdom.” He also said two verses previously that עיר קטנה ואנשים בה מעט ובא אליה מלך גדול וסבב אותה ובנה עליה מצודים גדולים ומצא בה איש מסכן חכם ומלט את העיר בחכמתו. “There was a small town with only a few inhabitants, and a mighty king came and surrounded it, and built great fortifications against it. Within that town there was a poor wise man who by his wisdom saved the town.” Solomon describes man‘s body as “a small town,” seeing man is perceived as a microcosm. The “few inhabitants” are a metaphor for the various cravings of man, both of his body and his animalistic life-force, נפש. The reason Solomon refers to these cravings as מעט,” is because though man has many cravings only a few of them will be satisfied. The “mighty king” is a reference to the evil urge who has at his command many assistants, i.e. the many and variegated cravings of man. These cravings are for the evil urge what an army with many troops is for a king. The words: “he surrounded it,” are a metaphor describing how the evil urge surrounds the entire body invading even our thought processes. The great fortifications are the wicked deeds already performed by man. The “poor wise man” is a simile for the יצר הטוב, the urge to be good, the שכל, intelligence; seeing that this urge has relatively few “assistants.” he is described as מסכן. He is generally very unpopular as we know from Proverbs 19,7 כל אחי רש שנאהו, “all the brothers of a poor man hate him.” This is why Solomon continues in Kohelet 9,16 ואדם לא זכר את האיש המסכן ההוא; “and no one remembers that poor man.” Solomon is also on record as saying there וחכמת המסכן בזויה ודבריו אינם נשמעים, ”the wisdom of the poor man is despised and no one listens to what he has to say.” When Solomon said that nonetheless this poor man saved the town by means of his wisdom, this is because a little truth sometimes goes a long way and is able to outweigh the efforts of the many wicked all of whose efforts are devoted to perverting the truth and to make the lies appear as if they were the truth. The matter is similar to a little light driving out darkness from a vast area which had previously been totally dark.
      I believe that Kayin’s sin was threefold. 1) He did not believe G’d when He told him in a prophetic vision that the system of reward and punishment was indeed applied truthfully throughout the universe. This is why the Torah continues —
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, "Kayin said to Hevel his brother" The Torah did not spell out what Kayin told his brother. According to the Targum Yerushalmi  on this verse he told him that he did not believe in the system of reward and punishment and that there was no judgment in the hereafter. The second sin Kayin committed was that he slew his brother as reported in the Torah ויקם קין אל הבל אחיו ויהרגהו, “Kayin arose against his brother Hevel and killed him (4,8)”. Kayin’s third sin was when he responded to G-d’s question —
  
  Verse 9
  
  — אי הבל אחיך “where is your brother Hevel?” by saying: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” He spoke as if it were possible to fool G-d. Because of these three sins Kayin was cursed with three curses.
  
  Verse 10
  
  קול דמי אחיך, “the sound of your brother’s blood, etc.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 37) understand the reason the word דמי, “blood of” is in the plural as reminding us that not only Hevel’s blood was spilled when he was murdered but also that of the offspring which he never had on account of being murdered so early in his life. This Midrash is actually to be viewed as an allusion to the time of the resurrection. After all, seeing that his offspring at the time of his death had only been something potential, how could the Torah speak of actual blood of his unborn children and grandchildren? The answer therefore must be that it refers to human beings that should have been brought back to life at the time of resurrection. Kabbalists, on the other hand, see in the plural of the word דמי here an allusion to the reincarnation of souls in other bodies. In the case of Hevel, he was “reborn” in the body of Sheth as the Torah adds the words תחת הבל  “in place of Hevel,” when Sheth’s birth is reported for the first time in 4,25. Kayin’s punishment was another example of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as all his descendants perished at the time of the deluge. He who had tried to deny his brother Hevel a place on earth forfeited his own place on earth. [according to the view that Naamah the wife of Noach was descended from Kayin, this latter statement is hard to reconcile with that view. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
  ארור אתה אשר פצתה את פיה, ”you are cursed more than the ground which opened its mouth, etc.” The meaning may be “you are cursed (separated) from the ground (which was your source of sustenance) which has opened its mouth, etc. From now on the earth would not yield its produce to you voluntarily. The second curse was that even if Kayin would labour mightily to make the earth yield its produce the way it had done previously. This is why the Torah said in verse 12 — 
  
  Verse 12
  
  — 'כי תעבד את האדמה וגו  “when you will work the ground it shall no longer yield its strength to you.” The third curse was נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “you shall become a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” He would suffer exile, be banished from place to place. His punishment was not dissimilar to that of a murderer who had not even killed intentionally but has to move to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest.
      Looking at our verses from a rational-investigative point of view, we note that even in the names of  קין והבל we already find allusions to the subject of existence and destruction (loss), respectively. They were brothers, closely related. The name קין hints at worldly possessions, whereas the name הבל suggests somebody who is extremely humble, almost despising worldly goods. This may have been why he offered sheep, the most humble and undemanding of animals, something that reflected his own philosophy. This is also why G’d took a liking to him. The Torah expresses this with the words וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, ”G’d turned to Hevel and to his gift-offering.” The gift-offering of קין on the other hand was מפרי האדמה, “from the fruit (products) of the earth.” This reflected his own preferences, i.e. earthly possessions. He was totally absorbed in working with his body, concentrating on matters of only transient value, matters destined to disintegrate. He was addicted to earthly pleasures and this is the reason G’d did not turn to his offering. The Torah expresses this by writing ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, “and to Kayin and to his gift-offering He did not turn.” The self-effacing Hevel was murdered because he did not concern himself worldly concerns, not considering life on this earth as a supreme value. The one who loved worldly possessions wound up being cursed when G’d said to him: “be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” He was told not to consider worldly possessions as something permanent. Kayin was to learn this lesson by his not being at home anywhere on earth. His lifestyle reflected what we read in Kohelet 5,9  אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “the one who loves silver will never feel satisfied even when he possesses it.” Solomon already alluded to this syndrome of the wanderer in Kohelet 2,23 where he wrote (concerning man’s role on earth) כי כל ימיו מכאובים, “for all his days are painful.” There are numerous other references in Kohelet to this unsatisfactory state of affairs for people who consider the be-all of their existence as being merely תחת השמש, in the regions under control by the sun. All of such statements [which I did not choose to quote in detail. Ed.] are addressed to people of the mentality of Kayin. Every time Solomon speaks about vanities and return to dust, this is the type of human being he has in mind. In Kohelet 2,11 Solomon spells out in detail how futile all the energy he spent on the acquisition of worldly goods had proven to be. Finally, when he concludes his preaching he teaches us that the only true values to be acquired in this life is reverence for G’d and His Torah. It was only Adam’s third son שת who represented what the Torah considers a balanced view of life on earth. This is why basically speaking, the species of mankind was really carried on by that son. It is worthwhile noting that only when Sheth was born does the Torah describe him as reflecting his parents in that he was conceived and born בדמותו וצלמו, “in his likeness and his image (Adam’s). It was quite appropriate that these philosophical considerations should have been alluded to already in the respective names of Kayin and Hevel. 
  [The following comment refers to v.10] קול דמי אחיך, “the sound of your brother’s blood, etc.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 37) understand the reason the word דמי, “blood of” is in the plural as reminding us that not only Hevel’s blood was spilled when he was murdered but also that of the offspring which he never had on account of being murdered so early in his life. This Midrash is actually to be viewed as an allusion to the time of the resurrection. After all, seeing that his offspring at the time of his death had only been something potential, how could the Torah speak of actual blood of his unborn children and grandchildren? The answer therefore must be that it refers to human beings that should have been brought back to life at the time of resurrection. Kabbalists, on the other hand, see in the plural of the word דמי here an allusion to the reincarnation of souls in other bodies. In the case of Hevel, he was “reborn” in the body of Sheth as the Torah adds the words תחת הבל “in place of Hevel,” when Sheth’s birth is reported for the first time in 4,25. Kayin’s punishment was another example of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as all his descendants perished at the time of the deluge. He who had tried to deny his brother Hevel a place on earth forfeited his own place on earth. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ומפניך אסתר, “and I have to hide from Your countenance.” It is possible to understand the meaning of the word ומפניך, as “from Your presence” i.e. from the place where Your presence is manifest, from Mount Moriah This would prove that Adam lived near Mount Moriah and that his children lived there also. In that event, we would have to understand the words of our verse as follows:  הן גרשת אותי היום מעל פני האדמה הקדושה כדי שאסתר מפני“ here You have expelled me this day from the holy site on earth in order that I have to hide from Your presence.” Anyone who has been expelled from the presence of G’d is considered as נסתר, “in hiding,” as he is under the domain of other forces (horoscopes, etc.). David mentioned this in Samuel 26,19  כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה' לאמר לך עבוד אלוהים אחרים,  “for they have driven me out today, so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession but am told: ‘go and worship other gods.’”
      Another way of explaining the above words by Kayin is this: “seeing You have decreed upon me that You hide Your face from me when You told me “be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth,” this mean that exile of either an individual or a nation is an indication that G‘d has turned His countenance away from such an individual or such a nation. It means that such an individual or nation is no longer under the supervision of the Creator. Kayin’s anguished outcry was: “if this is so, what hope is there left for me? I am now at the mercy of every single creature!”
     והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני, “and anyone who will find me will feel free to kill me.” Kayin was terrified of G’d’s curse and he was aware that those who praise the Lord would inherit the earth whereas those that curse Him would be cut off. This is why he was afraid for his own life both regarding any obstacles that he might encounter or regarding a plague that might strike him. He was also afraid that even animals would kill him. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויהי בונה עיר, “he became a city-builder.” He did not build the city for himself but for his son, seeing that he himself did not have a fixed abode on earth. Seeing that he was cursed and whatever he undertook did not succeed, the Torah uses the expression ויהי בונה עיר in the present tense instead of saying “he built a city,” to show that he kept on building the same city, never completing it successfully. Kayin’s descendants and their occupations are recorded to show that G’d is very patient and allowed Kayin to live a long time during which he became a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather many times over. This is Nachmanides’ view of this paragraph
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  וצלה גם היא ילדה, “and even Tzilah too gave birth.” The strange formula about Tzilah giving birth is to indicate that she was actually not meant to bear children as her husband preferred to bask in her “shadow” (as her name indicates) all the time. Nonetheless she contrived to bear a child against her husband’s wishes. This was because G’d wanted her to have offspring and that is why Lemech did not have success with the contraceptive devices he employed. Tzilah became the mother of Tubal Kayin, the first human being who knew how to sharpen metal instruments made of copper or iron. 
  לוטש כל חורש נחשת וברזל "who knew how to sharpen metal instruments made of copper or iron." He was a true craftsman. At this point in time the word נחושת means steel (acero in Spanish) which combines very well with iron. Proper copper is called alambre in Spanish and does not make a good alloy when combined with iron. In Jeremiah 6,28 the prophet speaks about the incompatibility of iron and copper when he writes  כלם סרי סוררים הולכי רכיל נחשת וברזל כלם משחיתים המה  “They are copper and iron; they are all stubbornly defiant, they deal basely all of them act corruptly.” The prophet was chastising the people for committing slander and character-assassination. He compared their conduct to the relationship of copper to iron. Even when you combine them such a combination will not stand the test of time. The end of the verse in Jeremiah emphasizes that true cooperation between people who practice slander is no more possible than alloying copper and iron. In the end, both metals will become useless. Another anomaly that you will find after you have combined iron and copper is that you can never separate these two metals again. This is the reverse of what we find with alloys containing silver and gold, for instance. The verse in Jeremiah therefore uses the example of these two metals to demonstrate the totally negative fallout of anything involving slanderous statements. The very name of the word נחשת which is derived from נחש, a word suggesting experimentation, putting something to a test, is already an allusion to its meaning. Lavan told Yaakov in Genesis 30,27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have learned by means of experimentation [in an idolatrous fashion. Ed.] that G’d has blessed me on your account.” No craftsman in the world can tell if a certain alloy contains steel or iron unless he has made an attempt to separate the component parts of the alloy. If the metal breaks, he knows it must contain steel. If it hardens and does not break this is proof that it is iron. [I have translated the text using a Spanish dictionary to describe the word אציי'ר found in the text, though it seems obvious to me that the “steel” the author speaks of is not the steel we know today. Ed.]
     ואחות תובל קין נעמה, “and the sister of Tubal-Kayin was Naamah.” Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 claims that Naamah became the wife of Noach. It is claimed that the Torah calls her Naamah to reflect her lovely disposition, her good deeds.  There is a different tradition (compare Zohar Chadash Midrash Ha-neelam 19,2) which claims that Naamah was the wife of the demon Ashmadon if the demons Ashmadai and others were born by her. We have a tradition that four women (compare Nachmanides) became the mothers of demons. They were Lilith, Naamah, Igrat, and Machalat. Each one of them disposes of whole camps of followers and a spiritually negative aura emanates from them all. It is said that each one of these is dominant during one of the four seasons of the year and that they gather at the mountain Nishpeh (a simile for a high mountain mentioned in Isaiah 13,2.) This mountain is located near mountains called חשך, and each one holds sway during one of the four seasons of the year from sundown until midnight, they and all the members of their respective camps (entourage). Solomon alluded to all these עבדים ושפחות servants and servant maids. What he referred to was that he had made these demons subservient to him. The four women we enumerated were the four wives of the שרו של עשו the spiritual counterpart of Esau in the celestial regions. Esau on earth also married four wives corresponding to the number of wives of his celestial counterpart. These four wives are mentioned in Genesis 26,34 and 36,2 respectively; their names are יהודית, בשמת, עדה, אהליבמה Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 24,6 elaborated on the subject when they said that during the 130 years after the death of Hevel when Adam did not cohabit with his wife  he produced all kinds of demons and destructive agents as a result of seminal emissions. It is one of the “advantages” of the superior being called man that he could “beget” intangible offspring, forces which inhabit the atmosphere. He also produced abstract intellectual beings which inhabit the celestial spheres. [The author refers to the “angels” created by good deeds performed by man which have been mentioned repeatedly. Ed]
  
  Verse 23
  
  . כי איש הרגתי לפצעי, “for I have slain by my wound, etc.” Lemech introduced the sword and murder into the world. It is a case of the deeds of the fathers being re-enacted by the children After all, Lemech was the son (descendant) of the first murderer, Kayin. Lemech sired three sons. His oldest son taught him the art of grazing, i.e. to understand the nature and needs of the animals. His second son taught him all about music and musical instruments. His third son taught him how to use metal implements to make war both aggressively, i.e. by the sword and defensively by means of the shield. His wives were afraid that he should not die as a penalty for having brought instruments of murder and killing into the world. This is why he said to them: ”for have I killed a man by inflicting many wounds upon him (as Kayin did to Hevel) or a child (Hevel had only been 50 days old) and nonetheless G’d did not kill Kayin?” He meant to say that the sword is not what murders. Murder is the result of other considerations. The fact that I have perfected the art of war by making swords is not by itself punishable. [It is the use to which people put such instruments that may or may not be punishable. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר תחת הבל, “for G’d has provided me with another seed to take the place of Hevel.” She said to Adam: “Look! Another seed in replacement of Hevel.” Chavah meant that if Hevel had not been slain, Sheth would not now have been born. This is the true meaning of the words תחת הבל, “a substitute for Hevel.” The Torah was careful not to say נפש תחת נפש, i.e. “another soul in replacement of the soul of Hevel.” Had the Torah written words to that effect, Sheth would not have been a true replacement of Hevel. You are aware already that all matters connected with the מעשה בראשית, the report of the creation, are in the realm of special “wisdoms.” This is why the Kabbalists saw themselves forced to look for all these allusions that we have mentioned thus far. Especially did they see allusions concerning משה רבנו, our great leader Moses, when they interpreted the word בשגם as a reference to Moses seeing that the numerical value of the letters in that word (345) is equal to the numerical value of the letters in the name משה. Moreover, the life span of 120 years accorded to man prior to the deluge which was introduced by the word בשגם (Genesis 6,3) is viewed as a reference to the life span of Moses. The word משה itself comprises all three, i.e. שת, הבל, משה (by re-arranging the letters) The fact that this “seed” is attributed by Chavah to G’d (instead of to Adam), was due to the fact that Sheth resembled Hevel extraordinarily. In fact  the whole description of his birth indicates that he did not only appear to be a duplicate of Hevel but a duplicate of Adam himself who had been created in the image of G’d. For all these reasons Chavah credited G’d directly with giving her this third son. When she said: “whom Kayin had slain,” she meant that but for this murder she would not have merited to bear Sheth.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ספר תולדות אדם, “the book relating the descendants of man.” According to Nachmanides this is an allusion to the entire Torah which is perceived as the ספר תולדות אדם. If it were not so, the Torah should not have used the expression ספר, “book,” but should simply have written אלה תולדות אדם, just as we find in Genesis 25,12 when the descendants of Ishmael are enumerated, or in Genesis 25,19 where the descendants of Yitzchak are listed.  Maybe the meaning of the word ספר in this instance is חכמה, “wisdom,” just as we find it in the ספר יצירה where the expression is ספר וספור as we already mentioned on a previous occasion. The “wisdom” referred to is not ordinary human wisdom but celestial wisdom, a wisdom which would have been man’s had he not sinned. The thrust of our verse then would be: “this book contains the wisdom which should have been an integral part of every human being.” The true descendants of man are not his biological children but his accomplishments in the field of Torah knowledge. The tasks that need to be performed on earth which require a human population could be carried out by someone other than man if need be. This is what Ben Azzai had in mind when he explained that he would not preoccupy himself with marrying and begetting children as his longing was concentrated solely on Torah (Yevamot 63). The complete verse therefore means: “for this book which represents the celestial wisdom, something that ought to belong to every human being seeing he had been created בדמות אלוקים עשה אותו, in the likeness of G’d He made him on the very day that G’d created man.” You will now understand why the Torah saw fit to mention the word אדם twice in this verse. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  . זכר ונקבה בראם, “He created them male and female.” The words “male and female” refer to the שכל, intelligence, and נפש, emotional life-force, respectively. These two components are major factors in the acquisition of wisdom, the body is quite peripheral, serving only as receptacle, a repository for the former.
     ויברך אותם, “He blessed them.” G’d blessed them with the ability to absorb additional wisdom.
     ויקרא את שמם אדם, He called their name “Adam (Man).” The only reason a human being is entitled to the description אדם is due to his שכל ונפש, to his intellect and emotional life-force, not because of his body. Were it not for שכל ונפש he would be indistinguishable from the animals as we know already from Psalms 49,13 נמשל כבהמות נדמו, “he is like the beasts that perish.” Seeing that man had been created “in the image of G’d,” he should have reproduced children which fitted the same description. This is indeed what happened when Adam and Chavah begat Sheth. Sheth represented a combination of שכל וחכמה, “intelligence and wisdom,” seeing that intelligence is the foundation of everything. The expression אבן שתיה, which our sages applied to the stone in the second Temple which replaced the original Holy Ark on that site, was so-called because that site was the foundation of the universe (Yuma 53). The name שת which Chavah gave to her third son symbolised that he was to be the שתיה, the foundation of mankind. He became the founding father of all righteous people in the world [seeing the Torah does not relate anything about him that is negative. Ed.]
      Another meaning of the words זה  ספר תולדות אדםmay be that these words are a direct reference to שת seeing he is mentioned by name in this paragraph. Inasmuch as the two first sons of Adam having been disappointments, one being killed, the other becoming a murderer, it is this son who truly represented the descendants of the first pair of human beings The very fact that the Torah had already enumerated a list of Kayin’s descendants makes this statement doubly important. Kayin’s descendants were not regarded as the תולדות אדם, at best they were regarded as תולדות קין, Kayin’s descendants. Actually, Kayin’s descendants could be perceived as partially Adam’s and partially the serpent’s, viz. Samael’s, Satan’s. (compare what we wrote on 3,15 as well as what the author wrote on Exodus 2,12). These descendants were Chanoch, Iyrad, and Lemech. Others bore names which trace them to angels such as Mechuyael, Metushael. The latter were what are called later in our portion  (6,2) בני האלוקים, “the sons of G’d,” whereas the former are referred to here as בנות האדם, “daughters of man.” Concerning these descendants of Kayin the Torah says (6,2) “when the sons of G’d saw that the daughters of man were good, etc.” These “sons of G’d” were not children of Adam. Concerning this phenomenon our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 24,6 have said: “this is the book of the descendants of Adam, i.e. the ones which have been listed by the Torah up until this point were not true descendants of Adam.” What then is the meaning of the verse which appears to attribute some of the descendants of Kayin to a divine origin? They were called thus as they were descended from Chavah who had mated with כח אל נכר, with the life-giving potential of an alien deity. (the serpent, i.e. the potential of Satan having had intercourse with her.)
      There is another noteworthy comment by the Midrash: “the words: ‘this is the book of the descendants of man on the day the Lord created man;’ as soon as man was created he already produced offspring.” “He created them male and female,” “He called their name Adam.” This teaches that woman too was called ‘Adam,’ seeing she too is part of the human species and she has important offspring. There is an even more specific comment to this effect in Isaiah 44,13 where the prophet writes concerning G’d making man and woman that she is כתפארת אדם לשבת בית, “like the beauty of Adam to dwell in a shrine.” You will do well to pay especial attention to the words זכר ונקבה בראם, “male and female did He create them,” seeing that in 2,7 the Torah had described the formation of Adam and Eve by writing the words וייצר ה' אלוקים with the letter י appearing twice in succession in the word וייצר. There is also a verse in Chronicles I 4,23 according to which human beings are described as היוצרים, as progenitors, i.e. that the power to procreate is not exclusively that of the male but that whereas the male soul receives its input from a male origin the female soul receives its respective input from a female source. This explains that Chavah’s soul received input from the serpent, as she herself was the product of the “left” emanations, the “female” ones. It was natural therefore that the serpent should mate with her and not with Adam. The affinity between the origin of Chavah’s soul and the origin of the serpent made her a more likely victim to instant seduction.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויחי אדם שלושים ומאת שנה ויולד בדמותו כצלמו, “Adam had lived for one hundred and thirty years when he begot in his likeness, in his image.” This verse is proof that Kayin did not beget someone fit to be described as אדם, and that his offspring did not correspond to what the Torah described as בדמותו כצלמו, “in his likeness, in his image.” The reason that Adam had separated from his wife for such a long time was that he waited until they were capable (spiritually fit) of begetting regular children, children that reflected the image of G’d. According to Bereshit Rabbah 24,6 up until that time they produced only demons, etc. During those 130 years Chavah produced male spirits whereas Adam produced female spirits seeing they had been brought to erotic stimulation by female and male stimuli respectively. We find something not dissimilar when the Torah told us that Noach did not beget children in the regular sense until he was 500 years of age (Genesis 5,32). The reason was that if he had indulged in regular sexual activity with his wife say at 70 years of age, all his offspring would have perished prior to the deluge. G’d prevented him from being able to produce children until he had reached that age [so that a righteous person such as he should not have to bury his children. On the other hand, G’d would not have saved his children if they had been corrupt already. Ed.]. Similar considerations were at work in the case of all the various people who lived for so many hundreds of years; G’d did not see fit to reveal the reasons for each.
      You should know that the Torah divided the life spans of the early generations into three periods. First, the Torah informed us as to the number of years that had passed before a person became a father. Then the Torah revealed how many years elapsed after a certain person had been born before the father died. Finally, the Torah reported the sum total of the years of the individual in question. The reason the Torah made such a division was to distinguish between three periods in the lifetime of the individual: 1) his  childhood  2) His youth, the period when he was vigorous  3) His old age. 
      You should note that in the case of all the generations from Adam to Noach the Torah concludes its report about their lives with the comment וימת, “he died.” There was really no need for this as we are all aware that death had been decreed upon each individual as a result of Adam’s sin. It is no more than natural that the branches die off if their trunk had to die. The reason the Torah nonetheless mentions death as an individual occurrence was that among the people during those years there were some righteous people such a Metushelach, for instance. Had the Torah not listed the individual deaths we would have thought that all these people died as a result of the deluge instead of their having died in bed like ordinary people. This is why the Torah described their deaths uniformly. By contrast, the generations between Noach and Avraham were not accorded such a special mention of their deaths as the deluge had already passed and there was no reason to assume that they did not die from natural causes.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויהי כל ימי חנוך חמש ושישים שנה ושלש מאות שנה, “and all of Chanoch’s years were three hundred and sixty five years.” The number of his years on earth corresponded to the number of days in a solar year, no more and no less. This righteous person was familiar with the power of the sun and he understood the tremendous power exerted by the sun; he realized that this was due to a celestial input which remained active within the sun. I have already mentioned earlier (1,14) that there are celestial luminaries which guide the luminaries in our world. and that all of them draw on the original light which this righteous person Chanoch merited to enjoy. This is the reason the Torah used the word ויהי in connection with Chanoch. [The other people whose life and death are mentioned in this chapter are simply described as ויהיו ימי פלוני וגו', “so and so lived, etc.” Ed.] The word ויהי is meant to take us back to the days of creation when the Torah spoke in terms of יהי אור,”let there be light,” followed by ויהי אור “light came into being.” We find the expression ויהי applied to Moses when he was on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24,18). At that time Moses was granted the illumination of the Torah, in fact so much so that when he descended the second time his forehead emitted rays of physical light. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  ויתהלך חנוך את האלוקים, “Chanoch walked with G’d.” The virtue of “walking with G’d” is one which occurs only in connection with righteous people, i.e. with Chanoch, Noach (Genesis 6,9) and Avraham (Genesis 17,1). All of these people realized that there is a supreme power “behind” the sun, the apparently primary energy in our solar system. Their concept of G’d the Creator was based on their observation of nature in action. I hope to explain this in greater detail when we discuss 6,9 את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach ‘walked’ with G’d,” i.e. he had made himself appreciate G’d. At any rate, Chanoch remained attached to the supreme light which was the source from which the luminaries in our world had been created, and made manifest on the fourth day of creation. The light was mentioned five times in connection with the narrative of the creation (see our comments on 1,31 יום השישי). It had “split” into seven lights, (virtues). This is why the five Books of the Torah have been split into seven books, as the paragraph ויהי בנסוע הארון in Numbers 10, 35-36 is bracketed by 2 inverted letters נ, to indicate that these two verses are to be considered a book by itself, thus making the Book of Numbers into three Books, and the Torah into seven Books. This number of seven lights is also symbolized by the lampstand in the Holy Tabernacle which had seven arms each one of which supported a separate light. G’d had insisted that this lampstand be constructed out of one single chunk of gold, in order to remind us that all these lights had a common origin. These combined lights are known as צרור החיים, “a bundle of life,” as we know from Samuel I 25,29. The righteous individual Chanoch held fast (spiritually speaking) to all of them seeing he had found favour in the eyes of the Lord. [According to Rabbi Chavell our author extrapolated by using the fact that Noach who also walked with G’d is described as having found favour in the eyes of the Lord (6,8). He was entitled to such consideration seeing that he was the seventh generation of mankind.] His existence corresponded to the seventh day, the Sabbath, a day which symbolizes life, a day which in its ideal form is free from all tensions and contradictions (compare Rosh Hashanah 31). As a result, Chanoch merited eternal life.
   The first two letters of his name, i.e .ח-נ (numerical value 58) are tied to the  first half of the letters in the name of the angel מטטרן, [the angel administering G’d’s universe, for Him, Ed.], seeing Chanoch had ever been anxious to gain greater insights into how nature operates the universe. He had gained sufficient insights so that his name reflected these intellectual accomplishments. As a result of these insights both his body and soul underwent changes by becoming unified. As a result, there was no need for his body to die and G’d was able to remove him from earth without the body having to be left “behind.”
      As to the Torah’s expression ואיננו, “and he ceased to be,” or words to this effect, the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 3,4 interpret it as a combination of א-ל אין, an acknowledgement of something, confirmation of its continued existence. Some versions of Onkelos have a similar translation of that word. The version runs as follows: ואיתוהי אריה לא אמית יתיה, “and this ‘taking’ was in compensation for a great achievement, an incomparable accomplishment.” The entire episode provides a hint of the continued existence of Gan Eden and the survival of the soul after death indefinitely. It is also clear proof that had it not been for Adam’s sin he would have lived indefinitely in body and spirit. We find the same word לקח used in the Book of Kings where the prophet Elijah’s removal from this earth as a living entity is described (Kings II, 2,11).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויולד בן ויקרא את שמו נח, “he fathered a son and he called his name Noach.” The number 10 is crucial to the world and its continued existence. Noach was the tenth generation of the human species. It was therefore appropriate that he became instrumental in assuring the continued existence of the world, and, more specifically, mankind. Seeing that the rest of mankind was slated to perish during the deluge and none of them proclaimed the name of G’d you do not find the word בן, “son,” or the word שם, “name“ (allusion to the name of G’d) mentioned in connection with the birth of any of the other people listed in the Torah since Sheth. In Noach’s case, the word בן is not so much a description of his being a son,” but it is related to בנה, “built,” i.e. this person rebuilt the world after the deluge and assured its continued existence. In other words: this “son” was a “builder.” We find further that the very word שם refers to maintaining something, preventing it from decaying.  When Solomon said in Proverbs 10,7 ושם רשעים ירקב, that the “name of the wicked will rot,” this may strike us as strange at first glance seeing that שם, “name,” is something abstract and if so how could something abstract be subject to decay? However, Solomon referred to the actual subject of the שם, “name,” he spoke about.  There is another question in connection with Noach. According to what Lemech, Noach’s father is reported to have  exclaimed when his son was born, he should have called him מנחם, “comforter.” Perhaps the letter מ in the word מנחם was somehow “swallowed,” and Noach’s real name was נחם. We have a similar construction in Zechariah 11,7 where the prophet says  לאחד קראתי נעם ולאחד קראתי חבלים, “one I named Favour, the other Unity.” According to the normal rules of grammar the word should have been מנעם. However, we find frequent instances when a word is slightly abbreviated. In this instance, the reason may have been to make the name נח also spell חן (with the letters reversed) ,as it was he who found חן in the eyes of G’d.   The reason Noach’s father Lemech said of this son זה, “this one,” may be that he was part (maybe the first) of the tenth generation of mankind, and, as we pointed out earlier, any “tenth” is holy. There is a similarity here to Exodus 15,2 זה א-לי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will  enshrine Him.” Lemech meant hat there were two reasons why he called “this one” Noach. This is reflected in the two cantillations on that very short word, i.e. it has both the tone-sign telisha and the tone-sign geresh. Do not be flippant about this as the entire Torah is full of all kinds of hints and allusions which have been written at the command of the Supreme Intellect. Anyone who delves into unraveling the secrets hidden in the text pays attention to every detail. This is why the sages said (Nedarim 37) that the cantillations also originated at Mount Sinai. When Nechemiah 8,8 speaks of ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא, “with careful analysis so that they could understand it,” he referred to 1) the text itself, 2) the cantillations.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ויחי למך שתים ושמונים שנה ומאת שנה, “and Lemech lived for one hundred and eighty two years, etc.” When you calculate from the creation of Adam until this point you will find that Noach was born 1056 years after Adam had been created. This number is arrived at by adding the 130 years which elapsed before Sheth was born, 105 years until Sheth fathered Enosh, 90 years until Enosh fathered Keynon; 70 years until Keynon fathered Mahalalel; and 65 years until Mahalalel fathered Yered. Add another 162 years until Yered fathered Chanoch; then it took another 65 years until Chanoch fathered Metushelach and 187 years until Metushelach fathered Lemech. This was followed by another 182 years until Lemech became the father of Noach, a total of 1056 years. When you consider that Adam died at 930 years of age it is clear that Noach never saw Adam, having been born 126 years after the death of the first human being. However, Noach’s father Lemech had still known the first human being, Adam, seeing he was 182 years older than his son Noach. Adam had been 874 years old when Lemech was born.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ויראו בני האלוהים את בנות האדם, “The sons of G’d saw the daughters of man, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the בני האלהים are the sons of the judges and the elite of society. which are called “elohim,” just as in Exodus 22,27 where the Torah forbids us to curse a judge by writing אלוהים לא תקלל.  This is the way the Targum translates that verse. The Torah means that the very judges who should have meted out justice committed legal violence instead with the “daughters of man,” i.e. the common and therefore underprivileged people, by raping these women against their will. Sometimes these women were willing partners in illegal sexual relations. When the Torah writes inter alia in verse 4 אשר יבואו בני האלהים אל בנות האדם, “when the sons of the rulers would consort with the daughters of the common people,” these were the instances when the women were willing partners in such relationships. Such relationships usually did not come to light until these women had given birth to children from illicit sexual relations with the male elite of society. When the Torah (verse 4) speaks about the גבורים אשר מעולם אנשי שם, “the mighty men of former times who had always been very prominent,” this is a reference to the children from such unions who could be seen to be different from children produced by unions between members of the lower classes of society. The words מכל אשר בחרו, “from among all that they freely chose,” are an allusion to use of the same expression by Isaiah (Isaiah 66,3) where the prophet describes the abominations which people were guilty of in his time.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words בני האלוקים has been discussed by us already in connection with 5,2 and the name אדם.
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם, “My spirit will not contend evermore concerning Man, etc.” Actually, the word ידון is derived from נדנה, a word which we encounter in Daniel 7,15 אנא דניאל בגוא נדנה, “I, Daniel, my spirit was uneasy in its sheath;”  the sheath of a sword is called either נדנה or תיק. In a similar manner the body is the sheath of the soul. What our verse means is that “My Spirit,” i.e. the soul, will not ever find a permanent home within the body of Man. The composition of Man’s body after it had become corrupt is simply not fit to be a permanent home for such a lofty intelligent spirit as the soul.
     בשגם הוא בשר, “since he is but flesh.” The Torah states that also Man is but flesh, just as the animals which roam the earth, be they mammals, birds, or whatever. G’d laments the fact that His spirit, the soul has, allowed itself to be enslaved by the physical aspects of life.
     והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה, “and his life span shall be one hundred and twenty years.” G’d explains that on account of the condition of the soul within man having become dominated by worldly considerations, He will extend His patience and allow Man  one hundred twenty years within which to repent before decreeing a deluge when they would perish. Rabbi David Kimchi, quoting his father, understands the word ידון as derived from מדון, “strife, contention,” and G’d would be saying: “My spirit shall not be in contention with Man forever, seeing that My spirit is not subject to the temptations of the flesh as is Man’s.”
      I believe that in that case the reason for the number of 120 years mentioned here  is the fact that the world was created with the letter ה and G’d wants it to continue to exist He decided to wait 120 years before bringing on the deluge as the number 100 is one fifth of the distance (in terms of years of travel) which Man is removed from the tree of life. Man is to be given a period of time during which to reflect on his conduct. Similarly, the number twenty is one fifth of 100 and we have a tradition that G’d does not punish man until he has attained the age of twenty.  In the distant future G’d will not punish  Man until he has reached the age of one hundred as we know from Isaiah 65,20 where the prophet describes a picture of a rosy future when  כי הנער בן מאה שנה ימות והחוטא בן מאה שנה יקולל “for the lad will (only) die when he has attained the age of one hundred years, and the sinner will be cursed when he is one hundred years old.” In other words, youthful immaturity in those days will last for one hundred years. We may understand the words והיו ימיו in our verse as “that his years [regarding culpability for his sins, Ed.] will be considered as if he had only just been born.” We find an allusion to such a concept in Job 33,25 where Elihu told Job רטפש בשרו מנוער, “”let his flesh become  healthier than during his youth.”
     בשגם הוא בשר, these words contain an allusion to Moses as well as to the total number of his years (when you re-arrange the sequence of the letters). We read in in Bereshit Rabbah 28,9 that Noach did not really deserve to be spared from the deluge as the Torah says (6,7) [concerning the whole of mankind] כי נחמתים כי עשיתים, “for I have reconsidered having made them.” The only reason that he and his family were spared was that Moses would become his descendant in the future and G’d did not want to forego a human being of the caliber of Moses. The numerical value of the letters in the word בשגם=345 as does the numerical value of the name משה.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ, “G-d reconsidered having made man on earth, etc.” The word עשה refers to the צורה, the divine image G-d had fused with the “golem,” the inarticulate body of Man. This צורה was none other than the צלם, “the divine image” the Torah had mentioned when it reported the creation of the first human being.(1,27) whereas in the report commencing with the words זה ספר תולדות אדם, the expression used was בדמות אלוקים עשה אותו, “in the likeness of G-d He had made him.” In respect of בריאה, the initial stage of the creation of Man, the Torah used the expression צלם or צורה, respectively. In respect of Man’s robot-like body, inarticulate Man, the Torah used the expression דמות as if to tell us that once the צורה became part of the “golem,” it was no longer a צלם אלוקים but merely דמות אלוקים. Seeing that the word דמות does not describe something integral but something external, just as when we speak of עבד אלוקים we mean that the “G-d-serving person” is nonetheless not an integral part of G-d but is “outside” of G-d, G-d reconsidered this part of the arrangement. saying it would have been better if the צורה, the divine aspect of Man, had not become integral to the body. Our sages illustrated this brilliantly when they said in Eruvin 13 נח לו לאדם שלא נברא, “it would have been more comfortable for man if at the initial stage of his creation he had not been fused with the body.” In our verse the Torah did not say וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם על הארץ, “G-d reconsidered having made man on the earth,” but וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ, “G-d reconsidered having made Man composed of integral earthly desires.”
      Consider a statement by Solomon in Kohelet 4,2-3  ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו מן החיים אשר המה חיים עדנה. וטוב משניהם את אשר עדן לא היה. “So I consider more fortunate the dead who  have already died, than the living who are still alive; but better than either of them is he who has not yet been.” Philosophers described the statements made by Solomon in these two verses as referring to the three different stages we may encounter the צורה, the divine image, as undergoing at different times. The first stage, and in Solomon’s view preferable the preferable one, is  when it had not yet been  introduced into the body of mortal man; and he praised that condition of man (at the end of the second verse). The second and relatively tolerable condition of the צורה occurs after it has been removed from man when his body has died. This is a stage which Solomon describes as משבח אני את המתים “I praise the dead.” The third and least tolerable situation he considers the state of the צורה while it is imprisoned within man’s body. The philosophers describe this in terms of three parables. 1) A king who sits in his palace. 2) A king who has recently been released from prison. 3) A king who is still serving a sentence in prison. There can hardly be a question that the king in the first parable enjoys greater stature than any of the other two. In view of all these clever comments why then did the Torah describe the completion by G-d of His handiwork at the end of the sixth day in such glowing terms, i.e. וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, “and G-d saw all that He had made and here it was very good?” Did not that praise also include the fact that G-d had fused body, i.e. “golem” to soul, צורה, when He made Man?  Not only that, but how could Solomon come hundreds of years after Moses and praise the Lord for not having fused body and soul when Moses gave G-d “excellent marks” when He praised Him for having fused the two. The answer is that although the original condition of the צורה prior to its having become fused to a body is superior to the other two conditions listed, seeing it had not yet been fused to a body and had not suffered pain or damage, once it had been fused to a body and had accomplished its mission and left that body in a state of purity, it would be far superior to what it had been prior to being fused to a body. At that point such a צורה will have made a name for itself that sparkles like pure gold. This is the reason that the souls of the righteous are forever anxious to return to their holy origins. Seeing that Moses had presupposed that the צורה would accomplish its mission within the body he saw fit to praise the Creator for having placed such a soul within man and he described G-d’s reaction to His handiwork as “very good. The proper interpretation of our verse then is exactly what the text says: האדם בארץ, “man,” while he is still attached to earth in an integral manner.” G-d reconsidered the status of such a human being seeing that this arrangement had resulted in sinfulness as the צורה had allowed itself to be dominated by the body. We find an analogous use of the expression בארץ in Isaiah 62,7 עד יכונן ועד ישים את ירושלים תהלה בארץ, “until He establishes Jerusalem and make her renowned on earth.” What the prophet meant was: “until He will make the glory of Jerusalem which is on earth manifest.” [as opposed to the Jerusalem in the celestial regions.] Another verse which spells out the meaning of the word בארץ even more clearly is found in Psalms 122,3 כעיר שחוברה לה יחדו. The psalmist speaks about the Jerusalem on earth and the Jerusalem in the celestial regions which have been fused together.
      A kabbalistic approach understands the words וינחם ה', כי עשה את האדם בארץ as: “G-d’s attribute י-ה-ו-ה reconsidered.” The reason this attribute of G-d reconsidered was related to ארץ, “earth;” it was the cause G-d had to reconsider having employed this attribute when making man. The word י-ה-ו-ה in our verse is a reference to the first of the 13 attributes listed in Exodus 34,6. In other words, it was not “man” who was responsible for any reconsideration by G-d of having created him but something connected with “earth.”
     ויתעצב אל לבו, “and His heart felt sadness.” In terms of the plain meaning of the words the term “heart” when applied to G-d is, of course, only a figure of speech. The same is true whenever the Torah speaks of other organs and appears to attribute them to G-d Who is totally abstract, devoid of any such organs. The reason that the Torah nonetheless employs such terms is to convey to us that our actions may or may not please G-d, may even elicit reactions that if they had been observed in humans would be described as “joy, anger, frustration, happiness and the like.” Such reactions when expressed by human beings usually involve human organs also. When the psalmist (Psalms 104,31) speaks about ישמח ה' במעשיו, “G-d rejoices in His works,” on the one hand, and in this instance we read ויתעצב ה' אל לבו, ”G-d was saddened in His heart,” both descriptions are of necessity anthropomorphisms, i.e. approximations of G-d’s reactions in terms which we humans can understand. They do not reflect the objective reactions of Someone Whose Essence we have not been privileged to understand It follows that when the Torah wishes to give us an inkling of G-d’s reaction to man’s behavior it uses the word “heart” in order to help us understand. Seeing that the human heart is a major vessel in his thinking process, the Torah chose to attribute G-d’s feelings in reaction to human aberrations as reactions by “His heart.” You find that if a person wants to concentrate he isolates himself and bends his head so as to exclude distracting intrusions into his thinking. The reason for this is that the brain, i.e. the head is where his ability to form thoughts originates. This thought process is then relayed to the heart. Granted, that this metaphor sounds somewhat far-fetched, the fact remains that ideas, thoughts travel in a downward direction from the brain to the heart.. When the Bible speaks about a messenger from G-d, such a messenger is usually described as פי ה', the “mouth” or “mouthpiece” of G-d (compare Isaiah 34,16) כי פי הוא צוה, “for My mouth (He) has commanded.” The prophet describes himself as G-d’s messenger (agent, or angel) who acts as G-d’s mouthpiece. The spirit of G-d is described as פי the spirit of the angel known as פי,“my,” resp “His mouth.” Yonathan ben Uziel therefore translates our verse here  not as “G-d was saddened to His heart,” but as “His angel was saddened to his heart.” [Our editions of Yonathan ben Uziel do not have this wording;  Ed.]  According to our author the אורים ותומים, the parchment with the Holy name of G-d inside the breastplate of the High Priest which served as a source of communication from G-d to him, was also known as פי ה’, “the mouth of G-d, i.e. as an angel named “mouth of G-d.” Another example of such a reference to פי ה' is found in Joshua 9,14 where the acceptance of the Gibeonites as allies of the Jewish people is described. The failure of consulting G-d on that issue is described there as ואת פי ה' לא שאלו, “they did not consult ‘the mouth of G-d.” When we read in Numbers 11,1 ויהי העם כמתאוננים, רע באזני ה', “the people were as if looking for something to complain about, it was evil in the ears of G-d;” here to the word “in the ears” may be understood as the “ear” in question being one of G-d’s angels. Whenever the function of G-d’s angel is passive, i.e. he is to be an instrument of receiving G-d’s instructions, such a function of the angel is described as his being the “ears” of G-d. When he is supposed to be active in a supervisory manner, he is called “the eyes of G-d.” A very interesting example of this approach is found in Zechariah 3,9 where the prophet describes G-d’s supervision of the Jewish people in revolutionary terms, saying על אבן אחת שבעה עינים, “a single stone enjoying a variety of no less than seven supervisory “eyes,” i.e. agents of G-d.”  When David speaks of אזנים כרית לי , “You assigned an ear [in order to listen to You ] “to me” [rather than the commandment to offer sacrifices, Ed.], he refers to his ear as the organ, or in this case G-d’s instrument, which helps to make him tune in to G-d’s “wavelength.” Whenever the term “ear or ears” is used for celestial beings the meaning is that these ”ears” are listening to Israel’s prayers. When G-d dispatches an angel to fight against Israel’s adversaries such an angel is usually described as יד ה' “the hand of G-d,” i.e. His executive arm. One of the examples of such a meaning of the term יד ה' is found in Samuel I 5,11 כבדה מאד יד האלוקים שם, “for the hand of the Lord had been very heavy there.” There are, of course, numerous similar quotations in Exodus when the Torah describes the plagues G-d inflicted upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians. When G-d’s agents are about to reveal a previously unknown manifestation of the Lord, the angel performing this task is often described as “the feet of G-d.” We find an example of this in Zechariah 14,4 ועמדו רגליו ביום ההוא על הר זיתים, “and on that day His feet will stand on Mount Olives, etc.” The prophet refers to G-d’s “soldiers.” There are numerous other examples of that nature.
      From a Midrashic-homiletical aspect we may approach the words ויתעצב אל לבו, “His heart was saddened,” as follows: Rabbi Ami (Bereshit Rabbah 27,6) told the parable of a king who built a palace having employed an architect. When the palace was completed the king was not satisfied with it. Who should the king be angry at if not the architect? Rabbi Ami related another parable illustrating this when he told about a king who had entrusted a sum of money to a broker instructing him to invest this on his behalf. The broker failed and the king lost his money. Who would the king be angry at if not at the broker? We have to understand why Rabbi Ami saw the need to illustrate our verse by means of two parables. In the parable with the architect it was possible to err and to conclude that there are two separate prime causes in this world  People might have said that granted the king is king and wields authority, nonetheless he employed the architect seeing the architect’s wisdom was superior to his own. It follows that there are things in this world which are beyond the “king,“ read “G-d.” This conclusion would be totally mistaken, of course. However, in order to forestall such a mistaken conclusion Rabbi Ami related the second parable. In that parable he spoke about a broker who did not own anything at all and was simply an agent of the king. In both parables Rabbi Ami wanted to emphasise that the role of the broker and the architect are interchangeable. None is privy to any knowledge or power not possessed by their employer, i.e. G-d. The “architect” is none other than a sub-contractor, and we find that the Targum translates the words בוני שלמה, “Solomon’s builders,” (Kings I 5,32) as אדריכלי שלמה, “Solomon’s architects.”
  	A kabbalistic approach to the words ויתעצב אל לבו, understands the subject of “He was saddened” to be the very “architect” or the “broker” mentioned in Rabbi Ami’s parables. The conversation described in the Torah reflects what G-d said to the architect. When He said: אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי..... כי נחמתי כי עשיתם, we must pay attention to the switch between the word בראתי at the beginning of the verse and the word עשיתם at the end of that same verse. [G-d was never saddened about the בריאה aspect of man only about the עשיה aspect, i.e. that He had completed the creation of man by fusing earth to spiritual matter. Ed.] Moreover, we must also pay attention to האדם בארץ, in verse five and in verse six. In the first verse the words האדם בארץ refer to what was written immediately before that, i.e. רבה רעת, “the great amount of evil,” whereas in the second verse the words האדם בארץ refer to what follows, i.e. ויתעצב אל לבו. so that the word ויתעצב refers back to האדם, to “man.” It is a reference to the concept of “Man the glorious,” the reason why G-d created the entire universe (ארץ) as we explained already in connection with the word בראשית, very first word of the Torah. Unfortunately, it had now become “ארץ” which had become responsible for this sad state of the universe. The meaning of the full verse in its profounder meaning  is: G-d reconsidered having made man not because of man, but because of the earth , i.e. the architect and the broker who had not carried out the assignment G-d had entrusted to them. The reason that the Torah mentions such “feelings” as ויתעצב, “He was saddened,” is only because at the time of the completion of His handiwork at the end of the sixth day the Torah had seen fit to describe G-d’s “joy” when it stated that “G-d saw all that He had done and it was very good,” i.e. “He was very pleased.” You should not be bothered by the fact that at this point the Torah speaks abou  ”G-d experiencing sadness;” nor should you be bothered by such statements as ויקרא א-דני אלוקים צבאות ביום ההוא לבכי ולמספד “on that day My Lord of Hosts called for weeping and lamenting, etc.” The Talmud in Chagigah 5,2 [in response to the statement of Rabbi Papa that no sentiments of sadness are to be attributed to G-d, Ed.] explained that what is meant  is הא בבתי גוואי והא בבתי בראי, that although we distinguish between externally visible manifestations of sadness and only internal manifestations of such feelings. When it comes to the destruction of the Temple, even angels were allowed to display such sentiments. [The impending destruction of mankind certainly also warranted a display of such sentiments. Ed.] The term בתי בראי “an external house,” i.e. a manifestation that is visible to outsiders refers to emanations from גבורה closer to מלכות, whereas the term בתי גוואי refers to emanations from the emanation גבורה “upwards.” When the Torah speaks here about a visible display of G-d’s sadness as occurring in internal terms, i.e. “G-d was saddened to His heart,” we find the equivalent of this a few chapters later after Noach had presented an offering of thanksgiving (8,21) when the Torah describes G-d’s reaction as “G-d said to His heart, I will not continue to curse the earth for the sake of man.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', “and Noach had found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” This means simply that the wicked deserved to be wiped out whereas righteous Noach deserved to be saved as he had found favour in the eyes of G-d All the Torah does here was to explain the principle of reward and punishment. This is also what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 22,1 נבחר שם מעושר רב מכסף ומזהב חן טוב, “A good name is to be chosen rather than riches, grace is better than silver or gold.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  מתהלך בתומו צדיק, אשרי בניו אחריו, “The righteous man walks in his integrity; happy are the children who come after him.” (Proverbs 20,7)
   Solomon told us in this verse that a person cannot be considered as righteous until he has walked in integrity when serving the Lord. What is this “integrity” which Solomon talks about here? It means that one performs G-d’s commandments because of love and reverence for Him, not because one hopes to benefit by this in the eyes of one’s peers and by attaining honour in their eyes. It is appropriate for man to perform good and kind deeds to the best of his ability without bragging about them. In fact he should endeavour to refrain from even mentioning that he has perfomed such deeds. Anyone who does tell about this and claims credit for such good deeds is actually considered as a sinner. If one does claim credit for such good deeds this is liable to result in two kinds of negative fallout. 1) Firstly, he enhances his own standing compared to others in the eyes of those who believe him when he tells them about his deeds of piety. 2) He puts to shame and embarasses those who have been the recipients of his kindness. It is the mark of a righteous person who walks in integrity with his G-d that he does not boast about his virtues and the good deeds he has performed. Such a person is described as איש אמונים, “a man of true integrity.” Solomon connects the verse we have quoted with the one immediately prior to it in which he said רב אדם יקרא איש חסדו, , ואיש אמונים מי ימצא”he calls most people ‘true friend,” but who can find a loyal man?” In mentioning איש אמונים, “a loyal man,” Solomon took his cue from Proverbs 11,13 where such a “loyal” person is described as ונאמן רוח מכסה דבר, “a faithful spirit keeps his confidence.” In fact, Solomon discusses the same theme also in another context (Proverbs 10,8) where he said חכם לב יקח מצות, ואויל שפתים ילבט, “the wise in heart will accept the commandments, whereas the one who speaks foolishly will be afflicted.” What Solomon meant was that the person who is truly wise gets hold of G-d’s commandments with his hands and performs them without speaking about this with his lips. The foolish persion is the exact reverse of the wise man. Not only does he not endeavour to perform the commandments which he has a chance to perform, but even when he violates the commandments he makes a point of talking about this. This is why is referred to primarily as a ”fool.” So we are faced with two totally opposite behaviour patterns. The one type of person hides the fact that he actually does perform G-d’s commandments, whereas the other person makes a point of broadcasting the fact that he does not. Concerning the latter type of individual Solomon says ילבט, meaning he will become troubled by his words. The word ילבט is found in Hoseah 4,14 where it means “he will fail.” Yonathan ben Uziel translates the word as וסכלא בשפוושיה מתאחד “and the fool will become enmeshed by his own words.” As to the second half of the verse in Proverbs 20,7 which we quoted in our introduction, אשרי בניו אחריו, “happy are the children who come after him,” Solomon refers to the ability of parents to confer merits on their children after them. This is analogous to G-d saying in Exodus 20,6 ועושה חסד לאלפים, that “He (G-d) will perform kindness to thousands of generations of descendants of the righteous.” This is applicable in the event that their ancestors performed the commandments from a sense of love for G-d, whereas a different statement in Deut 7,10 in which G-d is portrayed as extending such kindness to one thousand generations refers to ancestors who performed G-d’s commandments only out of a sense of awe and fear of the consequences if they would fail to do so. The basis for this interpretation is the fact that the word לאוהביו “to those who love Him,” is written next to the words לאלפים, “for thousands of generations,” whereas the word s לאלף דור “for one thousand generations” appears next to the words ומשלם לשונאיו “and He repays those who hate Him“ in Deut.7,10. Solomon has explained this in a similar fashion in Proverbs 14,26 where he said: ביראת ה' מבטח עז ולבניו יהיה מחסה, “through his reverence for G-d man has a fortress; his children will have a place of refuge.” In other words: “the accumulated merits of the fathers are a source of benefit for their children in the eyes of G-d.” It is entirely possible that the opening verses in our portion are intended to praise Noach in three stages, each stage being superior to the preceding one. The Torah mentions last that Noach “walked with G-d.” This virtue of walking with G-d is a very great virtue indeed, a virtue which is superior to what is called תמימות, “perfection.” The virtue תמימות, on the other hand, is superior to the virtue described as צדיק; the Torah reports that Noach had attained these three levels of moral achievements progressively until he had qualified for the description את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G-d.”
  אלה תולדת נח, נח איש צדיק, תמים היה בדורותיו את האלוקים התהלך נח. “These are the generations of Noach; Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with G-d.” The word תולדות refers to “happenings” (compare the comments by Ibn Ezra and David Kimchi); it is what is described in Proverbs 27,1 as כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will bring.” The explanation of these commentators is based on the verse following in which Noach is described as ויולד נח, “Noach begot.” These words are read as belonging to what the first verse told us i.e. the three virtues which Noach practiced as opposed to his peers. Being a צדיק, a righteous person, meant not engaging in violent means to gain one’s objectives. The Torah reported in verse 11 that his generation was guilty of random violence. His second virtue was that he was תמים, “perfect,” that he was consistent and thorough in the way he practiced his virtues. The Torah applies the term תמים to the red heifer, i.e. a cow that has uniformly red hair. Even two hairs of a different colour disqualify such an animal from fulfilling its designated purpose. In other words, an animal אשר אין בה מום,”which is without blemish” (Numbers 19,2). In the case of human beings, the term מום describes a character defect. This is why the Torah describes Noach as תמים “free from blemish.” Psalms 119,1 lauds such people by referring to them as אשרי תמימי דרך,”hail to those whose way is blameless.” In order to contrast Noach’s virtues with those of his contemporaries the Torah writes כי השחית כל בשר על הארץ, “for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” Noach’s third virtue is described by the words את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G-d.” This virtue of “walking with G-d” is something so exceptional that we find it mentioned only very rarely. Nonetheless, it is one of the imperatives G-d (Moses) commanded the Jewish people (Deut. 13,5) when He said: אחרי ה' אלוקיכם תלכו, “You shall follow the Lord your G-d, etc.” Interestingly , in our verse the Torah does not describe Noach as having walked behind G-d, i.e. אחרי האלוקים, nor does it use the normal conjugation kal i.e.  הלךwhen describing Noach’s relationship to G-d. The Torah uses the reflexive conjugation התהלך, “he made himself walk.” This was not a construction that can be applied to an entire nation and this is why Moses did not phrase his imperative as אחרי ה' אלוקיכם התהלכו,”make yourselves follow (in the footsteps of) the Lord your G-d.” Only select individuals ever attain such a lofty spiritual level and only after having become outstandingly righteous people. (in the words of our author “people who have attained the levels of the sun and the various forces of energy in outer space and who are familiar with how these forces of energy influence what goes on in our terrestrial world.”) The very attainment of that level of comprehension of the forces at work in our universe reveals that the person who commands it has an appreciation of G-d and His Majesty. This is what David meant when he said (Psalms 19,2) השמים מספרים כבוד א-ל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע, “the heavens declare the glory of G-d , the sky proclaims His handiwok.” This is also why our sages (Shabbat 75) have said: “anyone who knows how to calculate the various seasons and horoscopes correctly and fails to use his ability is the subject of the verse (Isaiah 5,12) “and he fails to take note of what He is designing.” We have another scriptural verse (Psalms 82,5) לא ידעו ולא יבינו בחשכה יתהלכו, “they neither knew nor understood, they make themselves walk in darkness;” this verse too describes people who, though able to comprehend the mysteries of nature, fail to pay attention to this and to draw the appropriate conclusions regarding their conduct on earth. In order to highlight Noach’s achievements in this sphere the Torah testifies to this with the words את האלוקים התהלך נח, that “Noach indeed walked with G-d.” This “walking with G-d,” meant that after he had gained insight into the existence and supervisory activity of G-d through his study of astronomy enhanced by his virtuous lifestyle, he drew the proper conclusions. He did not believe in astrology, i.e.he knew that all these phenomena do not represent independent forces in the universe. In this way he was poles apart from his peers who all believed in the sun, i.e. the solar system as a supreme cause. When the Torah speaks about the corruptness of mankind, this is a refernce to idolatry. In Sanhedrin 57 the term השחתה is used to describe paganism and sexual licentiousness based on Exodus 32, 7 where G-d informed Moses with the words שחת עמך, “your people has become corrupt,” that the Israelites had made for themselves a golden calf. This is also why the idolater Jerobam is called איש משחית “a man causing corruption” (based on Proverbs 28,24). The Talmud describes this corruption as taking place לפני האלוקים, something which corresponds to the basic prohibition of idolatry in Exodus 20,3. where the Torah writes לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני, “You shall not have other deities in My presence.” The first person who is credited with having attained this level of perfection was Chanoch, and the Torah wrote of him (Genesis 5,24) ויתהלך חנך את האלוקים, “Chanoch walked with the Lord.” This was remarkable because he lived during a time when Enosh had introduced idolatry and all the people of his time had begun to worship the sun and other planetary constellations. Chanoch investigated the laws of nature and concluded that there must be a primary cause which is responsible for the regular orbits of the stars, the sun, etc. The very fact that he is descrbed a having spent 365 years on earth, a number which corresponds to the number of days in the sun’s orbit, is the Torah’s way of hinting to us something about the nature of his superior knowledge. As a result of his investigations of nature Chanoch cleaved to G-d, i.e. to the primary Cause. The next time we find the Torah mentioning the concept of “walking with” or in front of” G-d, is in connection with Avraham in Genesis 17,1. There too the expression התהלך לפני, “walk in front of Me,” is followed by the words והיה תמים “and become perfect,” to show that walking with G-d is an indication of one’s “perfection.” From all we know Avraham was constantly engaged in religious disputes, trying to convince people that there was only one G-d and that He supervises the fates of every individual on earth. He engaged in arguments with the powers of his time concerning the laws of the states. People confronted him trying to prove that the sun was a deity. Avraham did not deny the powers of the sun and its direct influence on what goes on in our world. However, he tried to convince the people of his time that the sun was only an instrument wielded by G-d just as certain tools with which an artisan fashions wonderful furniture is not a deity as it could not produce anything unless the hand of the craftsman guided it. This is why he was prepared to die for his belief when he chose to be thrown into Nimrod’s furnace rather than to deny his true beliefs. The Torah referred to this in Genesis 15,7: “I am the Lord who has taken you out (saved you) from the fire of the Chaldaens.”
  בדורותיו, “in his generations.” We would have expected the Torah to write בדורו, “in his generation” (sing). However, at the beginning of the deluge Noach was six hundred years old and he had already survived members of several generations. By writing בדורותיו, the Torah wanted to inform us that all those generations had been corrupt already and that there was no individual amongst them that merited saving.
  	According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that Noach’s name is mentioned three times in this verse is because of the three levels of perfection he had attained, i.e. he was righteous, perfect, and he walked with G-d.
  
  Verse 10
  
  את שם, את חם, ואת יפת, “Shem, Cham and Yaphet.” Yaphet appears to have been the eldest of the three brothers seeing that in 10,21 the Torah refers to אחי יפת הגדול, ”brother of the senior, Yaphet.” Cham appears to have been the youngest seeing the Torah writes in 9,24 וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “and he became aware of what his younger son had done to him.” The reason the Torah mentions Shem first was because he was the most outstanding of Noach’s children. This is why Yaphet had to be mentioned only after Shem
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  וירא אלוקים את הארץ, ”G-d saw the earth, etc.” At this point the Torah reverts to G-d’s name אלוקים to indicate that the attribute of Justice enters the picture at this stage. Seeing that the sins of that generation were so great the attribute of Justice was poised over them. 
  והנה נשחתה, “and here it had become corrupt, etc.” What precisely did this “corruption” consist of? כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ, “for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” They were all destroying their own seed. They did not want to procreate and used sexual union for pleasure only. This is what is meant by Isaiah 57,5  שוחטי הילדים, “the ones who slaughter the children.” Our sages (Niddah 13) comment on this that a preferable reading to the word שוחטי would be סוחטי, i.e. they squeezed out their semen before impregnating their wives. Seeing that they had become guilty of destroying semen which becomes a fetus after forty days, they were punished with a deluge which poured rain on them for forty days (based on Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 22). Actually, the people of that time were guilty of four sins: 1) idolatry; 2) sexual licentiousness including incest; 3) murder; 4) gratuitous violence. The reason for the forty days of rain may be broken down as follows: thirty days of continuous rain descended because of their idolatry, i.e. the worshiped the sun for thirty days; however seeing the sun’s influence on earth commences already five days before it becomes visible to us and it continues for five days after it has ceased to be visible, it was proper that they be punished on account of sun-worship for forty days. Whatever is true of the visible effect of the sun as well as its invisible effect, applies equally to the stars so that in respect of every form of worship of celestial constellations the number forty represented מדה כנגד מדה, “the punishment fitted the crime.” Similar considerations apply to the sin of sexual licentiousness and murder as in both instances the gestation period of the human being was forty days before it became a real fetus. As to the violence, their fourth sin, the number forty is appropriate for the duration of the days of rain as the Torah containing this legislation was given to Moses after he had spent forty days on Mount Sinai. This sin of corruption did not only include human beings but it had also corrupted the behaviour of the animals. This is why our sages (Sanhedrin 108) explained ברותחין קלקלו וברותחין נדונו, “the ones who had become guilty of wasting hot semen were punished by a deluge of hot water.” This fact is based on a similarity of the words וחמת המלך שככה, and the king’s anger “cooled off,” and the words used at the end of the deluge in 8,1 וישכו המים, “and the waters cooled off.” As to the line ותשחת הארץ לפני האלוקים, “the earth had become corrupt in the presence of G-d,” this is a reference to the idolatry practiced by man. The Torah alluded to then fact that the sins of mankind included both trespasses against G-d as well as trespasses against society. They corrupted religion and they corrupted the basics of procreation. These latter sins also included indiscriminate robbery amongst the people. The Torah refers to this by writing ותמלא הארץ, “the earth became filled with violence,” and the repetition כי מלאה הארץ חמס. Seeing that the Torah reports G-d’s decision to bring on the deluge in connection with the report of the violence it is clear that this sin weighed most heavily and that the decree to destroy mankind was not sealed until G-d had reviewed the indiscriminate violence on earth (compare Sanhedrin 108). We find support for this view in two verses in the Book of Isaiah. In Isaiah 54,14 we read רחקי מעושק כי לא תיראי וממחתה  כי לא תקרב אליך. “You shall keep away from oppression (do not engage in it) and you shall have no fear, and from ruin and it shall not come near you.” The same prophet had said a few verses earlier (verse 9)  כי מי נח זאת לי, “that this is like the deluge to Me, etc.” In other words the prophet (in the name of G-d) warns the people that the deluge had been due to  the violence and oppression practiced by people against each other. The reason that this was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” i.e. the most critical sin was that it is a trespass against common sense. If there were no G-d at all, mankind would have to legislate laws controlling violence as otherwise civilisation would collapse of its own. A society which did not even observe such a code flaws could not expect to endure.
  	The very occurrence of the deluge is proof positive that the universe was a creation and that a Creator presides over it and watches it; it proves that the same Creator punishes those who are guilty and saves the ones who deserve to be saved such as  Noach and his family. It proves further that G-d’s supervision is not limited to the celestial spheres but that it extends to our “lower” world also. Just as Adam was the ancestor of all human beings after him, so Noach became the ancestor of all human beings after the deluge. Just as Adam had three sons, Kayin, Hevel, and Sheth, so Noach had three sons, Shem, Cham, and Yaphet. Just as two of Adam’s sons were his mainstay whereas the third one was cursed, so you find that one of Noach’s sons was cursed. Just as Adam’s third son was the one who became the link to posterity so Noach’s third son is the true link to posterity as only the descendants of Shem are the ones who will qualify for resurrection. [According to Rashi, Shem was indeed the third, i.e. the youngest son of Noach. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  עשה לך תבת עצי גופר ,“make for yourself an Ark of gopher wood, etc.” “Gopher” is an especially light-weight kind of wood, known as kadros according to David Kimchi. Onkelos translates the word as דאעין-דקדרוס, a kind of cedar-wood. G-d instructed Noach to make for himself an Ark out of this well-known wood and to bring into it two specimens (male and female) of all the domestic and free-roaming animals in order to keep these species alive as  well as seven pairs of each of the pure species of birds in order for some to serve as sacrifices after the deluge. G-d informed Noach beforehand that he was going to bring the deluge in order to wipe out all flesh on earth which had the breath of life in it.
  	At this point, an intelligent child must surely ask how it is possible that a man whom the Torah described in the most glowing terms as a righteous and perfect individual did not turn to G-d in prayer in order to help save the members of his generation and give them a chance to repent and rehabilitate themselves?. Why did he not engage G-d in a dialogue as Avraham did after him when G-d had informed him that He was going to destroy the city of Sodom and its inhabitants? Avraham had prayed repeatedly and almost insistently as we know from the report of the Torah in Genesis chapter 18. The answer to this question is that Noach did not “neglect” to pray for his contemporaries either because he did not care or felt that they deserved to perish. He knew that there was a need for only ten righteous people in order to ensure the survival of the world as it was. He based this tradition on the ten directives G-d employed to create the universe. He reasoned that if there were indeed ten righteous people alive at that time G-d would not have instructed him to prepare for the deluge by building the Ark. Under the prevailing circumstances, only eight people had been commanded to enter the Ark, ( Noach and his wife, his three sons and their respective wives) i.e. proof that at that time there were already no ten righteous people left on earth. [Avraham had also stopped praying when he realised that there were fewer than ten good people in Sodom. Ed.] Seeing there were no ten good people left on earth it was clear to him that the generation did not merit survival on account of the remaining eight good people. Under the circumstances,  the most that G-d was willing to do was to save Noach seeing he was the first member of the tenth generation of mankind. G-d accommodated Noach by also saving his immediate family. The fact that Avraham himself did not bother to implore G-d to save the city of Sodom for the sake of fewer than ten righteous people proves that Noach cannot be faulted for not having prayed when told to take only seven additional human beings into the Ark with him. In fact, Noach was not even allowed to pray when he knew there were fewer than ten good people. In addition, as opposed to the people of Sodom, the people at the time of Noach had been given 120 years warning The people of Sodom had not been given any kind of warning by G-d prior to Avraham being informed of their impending doom. G-d is not in the habit of decreeing doom unless the potential victims had been warned (Yuma 81). 
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  וזה אשר תעשה אותה, “and this is how you shall construct it, etc.” G-d commanded Noach the measurements of the Ark. When one considers the many types of species Noach had been asked to bring into the Ark, these measurements appear to be totally insufficient. In fact, according to the number of species of animals and birds in our world today, even ten times as many Arks of that size would not be able to accommodate them all. There can therefore be no doubt that the entire operation was possible only by means of G-d’s miraculous intervention. G-d demonstrated to Noach and his family that even a physically small space can accommodate a great number of creatures when G-d so decrees it.
  	You may be inclined to ask that seeing G-d was able to save all these people and animals by working a miracle, why did He bother to command Noach to spend 120 years of his life to build the Ark altogether? Surely, G-d had a number of other alternatives once He had decided to invoke miracles! For instance, He could have enabled the people and animals who were meant to survive to walk on water, or some other miracle not involving 120 years of Noach’s time. The answer to such questions is that the Torah always instructs man to do all in his power to achieve his objective by natural means. If, for reasons beyond his control, man cannot complete his task, G-d will supply the amount of miracle needed to bring man’s deserving endeavor to a successful conclusion. If you will examine other miracles reported in the Torah you will always find that though G-d intervened in the most miraculous manner, there were always elements in what happened which were based on the laws of nature being made full use of. For instance, when the Torah commanded the two and a half tribes of Reuven, Gad, and Menashe to join their brethren in war by donning arms and uniforms and marching at their head (Numbers 32,27), this was not because they did the actual fighting. The actual fighting was done by G-d. Nonetheless, man has to do or to appear to do whatever is within his power to try and achieve the task set for him by G-d. Similarly, we find in Joshua 8,2  that G-d commanded Joshua to set an ambush against the city of Ai and take with him his entire army although G-d Himself says “here I have already given the King of Ai and his people and his city into your hands.” Seeing that all the wars fought by the Israelites on their march from Egypt to the Holy Land were won by means of miracles you would be justified in asking why they needed to be recruited as an army at all? The reason is, as we have stated, that G-d does not intervene by means of a miracle until man has done his duty by trying to help himself. 	In our situation, i.e. the building of the Ark, there was an additional reason why G-d had commanded Noach to build it. He had hoped that when people would watch the vast amount of time and energy which Noach (and his sons) put into constructing this huge Ark that he must have known what he was doing, and that at least some people would take his warning of the impending deluge to heart to repent and change their lifestyle. If they would nonetheless ignore such warnings they were obviously irredeemable sinners and would deserve whatever G-d decreed for them.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  והקימותי את בריתי עמך , “and I will maintain My covenant with you, etc.” The covenant G-d speaks about is the one he now concludes that He would wipe out life on earth and would save only Noach  and those in the Ark with him. Alternatively, G-d may have been speaking about the covenant involving the rainbow, the details of which  appear later on in our portion (view of Ibn Ezra).
  	Nachmanides writes that based on Kabbalah the covenant G-d speaks about here is not one G-d concluded with Noach at all, but it s a covenant G-d made with mankind or the universe at the time of creation. The word ברית, “covenant,” is actually derived from the word בראשית, the time when G-d began the work of creation. You may read the word בריתי as if it had been spelled ברייתי, related to “My creation,” i.e. the Hebrew word בריתי is similar to a possessive form of the word or words בראשית עולם, “at the beginning of the universe.” Accordingly, G-d stated that this original covenant would be maintained with the righteous of all generations, at this point with Noach. Nachmanides quotes Genesis 9,9 ואני הנני מקים את בריתי אתכם, “and here I will keep My covenant with you,” as an example of what he has in mind. Another example he quotes is Malachi 2, 5 בריתי היתה אתו, “My covenant has been with him.” [that G-d always maintained His covenant with the tribe of Levi.]  The intelligent will understand what I refer to. Thus far Nachmanides To summarize what he meant: The covenant which has existed and extended from on high to man on earth is that G-d employs His attribute of Mercy as the guiding principle in His relation to human beings. This covenant will endure and the partner to G-d in this covenant is the righteous f each generation seeing the righteous is the foundation upon which the universe id founded. Due to this covenant man is the recipient of G-d’s bounty. This is the real meaning of the word אתכם ”with you” (pl) in 9,9.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  מכל החי, “and from all living creatures, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 31,13 explain this expression is meant to include demons (disembodied spirits). G-d commanded them to enter the Ark [Noach would not be able to locate them on his own. Ed.] It is possible to explain this strange phenomenon by recalling that these spirits might not have been able to remain in their regular habitat, i.e. the atmosphere, due to the changes in the earth’s atmosphere during the period of the deluge when even the atmosphere underwent radical changes. The reason for this can be seen from the wording of G-d’s decree לשחת כל בשר אשר בו רוח חיים ,”to destroy all flesh which has the spirit of life in it.” The emphasis appears to be on the words “spirit of life.” According to this wording the decree that living creatures would perish applied to all moving creatures including disembodied spirits. It was necessary therefore to bring these demons or spirits into the Ark as they too would have perished during the forty days of hot rain.
  	When the Torah speaks about Noach (personally) bringing all these creatures into the Ark,  i.e. תביא אל התבה, this need not be understood literally. After all, we find in the very next verse that the Torah writes יבואו אליך להחיות, “they will come to you in order to survive.” Surely this means that they will come of their own accord. What then did the Torah mean in our verse where it writes “bring to you into the Ark?” The meaning of these words is that Noach was to assist these animals once they had come to him and to provide them with suitable accommodation. He was to make every effort to ensure their survival. This was a commandment. Where do we actually find a mention of the fact that the demons came to join Noach in the Ark together with all the other species of living creatures? The Torah writes some apparently superfluous words in verse fourteen where the Torah writes וכל העוף למינהו כל צפור כל כנף, “and every bird after its kind and every bird of any kind of wing.” The words כל העוף למינהו, refer to the impure birds; the words כל צפור, refer to the pure birds; the additional words כל כנף “any kind of wing,” refer to the demons. They fly through the air. These words are followed immediately by the statement ויבואו אל נח אל התבה, “they came to Noach to the Ark.”
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויעש נח, “Noach did, etc.” These words refer to Noach constructing the Ark. The next words i.e. כן עשה, “so he did,” refer to Noach bringing in the various species in pairs as well as stocking the Ark with the necessary food supply, the appropriate food for each species.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  מכל הבהמה הטהורה תקח לך שבעה שבעה, “from every species of pure domestic animal take for yourself seven pairs each.” In order to keep the species alive it would have been sufficient to take a single pair of each species. The reason G-d commanded Noach to take seven pairs of each of these species was to ensure that he would have sufficient animals to offer some as a sacrifice. There is a mystical connotation for this number seven which our author discusses in connection with Numbers 23,4 where we read about the number of animals Bileam offered before he hoped to curse the Jewish people.
  	Why did the Torah add the words זכר ונקבה לחיות זרע על פני כל הארץ, “male and female in order to keep seed alive on the face of the whole earth? Did Noach really require seven pairs of each of these species in order to prevent them from dying out? If he only needed one pair each of the impure animals, why did he need seven pairs for the same purpose in the case of the pure species?  After all the Torah had already specified that Noach was to take of each species איש ואשתו “man and its wife,” i.e. a pair which were suitably matched to enable them to produce offspring! In order to understand these verses correctly we have to translate them as follows: “of all the pure domestic animals take for yourself seven, seven i.e. each one with its mate; also from amongst the birds seven each, male and female; (all of this in order to offer a sacrifice) however, from the impure domestic animals you take two, i.e. the male and its mate in order for these to be able to keep seed alive on the face of the whole earth; for in another seven days I am going to bring a deluge upon the earth. This is why you have to take these animals in order to preserve the species.”
  	There is a reason why the Torah employs the unusual phrase איש ואשתו, “man and his wife,” and applies it to the four-legged animals although they are in the habit of mating at random, changing partners at will, and in the case of the birds the Torah speaks only about the need to take זכר ונקבה, a male and a female specimen. The mating habits of the four-legged animals are different from the mating habits of the birds. The mammals give birth to live young ones, similar to humans, whereas the birds merely lay eggs, i.e. something in an early stage of development. 
  Our sages in Sanhedrin 108 have said that seeing that it is not the habit of the mammals to try and mate with other species G-d honoured them by describing their mating habits as similar to those of “man and his wife.” You should also be aware that in the previous paragraph where G-d informed Noach for the first time that He would bring a deluge upon earth, He employed the name applicable to the attribute of Justice, i.e. ויאמר אלוקים, “the attribute of Justice spoke to Noach,” and the paragraph also concludes by referring to G-d as “the attribute of Justice.” In chapter 7,1 when G-d speaks about who is going to be saved (and hinted at the thanksgiving-offering), the Torah changes its syntax and reports ויאמר ה' לנח, “the attribute of Mercy spoke to Noach,” and the same applies at the end of that paragraph when the Torah tells us that He closed the door of the Ark from the outside. This is intended to teach us that sacrifices are always directed at G-d in His capacity as the attribute of Mercy. Our sages in Menachot 110 have stated that whenever the Torah speaks about sacrificial offerings the only name of G-d mentioned in that connection is the attribute of Mercy, i.e. the name י-ה-ו-ה. One of the reasons for this is so as not to allow anyone to think that there is another deity to whom it is appropriate to offer sacrifices.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  כי לימים עוד שבעה, “for in another seven days.” In addition to the 120 years which G-d had given mankind to repent and to mend its ways, He now gave them another seven days. Our sages in Sanhedrin 108 say that these seven days were the days of mourning for Metushelach (who had died at 969 years of age). He had lived the life of a righteous man (Noach’s grandfather) and G-d had held back with bringing on the deluge on his account. This is why the Torah (7,10) wrote the apparently superfluous words ויהי לשבעת הימים ומי המבול היו על הארץ, “it was after these seven days that the waters of the deluge were upon the earth.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  נבקעו כל מעינות תהום רבה וארבות השמים נפתחו, “all the fountains of the great ‘deep’ were opened and the ‘windows’ of the heavens were opened.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: “on this day the windows of the heavens were opened as well as the all fountains of the “deep.” The Torah should first have mentioned the waters from the “higher” regions before mentioning the waters from below the earth. It is possible to explain the unusual order of recording the origin of these waters as a sign that the Torah wanted to stress the punitive nature of what occurred as being something that could be felt immediately. We find that whenever the waters originating in the heavens are mentioned as a source of blessing the Torah mentions those waters before referring to moisture on the ground. For instance, when Moses blessed the people in Deut. 33,13 he speaks of ממגד שמים מטל ומתהום רובצת תחת, “with the heavenly bounty of dew from above and with the deep waters crouching below. We may deduce that this is why the Torah did not write: “G-d brought the deluge upon earth,” but “the waters of the deluge were found on earth” (verse 11). The Torah did no wish to associate G-d’s name with a statement which may lead the reader to conclude that  G-d  initiated what is perceived as evil. You will observe that even in verse 23 where the Torah writes וימח את כל היקום, “He blotted out all existence,”  the Torah does not identify the subject of “he,” although G-d’s name had not appeared for several verses previously. All of this is part of the Torah’s policy not to associate G-d with initiating disaster if it is at all avoidable. As soon as the force of the deluge abated somewhat and the waters cooled off, the name of G-d, albeit His attribute of Justice, אלוקים, is mentioned in 8,2 when G-d is reported as making a beneficial wind blow over the earth. Even in Genesis 3,16 where the Torah narrates what G-d said to Chavah when He decreed her punishment, the Torah refers to G-d only in the third person, i.e. impersonally, writing אל האשה אמר וגו', “to the woman He had said, etc.” The same applied in 3,17 where G-d is reported as telling Adam about his punishment. As soon as G-d provided man and his wife with clothing, however, (3,21) we find that all of a sudden the Torah refers to G-d again as ה' אלוקים.
  	A close look at the structure of the verses detailing the narrative of the deluge makes it plain that G-d found it very difficult to carry out His decision to wipe out mankind. At the beginning (7,12) the Torah wrote ויהי הגשם על הארץ, “the rain remained on earth,” whereas later on in verse 17 the Torah referred to the fact that this was in reality not mere rain but a deluge by describing it as a מבול, “a deluge.” This indicates that originally this rain descended in a regular manner to give people a chance to still repent when they observed that Noach’s prediction was about to come true. Had they done תשובה even at that stage the rain would have proven to be beneficial. Only their failure to respond even to this phenomenon turned this rainfall into disaster. Moreover, G-d first killed the animals before the Torah reports that even man perished too (verse 21). Just as man had been the last of G-d’s creatures during the creative process, he now was the last creature to perish as a result of the deluge.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  בא נח ושם וחם ויפת בני נח ואשת נח וגו' , “Noach, Shem, Cham, and Yaphet, Noach’s sons and his wife entered, etc.” By rights the Torah should have written: בא נח ושם וחם ויפת בניו ואשתו ושלשת נשי בניו, in that order.[Had the Torah written the verse in that way it could have avoided mentioning the name Noach three times in that verse. Ed.] However, Noach was so beloved of G-d that G-d wanted to mention his name repeatedly in order to convey this to us. It is a common practice amongst people that when they are especially fond of someone they look for opportunities to refer to such a person by his name.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויבאו אל נח אל התבה, “they came to Noach, to the Ark.” This verse is a continuation of the words בעצם היום הזה, “on this same day,” in verse 13, where the Torah had mentioned first that Noach and his family entered the Ark before going on to say that the animals arrived in pairs. All this occurred on the same day. The Torah was at pains to describe the miraculous nature of what happened, i.e. that this was a manifestation of G-d’s will.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו, “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, etc.” From here we have proof that when man dies his soul departs via his nostrils. It leaves the same way it entered as we have been told that when G-d provided man with the soul, He “blew” it into him through his nostrils (Genesis 2,7). I have dealt with this subject at length at that point.
  	A kabbalistic approach to the words כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו understands the word כל, “all,” as an allusion to the emanation כל with which G-d had blessed Avraham (Genesis 24,1). This is the tenth emanation, the region where the souls “grow.” Our sages who instituted the prayer we recite on Sabbath morning commencing with the words נשמת כל חי had this emanation in mind. This is also the mystical dimension of Exodus 31,17 where the Torah says of G-d כי בו שבת וינפש, “for on it (the Sabbath) “He ‘rested’ and concentrated on the regions of the souls.” This emanation or “celestial region,” is the source of all blessings and the source of “life” as we understand it. This is why the Torah said of the original Sabbath ויברך אלוהים את יום השביעי, “the Lord blessed the seventh day.” This is why here the Torah refers to “life” as אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו. The difference between man and the other living creatures is that whereas the latter have a רוח חיים, they do not possess a נשמת רוח חיים. The cantillation pazer gadol on the word כל in our verse is designed to draw our attention to the fact that the word does not mean simply “all” as it does usually, but that it refers to the emanation כל which we have mentioned. The word כל does not appear with the cantillation pazer gadol anywhere else in the Bible. It is important to take note of this and to realise its implication.
  	מכל אשר בחרבה מתו, “of all the creatures whose habitat is on the dry land, they died.” This teaches that the fish in the rivers and in the oceans did not die. They were able to escape the destruction by fleeing to the oceans as the deluge had been decreed only on earth. This is the meaning of the words (verse 12) “the rain was on the earth.”
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  וימח את כל היקום , “He obliterated all existence.” The Torah here includes all living creatures on earth as having been killed by the boiling waters which covered the earth. The additional words: וימחו מן הארץ, “they were blotted out from the earth,” mean that whereas they themselves were blotted out on earth, their כוחות, “the various forms of power providing their energy on earth” were wiped out from the heavens. You are aware already that all forms of energy that exist in the higher regions exert influence on what happens in our terrestrial world. The reason that sources of energy in the terrestrial world ceased was that their celestial counterparts, their “home base,” had already ceased to perform their task. G-d had put a stop to their ability to exert influence on earth “below.” They did not even receive any celestial input anymore from what is known as the קו האמצעי, the central emanation which exerts its influence on all phenomena subject to celestial input. Since all these celestial sources had already ceased to provide the terrestrial phenomena with their beneficial contributions, the only source which still remained at the time of the deluge and which was capable of providing beneficial energy was this קו האמצעי. David referred to this when he said (Psalms 29,10) ה' למבול ישב וישב ה' מלך לעולם, “G-d had remained seated all alone; G-d sits enthroned as King forever.” The word yashav in that verse refers to G-d’s remaining ‘isolated’ at that time.” We find a similar expression in Psalms 9,8 וה' לעולם ישב, “and G-d will be seated forever, etc.” This too refers to G-d “alone,” i.e. at a time when He has not assigned agents to disperse their G-d-given energies to the terrestrial world. This helps us to understand the statement by our sages in Zevachim 113 that the deluge did not include the Holy Land. They meant that the rain did not descend upon ארץ ישראל from the sky and that this was a compliment to the Holy Land and its elevated status. The windows of heaven were not opened in order to flood ארץ ישראל from above, nor were the fountains of the “deep” opened in order to flood it from below as ארץ ישראל is the equivalent on earth of the קו האמצעי in the celestial regions. [Personally, I have always understood that statement by the sages to mean that inasmuch as ארץ ישראל is under the direct supervision of G-d as opposed to the other countries which receive their divine input only through G-d’s agents, there was no call for imposing such a deluge on a country which had not been allowed to deteriorate as it had been under the constant supervision of G-d personally. Ed.].
  	A Midrashic-homiletical approach to the apparent repetition in our verse is that the first statement refers to wiping out these people’s future on earth, whereas the second statement records that their lives in a future more idyllic world had also been denied them on account of their present corruption.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויזכר אלוקים את נח, “G-d remembered Noach, etc.” It would have been more appropriate for the Torah to write that “G-d remembered Noach and his sons, etc.” After all, we know that they too were beneficiaries of His presence since the Torah wrote in 9,8 “G-d spoke to Noach and to his sons, etc.” Why then did the Torah here mention only Noach as the one to whom G-d spoke? It is possible to understand the word את in front of the word נח as a reference to his sons. This would certainly not be the first time that the word  את is used as a רבוי, a word which alludes to something additional which the Torah had not spelled out in detail. Seeing that Noach’s sons were extensions of his own self, the Torah did not see fit to mention them separately at this stage. We find a similar occurrence in Exodus 1,1 where the Torah mentions את יעקב, and Shemot Rabbah interprets the word את as a reference to all the people who descended to Egypt because they were “extensions” of Yaakov. This meant that sons and wives were automatically included in the people whose fate G-d had “remembered.” As to the fact that the Torah specifically refers to the animals and all other creatures in the Ark with Noach,  something which at first glance makes it appear as if their fates were of greater concern to G-d than that of Noach’s wife, his sons and their wives, this is not so. We distinguish between השגחה כללית, and השגחה פרטית, G-d’s general overall concern and supervision of their fate, and G-d’s specific individual supervision of someone’s fate. Whereas the animals, etc., qualified for G-d’s general concern, Noach and his family qualified for G-d’s specific concern. Hence the word את is an indication that G-d’s specific concern extended also to the members of Noach’s family. Alternatively, the reason Torah chose to mention G-d’s concern for the domestic beasts and the free-roaming animals was to draw our attention to the fact that He displayed no such concern for the birds; hence the birds are not mentioned in this verse. The reason may have been that seeing that the mammals were all created on the sixth day of creation, i.e. the same day as man, they shared special consideration by G-d with man; the birds which had been created already on the fifth day did not enjoy this distinction. This may also be reflected in the wording אשר אתו בתיבה “who were with him in the Ark.” The Torah wanted to stress that there was something that man and the other mammals shared to the exclusion of other phenomena on earth, namely G-d’s especial concern for their fates. It is noteworthy that the same word את occurs in the narrative of the Torah when it describes both man’s and the mammal’s creation on the sixth day. Please compare Genesis 1,24-25. The words אשר אתו in our verse here may be an allusion to that verse in 1,24.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ותנח התבה בחדש השביעי בשבעה עשר יום לחודש על הרי אררט, “The Ark came to rest on the mountain range of Arrarat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month.” The day on which the Ark “landed” on that mountain range was the seventeenth day of the month of Nissan. [This is based on the view of Nachmanides that whenever the Torah here speaks of the seventh or the tenth month, this is calculated from the day the universe was created and not from the date the deluge began.] When the Torah wrote that the waters kept increasing for one hundred and fifty days (7,24), this describes a process which had commenced on the seventeenth day of Marcheshvan , i.e. the day on which the deluge began. It refers back to where the Torah reported (7,11) that in the sixth hundredth year of Noach’s life on the seventeenth of the second month, the fountains of the deep broke open, etc.” You will note that there are 150 days between the seventeenth of Marcheshvan and the seventeenth of Nissan. 
  	According to Nachmanides the timetable of the deluge ran as follows: Rain descended on earth for forty days continuously from the date the fountains of the deep broke open. During those forty days the waters on earth rose to a level of fifteen cubits above the highest peaks. At the end of the forty days the rain stopped but the fountains of the deep remained open and the “windows” of the heavens also remained open so that the atmosphere was extremely moist. The entire globe was full of water none of which dried off during that period. This condition continued until the end of 150 days after the rain had started falling. At that point G-d made a strong wind blow in the atmosphere and on earth and the fountains of the deep closed. The waters which had flooded earth from below returned to the interior of the earth where they had been before the deluge started. At that point the “windows” of the heavens were closed also and the air of the atmosphere began to dry up. As a result, the level of water on earth became drastically reduced so that the Ark which had previously been about two or three cubits deep in water managed to “land” on the mountain range of Ararat. Some 73 days later the tops of the mountains became visible on the first day of the tenth month, i.e. on the first of the month of Tamuz. Another forty days later, on the tenth of the month of Av, the dove left the Ark for good. Another thirty days later Noach removed the cover of the ark.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וישלח את העורב, “he sent out the raven, etc.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 108 claim that the raven had an incontrovertible argument against Noach, claiming that both G-d and Noach hated it. G-d hated the impure creatures, seeing that He had commanded Noach to save only a single pair of each. Noach hated the raven seeing that he was prepared to endanger its survival as a species by sending it on a dangerous mission when he could have sent out a dove or another pure bird of which there were seven pairs. It therefore taunted Noach by accusing him of having sexual designs on its mate. Noach retorted by telling the raven that it was being deliberately vicious seeing it was well aware that he had refrained from indulging in sexual relations in the Ark even with his own wife, someone with whom he was permitted to have relations. Why then would the raven suspect him of having designs on a species which was forbidden to him, i.e  the raven’s mate? The raven was not willing to accept Noach’s argument. As a result, Noach told the raven that it would neither be fit to eat nor to be offered as a sacrifice to G-d. At that point G-d intervened and told Noach to take the raven back into the Ark at least until the waters on the earth had dried off. G-d explained that in the future a certain righteous individual (the prophet Elijah)  would dry out the world (decree drought) and at that time G-d would need the raven who would carry food to Elijah who would be in hiding at that time. (compare Kings I 17,8). The word יבשת, “dry land,” is closely related to the word תשבי, a favourite description of the prophet Elijah whose home town appears to have been Tishbi or something similar.
  
  Verse 8
  
  וישלח היונה מאתו, “he sent out the dove away from him.” When the Torah describes Noach as sending out the raven the word מאתו, “away from being with him,” was missing. This teaches that the habitat of the pure birds is close to the righteous people.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  והנה עלה זית טרף בפיה, “and here it had torn off an olive leaf with its beak.” Seeing that destruction had been decreed on man and beast there was no need for the Torah to have reported that the trees too had been doomed by the deluge. In fact, the destruction of vegetation on earth had been so thorough that our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 28,3 claim that even the lower millstones had been thoroughly destroyed. This may be based on Job 14,19 אבנים שחקו מים, “the waters wear away even stones.” There was no need for the Torah to add that the leaf which the dove carried in its beak must have been one that had withered already a long time previously. The question is: where did the dove find even such a leaf? The Midrash offers several explanations. Rabbi Levi claims that the leaf came from Mount Olives (Jerusalem), seeing the deluge had not touched the Holy Land.  He claims that G-d had said to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 22, 24)  בן אדם  אמר לה את ארץ לא מטהרה היא לא גשמה ביום זעם, “Ben Adam,  say to her: “You are a land that has not been cleansed; she had not been rained upon on the day of fury.” The words לא מטהרה refer to the fountains of the deep beneath the Holy Land not having opened at the time of the deluge, whereas the words ולא גושמה mean that no destructive rain fell on the Holy Land during the period of the deluge. Nonetheless, it is fair to assume that the waters of the deluge which had flooded neighbouring countries also spilled over into the Holy Land. After all, the Torah testifies that the waters of the deluge “covered all the high mountains beneath the whole sky (7,19).” Seeing that no rain had fallen on the Holy Land which would have uprooted and broken the trees in that land, the waters which spilled over into that land did not have such a destructive effect. It is quite plausible therefore that the dove took the leaf from Mount Olives. This explains what is meant when the Torah wrote ((8,11) וידע נח  כי קלו המים מעל הארץ, “Noach realised that the waters had subsided from upon the earth.”
      	Another view expressed in Bereshit Rabbah 33,6 is that the dove brought this olive leaf from Gan Eden. This appears very puzzling. If that were true whence did Noach know that the waters on the surface of the earth had subsided? After all, the waters of the deluge had most certainly not penetrated into Gan Eden! Nachmanides addressed this problem and wrote that possibly the gates of Gan Eden were locked so that the waters could not enter there, and as soon as the waters on earth subsided the gates to Gan Eden reopened.
      	The word טרף, “it had torn (it)” in our verse is puzzling. We would have expected the Torah to describe what happened to the leaf, i.e. the feminine form טרפה seeing that the bird יונה always appears in the feminine form. The answer is that it is not a form of a verb but an adjective and the word טרף has to be understood as if the Torah had written טרוף, “torn off.” This is the reason for the vowel kametz under the letter ר in the word טרף, when actually we would have expected to find the vowel patach. The Torah could have merely written והנה עלה טרף בפיה, “and here a torn leaf was in its beak.” This alone would have provided Noach with the information that the waters on earth had subsided. The addition of the word זית, i.e. that this leaf had been torn from an olive tree, caused our sages to derive the lesson that it is better to subsist on one’s own efforts (relying directly on G-d’s bounty), even if one has to eat something bitter such as olive leaves, than to be fed delicious morsels by one’s (human) host in the Ark, i.e. by Noach (compare Rashi on our verse).
      	Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 33,6 comment further in the name of Rabbi Avuhu: “if the dove entered Gan Eden and brought a leaf from there why did it not at least bring a leaf from a cinnamon tree or something sweet ?” It wanted to hint to Noach “better something bitter which originates in Gan Eden than something sweet which originates from you.” According to these homiletical comments by the Midrash, the word טרף, must have a connotation of “food.” We do indeed find this meaning for the word טרף in Proverbs 30,8 where Solomon, having spurned riches turns to G-d and exclaims: הטריפני לחם  חקי, “feed me with the bread allotted to me.” All creatures may draw some logical conclusions from this paragraph. If even birds prefer freedom and a relatively difficult mode of subsistence, how much more so must we human beings who have been equipped with a brain and the power to reason adopt such an attitude in life! Would that intelligent people were aware of the demeaning aspect of relying on fellow human beings for their subsistence.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  בשבעה ועשרים יום לחודש “on the twenty-seventh day of that month.” This was the month of Marcheshvan. Earlier the Torah had spoken of “on the seventeenth of the month the fountains of the “deep” broke open (7,11),” whereas now the Torah says that on the twenty-seventh day of that month the earth had dried out completely. This teaches that the deluge lasted exactly one full solar year (365 days). We know that ordinarily the solar year is 11 days longer than the lunar year, i.e. 12 months. This is why our sages in Ediyot 2,10 stated that the period during which the people of that generation were judged lasted for 12 months. (According to Rabbi Shlomoh ben Aderet we have to add the eleven days of the difference between the solar and the lunar year so as to avoid the Mishnah in Ediyot being in conflict with the Torah). We are also told in that same Mishnah that the judgment of the Egyptians in Egypt (the ten plagues) lasted 12 months and that Job’s afflictions lasted for 12 months. Also the judgment of the wicked in Gehinom lasts for 12 months. Finally, the Mishnah states that the judgment experienced by the nations taking part in the final assault on the Jewish people under the kingdoms of Gog and Magog will last for 12 months.
      	יבשה הארץ, “the earth had dried up.” Although the earth had completely dried up Noach did not leave the Ark until G-d had given him express permission to do so and had commanded him: “leave the Ark, etc.” (8,16). Seeing that he had only entered the Ark at the direct command of G-d he did not want to leave it until G-d commanded him to do so. 
  Basing themselves on Noach’s example the sages in Tanchuma Noach 7 concluded that Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah did not want to leave the furnace of Nevuchadnezzar (Daniel 3,26) until bidden to do so [the wording is that Nevuchadnezzar said to them; “step out and come here!” They had not wanted to come out until bidden to do so although the bottom of the furnace had risen miraculously to be level with the ground around them and this would have been a clear indication that their ordeal was over.]
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  צא מן התבה, אתה ואשתך ובניך, “Leave  the  Ark, you and your wife, your sons and the wives of your sons.” This was a sign that permission had been granted to once again conduct regular married life with one’s spouse, something which had been forbidden while they were inside the Ark. We know this as at the time Noach and his family entered the Ark the Torah prescribed the sequence “you and your sons, your wife and the wives of your sons” (6,18). At this point the sequence mentioned by the Torah is: “you and your wife, your sons and the wives of your sons.” Clearly, the difference points to separation of the sexes while they were inside the Ark. 
  Talmud Sanhedrin 108 states that only three creatures engaged in sex inside the Ark; they were the raven, the dog, and Cham. All three of them were punished. The raven was condemned to ejaculate its semen via its beak, the dog is kept on a leash; Cham was punished by becoming black-skinned.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויבן נח מזבח לה’,  “Noach built an altar for the Lord, etc.” Noach’s thinking when offering sacrifices was in an ascending manner. First, he built an altar on earth, addressing himself to G-d as the attribute of Mercy, hence the word לה’. From this attribute of Mercy, he proceeded to ויעל עלת, “he raised total-offerings on top of that altar.” Although the word עולות for total-offerings is read as a plural, it is spelled without the letters ו, i.e. as if it were a singular. This indicated his intent to elevate himself spiritually by means of the sacrifices. The animal was to take his place symbolically when the smoke of its flesh rose heavenwards. Isaiah 60,7 where the prophet, quoting G-d, exclaims  יעלו על רצון מזבחי ובית תפארתי אפאר, “they will ascend on high achieving goodwill associated with My altar and I will glorify even further My glorious House,” is similar. [We would have expected the prophet to write יעלו לרצון על מזבחי, “they will ascend on My altar to achieve goodwill, etc.” The change in the wording indicates that the person offering the sacrifice wanted to achieve a spiritual union with Him [Who is “above,” Ed.]. We find such a concept even with Manoach in Judges. He had not even bothered to build an altar [it was forbidden at that time to build private altars, Ed.], but the prophet described the ascent of his sacrifice from a spiritual point located as higher than the altar i.e. מעל המזבח, “from above the altar” (Judges 13,20). Subsequently, that same sacrifice is described as reaching heaven. At that point the angel is depicted as “taking a ride in the flame and ascending” (to heaven? also). The word להב in Judges may be understood as connected to לב, heart. In other words, the heart was the medium which enabled the sacrifice and what it stood for to reach heaven. This explains G-d’s reaction which is described here in the words וירח את ריח הניחח, “G-d’s bounty which originates in the celestial regions was drawn “downwards”. At that point G-d said אל לבו, to the attribute of Justice, “I will not continue ever to allow My attribute of Justice to curse the earth because of man, i.e. “because I have discovered something positive in man.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  מנעוריו, “from the time he is youthful.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 34,10 say that the meaning of this expression is that the word מנעוריו , refers to “the moment the baby is born.” It accompanies man from the time he is born and that this is why he does not have to observe the Torah’s commandments until he attains the age of puberty (13) as only  then does the יצר הטוב, the urge to be good, become part of him. (based on Kohelet Rabbah 9,22 and on Kohelet 4,14  כי מבית הסורים יצא למלך, “for from the time he is a prisoner he (the evil urge) rules.”) The evil urge had considered itself imprisoned in the fetus which is inside the mother’s womb and it wants to “celebrate its freedom” as soon as the baby is born. Seeing that the word הסורים is spelled defective with the letter א missing, this is an allusion to the evil urge which ignores the א, the One and Only G-d and His wishes. Alternatively, the defective spelling makes the word the equivalent of the aramaic סרי, meaning ויבאש, “it became foul.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  עוד כל ימי הארץ , “Furthermore, as long as the earth will continue to exist, etc.” The wording of this verse [Rabbi Chavell sees in the word כל an allusion to כלה, “something finite”] indicates that there will come a time when the earth will no longer exist. Even though the word עוד is spelled defective without the letter ו,  and this would allude to the very reverse, i.e. the infinite existence of earth based on the word עד being similar to ועד, “forever,” we must give precedence to the reading of the word over its spelling.  זרע וקציר, “seedtime and harvest;” the ones (being seeded) are going to be born, whereas the others are going to die (harvested). The verse goes on to explain the cause of such birth and death respectively, i.e. קר וחם, “cold and heat.” Basically, this verse intends to acquaint us with six regular phenomena which will recur at regular intervals as do day and night.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל, ”just like the green herbs, I have given you everything”. Had the Torah only written the word כל, I would have concluded that all kind of meat is permissible  for human consumption (including that of creeping things, etc. as argued by the Gentile interpreters of the Bible). The mention of the words כירק עשב, “like the green herbs,” limits the type of meat permitted for consumption by human beings. Just as not all herbs are intended for human consumption so not all meat is intended for human consumption. Poisonous herbs and certain (most) mushrooms are certainly not fit for consumption by humans. Similarly, there are categories of meat which are harmful to human beings. The Torah permitted only the kind of meat which is beneficial for man. The plain meaning of the verse is certainly not that it permits indiscriminate consumption of all manner of meat.
      	Talmud Sanhedrin 57 sees in the restrictive clause כירק עשב, a reference to the restrictions G-d had imposed on Adam and what he was allowed to eat, i.e. that he had not been permitted to eat meat. However, now this had changed and meat became permissible as food for human consumption just as herbs had been permitted for consumption by Adam at that time. The reason for this sudden permission of meat was that at the time of the deluge all animals had been guilty of death anyway so that man had now become their superior by dint of having already saved their various species from extinction. This gave man the right to slaughter animals for food [though not to hunt them for sport, Ed.].
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו, “but flesh; with its soul, its blood you must not eat.” The plain meaning is that G-d permitted only consumption of the flesh (meat) but not consumption of the life-force, נפש. In practice this means that tissue from an animal which is still alive is prohibited as food.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואך את דמכם, “however, your blood, etc.,” The Torah specifies that permission to consume the body of a creature which had once been alive applies only to those creatures whose life-force extends only to their bodies’ mobility; human beings whose life-force is superior and includes communicative skills are not permitted to be eaten. This is the deeper meaning of אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, “but I will demand an accounting for the blood of your life-force.” It is the prohibition to commit suicide. 
  The Talmud Bava Kama 91 deals with the culpability of people who take their own lives. The letter ל in לנפשותיכם is similar to the same letter in Chronicles I 3,2 השלישי לאבשלום בן מעכה, “the third one of Avshalom was Maachah,” which is understood to mean השלישי אבשלום בן מעכה, “the third one was Avshalom son of Maachah".
  מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, “I will demand an accounting from any animal concerning him.” Any animal which will kill a human being will be held accountable for its deed by G-d. It happened that a rooster had killed a human being and that the family of the victim brought that rooster to the court and the court executed it by stoning it. The Torah continues ומיד האדם, “and from the human being, etc.” This refers to instances where there are witnesses to the murder. In other words: man must judge murder when there are witnesses, whereas G-d will judge the murderer when there is no evidence which is admissible in a human tribunal.
  
  Verse 6
  
  שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך” when someone spills the blood of a human being his own blood is to be spilled by a human being.” The word באדם, means: “before a human tribunal.” There have to be witnesses who can testify. If so, the guilty person is subject to execution. This is also the thrust of the Targum’s translation: דישוד דמא דאינשא בסהדין על מימר דיינא דמיה יתשד, Onkelos clearly translates the word באדם as “in the presence of witnesses.” 
     כי בצלם אלוקים עשה את האדם, “for in the image of G-d did the Maker make man.” [This is obviously not a literal quotation of our verse, as the word העושה, does not appear in the text The author adopted Rashi’s comment that the word העושה is missing in our text and has to be substituted by the reader. Rashi adds that there are numerous other examples of this type throughout the Torah.]   Bereshit Rabbah 34, 14 understands the words אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, as including suicide by means of asphyxiation when no blood has been spilled. To the question if the kind of suicide committed by King Saul who was already in his death throes when he commanded the Amalekite to finish him off so that he would not be captured by the Philistines alive counted as suicide, the answer is that it is not, as the word אך in our verse is an exclusion and exempts such a situation. The question is also asked if people such as Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah who allowed themselves to be thrown into a fiery furnace (i.e. certain death) had been guilty of a form of suicide, the answer is negative and the reason cited is also the restrictive word אך in our verse (verse 5). The words מיד כל חיה are understood by the Midrash as a reference to the four empires who have hosted Jews in exile as these are referred to as חיות, comparable to beasts in Daniel 7.3. מיד האדם , this is a reference to Israelites who have been referred to as אדם by Ezekiel 34,31 when he said ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, “and you are My flock, sheep of My pasture-you are Adam.” The words מיד איש אחיו refer to the descendants of Esau as Yaakov prayed in Genesis 32,12 “save me please from my brother, from Esau.” The words אדרש את נפש האדם, refer to an accounting to be rendered at a future time. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  The words ואתם פרו ורבו “and you be fruitful and multiply,” have been placed here in order to teach that anyone who fails to practice the commandment to procreate is just as bad as someone who has committed murder. In fact, the sages in Yevamot 63 go so far as to say that failure to try and procreate is not only akin to bloodshed but that he is guilty of diminishing G-d’s image in the world. Different scholars phrase this idea slightly differently but they all agree that failure to attempt to procreate is equivalent to damaging G-d’s image in the eyes of His creatures. The idea underlying such statements is Genesis 17,7 in which the covenant between Avraham and G-d stipulates להיות לך לאלוקים ולזרעך אחריך, “to be your G-d and the G-d of your descendants after you.” G-d meant that as long as you will do your best to have descendants G-d’s benevolent presence will be manifest amongst you. If you leave no descendants after you, on whom is G-d’s benevolent presence supposed to manifest itself? On the trees? On the stones? We need to explore the precise meaning of Rabbi Akiva who speaks of man who does not try and start a family as diminishing the image of G-d.” How can man “diminish” G-d’s image? Rabbi Akiva was careful not to say that such people “void” G-d’s image. We have a verse in Isaiah 13,4 קול המון בהרים דמות עם רב, “the sound of a great multitude of people, creating the impression (image) of a great many people.” There are similar verses in the Bible, and our sages explain that the expression דמות עם רב is a reference to G-d Himself. There is another homiletical explanation of the verse in Song of Songs 1,9 דמיתיך רעיתי as meaning that on occasion a human being has the impression as if he had seen an image of G-d similar to what is described in Exodus 15,2 This is my G-d and I want to exalt Him.” This is why Solomon wrote in Song of Songs דמיתיך רעיתי “I have had an image of You as my beloved companion.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  ואל בניו אתו, “and to his sons with him.” Noach’s sons also heard the divine voice. In order that we should not think that only Noach himself heard this voice and that he was to tell his sons about it, the Torah adds the word אתו, “simultaneously.” This is why you find that the paragraph phrased in the plural, i.e. G-d saying  אתכם, ביניכם, “with you”, (pl) among you, (pl).” G-d included Shem and Yaphet in those whom He addressed. Cham no longer qualified for being addressed by G-d directly.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  את קשתי נתתי בענן, “I have placed My bow in the cloud, etc.” The plain meaning of these words is that the rainbow is to serve as a sign just as when Yaakov and Lavan erected a mound (pile of stones) as a monument, i.e. a symbol of their treaty in Genesis 31,52. Another example of such a symbol is found when Avraham and Avimelech concluded a treaty in Genesis 21,30 and Avraham set aside seven sheep to serve as a visible symbol of their treaty, (as testimony that he had dug the well). Any symbol which is displayed in front to two partners to a treaty or agreement is called אות, “sign.” This is particularly evident when the removal of the foreskin is referred to as the “sign,” אות, of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people Genesis 17,11. Just as circumcision is the symbol of a special relationship between Avraham and his descendants and G-d, so the rainbow was a symbol of a new relationship between G-d and mankind which would preclude the recurrence of a deluge. The word נתתי, “I gave or I have given,” may either mean that G-d placed the rainbow in the sky now or that He had done so much previously, in fact before the deluge, at the time of creation; but at that time there had not been a covenantal significance to that phenomenon. There can be no doubt that the phenomenon of the rainbow as a symbol of the new relationship between man and G-d was meant to reassure man that there would not again be a deluge on earth. The word נתתי may be translated as “I have sworn.” When G-d bestows a gift upon people it is sufficient for Him to say so; there is no need for G-d to confirm this by an oath. We have proof of this when G-d promised the land of Canaan to Avraham and his descendants as an inheritance. He did not do so by swearing an oath; He simply said לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת, “to your descendants I have given this land (Genesis 15,18).” When G-d refers to this gift on future occasions He refers to an oath (Numbers 14,23, Deut. 34,4 etc.) although we never find that He accompanied the promise with an oath. We may therefore understand the word נתתי, “I have given,” as “I have sworn. “This is also the reason why Isaiah 54, 9 could say כי מי נח זאת לי אשר נשבעתי, ”for this is for Me just like the waters of the time of Noach, concerning which I have sworn, etc.”  While it is true that some of our sages (Shevuot 36) have used this passage to prove that when the Torah quotes G-d as saying “no” twice in the same verse this is equivalent to an oath as the Torah writes in verse 11 ולא יכרת כל בשר עוד ממי המבול  ולא יהיה עוד מבול לשחת הארץ “and all flesh will not again be destroyed by the waters of a deluge, nor will there be another deluge to destroy the earth,” the words of the Torah are like fire and may be divided into yielding many different meanings. You will observe that Onkelos translates the words (Genesis 15,18) “לזרעך נתתי as יהבית “I have given,” whereas in our verse he translates נתתי as “יהבית also. as “I have given.” Whereas in Genesis 15,18 G-d had only promised that He would give something to Avram’s descendants, we would have expected Him to say “I will give,” especially since, at the time, Avram did not yet have any descendants.” However, the point the Torah and Onkelos wanted to make was that when G-d promises someone a gift in the future the Torah describes it as if it had been given already as when G-d promises He will surely keep His promise. We have a similar situation when Avraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from Efron in Genesis 23,13 where Avraham speaks of the money for that cave in these words: נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have given the money for the field, take it from me!” (actually Avraham had not yet “given: the money as yet). Onkelos therefore correctly translates the word נתתי when spoken by Avraham (a mortal human being) as אתן, “I am going to give.” This is so in  spite of the fact that Avraham was already holding the money in his hands, and he had no intention of changing his mind.. However, there is a difference between a promise by a human being even someone of the calibre of Avraham and that of a promise by G-d. G-d does not go back on a promise; hence it may be described as if it had already been fulfilled. The lesson is that when the Torah speaks of something G-d will do in the past tense this merely confirms that the promise was unconditional.
      	Remember that this sign of the rainbow is not one that is visible on a daily basis whenever there are clouds in the sky as the wording of the Torah might suggest. The rainbow is also not visible on every rainy day However, in a generation which is guilty of sins it appears in order to remind people of G-d’s commitment. You have proof that this is the case as we have a tradition (Bereshit Rabbah 35,2) that during the generation of King Chiskiyahu a rainbow was never observed; neither was it observed during the generation of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The reason was that both these people were so righteous that their accumulated merits served as sufficient protection for the people of their respective generations. It is also reported (in the same section of the Midrash) that in the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi there never appeared a rainbow in the sky. Such phenomena explain why the word לדרת in the line לדורות עולם “for all future generations” is spelled with the respective letters ו missing. This was a hint that there would be generations which do not require this sign as reassurance that there would not be another deluge. 
      Looking at our passage from a rational-investigative point of view, the word קשת, “bow,” usually refers to an instrument of war; it is so called as it cannot shoot arrows unless the person holding it exerts considerable tension on its frame. When such a “bow” is visible in the sky it is observed in an inverted shape, its “feet” on the ground. If its “feet” were visible in the sky it would symbolise warfare, as if the arrows were pointed at man from heaven. Now that the “bow” points in the other direction, this symbolises that man and G-d are at peace with one another. It is the custom of warring nations to hold their bows in such a position (when not actively engaged in shooting) that the string faces outward whereas when they are at peace they hold it in the opposite direction. Scientists have written in their textbooks that the appearance of a rainbow in the sky is a natural phenomenon. They describe that the rainbow has three distinct appearances. The first arc is reddish; the second arc is greenish, whereas the third section tends towards the colour black. The famous scientist Averroes (1126-1198) called that colour “violet” tending towards the colour black. These scientists also claim that the material the rainbow is made of is opaque and that the phenomenon is caused by the rays of the sun striking the opaque moisture which is like very fine droplets of rain which still linger in the air after most rainfalls. This is why the opaqueness which was black was turned into red. It is a fact that when white traverses something black it tends to become reddish-looking You will observe that when moist trees are subjected to fire the flame which rises from that fire is red because the fire itself tends to be reddish-whitish. It passes something black, i.e. the smoke, so that the flame which emerges afterwards is red.
      Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 sees something homiletical in the whole passage dealing with the rainbow. The word קשתי is related to היקש, “comparison,” similar in meaning to the word דמות, “likeness.” G-d said: “My rainbow is sort of a reminder of My image when it appears in the cloud.” Is it not extremely irreverent to say something like this? We must therefore understand the word קשתי as "My straw.” The meaning is that just as the straw, i.e. the pedicle of a fruit is necessary but quite subordinate to the fruit itself, it is necessary at times for such subordinate matters to become visible. Man possesses an invisible essence, the soul, and a visible peripheral shell, the body. The words “it will be when I place My clouds above the earth,” are similar to G-d saying: “when I fuse the physical with the spiritual, intangible, then this rainbow will become visible on earth.” The message to mankind is that the invisible spiritual forces we call soul must become manifest in the body. This is the meaning of the words ונראתה הקשת בענן, “the rainbow will become visible in the cloud.” The cloud is the curtain which divides  between man’s body and soul and the rainbow is the imperative call to man for his soul to become manifest.
      	A kabbalistic approach. The word קשתי is derived from קשה, “hard, severe.” It is a reference to the attribute of Justice, the “hard” attribute. G-d said that it should become the sign of the covenant, i.e. the sign of circumcision. The Torah very significantly did not say את הקשת נתתי בענן, “the rainbow I have placed in the cloud,” in other words “the well-known rainbow.” The reason G-d refers to “My rainbow,” is to remind us that the cloud He speaks of is not one of the regular clouds which appear in the sky every day. He does not speak of the kind of cloud which discharges rain. G-d speaks of the ענני הכבוד, “the clouds of glory,” such as when we are told in Exodus 16,10 והנה כבוד ה' נראה בענן, “and behold! The glory of G-d became manifest in the clouds” (the prelude to the Israelites receiving meat and bread from heaven at the hands of G-d).” The meaning of the words in our verse ונראתה הקשת בענן, is “the attribute of Justice will (then) become manifest in the cloud.” Seeing that we have a verse in Ezekiel 1,28 כמראה הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם, כן מראה הנוגה סביב הוא מראה דמות כבוד ה', “as the appearance of the bow which shall be on a rainy day, so was the appearance  of the brilliance all around. That was the appearance of the semblance of the glory of G-d.” Our sages in Chagigah 16 interpreted these words as being a warning that anyone who looks deliberately at the rainbow will have diminished eyesight. You should be enlightened by the following comment in Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 on the words את קשתי נתתי בענן. “The word קשתי describes something that is an obstacle for Me.” Is there then such a thing as an “obstacle” for G-d? Is there anything that HE cannot overcome?. We must therefore understand the word as derived from קש, ‘straw,” the pedicle of a fruit. 
  Why did the Midrash repeat the same comment twice? Look at the conclusion of the passage! Here G-d speaks to Noach alone (not to his children) when He says “this is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all of mankind.” At this point G-d took Noach into His confidence and revealed a mystical aspect to him which He had not revealed to his children. This is the deeper meaning of the words זאת אות הברית, “this is the visible symbol of the covenant.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם, “Noach the man of the earth debased himself and planted a vineyard.” The reason that the Torah reports the planting of a vineyard by Noach as immediately following the covenant of the rainbow may well be in order to tell us that wine is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, something that you are already familiar with. Concerning this our sages have said in Berachot 50: “one is not to recite a benediction over wine until one has added some water to it.” 
  No one had paid any attention to this until the time of Noach. The early generations had each planted vines for their personal consumption . Noach began to plant vines in rows which we call כרם. This is why the Torah wrote ויחל, “he commenced,” i.e. he commenced to go about this matter in a novel fashion.” 
  Another possible way of explaining the word ויחל is connected to the fact that Noach was the first member of the tenth generation of mankind, and every tenth is sacred. Now that he became preoccupied with the growing of wine, an intoxicating drink, he debased himself from his former state of holiness. This is the meaning of the word ויחל. The Torah informed us of many problems that are apt to be caused by wine if wine was even able to cause a righteous man such as Noach, a man who had saved all mankind, to commit a sin by cursing his descendants. This whole paragraph is at least as much a warning to mankind as is the passage in Numbers chapter six which discusses that a nazirite must abstain from wine and any grape product. Our sages in Sanhedrin 70 note that the passage discussing wine contains the letter ו thirteen times (ויחל, ויטע, וישת, וישכר, ויתגל, וירא חם, ויגד, ויקח שם ויפת, וישימו, וילכו  ויכסו,  ויקץ, וידע, אחורנית ) “And he debased himself, and he planted, and he drank, and he got drunk; and he uncovered himself, and Cham saw, and he told; and Shem and Yaphet took the cover, and they placed the cover; and they walked backwards; and he woke up; and he knew , and they did not look at their father’s nakedness. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 23,29 למי אוי, למי אבוי למי מדינים למי שיח למי פצעים חנם, למי חכללית עינים “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions, who has quarrels? Who has injuries without cause, who suffers from redness of his eyes? Those who linger over wine, etc.” Solomon does not refer exclusively to wine but he includes all other matters which are the objects of man’s lusting after worldly pleasures and which are addictive and become the cause of man’s [premature] death in this world and his losing his right to eternal life in the hereafter. This is why Solomon adds in Kohelet 2,25 כי מי יאכל ומי יחוש חוץ ממני, “for who should eat and who should make haste (to enjoy these things) more than I?” He meant that he more than any other mortal being was able to indulge himself by tasting all the pleasures of the body available in this life. Having tasted all these pleasures he concluded that these too were all vanity, not worth having. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ויתגל בתוך אהלה, “he uncovered himself within his tent.” The word אהלה meaning “his tent” is spelled with the letter ה  at the end as if it meant “her tent,” i. e. the tent of his wife. This is an allusion to the fact that overindulgence in wine leads to excessive sexual activity.
      The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 36,7 conjectures that the spelling of the word אהלה is an allusion to the kingdom of the Ten Tribes who were exiled because of too much preoccupation with intoxicating wine. The capital city of that Kingdom, Shomron, is also referred to as אהלה in Ezekiel 23,4. Moreover we have a verse in Isaiah 28,7 וגם אלה ביין שגו ובשכר תעו “and these people are also muddled by wine and dazed by liquor.” The reference is to the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. The reason the Torah chose the expression (double entendre) ויתגל to describe Noach’s uncovering himself is that this word also means exile, גלות.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  . וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן , “he became aware of what his younger son had done to him.” Cham was the youngest of Noach’s sons. Why then did Noach curse Canaan, Cham’s son instead of Cham? Actually, there were two reasons why Noach did not curse Cham himself 1) He was not able to curse Cham effectively seeing G’d had already blessed him as we read in 9,1 “G’d blessed Noach and his sons.” 2) Had Noach cursed Cham he would have only be able to make such a curse apply to his body but not his descendants (seeing that any offspring of Cham which had already been born would not have been included in he curse). This is why he chose to curse Canaan who as Cham’s firstborn so that even if he were to father a thousand children hey would all be included in the curse. When the verse tells us that Cham’s offspring were: Cush, Mitzrayim, and Put, and Canaan, in that order (10,6) which at first glance gives the impression that Canaan was the youngest of the four, the Torah enumerated these sons after the curse, at a time when Canaan had already been demoted from his rank as the firstborn. Proof that Canaan  was indeed Cham’s firstborn son is when the Torah said in 9,21 “He (Cham) the father of Canaan saw his father’s nakedness, etc. If Cham had already had other sons at the time, why would the Torah describe him as the father of Canaan rather than as the father of his older brothers. No doubt at the time when this occurred Canaan was the only son whom Cham had fathered.
  
  Verse 25
  
  עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו, “a slave of slaves  shall he be to his brothers.” According to the plain meaning of the text, Noach made the curse fit the sin of his son. He who had shamed his father by viewing his nakedness and not only not covering his father’s nakedness but calling in his brothers to show them that spectacle, in other words, making sport of his father, was cursed by becoming an object of derision as a punishment for having made his own father an object of derision. Shem and Yaphet who had covered their father’s nakedness and put the blanket on their shoulders in a dignified manner walking backwards, were rewarded by G’d in a manner fitting their sensitive conduct. Israel, the descendants of Shem who later on received the Torah were given the commandment of ציצית, “fringes” on their garments as a form of distinction (compare Tanchuma on our verse). The descendants of Yaphet will merit proper burial at the time of the final war before the arrival of the Messiah, the war between Israel and Gog and Magog. Ezekiel 39,11 states אתן למגוג קבר, “I will provide a burial ground for Magog.” This is his reward for his conduct vis-a-vis his father Noach although in the war under discussion he attacked Israel. We know from 10,2 that Gomer and Magog are descendants of Yaphet. 
  From this entire episode we can learn that when two people between them perform a single commandment, they receive a reward for having performed the entire commandment. Furthermore, the one who commenced the performance receives a greater reward. The Torah stresses the difference between the relative merit acquired by Shem and that acquired by Yaphet in our episode of covering their father, by not writing ויקחו את השמלה “they took the garment,” but by writing ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה, “Shem and Yaphet each took the garment, etc.” The word ויקח is in the singular. This is an allusion that Shem made the greater effort of the two.  The reward of the מצוה of ציצית is greater than the reward of being allocated burial We find a similar distinction between relative merits awarded for the performance of similar virtuous deeds when the Talmud in Sotah 36 discusses the relative moral value of both Joseph and Yehudah sanctifying the name of the Lord. Joseph’s deed performed in the privacy of Potiphar’s house when he declined the efforts of Mrs Potiphar to seduce him quoting that it would be sinful against both G’d and her husband was rewarded by G’d by his having the letter ה of the holy name of G’ added to his name (Psalms 81,6). Yehudah, who sanctified G’d’s name in public when entering the sea of reeds before it had been split, thus demonstrating his faith in G’d’s forthcoming help, was rewarded by his name containing all the letters of the holy name of G’d. 
      According to a Midrashic interpretation, the words יהיה לאחיו “he will be for his brothers,” means that thirty descendants will be descended from Canaan  (compare 10,15-18). Also the standard compensation to be paid by someone who killed a Canaanite slave is 30 shekel of silver. Both these matters are alluded to in the word יהיה in our verse. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   יפת אלוקים ליפת, “may the Lord grant beauty to Yaphet.” Noach blessed Yaphet by promising him that G’d would increase the area of the earth he would dwell in. Onkelos translates the word כי ירחיב, “when He will expand,” in Deut 12,20 as ארי יפת. We see that to this very day the descendants of Yaphet occupy a major part of the surface of the earth.  Noach blessed his son Shem by promising that the presence of the Lord would be manifest within his dwellings. There is no other nation which has experienced the presence of G’d in its midst except the people of Israel. This is partly due to the fact that they are descended from Shem. The expression וישכון באהלי שם is most prominently repeated when Yaakov, Yitzchok’s pious son is described as יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents.” This expression in Genesis 25,27 is a reference to “the tents of Torah,” the most wide-spread manifestation of the presence of G’d. There is an allusion here that the presence of G’d, i.e. its becoming manifest, is usually found where Torah is being studied. In this manner Shem actually received two blessings from his father. 
  Although G’d will, on occasion, grace Yaphet, grant him flashes of insights into the workings of the divine, the same is reserved on a regular basis for the descendants of Shem. An example of these “flashes of insight” is provided by the fact that King Coresh, (Ezra 1,2) a descendant of Yaphet, gave orders to rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and provided money and military escorts for the Jews to do so (compare Bereshit Rabbah 36,12 and Yuma 9). Actually, the presence of G’d (in its full Majesty) dwelled only in the Temple which Solomon had built. This is the meaning of וישכון באהלי שם, “it will dwell” (feel at home) in the tents of Shem. This is the opinion expressed in Yuma 10. The Talmud states that the reason for the absence of the presence of G’d in the Second Temple was not only the fact that most Jews preferred to stay in the Diaspora but that even if they had all moved to the Holy land, G’d could not have felt at home therein as it was built by grace of Coresh instead of by grace of descendants of Shem. Genesis 10,4 proves that the Persians are descended from Yaphet. Rabbi Yossi claims that the name Tiras mentioned there is equivalent to Paras, i.e Persia.
     ויהי כנען עבד למו, “and Canaan be a slave to them.” The word למו refers back to “his brothers.” He is to be a slave to the descendants of Shem and Yaphet. The reason the Torah repeats this for a second time is to stress that the state of slavery decreed for Canaan and his descendants is not something temporary. It is also a hint that in due course Shem will inherit the lands of Canaan and all his property. This is simply an application of the principle that anything which is owned by a slave becomes the property of his master (Pesachim 88). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואלה תולדת בני נח, שם חם ויפת, “And these are the descendants of Noach: Shem, Cham, and Yaphet.” Starting with this verse and including chapter 11 verse 1, you will find the names of seventy individuals. All of them are descendants of Noach and at the end of that paragraph the Torah states: אלה משפחות בני נח לתולדותם בגויהם ומאלה נפרדו הגוים בארץ אחר המבול “These are the families of Noach’s descendants, according to their generations by their nations; and from these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.” We learn from this verse that the world comprises 70 nations each with its own language. Chapter 11 verse 8 tells us that the various people at the time of the Tower of Babel were scattered and that each group would have its own language The reason the Torah makes a point of enumerating seventy different nations is to contrast this fact with the seventy people, all descendants of Yaakov, who descended with him to Egypt (Genesis 46,27). This is also what Moses had in mind at the time when he blessed the Jewish people shortly before his death (Deut. 32,8), and said בהנחל עליון גוים, בהפרידו בני אדם. “When the Supreme One gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of man.” The nations Moses referred to are the ones mentioned in our chapter. Starting with that period in human history, G’d allocated boundaries, גבולות, to the various nations. All of this was to correspond to the founding members of the Jewish nation who went down to Egypt. The reason Moses said in Deut. 32,8 יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל , “He established the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel,” instead of saying למספר בני יעקב , “according to the number of the sons of Yaakov,” was to stress that the children of Israel consisted of twelve separate tribes.
      It is worth recalling that the reason the Torah spends so much space on the details of this list of the descendants of Cham is to inform us about how many nations were descended from him is to make us aware that Avraham, a descendant of Shem, merited to become the father of the Jewish nation. The Torah hints that the only reason that there was a need for seventy nations in the first place was to ensure that out of all these there would emerge at least the one nation that G’d has chosen to become special to Him. Our sages (Tanchuma Vayeshev 1) have illustrated the matter by means of a parable. When someone loses a pearl on the beach, he will bring a sieve and sieve the entire sand on the beach in order to retrieve his pearl. Once he has found his pearl he throws the sand back on the beach. The parable intends to illustrate that just as all that sand on the beach only serves to yield up the one pearl, so there was no need for G’d to have all that many different nations except for that large number to eventually yield a Jewish nation. The sages said further (Bereshit Rabbah 1,8) that the concept of a Jewish nation had preceded the concept of all these other nations. We know that in G’d’s mind any end product had been carefully envisioned long before it would become manifest. This is also why the Jewish people did not appear on the stage of history until all the other nations already were in existence.  Normal intelligence dictates that any end product must have been planned before it was brought into existence so that of course it existed in concept long before it was actualized. It is possible to prove this from the construction of the Holy Tabernacle where the Torah specifically instructed Betzalel (Exodus 35,32) ולחשוב מחשבות, “to plan appropriate thoughts,” (for the construction of golden and silver furnishings for the Tabernacle). 
      Nachmanides wrote concerning this chapter that the reason the Torah goes into all these details was to prove to its listeners that G’d preceded the establishment of the universe. It was to enable Avraham and his descendants to command their respective offspring to tell about what happened to Noach, and how his family was saved in the Ark. Avraham, who had still known Noach personally, was able to relate these matters as an eye witness to one of its survivors who had been told by Noach (and presumably by Shem). Noach’s father Lemech  in turn had known Adam and so was able to relate history as someone who had heard it directly from those who had experienced it. Avraham as a witness to the creation of the first human being was only two persons removed from someone who had been expelled from Gan Eden. Yitzchak and Yaakov had both been contemporaries of Shem still. In other words even they had spoken to survivors of the deluge. Yaakov, no doubt, told all this to the people who descended to Egypt with him as well as to Pharaoh and his servants. 
  According to a calculation made by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, Noach died when Avraham was 58 years old. The very letters in the name נח amount to 58 in their numerical value.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור, “from that land Ashur went forth, etc.” He was one of the sons of Shem as we are told in verse 22 that Shem’s sons were Eylam, Ashur, Arpachshad Lud and Aram. Seeing that most of the people alive during the generation of the Tower were descendants of Shem, the Torah mentioned that Ashur had left that land (the valley including Babel). He had not had part in the uprising against G’d that those people were planning in accordance with the statement by our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 37,4. the words מן הארץ ההיא mean that Ashur dissociated himself from these people and their land as he realised they were preparing to rebel against G’d. This also explains Psalms 83,9 גם אשור נלוה עמם, “also Ashur made common cause with them,” Seeing that on this occasion Ashur was on the side of G’d, the psalmist had to contrast this with a future occasion when also Ashur joined the forces of evil planning to wipe out the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ואת פתרוסים ואת כסלוחים אשר יצאו משם פלשתים, “and the Pathrusim and the Casluhim, whence the Philistines came forth.” The Torah stresses this in order to tell us that the nation of the Philistines have their origin in bastardy The two above-mentioned nations engaged in wife-swapping and the Philistines emerged as a result of this incest (compare Bereshit Rabbah 37,5). You will find that all these descendants of Mitzrayim have names which end with the letters ים, “sea,” an allusion to their eventual demise in the sea (Pessikta Zutrata). The first of these nations was called לודים, since they were both born in the sea and drowned in the sea.
  
  Verse 15
  
    וכנען ילד את צידון בכורו, “and Canaan begot Tzidon his firstborn.” We have now heard about ten descendants of Canaan; all of them (and their lands) were promised to Avraham when G’d promised him the Holy Land at the covenant between the pieces. We read there (Genesis 15,18-19) “to your descendants I have given this land from the river adjoining Egypt to the great river, the river  Euphratus; the Kenite, the Kenizite, the Kadmoni, etc.” The Torah enumerates a total of ten Canaanite nations in that instance. The reason these nations appear with different names in chapter 15 is that in this chapter only the names given to their respective founders by their fathers are mentioned. At the time G’d promised the lands of these nations to Avraham their names had undergone changes just as they no longer spoke the same language as they had spoken at the time they were born and grew up. When you count the names of Canaan’s descendants listed here you will actually find that there are eleven. This is easily accounted for; Canaan’s firstborn Tzidon was the one who was called “the Canaanite.” He was joined with one of his brothers  who never developed into a clan that qualified for the term “nation.” 
  Of the ten nations whose land G’d promised to Avraham only seven were subsequently conquered by the Israelites in the days of Joshua. But the three remaining ones, i.e. The Kenite, the Kenizite, and the Kadmoni, have never been conquered by the Jewish people. In other words, the passage in which G’d promised all these nations to Avraham indicates that there is a future for the Jewish people after their exile when G’d will make good His promise. G’d’s thoughts are very profound indeed. Consider for a moment why He wanted Canaan of all people to own the Holy Land before it came into possession by the Jewish people. Seeing that Canaan was the slave who became the servant of Shem at his father’s command and who acquired the Holy Land at the time all the nations were split up, there would not be the slightest complaint by anyone who would be dispossessed due to the Jewish people taking over that land. Had it not belonged to slaves who by definition do not own anything in their own right, G’d would have had to justify dispossessing such a people. Now that this land was “owned” by the Canaanites there was not even a need to justify their becoming dispossessed. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ונעשה לנו שם , “so that we can make a name for ourselves.” According to the plain meaning of the text, all these people wanted was to settle in one single location on earth in order to stay together. However, they did not find a location other than the valley of Shinor in which to do this. This is why they wanted to build a city and a tower which could  accommodate all of them. The purpose of the tower was to serve as a beacon so that people all over the earth would be able to see it and to orient themselves by means of it. They themselves would all live in a single city. This is the reason the Torah quoted them as saying פן נפוץ, “lest we will scatter.” This is why G’d punished them by scattering them to teach them that they had contravened His commandment to fill the earth with their presence (9,1). Isaiah 45,18 pointed out that G’d had made the earth in order for it to be settled by mankind.
      From a homiletical point of view the operative clause in our veres are the words “let us make a name for “ourselves.” This is an oblique reference to idolatry. The word שם, “name,” here and the same word in Exodus 23,13 ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזכירו, “and you must not mention the name of any other deity,” mean the same thing. We also have a Midrashic comment in Midrash Tehillim 1, that the word הבה, introduces an evil thought, an evil intention as it does in Judges 20,7 הבו לכם דבר ועצה הלום, “come up with a plan here and now!”. Furthermore, we have a tradition that the word עיר, “city,” is a reference to a deity as we find in Daniel 4,10 that the words עיר וקדיש refer to a destructive angel (Satan or similar). 
  I have read in a Midrash on the Ten Commandments that these people proposed to take spades planning to invade heaven to flood it and drain it in order to ensure that another deluge could not originate from that source. They wanted to take large chunks of heaven and to engage in war with the King of the heavens. The Tower had seventy steps in an easterly direction and seventy steps in a westerly direction on its opposite side. G’d descended those seventy steps accompanied by seventy angels and He confused their language and their dialects. Thus far that Midrash. We also read in Bereshit Rabbah 38,6 that these people said:  “we do not agree that G’d should have an exclusive right to heaven whereas we have only been assigned earth. Let us make war against Him.” (This Midrash appears in a variety of slightly different versions). 
      Looking at this story from a rational point of view, the words “and let us make a name for ourselves,” must be understood thus. The people of that generation were very advanced in matters of philosophy and even technology. However, they used their intelligence in a sinful manner. They constructed the city and Tower to protect themselves against a deluge of fire (seeing that G’d had promised not to again bring a deluge of water). This is what the word “war” in the Midrash refers to. They prepared to contend with heavenly forces (such as angels) against the will of the Lord. They tried to isolate and tame the power of fire in order to neutralize its deadly effect so that it could not engulf their city. The author quotes scientists in his generation as attempting similarly to “tame” the power of “fire.” [I presume he speaks about the construction of lightning rods. Ed.] There was another reason which motivated them. They had been witness to the fact that G’d had decreed death on Adam, while they perceived themselves as physically powerful and enjoying a much longer life span than the 120 years G’d appeared to have decreed. They thought that they were all powerful [G’d Himself (verse 6) questioned whether their power should not be curtailed.] They planned to scale heaven while alive and well in order to overcome the impediment to this imposed upon them by their mortality. Their principal aim was to overcome the decree issued against Adam which made all of them mortal also. All of their planning in building the Tower was designed to achieve immortality. The reason G’d had to scatter them was because they planned to nullify His world order. 
  The Torah has worded its report in such a way that it did not spell out these people’s evil intent in detail. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 38,6 elaborate on the words דברים אחדים, saying  these words should be read as דברים אחודים, “words  which were kept isolated, made inaccessible.” Whereas the Torah revealed the sin of the generation of the deluge, it did not spell out the sin of the generation of the Tower. I have heard it said that there were seventy people engaged in building the Tower. No doubt there was a special reason why seventy, and only seventy people would have been actively engaged in the building of that Tower.
      A kabbalistic approach to the meaning of the words “let us make a name for ourselves.” Fundamentally, their sin was the same as that of their forefather Adam who had become guilty of what our sages called קצץ בנטיעות, the heresy practiced by Enosh (4,26). The word הוחל in that verse needs to be translated as “was desecrated.” Here too the words וזה החלם לעשות have to be understood in that same vein, i.e. “and now they committed a desecration.” Another way of understanding the same word is to derive it from ,תחלה “beginning;” in that case the correct translation would be “and this is what they commenced to do!” However, the words must not be detached from their plain meaning. The common denominator between these two explanations is that these people undertook something which, if left unchecked, would result in the end of mankind. This is the deeper meaning of the expression קצץ בנטיעות, “cut off the saplings at their very roots” (figuratively speaking).  The reason the Torah uses the word וזה “and this,” is that this word is related to שם i.e. ונעשה לנו שם, “let us make a name for ourselves.” The word שם in this instance is a reference to the highest emanation [the one known in modern kabbalistic literature as כתר. Ed.] They wanted to conquer the highest regions of heaven. They were under the mistaken impression that that emanation is the absolute highest level of “heaven,” i.e. celestial force, which exists. This very mistaken belief undermines the true faith and is equivalent to someone being מקצץ בנטיעות. Considering all this, the Torah had said previously (11,2) ויהי בנסעם מקדם, “it was when they departed from the One called Kedem, i.e. from the Creator who preceded all” (compare Bereshit Rabbah 38,7). The Torah did want us to know that basically, their sin was of the same category as that of the first man. This is why the Torah refers to the people in this paragraph as בני האדם, “Adam’s sons”, to hint that what they did paralleled what Adam had done. 
  Rabbi Berechyah in Bereshit Rabbah 38,9 asks rhetorically: “how else was the Torah supposed to describe these people if not as בני האדם?” Should the Torah have referred to the as בני חמירא, the “sons of donkeys, or “the sons of camels?” The answer [I think, is in the extra letter ה before the word אדם  i.e.] that the Torah stresses that they behaved not just like ordinary human beings but like the first human being, Adam [as opposed to 5,1 where the Torah describes זה ספר תולות אדם, “this is the Book of the generations of man,” without the letter ה in front of the word אדם Ed.]  The words בני האדם are a hint that these people were like the first human being and the Torah had indicated that the people of the deluge had sinned by denying that there is something higher than the emanation כתר, which had let to their destruction in the “lower universe.” 
  We had explained earlier that the attribute of Justice, even when in a dominant role, is always accompanied by some aspect of the attribute of Mercy as represented by שם the Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה. In the case of the deluge, the principle of מדה כנגד מדה operated in such a way that as punishment for that generation’s refusal to recognise anything beyond the emanation שם=כתר, they experienced the full impact of the unrelieved attribute of Justice so that even the earth they had lived on was destroyed. The earth had been the creation of the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים. The attribute of Mercy, i.e. השם, had been “co-opted” only at the time when the Torah reported the creation of Adam (2,4) as a functioning human being. Basically, man had tried to separate the role of the attribute of אלוקים from the role of the attribute שם, or י-ה-ו-ה. G’d demonstrated to them that such an attempt if successful spells disaster both for them and for the earth they lived on. They had wanted only “nature,” as represented by the attribute אלוקים. It is quite possible that prior to the deluge such considerations had not had a philosophical basis, had been mostly based on an emotional resentment of authority from an extra-terrestrial force. At this time, it had been developed to a philosophy by highly intelligent people, people who had already learned of the value of co-operation, unity, working towards a common goal. This was why their newly developed approach was so dangerous. [I have taken the liberty to phrase these thoughts in my own way. Ed.] G’d scattered them (i.e. separated them from their unity) all over the globe as retaliation for their attempt to “scatter,” i.e. separate His attributes from one another. Furthermore, they had calculated the precise number of steps needed to ascend to heaven (70) [according to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, the number reflects 70 miles, a mile per step. Ed.] The number may also allude to the 70 representatives of the 70 nations in the celestial spheres. According to tradition, Nebuchadnezzar (who was also from Babel (though it was renamed Babylon) introduced the golden image of בל into the remnants of the Holy Temple to symbolise that this philosophy had triumphed. (In Jeremiah 51,44 the prophet predicts the eventual humiliation of that idol and that of the people who worshiped it) Daniel 3,1 speaks of a huge golden image Nebuchadnezzar had put up in the valley of Dura in the land of Babylon. This valley may be identical with the valley described in our chapter  where the Torah described these people as וימצאו בקעה, “they found a valley.” All of this is part of the aforementioned hints the Torah provided concerning the sins of that generation. My the Lord protect us from committing similar errors.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  'כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ ומשם הפיצם ה, “for it was there that G’d confused the language of the whole earth, and from there G’d scattered them.” You should know that wherever the name of G’d (the four-lettered one, even) appears in a reverse order such as here when the respective first letters in the four words    'הארץ ומשם הפיצם ה appear, the Torah means the attribute of Justice. This is just one of the examples of this rule. In every one of the numerous instances where we encounter the use of the four-lettered name of G’d where we would not have expected it, the addition of such a reverse allusion as we have shown here makes it plain that the Torah had the attribute of Justice in mind. I will demonstrate this in detail whenever we shall encounter this phenomenon. Seeing that our passage appeared to refer to the attribute of Mercy when we read such phrases as וירא ה' “G’d saw”, (verse 5) or ויאמר ה’,”G’d said,” (verse 6), names of G’d which suggest that the attribute of Mercy was at work, the Torah had to provide us with an allusion to show that at that time the world was already under the attribute of Justice which had already been poised to strike. This attribute of Justice was now “wrapped” inside a layer of the attribute of Mercy in recognition of the unity which was a dominant feature of mankind’s lifestyle at that time. People loved one another and the Torah reflected this by writing that they spoke one language and had a common purpose.” This is the reason why G’d only scattered them instead of destroying them. The confusing of their languages was an example of the principle of the punishment fitting the crime, מדה כנגד מדה. Their sin consisted of the words they spoke, i.e. ויאמרו הבה נבנה לנו עיר, “they said: ”let us build a city for ourselves, etc.” Seeing they had put the power of speech to improper use, their power of speech now became impaired so that they no longer could understand each other. The descendants of Noach who had numbered seventy at that time, were now divided into seventy nations, each with a distinctive language. You know already that there are seventy “princes,” i.e. representatives in the celestial spheres who represent these seventy nations before the throne of G’d. They correspond to the respective kings or heads of these nations here on earth. 
  Each one of these seventy celestial “princes” is a part of the nation he represents, unlike Yaakov (Jeremiah 10,16) of whom the prophet said לא כאלה חלק יעקב כי יוצר הכל הוא, “unlike these is the portion of Yaakov, for it is He Who forms all things.” Just as the Jewish people do not need intermediaries before G’d but have direct access to Him, so the Hebrew tongue is superior to all the other languages in the world. It is G’d’s own language and as such it is as superior to other languages as is G’d Himself to any of the agents He has appointed in this world to do His bidding. This is what our sages in Shabbat 12 alluded to when they said: “when someone asks in Aramaic (in his prayer) for whatever he needs, the angels will not assist him (add their pleading on his behalf) as the angels do not understand that language.” This poses a problem as we have already stated that the great planet is more knowledgeable than man, and the angels are certainly more knowledgeable than that great planet; if man knows Aramaic, why does not that angel understand that language? Besides, we have a tradition that both Joseph (Sotah 37) and Mordechai knew all the seventy languages (compare Megillah 13).
      The correct explanation of the statement in Shabbat 12 that מלאכי השרת אינן מכירין בלשון ארמי ואינן נזקקין לו is that their knowledge of the Aramaic language is of no help to the people praying in that language as just as these angels do not act as agents for Jews praying in any language other than Hebrew they also do not act as agents for Jews praying in Aramaic. There is, however, no doubt that the angels do understand that language just as they understand every language. It is the duty of the Jews to draw the help from celestial sources by means of the Holy Tongue, Hebrew. Unless they are capable of praying in Hebrew their prayer loses in effectiveness.
  
  Verse 10
  
   אלה תולדות שם, “these are the descendants of Shem.” You do not find the word death, or “the died,” in connection with any of the descendants of Shem who have been enumerated here [except when the Torah reports that Avram’s father Terach died in Charan (verse 32). Ed.] as you find it mentioned when the Torah enumerated the generations between Adam and Noach. It is possible that the reason is that the kingdom of David (the Messiah) will be descended from them, and in due course  the Messiah will be the cause of banishing death altogether. [At this point our author once again indulges in speculation about the timing of that event. Seeing that time has passed and the Messiah did not arrive, I have omitted the rest of this passage. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו בארץ מולדתו באור כשדים, “Haran died during the lifetime of his father Terach in the land of his birth by the fire of the Chaldeans.” From this verse we hear about the great loyalty of Avraham to His G’d and the strength of his belief in Him in that he was prepared to die a martyr’s death rather than betray his belief in G’d. If the Torah had not provided us with a hint of this here, it would have had to spell out the incident in order to explain why Avraham suddenly qualified to be spoken to by G’d directly in 12.1. and was told to move to the land of Canaan. It is just not normal that man should qualify for receiving a direct communication from G’d unless G’d had first told us something about the outstanding characteristic of such a person. We find that G’d did not communicate with Noach (6,13) until the Torah had reported (6,9) that G’d considered him a ”righteous and perfect individual” in his time. Our verse therefore lays the groundwork for G’d preparing to communicate with Avraham.  It is a fact that Avraham’s birthplace was not Ur in the land of the Casdim, but that he was born on the west side of the river Euphrates. We have direct confirmation of this in Joshua 24,2 where we are told מעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם מעולם, “your ancestors have lived on the far side of the river Euphrates from time immemorial.” The word מעולם in that verse is clear proof of the fact that Avraham was not born in Ur. This is also why he was known as אברם העברי, in 14,13,  “Avraham from across the river.” Had he been born in Ur Casdim he should have been known as אברם הכשדי, “Avram from the land of the Chaldaens.” Another proof for our contention is the fact that Nachor, Avraham’s brother is reported as living in Charan, a place well west of the river Euphrates. If we find in verse 31 that Terach took his son Avram and Lot the son of Haran with him as well as Sarai his daughter-in- law on his way from Ur Casdim in order to go to the land of Canaan and that they got as far as Charan, this suggests that Nachor was the only one who remained in Ur Casdim at the time. However, the truth is that Nachor had never left his birthplace in the first place. This is also the reason the Torah writes the word “in the land of his birth” in the middle of the verse instead of at its end. The word  מולדתו, “his birthplace,” refers to Aram which was well to the west of the river Euphrates. We find that our sages in Baba Batra 91 mention that Avram was a prisoner for ten years, three of them in a place called Kuta, and seven years in a place called Kardo. According to some scholars the former place is identical with Ur Casdim. Others hold that it was west of the river Euphrates. 
  You should know that Terach begat his sons Avram and Nachor on the west side of the river Euphrates, the land of his fathers, and that subsequently he migrated to Ur Casdim to join his son Avram where his younger son Haran was born. Nachor had stayed in his birthplace in Charan all that time. The words  בארץ מולדתו refer to Haran, who had indeed been born in Ur Casdim.
      Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,29, writes that there is a record in Egyptian books about agriculture that Avram was born in a place called Kuta and that he disagreed with all the local people concerning their worshiping the sun. The king therefore imprisoned him where he remained for many years. Some time later the king feared that Avram would cause destruction to his country and that he would sway his subjects into changing their religion so that he decided to expel Avram to the borders of the land of Canaan.Thus far Maimonides. As to the meaning of the word אור in our verse. The word appears in three meanings. 1) valley or depression; 2) fire; 3) mountain. The reason that it may mean valley is based on Isaiah 11,8 מאורת הצפעוני, ”the den of an adder.” The prophet calls the den of that viper מאורה, and a valley is a depression in the earth. Our verse then would mean: “from the valley of the Casdim.” The reason the word may mean “mountain,” is based on Isaiah 24,15  באורים כבוד ה', “for the glory of the Lord is in the mountains,” and the reason the word was used to symbolise mountains was that the Israelites used to light flares on the mountains to inform the people that the new moon had been sighted so that the people who lived far from Jerusalem would observe the next day as New Moon. This is what is meant in Isaiah 24,15 באיי הים שם ה' אלוקי ישראל, “the name of the Lord G’d of Israel is (even) in the islands of the sea.” The prophet urges  the people to proclaim the mighty miracles of G’d by honouring G’d with lights, as if the meaning of the words הר כשדים were “fire.” We encounter this word in Isaiah 44,16 חמותי ראיתי אור “I am hot, I can feel the fire (heat).“ It is the opinion of the sages in the Talmud that Nimrod threw Avram into a fiery furnace when he refused to retract his refusal to consider him a deity.” Whatever the true facts, there occurred either a public  or a private miracle for Avram while he was in Ur Casdim when 1) the king who had imprisoned him took him out of prison which was situated in either a valley or on a mountain instead of killing him, or, 2) he was miraculously saved from the fiery furnace.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  .  ותהי שרי עקרה, אין לה ולד, “Sarah remained barren, she had no child.” Some women remain childless for many years, appearing to be barren; at the end of a number of years they become pregnant and have children. Our verse informs us that in addition to Sarai being עקרה, “barren,” she was unable to conceive any children by nature, i.e. אין לה ולד. This is why both Avram and Sarai decided to leave their home and to move to the land of Canaan hoping that due to the additional merit of the Holy Land they would be able to have children. Although the words “Terach took his son Avram, etc.” convey the impression that Terach was the prime cause of that move, this is not true. The fact is that the family undertook the whole journey only on account of Avram. We find later on that after Terach died, his grandson Lot joined Avram (12,4; 13,1) who was the enterprising member of the family.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . וימת תרח בחרן, “Terach died in Charan.” Up until this verse the whole chapter had listed all the descendants of Shem without once mentioning the word “death.” 
  Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,7) were very conscious of the fact that the Torah wanted to protect Avram’s image in the eyes of the readers. If  Avram had left Charan for the land of Canaan without the Torah revealing that his father had died, the readers would have accused him of abandoning an elderly father in his old age. This is why the Torah reported Terach’s death before telling us that Avram moved to the land of Canaan at the command of G’d although at the time Terach had not died yet, as we know from the age at which Terach died. If the Torah reported Terach’s “death” as if it had occurred prior to Avram’s departure for the land of Canaan, this is only because our sages consider sinners as “dead” even while they walk around on earth (compare Rashi). [The Torah reports Avram as 75 years old (12,4) when he settled in the land of Canaan, whereas his father was seventy years old (11,26) when he fathered him. Seeing that Terach lived to be 205 years old at his death, (11,32), Avram left him when his father still had 60 years left to live. Ed.].  If our sages nonetheless interpret 15,15 ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, “and you will join your fathers in peace,” as referring to the hereafter, and this seems to include his father Terach among the people whom he would encounter there, this can be explained only by the fact that Avraham’s merits acquired on earth benefited his father posthumously so that G’d awarded Terach a share in the hereafter. While Terach had lived on earth, however, he had been an idolater all his life and had died without repenting. Perhaps this is the reason why the letter ן in the last word of the chapter, i.e. וימת תרח בחרן is reversed, pointing backwards. [both according to Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi this appears to have been the spelling in their time, although nowadays there is no such inverted letter ן  in any of our versions of the Torah. Ed.] The inverted letter ן is seen as an indication of G-d’s anger at Terach and as a message that his share in the hereafter is due entirely to the merit of his son Avraham. It was a case of the fruit “saving” the tree.
      Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 7) may have derived the ruling that the wood from all kinds of trees barring that of the olive tree and the grapevine is fit for feeding the fire on the altar, from the principle that the fruit can save the tree.
      Another reason for the inverted letter ן  in the word חרן may be that the very inversion symbolises Tohu, chaos. [We have a tradition that the 6.000 years allocated to life on this terrestrial globe is divided into 3 periods each of 2.000 years.] The first 2.000 years are described as Tohu, the next as Torah, the last as the period during which the Messiah prepares to come. A review of the numbers given in the Torah will show that Terach’s death in the year 2083 coincided (roughly) with the period at which Tohu ended. The second period, the one of Torah, began with Avraham’s beneficial activities on earth and especially in the Holy Land. 
  The Torah contains a number of inverted letters all of which contain a message to us. Similarly, there are good reasons why sometimes a letter is written in larger or smaller than regular script. All such hints are part of the 50 gates of בינה, superior insights, which were revealed to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai. Our sages in Sanhedrin 104 have stated that “whereas a son may confer some of his merit on his father, the reverse is not the case.” They base this on Deut. 32,39 ואין מידי מציל, “there is no rescuer from My hand.” Whereas Avraham’s merits were not able to save his son Ishmael, they were able to confer merit on his father. Yitzchak could not confer of his merit on his son Esau either. Concerning this state of affairs, Solomon said in Proverbs 17,6 עטרת זקנים בני בנים, ותפארת בנים אבותם, “Grandchildren are the crown of their elders, the glory of children are their fathers.” Seeing that it is within the province of the children to confer merit on their fathers, Solomon applied the complimentary “crown,” to them. This is a greater compliment  than the term תפארת, “glory,” which he applied to their fathers. When the elders can point to righteous grandchildren they can wear this knowledge with the same pride as a king wears his crown. The parents who are unable to transfer of their merits to the children, are תפארת, a glory in their own right only if their children do measure up to the standards set for them by their fathers. We find a reference to such parents in Esther 9,28 וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם, “and their remembrance will not perish from their descendants.” The various generations who have been loyal to G’d will ascend hand in hand spiritually. This is what Job 14,7-8 referred to when he said: “there is hope for a tree; if it is cut down it will renew itself, its shoots will not cease, if its roots are old in the earth” As long as the “saplings” are similar to those who have planted them we can apply the blessing of Isaiah 61,3 וקורא להם אילי הצדק מטע ה' להתפאר, “they shall be called ‘the terebinths of victory, planted by the Lord for His glory.’”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  הולך את חכמים יחכם, ורועה כסילים ירוע, “He who walks with scholars will become wise; he who keeps company with fools will come to grief“ (Proverbs 13,20). 
  King Solomon warns people in this verse to try and move within circles of scholars and at the same time to try and avoid keeping company with fools. The reason he uses the expression הולך, is that a person should always walk behind the scholars, become familiar with them, and consider himself as an adjunct to them. He should make of the scholars leaders for his “head.” Anyone who practices this virtue cannot fail to become wise himself. On the other hand, anyone who habitually mingles with fools will wind up causing harm to his own head, i.e. he will become “broken.” Basically, this verse in Proverbs describes the damage which results from keeping company with fools and the advantage which accrues to a person from the company of scholars. It is a fact that while someone who mingles with the scholars will benefit by such an association, the scholar will not suffer by it at all. This is the reason the Torah has been compared by David to a light (candle), seeing that an unlimited number of people can get light from this candle without the light of the candle becoming dimmed. This is the meaning of Psalms 119, 108 נר לרגלי דברך, ואור לנתיבתי’ “Your word is a lamp at my feet, a light for my path.” Our sages in Yalkut Shimoni (this book was not at the disposal of the author. Ed) comment on this verse in Proverbs that the matter may be compared to someone who enters a perfumery store. His clothing will absorb some of the fragrances in that store although he did not make a purchase of any of the products that are for sale there. In other words, the owner of that store provided a service for the browser without making a sale. Similarly, the mere fact that one is in the presence of scholars results in something rubbing off on those who make a point of being in such company. Solomon describes that the opposite is true when one frequents the haunts of fools. Not only is their presence not beneficial, but it is even harmful to those who are not of their ilk. The expression כסילים  which Solomon applies to these fools are people who deliberately choose negative virtues, indulge in physical pleasures as their main purpose in life and who at the same time despise and ridicule people concerned with moral/intellectual pursuits. Such people do not qualify for admonition as they belong to one of the three categories of people who are not to be admonished. They are 1) כסילים, fools, 2) לצים, scoffers, 3) רשעים, wicked people. Concerning category one Solomon said (Proverbs 23,9) “do not speak to a fool; he will disdain your sensible words.” Concerning the scoffer, Solomon said (Proverbs 9,8) “do not admonish the scoffer lest he hate you.” Concerning the wicked, Solomon said (Proverbs 9,7) “rebuking a wicked person one hurts oneself.” Just as the very company of scholars is like an open invitation to serve the Lord, so the company of the other types of people we mentioned is like an invitation to reject the service of the Lord. The Torah writes in Deut. 7,4 “for he will lead astray your son (grandson) from following Me. The Torah spoke about the results of intermarriage of a Jewish girl with a Gentile. Although, technically speaking, the children of such a union will be Jews, the influence of the Gentile father and his family will estrange them to Judasim. For all the above considerations David commenced his Book of Psalms with praise for the people who resist keeping company with the habitual sinners, and who instead make the Torah of G-d the object of their ambition, preoccupying themselves with it both by day ad by night (Psalms 1,1-2). Solomon followed in the footsteps of his father when he commenced the Book of Proverbs (1,8) with the words שמע בני מוסר אביך, “listen to the instruction of your father my son; etc.” He continued immediately by warning that we should not expose ourselves to the seductive words of the wicked (1,10). Our patriarch Avraham made every effort to observe the eventual laws of the Torah and the sacrificial services; our sages illustrated this when they said (Yuma 28) that he even observed such rabbinic ordinances as עירוב תבשילים, ensuring that he had cooked and baked food in the house for the Sabbath which follows on the heels of a festival so that preparation of food on the festival itself would not be viewed as exploiting a day when work is forbidden to prepare for the Sabbath. Avraham faced the dilemma of keeping away from wicked people, people who were the cause of truly free choice of worship having become impossible. Once you have become a true heretic (compare Maimonides Hilchot Teshuvah) you are not given a chance to repent). This is why G-d told him to move away from such people so that he would not become infected by them. G-d sent him away from his land, his birthplace to a land which He was going to show him (once he had set out to leave his home). According to Tanchuma 3 on Lech Lecha, Avraham was not aware of the stench caused by the people amongst whom he lived as his environment was similar to a graveyard which had been sprinkled with a bottle of spikenard oil which neutralized the stench which emanates from there. How did G-d deal with this problem? He took Avraham from place to place and acquainted him with the different smells of the universe. In this manner Avraham was able to appreciate what was wrong in the world, and he would be trained not to become overwhelmed by the stench caused by the lifestyles of his contemporaries. Then came the point when G-d said to Avraham: “remove yourself from them and do not become dirtied by them.” This is the meaning of the words לך לך, i.e. “it is time that you  by yourself.” The repetition of the letters לך לך allude to the word לכלך, dirt. G-d did not want him to become dirtied by his surroundings. This was the first of the ten trials Avraham had to undergo; he successfully coped with all of them. The final and greatest trial was when G-d told him to offer up his son Yitzchak on Mount Moriah. At that time G-d again introduced the trial with the words לך לך in order to compare his first trial to his last trial. The commandment of which the Torah speaks here at the beginning of chapter 12 was issued while Avraham was in Charan as this was his country and his birthplace. Concerning that place Avraham said later (23,2 when he instructed Eliezer to get a wife for Yitzchak): “but go only to my country and to my birthplace!” It was certainly a great trial for him to leave his country and the place he had been born and raised in, the place where he had dwelled with his whole family, and to go to an entirely unknown country. Remember that prior to G-d’s communication to Avraham telling him to move away from home, it would have been appropriate for the Torah to tell us something about Avraham’s virtues, just as the Torah had done before it reported that G-d issued commands to Noach before him. We must assume that the reason the Torah did not do so was because it had already hinted previously that Avraham was a person of exceptional qualities when the Torah referred to אור כשדים, as we explained  on 11,28. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   ואעשך לגוי גדול, “and I will make you into a great nation.” Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,15) explain that being a traveler, a nomad, brings in its wake three negative phenomena. It results 1) in a decrease of one’s fertility; 2) a decrease of one’s financial resources; and 3) in a decrease of one’s standing amongst one’s peers. G-d promised Avraham that he would not suffer from these negative phenomena. By saying: “I will make you into a great nation,” G-d told Avraham that his ability to procreate would not only not suffer but would be enhanced. By adding: “I will bless you,” G-d hinted that Avraham would prosper financially. By further adding “I will make your name great,” He countered Avraham’s concern that his standing amongst his peers would decline due to his becoming a nomad.It is noteworthy that G-d did not use the customary expression ואשימך לגוי גדול, “I will let you become a great nation,” but He said ואעשך לגוי גדול, “I will make you into a great nation.” This is equivalent to G-d saying: “I will make you into an entirely new phenomenon.” The expression G-d used is comparable to when the Torah said (1,7)  ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, “G-d made the sky.” The deeper meaning of the words לגוי גדול, “to a great nation,” is a reference to the Jewish nation which is described in Deut. 4,8 as ומי גוי גדול  אשר לו חקים ומשפטים צדיקים, “and who else is a great nation which has righteous decrees and ordinances?” The words: “I will make you into a great nation,” are alluded to when we refer to G-d as the G-d of Avraham,” the words “I will bless you,” are alluded to when we refer to G-d as “the G-d of Yitzchak;” the words “and I will make your name great,” are alluded to when we speak of G-d as “the G-d of Yaakov.” The words והיה ברכה “and be a blessing,” prompted our sages when they formulated the first benediction in the principal עמידה prayer to conclude with reference to Avraham only when we say מגן אברהם, “the shield of Avraham” at the conclusion of that benediction. The deeper meaning of these words והיה ברכה, “and be a blessing,” is that G-d had said: ”up until now when I created My universe and it needed My blessing in order to endure I blessed Adam and Chavah as we read (1,28) ‘G-d blessed them.’” This was repeated when Noach and his family required G-d’s blessing after the deluge in order to rebuild mankind. At that point (9,1) the Torah wrote: “G-d blessed Noach and his sons, etc.” From here on is the power to bless was entrusted to Avraham who could use it to bless whomever he saw fit to qualify for a blessing.
  
  Verse 3
  
  .ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאור , “and I will bless those who will bless you, and those who curse you I will curse.” This implies that the people of Ur Casdim were cursing Avraham and that had prompted G’d to tell him to move to a land He would show him. There he would become a source of blessing instead of the recipient of curses. G’d would henceforth curse those who cursed Avraham, be they individuals or groups of people. This, at any rate is Nachmanides’ interpretation of our verse. He adds that the Torah did not want to elaborate on the causes why Avraham was so disliked, just as it had not spent many words on describing the religious arguments which went on during the time of Enosh.
  	There is, however, another approach to the meaning of the words “and the one who curses you I shall curse.” It may refer to King Nimrod.” The Torah did not need to write the word ומקללך in the plural as once G’d curses the King of a nation this means that the entire nation will suffer the curse. It appears likely that the people of Ur Casdim engaged in a variety of forms of idolatry, different sections of the populace believing in and worshiping different deities. Some people served the Moloch, believing that if they sacrificed one of their children to that god, he in turn would grant them success in the rest of their endeavours. The Moloch’s priests promised that his adherents would become great nations. Other people, interested less in political success but in economic success, would worship another deity which symbolised such success. Still others believed that by worshiping the right deity they themselves might be appointed by that deity to become its prophet and to enjoy its powers on earth. Considering all these factors, G’d promised Avraham that He would make him into a great nation, that He would bless him, that He would make him a great name, and that he himself would become a source of blessing, all in order to counter the various claims to the contrary which the different followers of different deities promised to their followers. These words were a message that all the claims made by the various priests of the various deities were devoid of content and that they had no power to influence their followers’ fates either positively or negatively. None of the forces of nature considered as primary sources of power by those who worshiped them has the power to cause any changes in the universe except within the parameters set for them by their Creator. They most certainly could not act in a manner which is the opposite of their generally perceived function. It was extremely foolish to expect that a planet such as Mars which is perceived as a harbinger of war and bloodshed should become a source of blessing. This is why G’d added: “and I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I shall curse,” to underline that only G’d Himself is the source of both blessings and curses. The only power in the universe which is able to influence events in our lives in either direction is the Creator Himself who has created the other forces to act as His agents. This is what the prophet meant when  he said  (Jeremiah 10,16) לא כאלה חלק יעקב כי יוצר הכל הוא, “not like this is the portion of Yaakov; for it is He who formed all things.” He meant that both good and evil emanate only from Him. This is also why Isaiah 45,7 said: “I the Lord  do all these things.”
  	A homiletical approach (Tanchuma Lech Lecha end of section 4) sees in the words ואברכה מברכיך, “and I will bless those who will bless you,” a reference to the Priests who extend G’d’s blessing to the Israelites seeing that after the Torah commanded the Priests to bless the Israelites, the Torah (Numbers 6,27) concludes with the words ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם, “let them place My Name upon the children of Israel, and I shall bless them.” This is equivalent to G’d saying: “I will bless this tribe.” G’d said: “in this world the tribe of Levi will bless you, whereas in the world to come I will bless you directly.” This is also more directly alluded to in Jeremiah 31,23 יברכך ה' נוה צדק הר הקדש, “the Lord bless you, abode of righteousness O holy mountain.”
  	ונברכו בך, “and through you will be blessed, etc.” The plain meaning of these words is that in proportion to all the curses that have been heaped upon you at this time, in the future all these nations will be amongst those who bless you.
  	A Midrashic interpretation (Bereshit Rabbah 39,19) of these words: “the dew and and the rain [nature’s way of spreading blessing, Ed.] will be due to your merit.” The words ונברכו בך, “through you will be blessed all the nations of the earth,” were first fulfilled when Yaakov blessed Pharaoh (and the famine ended). They were fulfilled when Joseph revealed the meaning of his dream to Pharaoh, enabling him to take measures to insulate his people against the devastating effect of seven years of famine. Similarly, Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream with beneficial effects for him Whenever the Gentile nations experience troubles they will turn to the Jews for advice and blessings and we will reveal  to them what to do. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah.
  	A kabbalistic approach sees in the words ונברכו בך a message that the blessing will filter down from above, seeing that Avraham represents the highest emanation- so that he will be the first one to receive it from G’d- and he will channel it through the lower emanations. The author quotes an unknown text according to which all the blessings the Gentile nations receive will come to them only via Avraham. This is also why David said (Psalms 117,1-2) שבחוהו כל העולם, “praise Him, all you peoples,... for great is His steadfast love for us and His faithfulness endures forever.” [The structure of these two verses indicates that the Jews and their relationship to G’d are the only reason that G’d suffers the existence of the other nations at all. Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 1. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “and the souls they had made in Charan.”The plain meaning of these words is that they refer to the slaves and maids they had acquired while in Charan. The word עשו appears as describing acquisitions in Deut 8,17 כחי ועוצם ידי עשו לי את החיל הזה, “my strength and the might of my hand made me all this wealth.” (Compare commentary of Rabbi Avrham Ibn Ezra and Rabbi David Kimchi on that verse.) 
  	A Midrashic approach to the word עשו is found in Bereshit Rabbah 39,14  where it is understood as applying to the converts Avraham and Sarah managed to make in Charan and whom they took with them to the land of Canaan. Avraham converted the males, Sarah the females. This is why the Torah speaks of that phenomenon in the plural, i.e. “they had made, each one separately.” If only Avraham had been busy proselytising the Torah should have written אשר עשה “whom he had made.” We also find that Yaakov did the same as his grandfather Avraham as the Torah speaks of his sojourn  in the land of Canaan in these words (Genesis 37,1) וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו, “and Yaakov settled in the land in which his (grand)father had had succeeded in making converts” (Bereshit Rabbah 84,4). From this you learn that Yaakov was also making converts.
  
  Verse 6
  
   עד מקום שכם,“as far as a place called Shechem. This traversing of the land by Avraham and his moving away towards a mountain of which the Torah (verse 8) speaks as well as the fact that he established his tent (residence) between a place called Ai and a place known as Bet El are all references to matters and places which acquire significance for the Jewish people later on in their history. At this time, these places had not been known by the names reported here in the Torah. This is what the sages (Tanchuma Lech Lecha, 9) had in mind when they said מעשי אבות סימן לבנים, “experiences in which the patriarchs were involved him served as a preview of things that would occur in the lives of their descendants.”
     והכנעני אז בארץ, “and the Canaanite was in the land at that time.” The plain meaning of these words is that the Canaanite, a powerful people, dominated that land at that time. Avraham was afraid of them and this is why we did not hear of his building an altar, i.e. preaching his religion, at that time until G’d appeared to him at Shechem and promised him that his descendants would inherit the land of Canaan. Then Avraham was no longer afraid and it became clear to him that this was the land that G’d had promised him and this is why the Torah says in verse 7:  “he built an altar to the G’d who had appeared to him.” This was a way of thanking G’d for this assurance (compare Bereshit Rabbah 39,16) that his descendants would inherit the land. The reason the Torah writes the word אז instead of writing והכנעני היה מאז בארץ, is that the Canaanite had already lived in that land since the days of Noach. This made it easy for G’d to dispossess them in due course; they were after all a nation cursed to be slaves and as slaves had no legal claim to any property. Another reason for the word אז is that the word is an acrostic composed of 'אקלים ז, the seventh climate. [This is a hyperbole for the central region, the words “middle climate” referring to a region devoid of extremes. Ed.] It may also be referred to as the land of the fourth, i.e. the central “climate”. Concerning this central “climate,” Solomon wrote in Proverbs 3124,  וחגור נתנה לכנעני, “she gave the belt to the Canaanite.” As is well known, a belt is worn around a person’s middle. What Solomon meant was that this central piece of the earth was given to the Canaanites on a temporary basis until its true owner, the Jewish people, would be awarded it by G’d on a permanent basis.
  	Another meaning of the word אז in our verse may be connected to the Torah’s failure to describe the Canaanite as יושב בארץ, “dwelling permanently in the land.” The Torah only referred to the Canaanites as being present in the land. This is in contrast to Genesis 13,7 where the Torah did use the term יושב, “was dwelling,” when describing the tenure of the Canaanite and the Perizite in that land. The reason is that in that verse the Torah did not refer to a people which had its inheritance in that land but only to two tribes which had control of it at that time. The reason the Torah referred to the Canaanite with the ה הידיעה, the letter ה which indicates that the noun referred to is one that we are familiar with [the definitive article], is that it represents a celestial force known as “Canaanite.” This is a force from which the 70 nations derive their power on earth as we know from Joshua who said to the Israelites (Joshua 24,15) [at the time when the Israelites on the East Bank of the Jordan had built a public altar, something that aroused suspicions of their national and religious secession — Ed.] בחרו לכם היום את מי תעבדון אם את אלוהים אשר עבדו אבותיכם אשר בעבר הנהר ואם את אלוהי האמור אשר אתם יושבים בארצם ואנכי וביתי נעבוד את ה'. “Choose this day which ones you are going to serve, the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates or those of the Emorites in whole lands you are settled; but I and my household will serve the Lord.” We find that the celestial representative of the Egyptian nation is called מצרים by the Torah when we read in Exodus 14,10 והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, “and here Egypt (instead of the Egyptians) was traveling behind them.” Had the Torah referred to Egyptian nationals, human beings, the word for “traveling” should have been נוסעים instead of the singular נוסע. 
  These are concepts which we are familiar with through our study of Kabbalah. Even the scientists of our day agree with these concepts. We also find that the spiritual force of Israel is referred to as ישראל. This is the meaning of Psalms 24,6 מבקשי פניך יעקב סלה, “Yaakov who seek Your Presence Selah.” The psalmist refers to the spiritual concept “Israel” who are distinguished by the virtue of seeking out G’d.” Our sages always in Bereshit Rabbah 74,8 also interpret Psalms 118,2 יאמר נא ישראל כי לעולם חסדו, “Let Israel declare, “His steadfast love lasts forever,” in the same spirit. They interpret the word “Israel” as “ישראל סבא, the traditional description of the spiritual concept “Israel.” Such verses only prove that the “glue” is named in accordance with the object that it sticks to, and vice-versa i.e. the object that the glue sticks to is named in accordance with the glue which enables it to stick to it. Once we understand this principle a number of subjects in the Torah which appeared problematical can be understood. The fact that a prophet or angel has a special name should not be something that surprises you; neither should the fact that the site of the Holy Temple has a special name. This is what the sages in Bava Batra 75 had in mind when they explained that the verse in Jeremiah 23 6 וזה שמו אשר יקראו ה' צדקנו, “and this is the name he shall be named: “‘The Lord is our Vindicator.” You see that even a human being may carry the  name of the Lord. Similarly, the city of Jerusalem bears the name of G’d as we see from the very last verse in the Book of Ezekiel 48,35   ושם העיר מיום, ה' שמה and the name of the city from that day onwards “the Lord is there”. The Talmud suggests to change the vowels under the word “Shemah” (its name), to “shammah.” (there). Similarly, it is nor surprising to find unusual sounding names for angels, i.e. G’d’s agents.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויעתק משם ההרה, “he moved on from there to ‘the’ Mountain, etc.” He moved from the site where he had built the altar and came to Mount Moriah where he built another altar. This was a sign that in the future the Jewish people would offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings on that Mountain in the Holy Temple. He prayed there i.e. (“he called there in the name of the Lord”) This too was a preview of the times when the Holy Temple would be called “a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56,7). The choice of the word ויעתק, with the vowel segol under the letter ת instead of the vowel patach, or at least the vowel segol under the letter ע, needs explaining. 
  The word is transitive and means that in his thoughts Avraham moved the mountain. The “thoughts” are the highest emanation הר which the mountain of Moriah represents. You will find a similar expression in connection with Moses when the Torah writes (Exodus 24,15) ויעל משה אל ההר, “Moses ascended the mountain.” You know that Onkelos translates the words על ההר in that instance as לטורא  “to the mountain,” not “on the mountain.” This is also what is meant when the Torah says in Exodus 19,3 ויעל משה אל האלוקים “Moses ascended to G’d.” 
  This “move” of Avraham away from Bet El near there is not to be interpreted as an attempt by Avraham to separate from Bet El spiritually or to re-evaluate anything in his philosophy G’d forbid, but to “unify” the concept of Moriah with other basic concepts of Judaism. His ascent to the emanation הר is a logical continuation of his return to his spiritual origin which was מקדם, i.e. from a philosophical concept recognizing that G’d is the prime Cause of all things This is why the word מקדם follows the word ההרה in our verse. Immediately afterwards, the Torah writes לבית אל, “to Bet El.” In that instance “Bet El” symbolizes the emanation חכמה. The word or letter “Bet” in the expression “Bet El” is a reference to the letter “Bet” with which the Book of Bereshit (the Torah) commences. G’d recognized Moses’ philosophical and theological development when He praised him by saying בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is thoroughly at home in all aspects of “My letter Bet” and what it stands for.”(Numbers 12,7) This is also what the prophet Micah had in mind (Micah 4,2) when he said לכו ונעלה אל הר ה' ואל בית אלוקי יעקב, “go-let us ascend to the “Bet” of the G’d of Yaakov.” The expression בית אלוקי יעקב in that verse is a reference to Moriah, the concept of the highest emanation which is termed 'הר ה. When the Torah continues with the words ויט אהלה, “he pitched his tent,” this is a reference to the emanation בינה, insight. This is why the word אהלה does not conclude with the customary masculine ending ו for “his,” but ends with the letter ה. This letter represents the first letter ה in the four-lettered Ineffable Name. The world was created by means of the power and energy which reposes in that letter. It represents the “King” who built the palace (the universe) employing His “architect” (the angel alluded to in the ה of the word בהבראם) “He created them using the letter ה.” (compare Genesis 2,4, as well as  page 161 in this translation). The letter ה of that word represented the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name. The word ויעתק which can be read transitively as we explained, as well as intransitively, may refer to the עתיק יומין, (Daniel 7,9) “The G’d of pre-historic times,” a reference to the emanation כתר. Kabbalists will understand all this.
      'ויקרא בשם ה, The plain meaning of these words is that Avraham preached his brand of religion. We find the word קרא used in this sense in Proverbs 20,6 רב אדם יקרא איש חסדו, “he proclaims most people as his true friend.” Another verse in which the root קרא appears as meaning “to proclaim publicly, to preach,” is in Psalms 116,17 ובשם ה' אקרא. “I will publicly proclaim the name of the Lord.” When we are told of Joseph’s triumphal ride through Egypt after he had been appointed viceroy (Genesis 41,43), the Torah writes ויקראו לפניו אברך, “they called out before him אברך.” The generally accept translation of this word is: “on your knee!” However, I believe we may understand it as a proclamation of Joseph’s faith in the G’d of the heaven which he made public at this time. The word ויקרא also has a connotation of תפלה, prayer, as we know beyond doubt from Psalms 30,9 אליך ה' אקרא ואל א-דני אתחנן “I call to You, O Lord; to my Lord I made appeal.” Prayer, תפלה, is addressed to the attribute of Mercy, whereas תחנה, pleading is addressed to the attribute of Justice. Onkelos also translates this word in the same spirit when he wrote וצלי בשמא דה’, “he prayed in the name of the merciful G’d.”
  	A Midrashic approach to our verse understands the word ויקרא as if it were written with the letter ה at the end, such as Psalms 104,3 המקרה במים עליותיו, “Who provides a roof for His upper spheres, much like a human being who provides a roof to protect himself against dangers from above. In a similar manner Avram tried to provide his contemporaries with a faith which would act as a shield for them against negative experiences in life. He did so by assuring them that there is life after their physical death.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויסע אברם הלוך ונסוע הנגבה, “Avram kept journeying steadily in a southerly direction.” The point of all his travels was to make camp in a great number of locations. He confined himself to the area which would later on form part of the territory of Yehudah which is located in the southern part of Eretz Yisrael. This area includes Mount Moriah. This is the plain meaning of our verse. We may include a further meaning in the wording of the text, namely that each move by Avram represented a spiritual ascent to ever higher levels, keeping his spirit on the move while providing quiet and calm for the body. The Torah reported that “he pitched his tent,” to indicate his physical state; only then did it refer to constant motion, i.e. Avram’s ongoing spiritual ascent to higher levels. We read about Avram making camp in a variety of expressions such as ויאהל, ויבא, וישב, “he put up a tent, he arrived, he settled.” All of these journeys had as their purpose that he should qualify for the gift of prophecy on the level of communication with the attribute of G-d known as שדי. This is an attribute of theא-ד-נ-י  level of G-d. It is alluded to in the word הנגבה (southward), whose numerical value 65 equals that of the name א-ד-נ-י. This is also the reason this name of G-d appears again and again when Avram addresses G-d such as in 15,2 when he asked: א-דני אלוקים  מה תתן לי, “Lord O G-d what can you give me?”, Or a few lines later (15,8) א-דני אלוקים במה אדע כי אירשנה? “Lord, O G-d how will I know that I will inherit it (the land of Canaan)?”
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם, “there was a famine in the land and Avram descended, etc.” Our sages (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 9) told us that what happened to the patriarchs and is reported in the Torah serves as a preview of what would happen to their descendants in the future. Everything which happened in this passage foreshadowed what happened to the Israelites in Egypt during their exile hundreds of years later. The Egyptians took Avram’s wife from him and G-d punished them with great plagues and He allowed Avram to leave the land of Egypt with both livestock and silver and gold in great quantities. Pharaoh even ordered a guard of honour to accompany Avram out of his country. History repeated itself during the exile and subsequent Exodus of the Jewish people. This is what we read in Bereshit Rabbah 40,8 “whatever happened to Avraham happened to the Israelites. In connection with Avram, the Torah says: ‘there was a famine in the land, whereas we find in Genesis 45,6 that Joseph speaks to his brothers about two years of famine which had already passed at that time. We read in connection with Avram: “the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh,”  whereas in connection with the Israelites in Egypt the decree to kill the male babies meant that the women were taken as slaves by the Egyptians (practical meaning of Exodus 1,22 ‘let every daughter live.’) In connection with Avram we read (12,17) “G-d brought great plagues on the house of Pharaoh and his servants on account of Sarai, Avram’s wife.” In connection with the Israelites in Egypt the Torah writes: “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh (Exodus 11,1). We read in connection with Avram that he was called in to Pharaoh (12,18-19) and told “take your wife and leave!” In connection with the Israelites, (Exodus 12,31) Moses and Aaron were called in to Pharaoh and told to leave the country with all their belongings. There are several more quotations in that Midrash showing the similarity of what Avram and the Israelites experienced in Egypt.
  
  Verse 11
  
  הנה נא ידעתי כי אשה יפת מראה את, “here now, I am well aware that you are a woman of beautiful appearance, etc.” The word הנה usually appears as an introduction to something new as in Genesis 19,20 where Lot introduces his request to spare the town of Tzoar by saying הנה נא העיר הזאת קרובה “here, after all, is this city which is nearby.” Another example of a new subject being introduced with the word הנה appears in Genesis 22,6 when Yitzchak prefaces his inquiry about where the lamb for the sacrifice is with the word הנה.
  	On the other hand, the word נא is usually an expression introducing a request which appeals to the goodwill of the other party as that particular request cannot be justified legally. The person making the request uses the word נא to put his opposite number in a forgiving mood, a state of mind in which it is easier to grant the request about to be made of him. When Avram wanted to get Sarai’s approval to tell a white lie he prefaced his request by complimenting her on her beauty. No doubt Sarai was not unaware of her physical attractiveness. 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 40,4 what Avram meant was that although under normal circumstances travel and the strains experienced on a journey detract from a woman’s beauty, at least temporarily, he found that Sarai’s beauty had not only not been diminished but appeared to have been enhanced further by that experience. This proved to be an unexpected source of danger to his life; hence he made this request that she should tell a white lie. However, Tanchuma on Lech Lecha 5 claims that Avraham had never looked at Sarai in a way that made him notice her beauty as he had made a promise to his eyes not to use them in a manner which would arouse his desire for physical gratification. We find a reference to such conduct in Job 31,1 ברית כרתי לעיני, “I have  covenanted with my eyes not to gaze at a maiden.” It is not unusual to find that the righteous enter into such “covenants” with a number of their organs in order to ensure that these organs would not cause them any harm. This is similar to someone making a treaty with a former enemy that he would not harm him. The Torah urges us (Exodus 23,32) “do not make a treaty with them or their gods “ (the Gentile nations resident in the land of Canaan). Our sages in Baba Batra 16 commented on this that there is no enemy who causes as much harm to another person as do his own deeds. Furthermore, our sages on that same folio comment עפרא לפומיה, “earth in his mouth.” They ridiculed what appeared to be Job’s superior piety by saying: “granted Job had undertaken not to look at other maidens but he had not denied himself the pleasure of admiring the beauty of his own wife.” Avram, however, had not even looked at the beauty of his own wife prior to his arrival at the border of Egypt. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  אמרי נא אחותי את, “please say that you are my sister, etc.” This was an inadvertent sin committed by Avram; it caused the eventual exile in Egypt of his descendants. It was certainly a grave sin to cause his wife to sin on account of his own fear of being killed. He should have demonstrated faith in G-d that He would save him as well as his wife. He committed another sin when he left the land of Canaan on account of the famine. He should have demonstrated faith in G-d that He would make sure he would not die from hunger. On account of this sin his descendants were enslaved by Pharaoh. This, at least, is the view of Nachmanides. Our sages (Nedarim 32) claim that the exile in Egypt was due to Avram asking G-d in 15,8 “how will I be sure that I (my descendants) will inherit the land?” This is also what we find in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 48 where G-d is quoted as having told Avram of this exile in reply to his question. [I suppose the version in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer is older than the version in Nedarim. Ed.] At any rate, it is clear that Avram’s query in that chapter was considered sinful. The common denominator of the views expressed by our sages is that the sin consisted of thoughts which Avram articulated The result was 430 years of exile of varying degrees of severity. Seeing that the exile was due to a sin it was divided into three stages. The sin consisted of three parts. 1) sinful thought; 2) sinful speech; 3) sinful action. This is why the intelligent reader ought to reflect that the present exile is likely to last three times as if the exile in Egypt lasted 430 years and it was due merely to Avram’s inadvertently sinful utterance, it stands to reason that the present exile will last three times as long. After all, the sin which led to the 430 years of exile in Egypt was confined to an utterance by Avram which G-d considered sinful. The sin which led to the destruction of the first Temple, idolatry, (Yuma 9) was certainly much worse and not committed inadvertently and only by an ancestor to whom the Torah had not yet been given. At the time when the First Temple was destroyed most of the people had been guilty of sinning in thought, in speech, as well as in deed. G-d had therefore decreed three times 430 years of exile on the Jewish people. This must have been the basis of Daniel’s calculation. When you examine the final verses in Daniel 12,11 in which he mentions 1290 years, and 12,12 אשרי המחכה ויגיע לימים אלף שלש מאות שלשים וחמשה in which he speaks about the redemption at the end of 1335 years (years), this number is made up of three times the number 430. [Our author misquotes the two verses in Daniel by referring only to the number 1290, ignoring the next number in the verse following. Many attempts have been made to reconcile these numbers. Seeing the commentators who labored over these verses lived before the time alluded to had elapsed, their efforts at the time were very relevant. Now that many hundreds of years have elapsed since the expiry of these 1290 or 1335 years respectively, this editor sees little point in referring to such efforts. Ed.] This may also have been what the prophet Micah 7,20 alluded to when he said: תתן אמת ליעקב חסד לאברהם,”You will keep faith with Yaakov, and maintain your love for Avraham.” (The word אמת is understood as an acrostic of אלף מתים תשעים) This was a prayer  for G-d to hasten the redemption. He appealed to G-d who had sworn that He would invoke the attribute of חסד when it comes to the redemption of Israel as we know from Deut. 32,40 where G-d swore an oath to avenge Israel from its enemies. The words there כי אשא אל שמים ידי, “I raise My hand to heaven (in an oath)” are paraphrased by Daniel 12,7 וישבע בחי העולם, “He swore an oath in the name of the Eternal.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויהי לו צאן ובקר, “he retained sheep and cattle.” The word ויהי in this instance does not mean that he now acquired them, but that he retained the flocks and herds he had owned previously. He did not purchase them in Egypt and made profit there. After all, Avram had only asked that his life be spared. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  וינגע ה' את פרעה, “G’d smote Pharaoh with plagues, etc.” Most commentators believe that this statement is to be interpreted literally, i.e. that Pharaoh was personally smitten with afflictions. They interpret Genesis 20,18 as meaning that the vaginal openings of the women and the penises of the men in Avimelech’s household were blocked by divine action (Baba Kama 92). This is also based on Chronicles I 16,21 לא הניח לאיש לעשקם ויוכח עליהם מלכים, “He allowed no one to oppress them; He reproved kings on their account.”  On the other hand, Rabbi Saadyah Gaon understands our verse as a threat by G’d to afflict Pharaoh. His reasoning is that if G’d had afflicted Pharaoh prematurely this would not have been fair justice as Sarai had been brought to Pharaoh’s palace by others (without his having ordered this) and he personally had not yet laid a hand on Sarai. Seeing that he had not yet committed a sin why would G’d punish him as a preventive measure? Rabbi Saadyah Gaon applies the same reasoning to what happened later at the court of Avimelech (chapter 20). As to Genesis 20,17 where the Torah expressly reports that G’d healed Avimelech and his household in response to Avraham’s prayer, Rabbi Saadyah understands this verse not so much as a healing after an affliction but as a preventive medicine G’d provided against Avimelech and his household suffering such afflictions in the future. This would be a demonstration of the verse in Exodus 15,26 כי אני ה' רופאך, “for I the Lord am your Healer.” In that passage the Torah had also spoken about afflictions which were not going to be visited upon the Jewish people, and G’d describes this as a result of His acting as Israel’s Healer. As to the verse we quoted from Chronicles, Rabbi Saadyah understands this as referring to verbal warnings not to actual occurrences. Our sages clearly did not understand matters in this way and believed that seeing that these two kings both had evil intentions G’d countered their evil intentions by forestalling the harm they were about to do and effectively smiting them by disabling the respective organs with which they were going to commit their sin. The sages of the Talmud understand our verses literally.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  הנה אשתך קח ולך, “here is your wife, take her and go!” Avram did not bother to make a response to Pharaoh although he did make a response to Avimelech in chapter twenty. In the latter case he excused his conduct by saying he had feared for his life if he would have declared that Sarai was his wife. The obvious question is that seeing that both kings had asked him about his relationship to Sarai, why did Avram see fit to explain his conduct to Avimelech whereas he did not do so vis-a-vis Pharaoh? We must conclude that the manner in which Pharaoh restored his wife to him by saying only the minimum words required “take and go,” indicated to Avram that he was not interested in listening to explanations.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  השמאל ואימינה, “to the left, and I will turn to the right.” This meant that if Lot chose to go to the left, Avram would go to the right, i.e. to the South, as this was the direction in which he was headed. We had been told already prior to the famine which broke out in the land of Canaan that Avram journeyed steadily in a southerly direction (12,9). On the other hand, ואם הימין, if Lot ”were to turn to the right,” Avram would force himself to move to the “left.” This is what Rashi explains. 
  It is somewhat amazing that Rashi should say of Avram that he said: “I will force myself to go to the left.” Since it had been Avram’s intention to travel in a southerly direction, why would he change direction? What Rashi must have meant is: “I will cause you to turn to the left.” [in other words, Avram did not really offer Lot a choice in the matter. Ed.] He would force Lot to move in a northerly direction. I have heard that the more accurate versions of Onkelos have the following wording: אם את לצפונא ואנא לדרומא ואם את לדרומא ואצפנך “If you turn north I will turn south; if you want to turn south I will have to force you to turn north.” Avram made it plain that the size of his herds dictated to him to travel in a southerly direction.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אברם ישב בארץ כנען, “Avram dwelled in the land of Canaan.” This means that he lived all over the land of Canaan as opposed to Lot who lived only in the Jordan valley. Avram continued the life of a nomad whereas Lot had a firm abode. The words בערי הככר do not mean that Lot lived in several towns of the valley simultaneously but that he lived “in one of the towns of the valley at a time.” This too was due to the extent of his herds. All of those towns were part of the land of Canaan. This is why the Torah wrote that Lot “chose for himself the entire valley of the Jordan river;” he concluded a treaty with Avram that the latter would not move to any part of that valley. 
  	ויאהל עד סדום “his tent extended as far as the town of Sodom.” Here the Torah taught us something detrimental about Lot. He chose the proximity of evil people and pitched his tent among them. This is why the Torah immediately continues with telling us what kind of people lived in Sodom.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אחרי הפרד לוט, “after Lot had separated, etc.” The verse teaches  that G’d had not communicated with Avram until he had separated himself from a wicked companion.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   קום התהלך בארץ, “arise and walk throughout the land, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the words, G’d wanted Avram to stake a claim to different parts of the land already now by setting foot on it and by pointing out its boundaries and his having set foot on it. From a rational/investigative aspect, the word התהלך is one that occurs in connection with the emanation חכמה such as in Proverbs 6,22 בהתהלכך תנחה אותך, “when you walk it will guide you (the wisdom of Torah).” A similar thought is reflected in Psalms 39, 7 אך בצלם יתהלך איש, “man can walk (successfully) only if he enjoys the ‘image’ of G’d.” This is a reference to the format of the spiritual soul. Only selected righteous people have been mentioned as possessing such distinction. Examples of people who strove for the acquisition of such wisdom are Noach, Chanoch, and Avraham, and others like them. Seeing that Avraham acquired such wisdom in stages and that his soul kept traveling הלוך ונסוע הנגבה, “constantly approaching further to the ‘south,’ the symbol of חכמה, G’d said to Him: ‘arise and walk throughout the land.” This was in response to his unspoken request to attain ever greater insights. (Torat Chayim points out that the numerical value of the word הנגבה=65 equals that of א-דני the attribute of G’d which communicated with him). The relevance of this interpretation of our verse is based on the fact that the Torah nowhere reports that Avram actually traversed the land physically in accordance with G’d’s instructions. All the Torah reports is that Avram pitched his tent in Chevron. In other words, the Torah seems to emphasize that instead of walking Avram ישב “sat” in Chevron. We have already pointed out earlier that even the word ויאהל does not mean to pitch a physical tent as much as it refers to “pitching the tent of Torah”, i.e. establishing a spiritual abode. When G’d added כי לך אתננה, “for to you I will give it,” He also referred to the חכמה Avram had been searching for. G’d was going to grant Avram progressively greater insights into the workings of the universe, and He would help him acquire greater spiritual eminence. This is similar to Kings I 5,29 where the prophet reports וה' נתן חכמה לשלמה, ‘and the Lord had granted חכמה,’the emanation wisdom’ to Solomon.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי בימי אמרפל מלך שנער, “It was in the days of Amrafel the king of Shinar, etc.” “Amrafel” is identical with “Nimrod.” He was the king who ordered Avram thrown into a fiery furnace for his refusal to acknowledge him as a deity. He was the first of ten kings who ruled over the entire populated earth. The last one of these ten kings will be the Messiah. This paragraph is intended to tell us that Avram was a great hero and warrior. This is why the Torah tells us that whereas four kings engaged five kings in war and the five kings succumbed to the four, Avram, practically single-handed, undertook to engage these four mighty kings in battle. He overcame them all.
  	From a Midrashic-homiletical point of view, there is another aspect to this whole report of the Torah. The four kings represent the four empires who at one time or another played host to the Jewish people when they were in exile (compare Bereshit Rabbah 42,4). “Shinar” represents Babylon, based on Daniel 2,38 אנת הוא רישא די דהבה, “you are the head of gold,” (a reference to the huge golden image constructed by Nebuchadnezzar). “Elassar” represents the kingdom of the Medes; this was the name of a city in Persia/Media. The kingdom of “Eylam” is a reference to Greece. Our sages (Avodah Zarah 10) explain that the Greeks ruled in Eylam for six years  before their rule extended over most of the inhabited earth. The “king of Goyim,” is a reference to the Roman Empire. This empire was one which many nations chose to be governed by. The reason the Torah calls the king of that country a “king of nations,” is that his capital was a Metropolis of many different nations, tribes, and political groups. The point of the Midrash is to demonstrate that just as Avram overcame these nations, so his descendants in the future would succeed in overcoming their exiles in accordance with the oft-cited principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the experiences of the patriarchs foreshadowed the experiences of their descendants.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ושלש עשרה שנה מרדו, “and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.” The word שלש in this instance is to be understood as a cardinal number rather than as an ordinal number. We find an example of such use of the word in Exodus 20,11, where the Torah writes כי ששת ימים עשה ה'  instead of כי בששה ימים עשה ה'.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  בא כדרלעומר, “Kedorleomer came, etc.” The Torah wants to describe the power of this king as well as that of the kings who joined him and who defeated the various mighty kings who dwelled in fortified cities. This is the true meaning of the words בעשתרות קרנים. The word קרנים, “horns,” symbolizes strength seeing that the strength of a bull is represented by its horns.  They even defeated the wealthy amongst them [reference to the name זוזים, derived from זוז , coin. Ed.] Seeing that these four kings defeated the kings (Refaiim) who resided in fortified cities  as well as the ones who dwelled in the mountains, there was no need to mention that they overran the cities in the valley. According to Bereshit Rabbah 26,16, שוה קריתים is a reference to cities in the valley. The אימים were people who had inspired fear amongst all the people around them. The חורי בההרם שעיר were tillers of the soil in mountainous territory. According to Tanchuma these people were able to “smell” the earth, i.e. their sense of smell told them about what a particular piece of earth was best suited for. According to another Midrash the name עין משפט refers to Kadesh, the place where Moses would be judged when he hit the rock instead of speaking to it The name חצצן תמר is an allusion to חציון של תמר, another name for the land of Israel which is situated in the very center of the earth. (חציון from the word חצי “half.”) The main reason the Torah provides us with all these details of the military exploits of Kedorleomer and Arafel and their allies is to provide the background to the tremendous military achievement of Avram and his 318 warriors in the latter half of this chapter. This is why the Torah underlines in verse 17 אחרי שובו מהכות את כדרלעומר ואת המלכים אשר אתו “after he (Avram) returned from defeating Kedorleomer and the kings who were with him.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ועמק השידים בארות בארות חמר, “and the valley of Sidim was full of clay pits, etc.” Rashi says that these pits were full of clay which the people in the neigbouring areas used to make into bricks.  According to a Midrash the clay was so sticky that it required a miracle for the king of Sodom to escape from it after he had fallen into it. A miracle was performed for the King of Sodom which enabled him to escape. Some of the people at the time did not believe that Avram had been saved from the furnace into which Nimrod had thrown him. Once the King of Sodom emerged from the clay, these people who had refused to believe when Avram had been saved, would now become convinced of G’d having saved Avram when they observed that the King of Sodom emerged from these pits. 
  Why should they now retroactively believe in the G’d of Avram? Nachmanides feels that those who had believed in G’d at the time would not now have their faith in G’d reinforced; on the contrary, having seen a miracle performed for an idolater and well known sinner such as the King of Sodom, they would question the miracle which had occurred to Avram in retrospect. 
  However, the correct understanding of the Midrash quoted by Rashi must be as follows: The King of Sodom was saved because of Avram’s merit. G’d saved him in order for him to pay honour and respect to Avram (verse 17) after the latter freed him from being stuck in the pit. Once people realised that G’d had performed a miracle for the sake of the King Sodom in order  to enhance Avram’s reputation, they could certainly credit that G’d had performed a miracle in order save Avram’s life.
      In Tanchuma on Lech Lecha section 8 we are told that the word שידים is understood as derived from שדים, “breasts.” The valley provided for its inhabitants what a mother’s breast provides for her infant.  Now that the inhabitants of that valley had become so sinful it was turned into the Dead Sea as paraphrased by Psalms 107, 34 ארץ פרי למלחה מרעת יושבי בה “a fruitful land into a salt marsh, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויבא הפליט, “The fugitive came, etc.” According to the view of Bar Kapparah quoted by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Bereshit Rabbah 42,8 the term “the fugitive,” refers to Og who had survived the deluge. The reason he was called עוג was because when he arrived at Avram’s house to tell him that Lot had been captured, Avram was occupied with the halachot concerning עוגות, cakes. Og did not have any creditable motives in telling Avram about this. He hoped that Avram would go to war to rescue Lot and when he would fall in battle, he, Og, would marry Sarai, Avram’s widow. G’d assured Og that he would be rewarded for having troubled himself to inform Avram of Lot’s capture by enjoying inordinately long life, but that he would also have to watch millions of Avram’s descendants because he had meant to cause Avram’s death. The reason that Moses was afraid of Og (Tanchuma Chukat, 25) was that he was concerned that he would still be protected by G’d’s promise of long life.  
  	According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 27 “the fugitive” was none other than the angel Michael; he is also referred to as “a fugitive” in Ezekiel 33,21 בא אלי הפליט מירושלים “the fugitive came to me saying the city  has been smitten.”
     והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי, “and he dwelled at Eloney Mamre of the Emorite.” It is well known that the three good friends of Avraham were Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre. All three were Emorites. We do not find however that the description “Emorite” is ever applied to either Aner or Eshkol. We do not find that even Mamre is referred to as an Emorite except here. We do not find that he is mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. [in chapter 23 Mamre is mentioned as a place name only. Ed.] The reason he is mentioned here is because the Torah refers to the ברית. The Torah is concerned that we should not think that all three of Avram’s friends urged him to circumcise himself  but only Mamre. Our sages say in Bereshit Rabbah 42,8 that when the commandment to circumcise himself was issued, Avram went to consult with his friends and both Aner and Eshkol advised against, whereas Mamre advised strongly in favour, asking how he could possibly refuse seeing that G’d had saved his life so many times? He argued that seeing Avram was ready to give his life for G’d at any time if requested to do so, how could he even consider refusing to offer a single one of his organs at G’d’s command? In recognition of Mamre’s advice G’d told Avram that He would reveal Himself only in Mamre’s proximity not in the palaces of either Aner or Eshkol. The name ממרא is also viewed as an acrostic for the words מלכים, מילה, רעבון, אש that G’d had saved Avram from the kings, that he had received the advice to go through with the circumcision, that G’d had saved him from the famine in the land of Canaan, and from the fire in Nimrod’s furnace. We also find that the word אמירה is used in connection with the commandment of circumcision, i.e. שש אנכי על אמרתיך, “I rejoice with your utterances” (Psalms 119,162).
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וישמע אברם כי נשבה אחיו, “when Avram heard that his brother had been taken captive, etc.” Avram girded himself for battle as soon as he heard about this. He immediately mobilized the three hundred and eighteen men who derived their immediate sustenance from him.
   Bereshit Rabbah 43,2 claims that the number 318 is really only the numerical value of the letters in the name of his trusted servant אליעזר. How do we reconcile this Midrash with the principle of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, that “we must not completely divorce a verse of Scripture from its literal meaning?” After all, the Torah expressly states that the three hundred people concerned were ילידי ביתו “members of Avram’s household?”
   Actually, the meaning of the Midrash is that all the three hundred and eighteen men mentioned were members of Avram’s household, were being fed at his table. Having mobilized all of them, Avram discounted most of them realizing that the credit for the victory went only to Eliezer who was the most G’d-fearing one amongst them. Victory in battle is not determined by the size of the armies- as we know from Gideon- but is due to the merit of the individual soldiers. The Torah told us in Deut 20,8 that if someone has reason to fear for his life (due to sins he has committed) he should go home instead of joining the ranks of the soldiers. The author of the Midrash noticed that the word וירק, he “mobilized,” is composed of the word רק, “only.” It means that Avram reduced the men whose merit could ensure victory to those that possessed sufficient merit which left him with his trusted servant Eliezer, whose merit was equivalent to that of the other 317 men in his household. While it is true that the word חניכיו is spelled with the letter י indicating that there were more than one person, the fact is that “200 includes 100,” i.e. that the word חניכו, “the one whom he had trained,” is included in the word חניכיו, “the ones whom he had trained.”  We may interpret the word to mean that all the people whom Avram had trained (in matters spiritual) were loyal to the most illustrious of them all, to Eliezer. As to the word אחיו, “his brother,” when in fact Lot was Avram’s nephew and not his brother, the Torah wrote it in this way in order to show us the virtue of brotherliness which Avram extended even to a nephew who had chosen to live as a neighbour of the wicked people of Sodom. He had not allowed considerations of the strife which had occurred between them previously to influence his judgment concerning his nephew, the son of his brother. He risked his life on his behalf as if he were a biological brother.
     וירדף עד דן, “he pursued as far as Dan.” This is a reference to the מדת הדין, “the attribute of Justice.” Once the attribute of Justice caught up with these kings there was no need for Avram to pursue any further. We find a similar expression in Isaiah 41,3 ירדפם יעבור שלום, “He pursues them, he goes unharmed.” 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 43,7 Avram threw earth at these people and the earth turned into swords. When he threw straws at them they turned into arrows. Another explanation offered by the Midrash (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 13) on these words is that when Avram approached Dan, a place where in later years the Israelites would commit idolatry, his strength suddenly evaporated in view of this prospect. (The Midrash referred to the golden calves erected by Jerobam King of Israel shortly after the division of Solomon’s kingdom compare Kings I 12,29). 
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויחלק עליהם לילה “the night was divided for them.” The plain meaning of the line is that it became dark. Nonetheless, Avram did not desist from pursuing these Kings and their armies until midnight.
      According to Tanchuma Lech Lecha 9 G’d told Avram: “you have killed My enemies from midnight until morning, I promise you that when the time is ripe I will kill those that hate your descendants from midnight until morning.” This is the deeper meaning of Exodus 11,4 כחצות הלילה אני יוצא בתוך מצרים, “around midnight, I will go out in the midst of Egypt.” From all this it appears that Avram carried on the battle from midnight until morning. 
  According to the plain meaning of the text Avram did not sleep at all during that night. He spent the first half of the night in pursuit; the second half of the night he spent in battling his enemies. This is the meaning of the words ויחלק עליהם לילה הוא ועבדיו ויכם וירדפם, “the night was divided for him and his servants, he smote them in the second half of the night after having pursued them during the first half.”
  	עד חובה אשר משמאל לדמשק, “as far as Chovah which is to the left of Damascus.” This means “until they admitted their guilt he called to them from the “left,” i.e. the seat of the attribute of Justice. They were falling to the left of Eliezer who originated in Damascus. [The word Damascus here is a simile for Eliezer who used to draw water and give others to drink from the Torah of his master Avraham, as will be explained later by our author. (Rabbi Chavel)] The word משמאל in our verse may be read as referring to Damascus or as referring to the previous word עד חובה אשר. In the latter case the translation would have to be “as far as Chovah which is on the left side.” You will find a similar construction of one word being able to be used in the latter half of a verse as well as in the first half in Psalms 50,2 מציון מכלל-יופי אלוקים הופיע “From Zion, perfect in beauty, G’d appeared.” [The word מציון may be understood as the end of verse one preceding it. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, “and Malki Tzedek the King of Salem, etc.” This King was none other than Shem, the son of Noach. He was a Priest of the Supreme G’d. According to the plain meaning of the text the word כהן means “servant.” Seeing that all nations have their “priests” who serve angels who are called אלוהים, such as Exodus 15,11 מי כמוך באלים ה' “who is like You amongst the divine forces O Hashem?,” The Lord G’d is here referred to as אל עליון, Supreme G’d. According to Nedarim 32 he was a real Priest and this is the reason Avram gave him a tithe of ten percent of the spoils of war.
  
  Verse 19
  
   קונה שמים וארץ, “who owns heaven and earth.” The term קונה is not to be understood as a contrast to מוכר, “who sells.” The meaning of the word is similar to זוכה, “who has a rightful claim.” We find the word קונה in that sense on numerous occasions  in Talmudic Hebrew such as in Bava Metzia 10 קנה לעצמו. In that instance the Talmud discusses someone who had found an object which he lifts up on behalf of his companion. Such an act represents a claim to ownership of that object by said companion. The word does not imply that the object was acquired from someone else. [The final ruling in that instance is that such an act does not accomplish anything unless the one who lifts up the object had been asked to do so in order to acquire it on behalf of the one who asked him. Ed.] In other words, Malki Tzedek did not mean to imply that in order to own heaven and earth G’d had to acquire it from an outside source.
      You should realise that every time the word יש appears it implies that the matter is subject to acquisition (from someone else) whereas when we encounter the word אין this means that the object is not subject to acquisition. Seeing that G’d created the universe as a יש מאין — as a “something” out of “nothing,” He naturally “owns” the universe. This is the reason why the Torah in this instance chose the expression קונה to describe G’d’s relationship to His universe. Seeing that he owns it, He is able to transfer it or part of it to the Jewish people.
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 43,7 it appears that the words קונה שמים וארץ were understood as referring to a literal acquisition in the sense of property passing from one owner to another. It would then refer to the original raw material from which the universe has been constructed. The wording in the Midrash is: “Who did G’d acquire it from?” Answer: “If her eyes are beautiful does this not prove that her hair is beautiful also?” Malki Tzedek made the point that not only part of the universe is G’d’s but all of it. According to our author the point is that the Midrash means that the fact that G’d “acquired” the original raw material does not mean that it was not He who had created that material also
   ויברכהו ויאמר ברוך אברם לקל עליון קונה שמים וארץ, וברוך קל עליון, “Blessed be Avram to the Supreme G’d who owns heaven and earth, and blessed be the Supreme G’d, etc.” Malki Tzedek first blessed Avram and only then did he bless G’d. He was guilty of a sin by doing so. He should first have blessed G’d just as David did in a similar situation in Samuel I 25, 32-33. David first blessed G’d before he blessed Avigail who had prevented him from becoming guilty of bloodshed. Malki Tzedek was punished for this lack of respect for G’d by losing his position of High Priest. This position was accorded to Avraham instead as is recorded in Nedarim 32. A reference to this is found in Psalms 110,1 נאם ה' לאדני שב לימיני where the man who is described as sitting on G’d’s right hand side is understood to be Avraham. He is the only person to whom David ever referred as אדני, “my master.” David considered Avraham as his personal patriarch. In verse 4 of the same Psalm David says: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever, because of what I have said, taking the place of Malki Tzedek.” It had been inadmissible to praise someone of flesh and blood before praising the Eternal.  When Yehudah was about to condemn Tamar, Malki Tzedek’s daughter to death by burning (Genesis 38,24), he had not been aware that G’d had already removed the priesthood from Malki Tzedek [so that death by burning would not have been applicable to his daughter according to Jewish law even if she had been guilty of harlotry. Ed.]
      According to an opinion expressed in Midrash Mishlei, the words קונה שמים וארץ refer to Avram. This is based on Proverbs 17,1 טוב פת חרבה ושלוה בה מבית מלא זבחי ריב “better a dry crust with peace, than a house full of feasting with strife.” Avram merited to acquire both heaven and earth (life in either world) seeing the Torah said ברוך אברם לאל עליון קונה שמים וארץ The verse means  that Avram’s descendants merited the Torah which was given to them from heaven. They also acquired the earth, i.e. they became fruitful and multiplied like the dust of the earth.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  . אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל, “if as much as a thread or shoe-lace, etc.” This was a demonstration of Avram’s generosity in that he did not want to be enriched by the spoils of war. He did not even want to accept trivial matters which have no monetary value. He even rendered an oath concerning this when he said: “I have raised my hand to the Lord, etc.” The expressionידי  הרימותי is equivalent to the expression נשאתי את ידי (Numbers 14,30), the standard formula introducing an oath. The reason he chose this expression is that it is related to תרומה, a gift to the temple treasury or to the priest which sanctifies the objects in question.. It is as if Avram had declared that just as sanctified property was out of bounds to him, so the booty of his victory against the four kings was equally out of bounds to him. Such gifts are usually termed תרומת יד, “a gift from someone’s hand.”
      Rabbi Saadyah Gaon wrote that  by mentioning “threads and shoe-laces,” the Torah wanted to include both vegetable, animal matter as well as inert matter. The word מחוט includes all vegetable matter including fruit and grain. The words ועד שרוך נעל refer to matters derived from living creatures such as domestic animals or birds. The words ואם אקח, “or if I will take (accept)” refer to inert matter and include silver and gold, jewels, etc. This is why he added the words: “nor will I take anything which was yours.”
      Bereshit Rabbah 43,13 views the words: “if either a thread or a shoelace,” as follows. G’d said to Avram: “you have spoken about a ‘thread.’ In recognition I will give your descendants the commandment ofציצית , ‘fringes’. They  too are called “threads.’” The translation of פתיל תכלת is חוטא דתכלתא “blue thread.” Regarding the expression שרוך נעל, ‘shoelace’, something else Avram refused to accept, G’d told him that the Jewish people would receive the commandment of תפילין, “the straps of the phylacteries” as compensation. The Jewish people would also receive the commandment of eating from the Passover, of which the Torah says that it should be eaten (the first time in Egypt) נעלכם בגליכם, “while you wear your shoes.” The Israelites also merited the commandment of יבום וחליצה, “the levirate marriage and its corollary the removal of the candidate’s shoe if he refused to perform that commandment and thus would enable his sister-in- law to remarry outside the family” (compare Deut. 25,4-10). The Torah speaks of הנעל חלוץ in that connection also.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך, “do not worry Avram, I will be your shield.”  One may understand G’d’s promise to Avram in this verse as including three separate assurances:  1) He should not be afraid on account of the kings whom he had slain. The words: “do not be afraid,” are only addressed to someone who is already afraid. Avram was afraid that the sons of these kings would want to avenge their fathers and attack him. This is why G’d said; “I will be a shield for you.” The second assurance concerned Avram’s having a son of his own. This is alluded to in the words שכרך הרבה מאד, “your reward will be very great.” Actually, all G’d had to say was שכרך רב, “your reward is great.” The addition of two letters ה which were not really called for indicated that by means of the two letters ה which would be added both to the name אברם and to the name שרי, Yitzchak would be able to emerge as their son. This was an assurance concerning reward in this life. The third assurance was an assurance concerning the hereafter, and it is alluded to by the addition of the word מאד, “very much,” to the promise of much reward. We find something similar in Job 35,15 ולא ידע בפש מאד, “and he does not know that it may be long drawn out.” Elihu had attacked Job for denying that G’d personally supervises the fate of individuals. He accused him of recounting his afflictions day after day, whereas he had no idea of the serenity in store for the righteous in the hereafter. Seeing that of these three assurances, only the first one was explicit whereas both the promise of children and that of an afterlife were only allusions, Avram related only to the visible, and did not understand the allusion which was included in G’d’s words. This is why he felt constrained to ask G’d: “what can You give me?” He meant: “seeing that I have no children I am comparable to a bush in the desert (Jeremiah 17,6), i.e. something that has no future”. In his reference to Eliezer, Avram meant that not only did he not have a biological heir, but his heir-apparent Eliezer was not even from his home-town Charan but from Damascus. At this point G’d began to tell Avram in detail what He had previously only hinted at. Firstly, He told him that Eliezer would not be his heir but that someone who was his biological son would inherit him. When G’d added the words הוא יירשך, “he will inherit you,” this was really superfluous and meant that the ”הוא“ of the world i.e. G’d Himself, would be his heir.” He meant that he, Avram, would be the heir of G’d inasmuch as the name הוא is one of the attributes of G’d. This is a familiar concept from Exodus 34,9  ונחלתנו, “and make us Your heritage.” 
  Nachmanides adds that the words (verse 4) והנה דבר ה' אליו לאמר may be understood as G’d interrupting Avram in mid-sentence and assuring him that he was wrong, that Eliezer was not going to be his heir.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ויוצא אותו החוצה, “He led him outside.” It is not usual for people to be able to view the stars from inside their houses until they have stepped outside. The reason the Torah needs to use this description of what transpired when G’d spoke to Avram is because up until now the level of prophetic visions he had enjoyed was the one called “Bet El.” David (Psalms 45,14) had referred to that level of prophecy, i.e. intimacy with G’d, as כבודה בת מלך פנימה, “the glory (entourage) of the King’s daughter consists of her remaining inside.” Now that Avram was going to experience prophecy of a higher level, G’d had to mention that He took him beyond the level of “Bet El”, i.e. outside or beyond that level. This is the meaning of the word ויוצא. Our sages in Shabbat 156 understand these words to mean that G’d removed Avram’s fate from the influence of the horoscopes, i.e. astrological limitations, when He said to him: הבט נא השמימה, “look skywards”, please.” Whenever we encounter the expression הבט it means “looking down.” If Avram had been on earth and had looked at the sky, the stars, the expression הבט would have been inappropriate. Therefore, the Torah wanted to tell us that G’d had placed Avram in a position above the stars and had told him to look down at the sky. He could henceforth trample the limitations imposed on a person due to his horoscope.
  	My own opinion is that our verse represents the true meaning of Isaiah 41,2 צדק יקראהו לרגלו, “the horoscope (planet) Jupiter He summoned at his feet.” This is the source of the Talmudic statement that the fate of the Jewish people is not dependent on any constellation of stars or planets (Shabbat 156). We have similar statements in the Midrash at the end of Song of Songs. In Song of Songs 8,14 ברח דודי ודמה לך לצבי, our sages understand this line as comparing Avraham, G’d’s beloved, to a roe, and the words על הרי בשמים at the end of that verse as a reference to heaven by reading the word בשמים instead of as besamim, as  bashamayim.” This too is understood as meaning that horoscopic considerations do not apply to the fate of the Jewish people. We must distinguish between the fate of the Jewish nation as a whole which is not subject to horoscopic influences and that of the individual Israelite whose fate is subject to horoscopic influences. The discipline of astrology is a most important discipline, and our sages have never disputed its significance.
  	וספור הכוכבים אם תוכל לספור אותם, “and count the stars if you are able to count them.” G’d meant that just as Avram was unable to count the number of the stars so his own descendants would be innumerably many. 
  An additional meaning in that message was that the cumulative wisdom possessed by the Jewish people would be beyond comprehension. Just as there are stars which give off more light than others, so there would be Jews who would possess more wisdom than others with which to enlighten their peers. 
  Still another meaning included in that message to Avram was the promise that the degree of reward for which different Jews would qualify in the hereafter would also vary in proportion to the intensity of the light radiated by different stars. There is a reward for the souls and it is apportioned in accordance with the achievements of these souls while imprisoned in a body. Our sages in Sifri on Deut.1,10 explained the words ככוכבי השמים לרוב, “as numerous as the stars in the sky,” as referring to seven different groups of righteous souls in the hereafter. Each group differs from the next group in the level of reward G’d has accorded to it. Some radiate the kind of light  radiated by the sun; others the kind of light radiated by the moon,  and so on. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  והאמין בה', “and he believed in G’d.” He believed the message  that G’d had indeed decided  that this would occur.
  	ויחשבה לו צדקה, “and Avram considered this as an act of kindness by G’d.” He believed that G’d would indeed carry out His promise as He was so fair and just. He did not expect G’d to do what He had said He was going to do as a reward for his good deeds. This is the view of Nachmanides concerning the meaning of these words. 
  It is possible to explain the words: “He considered it for him as an act of righteousness,” as G’d being the speaker and Avraham the one concerning whom G’d said it.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים, “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim, etc.” According to Nachmanides G’d referred to the time commencing with His saving Avram miraculously from the furnace of Nimrod. Ever since Avram had enjoyed G’d’s goodwill and He had intended to give the land of Canaan to him. What G’d said here did not mean that He was now going to give the land to Avram but that the reason He had saved Avram from Ur Casdim was in order to eventually give it to him. In view of all this, Avram was concerned that the promise of inheriting the land should not be subject to conditions which his descendants might not be able to meet. Although G’d had repeatedly referred to Avram’s descendants as receiving the land, he was afraid that some sin might prevent realisation of this promise  and this is why he asked: “how will I know that I will indeed inherit it?” He had not meant to ask for a miracle or a physical sign. G’d did not respond to him as He had done when He showed him other signs. Avram was only interested in receiving an ironclad assurance that neither sins by his descendants nor repentance of their evil deeds by the Canaanites would invalidate G’d’s promise. G’d therefore concluded a covenant with him to confirm what He had said and that he or his descendants would definitely inherit the land of Canaan.
  	According to a comment in the Sefer Hayashar at the time Avram was born a certain star in the eastern sky “swallowed “ four other stars in four directions of the sky. At that time Nimrod’s advisors said to him: “at this moment a son has been born to Terach whose descendants will produce a nation which will inherit the whole earth as well as the hereafter. If you agree, let us give his father a house full of gold and silver and get his permission to kill the baby.” Thereupon Nimrod immediately sent an urgent message to Terach in which he referred to the baby who had been born to Terach on the previous evening, and demanded that it be handed over to be killed. In return he promised Terach a house full of gold and silver. Terach replied by citing a parable. He said: “I will explain to you how your offer looks to me. They told a horse ‘let us cut off your head and we will give you a house full of barley.’ The horse replied: “you are fools. If you cut off my head who is going to eat the barley? Similarly, if you are going to kill my son who will inherit all this gold and silver?” Having heard this explanation by Terach the king replied: “I infer from your words  that a son has been born for you. Terach replied that this was true but that the baby was dead already. Thereupon the king told him: “the offer to pay you for him with a house full of gold and silver applies only if you deliver him alive. If you deliver him dead the offer does not apply.” Thereupon Terach hid the baby in a cave for the next three years. G’d provided two outlets for that cave. One became the source of fine flour, the other of oil. When Avram was three years old he left the cave. When he looked around he began to wonder who had created heaven and the earth and himself. At first he began praying to the sun all day long. Then, at night, when he saw the moon, he began to pray to the moon as he had concluded that the position of the moon in the sky was proof that the moon had created it and the stars as well as earth and himself. He considered the stars as servants of the moon. When the moon disappeared in the morning and the sun rose in the East he began to realise that the phenomena he had observed thus far had only been tools in the hands of someone mightier than either of them. He now went to his father Terach and asked him who had created heaven earth and himself? Terach answered him: “my god created all these phenomena.” Thereupon Avram asked his father to show him this god who supposedly was powerful enough to have created all these phenomena. Terach brought him one of his idols. Avram could not accept that this idol had any power at all. He went to his mother asking her similar questions. He asked his mother to cook a fancy dish so that he could offer it to one of the idols hoping it would be accepted as an offering. He placed the food in front of Terach’s biggest idol. The idol did not respond at all, neither by sign or movement of his eyes or other organs. At that point, Avram had some divine inspiration and he said of these idols  פה להם ולא ידברו, עינים להם ולא יראו, “they have a mouth and are unable to speak, they have eyes but are unable to see” (Psalms 115,5). He seized the idols and burned them. He took the largest idol outside and placed the fire in his hand. When his father came home and wanted to know what had happened, Avram accused the biggest idol of having burned the others. Terach accused Avram of having burned his idols. Avram claimed to be innocent accusing the largest idols of having burned the others in a fit of fury. Thereupon his father said to him: “my son, you are foolish, how can any of these lifeless idols do such a thing? I myself have made these idols out of wood.” Thereupon Avram said to his father: “I wish you would hear yourself talk. If they have no power why did you tell me that they have created heaven and earth?” Terach then went to Nimrod  and told him that his son had burned both his own and Nimrod’s idols. Nimrod sent for Avram and asked him why he done such a thing. Avram denied having done anything and blamed the largest of the idols for having burned the others. Thereupon Nimrod also challenged him by saying: “since when do these idols possess a spirit of life enabling them to act?” Avram then told Nimrod more or less the same as he had told his father, adding: “why do you reduce the god who has created heaven and earth to a wooden image and you worship such an image?” Thereupon Nimrod told Avram that he personally had created heaven and earth and that both heaven and earth were under his control. Thereupon Avram said to Nimrod: “You are able to create? when I came out of the cave I saw the sun rise in the east and set in the west. If you can make the sun rise in the west and set in the east I will worship you. If you are unable to do this, the one who gave me the power to burn the idols will also give me the power to kill you.” Upon hearing this Nimrod consulted with his advisors and asked them what to do with Avram? Thereupon the advisors told him: “this is the one concerning whom we have told you that he will become the founder of a nation which will take over the entire universe including the hereafter. Now the only thing you can do is to do to him what he has done to those idols which he burned.” Upon hearing the advice of his councilors Nimrod immediately threw Avram into a fiery furnace. At that point, G’d was filled with mercy for the boy and He saved him. This is the meaning of His words to Avram: “I have taken you out of the fire of the Casdim.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
   במה אדע כי אירשנה, “how will I know that I will inherit it?” Avram meant: “by means of which merit will I inherit it?” G’d answered: “by means of the merit of the sacrifices you are about to offer.” This is the meaning of the verse קחה לי “take for Me” (verse 9). When G’d said this He again appeared to Avram as the attribute of א-דני,  but in this instance it was followed by the letter ה [the name “Hashem” with the vowels of the name “elohim.”] to show that the attribute of Mercy was also involved to some extent. This amounts to the name שדי. You know that we must not pronounce the Ineffable Name as it is spelled. Hence the sages in charge of vocalisation adjusted the vowels in a manner that make them suitable for reading. We must use either the form “elohim,” or the form “adonai,” when pronouncing G’d’s name. A scriptural reminder that this is so is found in Chabakuk 2,2 וה' בהיכל קדשו הס מפניו כל הארץ, “and the Lord is in the Sanctuary of His Holiness; silence in His presence everyone on earth!” This verse is a reminder that only inside the Holy of Holies may the Ineffable Name be pronounced as we would read it had we not been cautioned not to read it as it is spelled.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואת הצפור לא בתר , “and he had not cut the bird in half.” The reason Avram had cut up the four-legged animals but not the birds was that the former represent the idolatrous Gentile Nations, and these have been compared to animals as it says (Psalms 22,13)  סבבוני פרים רבים, “many bulls surround me.” It is also written in Daniel 8,20 האיל אשר ראית, “the ram that you saw ....are the kings of Medes and Persia.” In verse 21 of the same chapter the king of Greece is described as הצפיר השעיר, the “he-goat.” On the other hand, in Song of Songs 5,2 and 2,14 the Jewish people are compared to doves. Seeing that Israel will continue to exist indefinitely, Avram did not cut up the birds representing it.
  
  Verse 11
  
  וירד העיט על הפגרים, “The bird of prey descended on the carcasses.” This was a hint that in the future the Gentile Nations would try and prevent the Israelites from performing sacrificial service in the Temple.
  
  Verse 12
  
  והנה אימה חשכה גדולה נופלת עליו, “and here a great darkness was falling upon him.” Here Avram received a hint of the four exiles the Jewish people would endure in the course of their history prior to the final redemption. Bereshit Rabbah 44,17 interpreted each of the following words as referring to a specific exile. The word אימה is an allusion to Babylon; the word חשכה alludes to Medes; the word גדולה refers to Greece; the word נופלת עליו is a reference to the exile under the Romans.
  	Nachmanides wrote:  Avram found himself afraid in his soul and this fear was followed by darkness. Later on the darkness increased still further until finally, he felt as if the darkness was physically falling upon him. The reason for all this was that while G-d had covenanted with Avram that He would give the land to his descendants as an eternal inheritance, He had made some reservation to this promise. The reservation was that four different kingdoms would at one time or another enslave the Jewish people and rule over them in their own land. This would be in retribution for sins committed by the Jewish people in the future. Afterwards G-d informed Avram of an exile that would precede the fulfillment of the promise that they would inherit the land of Canaan, the exile in Egypt. This exile was one that represented a punishment for himself because he had asked Sarai to tell a lie about their relationship. Thus far Nachmanides. 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   'ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך וגו, “You shall surely know that your descendants will be  strangers, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verse means that Avram’s offspring would spend 400 years in a land which would not be theirs, that they would be enslaved and oppressed by the owners of that land. G-d deliberately refrained from telling Avram how many of these years would be spent in relative freedom and how many in oppressive slavery.
  	Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that the four hundred years would commence on the day G-d spoke to him. If so, G-d would have predicted to the day when the Exodus would take place. [Rabbi Chavell saw several editions of Ibn Ezra, some of which had the line “and he did not tell him the date of the redemption.” The present edition of Mossad Harav Kook has the version we have quoted.]
  	ארבע מאות שנה, “four hundred years.” The reason for this number in connection with the exile in Egypt is not clear. Not a single one of the commentators gives us any insight into this number. 
  You will find that the number 400 is prominent in matters concerning the עין רע, “the evil eye.” The numerical value of the words עין רע is 400. The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the letter ת is equal to 400. As such it embodies all the letters in the alphabet. Similarly, עין רע is an all inclusive destructive concept. Seeing that the letter ה was added to Avram’s name (Avraham), a letter which represents the attribute of Justice, the evil eye gained power over him, and the attribute of Justice decreed exile on his descendants for four hundred years, corresponding to the עין רע, the eye of Satan. We may now understand the words ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך, “you must surely know that your descendants will be strangers” [they will be subject to a hitherto unknown attribute of G-d in their lives. Ed.], i.e. the ones who will be born as the result of the two letters ה which will be added to both your and Sarai’s name respectively, and which represent the attribute of Justice, will be subject to the evil eye. As a result of such a development ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה, they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. You will encounter this number again in connection with Efron, עפרן, whose name equals 400 and who demanded 400 shekel from Avraham before he allowed him to bury Sarah in the cave of Machpelah. What we learn from this is that עפרן  also represented the “evil eye.” You will also find this in connection with עשו, who based his success in life on that of his father Yitzchak who represented the attribute of Justice. He too possessed עין רע, an evil eye. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 claims that the reason Yaakov (Genesis 32,15) instructed the attendants of the herds and flocks he sent to his brother Esau as gifts to place a substantial distance between one flock and another was to satisfy Esau’s evil eye which could never get enough of anything. This may be the reason that Esau had taken precisely 400 men with him when he set out to meet (and maybe to kill) Yaakov. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו, “and also the nation whom they will serve I will judge, etc.” Nachmanides writes as follows in his commentary on this verse: The word וגם introduces the thought that although “I have decreed exile on the Israelites and therefore the people who have enslaved them may be perceived as merely executing My will, I will judge that people for what they will do and I will not let them go free because in what they did they carried out My plan.” The reason for all this has already been recorded in Zechariah 1, 14-15 קנאתי לירושלים ולציון קנאה גדולה, וקצף גדול אני קוצף על הגוים השאננים אשר אני קצפתי מעט והםה עזרו לרעה, “I am very jealous for Jerusalem- for Zion- and I am very angry with those nations that are at ease; for I was only angry a little, but they overdid the punishment.” The author quotes more verses of a similar nature. At any rate, the Egyptians had not received instructions from G-d to serve as His taskmaster against the Jews, nor had their inhuman treatment of the Israelites been what G-d had intended. The Egyptians had tried to destroy the Jewish people not to discipline them. This is why they were punished for their excess cruelty. This is why G-d told Avram: דן אנכי, “I am going to judge.” G-d promised hat He was going to investigate if what the host-nation does conformed to His will or if they had added to G-d’s decree of their own will. This is also what had impressed Yitro (Exodus 18,11) when he said כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for with the matter that they had sinned, He (G-d) judged them.” Seeing that the Egyptians had used water to drown the Jewish babies, something which most certainly had not been part of G-d’s plan, He punished them by means of water (when He drowned them in the sea of reeds).
  	You should know that if G-d had decreed that Reuven should be killed and such a decree had been recorded and sealed in front of G-d on Rosh Hashanah (in other words that the decree had become irreversible), the human executioner of said Reuven will not be considered free of the charge of murder even though what he did resulted in G-d’s decree being carried out. Such an executioner is a murderer and will be punished by G-d as such. If however, said human executioner had heard from the mouth of a prophet that a decree of death had been passed by the celestial court on a certain person and he made himself the executioner of that decree in order to carry out G-d’s will, he will not only not be considered a murderer but he will be credited with having done a good deed. We find a classic example of this when Jehu killed the surviving family of Achav (Kings II 10,17, and 10,30). We read there: יען אשר הטיבות לעשות הישר בעיני ככל אשר בלבבי עשית לבית אחב, בני רבעים ישבו לך על כסא ישראל. “Because you have acted well and done what was pleasing to Me, having carried out all that I desired upon the House of Achav, four generations of your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel.” If the person doing something similar had not heard the decree of G-d against his intended victim and he had committed the act out of feelings of personal hatred or in order to commit robbery, he is subject to being punished for the same deed that someone who had heard G-d’s decree would be rewarded. We have an explicit verse in Isaiah 10,5-6 in which the prophet spells this out. “Ha, Assyria, rod of My anger in whose hand, as a staff is My fury! I send him against an ungodly nation, I charge him against a nation that provokes Me. To take its spoil and to seize his booty and to make it a thing trampled like the mire of the streets.” The prophet goes on to say in verse 7: “But he (Assyria) has evil plans, his mind harbours evil designs, etc.” It is clear that the prophet draws a line of distinction between a conqueror who does what he does because he wishes to fulfill the designs of his Maker, and the conqueror who is merely motivated by dreams of personal glory, vengeance, and other base motives. The same applied to Nebuchadnezzar. All of the prophets had declared that G-d had decreed destruction on Jerusalem and that Nebuchadnezzar and all his people had been chosen to be the instrument by means of which G-d’s decree would be carried out. This is what we read in Jeremiah 32,28-29: הנני נותן את העיר הזאת ביד הכשדים וביד נבוכדרצר מלך בבל, “here I am about to deliver the city of Jerusalem into the hands of the Chaldaens and Nebuchadrezzar the King of the Babylon and they will put the city to fire.” Nonetheless we find that Nebuchadrezzar was punished just as Sancheriv had been punished for exiling the Ten Tribes (compare Jeremiah 50,18). כה אמר ה' הנני פוקד אל מלך בבל ואל ארצו כאשר פקדתי אל מלך אשור, “so says G-d: ‘I will deal with the King of Babylon and his country just as I have dealt with the King of Ashur.” Thus far Nachmanides’ comment on our verse.
  	You have to appreciate that when G-d concluded this “covenant between the pieces” with Avram, Avraham was only 70 years old. Although we have been told at the beginning of chapter twelve that Avram was 75 years old when he moved to the land  Canaan, this had been his second departure from Charan. The first time he had left Charan was when he was seventy, and the next time when he was seventy-five. The Torah is not bound to record events in chronological order. Thirty years elapsed between the covenant mentioned in this chapter and the birth of Yitzchak. At the time when Yitzchak was born (21,5), Avraham was one hundred years old. The decree of four hundred years exile applied from the birth of Yitzchak. So we have a total of 430 years between the time this covenant was concluded and the Exodus from Egypt. This is the meaning of Exodus 12,40 “the duration of the stay of the Jewish people in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.”
  	A Midrashic approach to our verse (Bereshit Rabbah 44,21-22) views the repetition of the words ידוע תדע as follows: The first  ידוע means “know that I will scatter them.” The second תדע means “know that I will gather them in” (after they have been in exile). The message is: “Just as the exile will not be accidental but will be orchestrated by Me, so I will also be the One who will orchestrate the ingathering of the exiles.” The words וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו refer to the other four exiles which the Jewish people will experience after the exile in Egypt, the four exiles we already alluded to earlier. G-d’s message is that what will happen to the four empires who will exile the Jewish people will be similar to what will happen to the Egyptians. The words דן אנכי are an allusion to the Ten Plagues with which G-d would smite the Egyptians, the letters in the word ד-ן are the first letters of the words דם נגע, ‘blood, plague.” The word נגע appears in the Torah in connection with the tenth plague (Exodus 11,1).
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, “and the fourth generation will return here.” According to Rashi our verse refers to the time frame beginning with the exile in Egypt until the Israelites would inherit the land, a period of four generations. These four generations consist of 1) Yehudah, 2) Peretz, 3) Chetzron, 4) Kalev. The latter entered the land of Canaan as a resident at the age of 80.
  	According to Nachmanides the words “the fourth generation will return here,” refer to the Emorite The cumulative sins of the Emorites who were in the land at the time G-d concluded the covenant with Avram would be sufficient for G-d to dispossess them by that time. We know that G-d allows up to three or four generations of people to continue in the evil footsteps of their ancestors until He intervenes and brings retribution upon them. According to Nachmanides the period of four generations commenced only at that time. The word ישובו would allude to a possible repentance by the Emorite in which event G-d would not dispossess them. When the Torah singled out the “Emorite,” this was only an example of what would be in store for all the Canaanite tribes. Seeing that the Emorite was the strongest tribe amongst the Canaanites, the Torah singled out that tribe for special mention. The prophet Amos 2,9 describes the Emorites as “stout as the oak.” 
  The words עד הנה mean: “until the measure of their sin is full.” Actually, the Torah should have written: יבואו הנה “they will come here.” The reason the Torah chose to write  ישובו הנה ‘they will return here,” is to point out that they will be considered as if they had already been settled in the land of Canaan previously seeing that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov and his children had lived in Canaan before descending to Egypt. Remember that Yitzchak had never left the land of Canaan. Concerning Yaakov the Torah had written וישב יעקב בארץ “Yaakov settled in the land.” This is why now the Torah wrote that the fourth generation would return “here.” They would return to what had already been their land. Another message contained in these words may be an allusion to the sanctity of the land, the land in which there is found the “gateway to heaven” (Genesis 28, 17). This means that the Sanctuary of the terrestrial regions is on the soil of the land of Canaan. This is the point from which the souls ascend to the celestial regions. This is also where they enter the terrestrial regions. It is appropriate therefore to describe the land of Canaan as the place to which the souls return. The righteous and pious people therefore experience an urge to die near that location in order for their souls to immediately find the path to the celestial regions. 
  Another way of reading the words עון האמורי, “the guilt of the Emorite,” instead of עון הכנעני, “the guilt of the Canaanite,” is that the word אמורי is an allusion to “speech.” G-d may have alluded to Avram’s mistake in asking במה אדע כי אירשנה, “how do I know that I will inherit it?”
  
  Verse 17
  
   והנה תנור עשן, “and here there was a smoking furnace.” At first glance one would think the Torah should have written עשן תנור, “the smoke of a furnace,” instead of תנור עשן. This is the way the Torah describes a similar phenomenon at the time the Jewish people received the Torah at Mount Sinai. At that time the Torah wrote ויעל עשנו כעשן הכבשן, “its smoke (that of the mountain) rose like the smoke from a furnace” (Exodus 19,18). 
  However, — using a kabbalistic approach — it is possible that the Torah wanted to inform us of the force which had passed between these pieces and accepted Avram’s sacrifices. It also wanted to inform us that that particular force was composed of both male and female elements. The male element was the active one, the one which initiates an activity, whereas the female element was the passive one, the one that specializes in receiving, in accepting something. All activities are enhanced and assume a more important dimension due to the presence of the female element. This is the reason the word שכינה, “G-d’s benevolent presence,” is a word in the feminine gender. Onkelos translates the verse (Exodus 33,14) פני ילכו [usually translated as “My (benevolent) presence will go, will accompany,” Ed] as “שכינתי תהך,” (feminine) instead of as “שכינתי יהך.” (masculine). In other words, he considers the word פנים which is masculine as feminine in that instance. The name of that force (known as מט'ט in Kabbalah) is well known.
  The word תנור alludes to it when you exchange the letters in that word on the basis of reversing the letters of the alphabet, i.e. ת=א, ש=ב, ר=ג. The word תנור would then be טרו'ן instead. This word is derived from מטטרון, the force designated by G-d to “run” His universe. The “furnace” is the receptacle which receives the fire, and as such it symbolises the female force. On the other hand, the words לפיד אש in our verse represents the masculine force. This is the reason the Torah used the masculine form when describing this לפיד אש, ”torch of fire,” as עבר בין הגזרים, “having passed between these pieces.” This was not the same force as that represented by the furnace. The Torah should have written עברו (pl) instead of עבר if these forces had been identical in gender. This is also the deeper meaning of the words כרת ה' את אברם ברית, “G-d concluded a covenant with Avram.” The idea is that G-d made the שכינה which represents the covenant “pass” between the pieces. 
  Remember that it is this force which the Torah described in chapter 12,8 when Avram is first reported as having  built an altar to G-d as “the G-d who had appeared to him.” [This is unlikely; we have other examples where the vowel under the letter א in the word נראה points to a feminine attribute of G-d such as in Genesis 48,3 or Exodus 3,16 so that to consider the word “hanir-eh” in Genesis 12,8 as a reference to a feminine attribute of G-d does seem very forced. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברם ברית לאמור לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת, “on that day G-d concluded a covenant with Avram, saying; ‘to your descendants I have given this land.’” After G-d had previously already twice mentioned giving the land to Avram and to his descendants, i.e. in 12, 7 where it is phrased as “I will give,” and in 1,15 “to your descendants I shall give it,” G-d now phrases the promise as something that had already been fulfilled, i.e. “I have given it” (past tense). He mentions the gift He had already given to Avram in the past. The word נתתי means the same as נשבעתי, “which I have sworn.” When G-d gives something by way of a promise it is as if the promise was equivalent to an oath. We have numerous examples of this in Scripture. I myself have explained this already in connection with Genesis 9,13 where G-d spoke about the rainbow He had placed in the sky. After this gift, i.e. the oath on the occasion of this covenant, there followed the practical part of the covenant, the passing between the parts of the animals which had been sacrificed. We have another example of such a procedure in Jeremiah 34,18 ואת העגל אשר כרתו לשנים ויעברו בין בתריו , “and the calf which they had cut in half so as to pass between the halves.” This covenant was in the nature of a חרם, “consecration,” a warning to remain true to this oath as if to say to the party who would default: “may your fate be similar to that of the animals which lie before you cut in half if you do not honour the agreement we have just now concluded.” This is also why Onkelos translates ברית simply as קים, “something that remains in effect.” The “something” is the oath preceding the sacrifice confirming it. This is also what Avimelech said to Yitzchak (Genesis 26,28) תהי נא אלה בינותינו, בינינו וביניך ונכרתה ברית עמך, “let there be an oath between us, between us and between you, and let us conclude a covenant with you.” The “covenant” was to confirm the oath mentioned previously. Of course, such a “covenant“ is not applicable to G-d (seeing it would be frivolous to assume that G-d would not honour His oath). However, the general tenor of a covenant is applicable to G-d’s promise. It is as if by passing between these cut up pieces of the animals G-d had said: “just as it is impossible to reconstitute these cut up animals, so it is impossible for Me to retract from My oath to give your descendants this land.”
  	מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדול, “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river.” Three times G-d mentions the gift of the land in this paragraph: The first time it is mentioned when Avram enters the land of Canaan when G-d said “to your descendants I will give this land” (12,7). At that time G-d did not go into details about the nature of the gift. There was no point in doing so seeing Avram, who had entered the land from the North had only progressed as far as Shechem.” The second time (13,14) G-d said to Avram: “raise your eyes and look from the place where you are standing to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west; for the entire land you can see I will give to you and to your descendants.” Normally, people to not look into the distance and it would not be much of a promise if all the land which G-d promised to Avram’s descendants would be what his physical eyes (unaided by binoculars) could see, even if he stood on a hill at that time. What G-d meant was that Avram should concentrate with his spiritual eyes on all the four directions of the globe. On this occasion G-d added the words עד עולם, “forever,” adding that his descendants would become as numerous as the dust of the earth which defies all attempts to count it. Now, on the third occasion when G-d refers to the gift of the land, He spelled out the boundaries of the land, namely from the river separating Egypt from the land of Canaan as far as the river Euphrates. In this instance, G-d no longer spoke of this gift as something in the future, but He said: “I have given it.” According to Nachmanides we have to understand this verse as “the covenant applies to the gift G-d had already given to Avram and the Jewish people.”
  	The reason the Torah describes the river Euphrates as “the great river,” although it was mentioned only as the fourth and last of the rivers emanating from Gan Eden (2,14) is because it borders on the land of Israel. We have a popular parable which illustrates the point. “A commoner is liable to describe the valet of a king as ‘king,’ because such a person is continuously in the king’s presence” (compare Rashi on our verse). Seeing that the land of Israel is holy, a choice piece of real estate, the site of the Holy Temple to which is applied the term הבית הגדול, “the great house” (Chronicles II 2,4), the description “great” as applied to the river Euphrates which borders this land is not a misnomer. Although G-d spoke here about the land being given to “your descendants” at a time when neither Ishmael nor Yitzchak had as yet been born, Ishmael, the son of a slave woman, is not included as a recipient of that promise. Ishmael did not constitute Avram’s principal “descendant” anymore than did the sons he begat after Sarah had died. The principal descendant is the son of the major wife of a husband, not that of concubines or minor wives. G-d had spelled this out after Ishmael had already been born when He said to Avraham (21,12) “for your descendants will be known through Yitzchak.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ולה שפחת מצרית , “and she had an Egyptian slave-woman.” The Torah emphasizes that this woman belonged to Sarai personally, not to Avram; hence the word לה “to her, or hers.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 45,1 describe her as part of Sarai’s נכסי מלוג, property the wife brings with her at marriage over which the husband has only limited control,” i.e. he cannot sell it.
  	ושמה הגר, “and her name was Hagar.” She had been given to Sarai when she was a prisoner in Pharaoh’s palace. As a reminder of that experience she was called “Hagar.” The word means “reward for your chasteness.” (based on the name being an acrostic i.e. הא אגריך “this is your reward”).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ישפוט ה' ביני וביניך, “may the Lord judge between me and you.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 45,5 state that if one invokes the attribute of Justice against a fellow human being one will not emerge from such a confrontation completely unharmed. But for the fact that Sarai invoked the attribute of Justice she would have lived to the same age as Avraham. Because she appealed to the attribute Justice in her quarrel with Avram she lost 48 years of her life. Rabbi Aushiyah added that seeing that at the time when Sarai said: “let the Lord judge between me and you,” Hagar was already pregnant with child seeing the Torah said ויבא אל הגר ותהר, what was the point of the angel announcing to Hagar (verse 11) “here you are pregnant and you will give birth to a son?” He should only have told her hat she would bear a son. We learn from this line that Sarai had looked at Hagar with the evil eye and she had aborted her fetus.” Rabbi Chanina added that if the prophet Elisha had made such a statement under the influence of the Holy Spirit that would have been sufficient [a reference to Kings II 4,17 where he predicted that the Shunamite woman would embrace a son a year from the time of the prophecy. On that occasion the Shunamite woman suspected the prophet of raising her hopes in vein. Ed.] Thus far the comment of Bereshit Rabbah. 
  	Seeing that the word ביניך has been spelled “full,” i.e. with two letters י, we are entitled to derive from this that Sarai turned her face towards Hagar while speaking, and the words: “may the Lord judge between me and you” refer to between her and the fetus inside Hagar’s womb. This is what was meant by her turning her “evil eye on her, “ i.e. on what was inside Hagar’s womb. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  הגר שפחת שרי, “Hagar Sarai’s maidservant.” We already know that Hagar was Sarai’s maid servant from verse 1; why did the Torah have to repeat this? 
  It is possible that the angel had two reasons why he thought it pertinent to mention Hagar’s personal status. 1) He wanted her to know that if she now experienced a divine vision this was not in her capacity as an Egyptian woman but was only due to her being part of Sarai’s household. It was due to Sarai’s merit. The second consideration of the angel was to stress that her original status as a slave was one that would never be changed. She would remain Sarai’s slave for as long as she lived. The angel confirmed this later when he said to Hagar שובי אל גברתך והתעני תחת ידיה, “return to your mistress and submit to her.” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  אתה אל ראי, “You are a G-d who sees.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explained these words as meaning: “You are a G-d who reveals Himself by means of visions (to his creatures).” The word ראי is a noun.
  	הגם הלם ראיתי, “for even here I have seen,” i.e. “an angel of the Lord after G-d had seen my affliction.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  על כן קרא לבאר באר לחי ראי, therefore the well was called “The Well of the Living One.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אני אל שדי, “I am the G’d Shaddai.” According to Rashi the meaning of these words is: “who provides adequately in His capacity as G’d for all His creatures.” 
  Rabbeinu Chananel writes that G’d gave the commandment for Avraham to circumcise himself and his household by using this attribute (name), seeing that the physical strength of a person is weakened when he undergoes  circumcision. [He wanted to encourage Avraham. Ed.] We are told in a Midrash that the meaning of Proverbs 2,7 יצפון לישרים תושיה, “He reserves sound wisdom for the upright though it weakens the body,” is a reference to circumcision. [The Talmud Sanhedrin 26 applies this verse to Torah study. Ed.] This was why G’d delayed giving this commandment to man for twenty generations. The word צפון then means “hidden.” There were 20 generations between Adam and Avraham. The name שדי is indicative of and equivalent to the emanation גבורה as we know from Ezekiel 1,24 כקול מים רבים כקול שדי, “like the sound of great waters, like the sound of Shaddai.” Seeing G’d did not want Avraham to say that when he would perform surgery on his flesh he would weaken himself, G’d introduced the subject by referring to Himself as the powerful One, as Shaddai, as if to assure Avraham that He personally would compensate him for any loss of physical vigour Avraham would experience as a result of observing this commandment. He would remain strong enough to overcome any of his adversaries, both he and all of his descendants who would abide by this commandment.
  	Maimonides explains at the end of chapter 63 volume one of his Moreh Nevuchim, that the meaning of the attribute Shaddai is  אשר די, “who is self-sufficient,” i.e. He does not have any need for any of the phenomena in His universe, whereas the world (which He has created) has no need of anyone besides Him.
      The correct interpretation of the name Shaddai is that given by Rabbi Shmuel Ha-Nagid (of Cordova); the word is derived from שודד, i.e. “destroys, ruins.” The idea is that G’d destroys even the forces of heaven (if need be).
      Rabbi Saadyah Gaon explains the word שדי as meaning that He makes up any shortfall, i.e. supplies די, adequacy. Yet another explanation offered for this word relates it to Isaiah 66,23 מדי חדש בחדשו, ”from month  month.” It means that something is constant, repeats itself endlessly. The name Shaddai then describes G’d’s eternal nature. 
  Nachmanides understands the word as describing G’d’s attribute of Justice as practiced in our terrestrial world. This is another way of describing “natural law” as it is perceived in our daily lives. The reason G’d considered it appropriate to reveal this attribute of His at this time was to inform Avraham that He, G’d,  overrides natural law whenever it pleases Him and that as a result He could decree that Avraham would sire children. Whenever G’d would perform miracles which are not visible to us on earth, something our sages call נסים נסתרים, “hidden miracles,” He does so in His capacity as אל שדי. By nature, Avraham was sterile and could not sire children. G’d neutralised the horoscopic forces which had been responsible for Avraham’s sterility by invoking the name Shaddai when doing so. [I must confess that I have difficulties with all this in view of the fact that at the beginning of our chapter Avraham is described as 99 years old, i.e. he had sired Ishmael 13 years previously without G’d mentioning that He had invoked the attribute Shaddai to enable him to do so. Ed.] This was an example of a hidden miracle, no one being able to see when and how it occurred. If Avraham became a father people would simply say that something natural had occurred as it was not unknown for even 100 year-old men to become fathers. Certainly such miracles cannot be compared to those performed by Moses both in Egypt and in the desert. All of the miracles performed by Moses enjoyed a mass audience. These miracles produced drastic and visible changes in the manner in which they affected natural law. Thus far Nachmanides. We need to explain the reason why G’d commanded this particular מצוה of circumcision to Avraham and his descendants. The act of circumcision is as if G’d imprints His Holy Ineffable Name on the bodies of the males so circumcised. The effect of circumcision is to leave a visible sign on the body of the person who underwent this procedure. Possession of this visible sign distinguishes the Jewish people from the Gentiles whose hearts and bodies are uncircumcised. Such people are comparable to שדים, “evil spirits,” whereas the Jewish people bear the signature of שדי on their bodies. Wearing this “sign” on their bodies entitles Jewish people to be called האדם, and this is what G’d meant when He asked Avraham to become תמים, “perfect.” Seeing that this “seal” confers the title תמים on the circumcised Jew, he is entitled to some degree of protection against the temptation to commit sexual excesses and offences i.e. he is entitled to a higher erotic threshold. Hence the Torah introduced a variety of laws governing sexual mores of the Jewish people. David referred to this in Samuel II 22,24 when he said: ואהיה תמים עמו ואשתמרה מעוני, “I have been blameless before Him, and have guarded myself against sinning.” [Our author regards the three basic letters י-ה-ו of the Ineffable four-lettered name of G’d as being represented in our bodies by the male organ, the mouth, and the tongue.]   The word ואהיה in the verse in Samuel contains these three letters which represent the “seal” of circumcision on our bodies and which appeared for the first time when G’d said to Avraham והיה, in the sequence “והיה תמים.” The reason these letters appear once in a certain order and another time in a different order is that they allude to a spiritual bond between the terrestrial and the celestial worlds. This bond is reciprocal, mutual, i.e. on the one hand there is input by heavenly forces into man; on the other hand there is input by man to reinforce the spiritual sanctity in heaven.
      A Midrashic approach to the words אל שדי based on Bereshit Rabbah 46,3. G’d said: “it is enough for Me and you to be in this universe. If you accept My commandment to circumcise yourself, all well and good. If not, I will say to My universe די לעולמי, די לערלה, ‘enough’ for My world, ‘enough’ for a history of human beings dominated by their foreskins!’ (G’d threatened to destroy the universe).” 
      The meaning of this Midrash is that the whole strength of the Jewish people is concentrated in the heart, whereas the strength of the seventy Gentile nations as represented by their “princes” at the celestial court is equivalent to קליפות, “peels,” Thirty-five of these peels are on the “right,” i.e. of a positive kind, whereas the other thirty-five on the “left” are of a spiritually negative kind. The latter are called ערלה, “foreskin.” [The first two letters of that word, when inverted spell רע,=evil; the last two letters in that word are לה =35]. No one is permitted to take hold of the heart until the “peels” have been removed. If Avraham had not accepted the commandment to circumcise himself I would have said “enough,” i.e. that neither I nor these “princes” would have engaged in any activity whatsoever. This would have resulted in the universe disintegrating.
     התהלך לפני, “walk before Me.” This means “continue to perform My sevice.” The words following, i.e. והיה תמים, mean “as a result you will be perfect, free from blemish.” You will neither need to discard something superfluous nor add something that is lacking. The word תמים occurs as a description of the Torah in Psalms 19,8 תורת ה' תמימה, “G’d’s Torah is perfect.” This is why we must neither add a single letter to it nor omit a single letter from it (Deut.13,1). 
  The definition of being תמים, perfect, includes the requirement that a person’s external appearance mirrors his internal but invisible virtues, and that what he says reflects what he truly feels. It is a fact that our patriarch Avraham was the root of faith in G’d and of those who believe in the exclusivity and uniquness of G’d. When it comes to matters of faith it is indispensable that what one professes to believe and what one does in fact believe must coincide. Anyone who says one thing while believing another belongs to the group of individuals of whom the psalmist (Psalms 78, 36-37) has said: ויפתוהו בפיהם ובלשונם יכזבו-לו, ולבם לא-נכון עמו ולא נאמנו בבריתו, “Yet they deceived Him with their speech, lied to Him with their words; their hearts were inconstant toward Him; they were untrue to His covenant.” This is why the Torah has formulated the requirement to be “perfect” as a positive commandment in Deut 18,13 by writing תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, “be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d.” Being “wholehearted” is one of the highest virtues, and the Torah refers approvingly to such people as Noach, Yitzchak, and Yaakov as having practiced this virtue (compare Genesis 6,9; 25,27; Bereshit Rabbah 64,3). We read in Psalms 15,2 הולך תמים ופועל צדק, “he who lives without blame and does what is right and acknowledges the truth in his heart;” these words refer to Avraham. Psalm 101,2 “אשכילה בדרך תמים, “I direct my reason in the path of moral integrity,” extols the virtue of תמימות as one that David tries to attain. In Psalm 41,13 David credits G’d’s support of him by attributing it to his integrity; ואני בתומי תמכת בי ותציבני לפניך לעולם, “You will support me because of my integrity and let me abide in Your presence forever.” Solomon also was keenly aware of the importance of this virtue and this is why he referred to it both in Proverbs 10,9הולך בתומים ילך בטח , He who walks in integrity walks securely,” and in Proverbs 11,20 where he writes ורצונו תמימי דרך, “but G’d delights in those who are blameless in their ways.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . אני הנה בריתי אתך, “As for Me, this is My covenant with you.” Nachmanides writes that the mystical meaning of these words is the same as Kings I 5,58 יהי ה' אלוקינו עמנו, “may the Lord our G’d be with us;” or, it is similar to  Genesis 28,15  והנה אנכי עמך “and here I am with you.” We also find a similar expression in Exodus 3, 12 where G’d assures Moses כי אהיה עמך, ”for I am going to be with you.” What G’d meant by His words was that this very covenant would be with Avraham and would enable him to become fruitful and to multiply. Subsequently G’d commanded Avraham to observe this covenant by performing the visible sign of it, the rite of circumcision. The constantly recurring sign of the circumcision is the Sabbath. There the Torah (Exodus 31,13) also writes that the Israelites would observe the Sabbath as a sign of the eternal covenant between G’d and the children of Israel. The similarity of the language of the Torah in both instances makes it clear that both ”signs” (the circumcision and Sabbath observance) refer to the same covenant although the Torah delayed mentioning this until Exodus 31,13.
  
  Verse 5
  
   והיה שמך אברהם, “and your name will be Avraham.” The additional letter ה is from the last letter ה of the Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה. This gave Avraham the physical strength to produce offspring. We find that the letterי  which had been a part of Sarai’s name, i.e. שרי was divided between Avraham and his wife [they both now had a letter 5=ה instead of Sarai having a letter י =10]. By dividing this letter between them (each receiving the equivalent of 5), Avraham became the carrier of the מרכבה, the terrestrial carriage supporting G’d’s Presence together with Yitzchak and Yaakov who would not have been born without this change of name of both Avram and Sarai.
     כי אב המון גוים נתתיך, “for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.” Our patriarch Avraham was as much a father of mankind as Adam in his time had been a father of mankind. Indeed we find that Avraham was called “Adam” in accordance with the interpretation by our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 14,6 where the words את האדם in Genesis 2,7 are understood as a reference to Avraham. They also interpret Joshua 14,15 האדם הגדול הענקים, “the great man amongst the giants,” as applying to Avraham. I have already hinted at this at the end of my commentary on Genesis 2,17. 
  In this portion Avraham was given the commandment of circumcision concerning which no fewer than thirteen covenants were entered into between G’d and the Jewish people. Nedarim 31 explains all this in detail.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . והיתה בריתי בבשרכם לברית עולם, “and this My covenant shall remain on your flesh as an eternal covenant.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words mean that the removal of the foreskin will remain an irreversible sign that the person who has undergone this procedure believes in G-d and in His uniqueness. He will not change his belief either while he is alive on this earth or thereafter. It was part of the purpose of this commandment that G-d become the national G-d of the descendants of Avraham, as we read in verse seven of this chapter.
  	A Midrashic approach to our verse views the commandment as similar to the offering of a sacrifice. Just as when a person offers a sacrifice on the altar and the blood of the offering achieves atonement for him, so the blood lost by the person being circumcised acts as atonement for him. This is why this rite has to be performed on the eighth day of the baby’s life. Just as an animal sacrifice is not admissible as such until the eighth day of the animal’s life (compare Leviticus 22, 27: ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה, “and from the eighth day on it will be welcome as a sacrifice for G-d. In connection with the sacrificial offering the Torah writes (Exodus 29,33) ואכלו אותם אשר כפר בהם, “They- who received atonement through them (the offerings)- shall eat them;” so we make a festive meal to celebrate the induction of the circumcised baby into the Jewish community. In fact, the effect of the circumcision is far greater than that of an animal sacrifice. An animal sacrifice represents only a financial sacrifice by the donor whereas the rite of circumcision involves his body. The organ which is cut is one that radiates feelings to all parts of the body of the person concerned. This is why it is called ראש הגויה, “head of the whole body” in Negaim 6,7. This is why this organ was chosen to serve as a demonstration of self-sacrifice and why someone who undergoes circumcision is considered in the eyes of G-d as if he had sacrificed his entire body on G-d’s behalf. This is also why in Psalms 50,5 the psalmist Assaph describes circumcision as “who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice.” G-d Himself describes His pious as having made a covenant with Him by means of circumcising themselves.
  	In Bereshit Rabbah 21,14 we find that Rabbi Abba interprets the words (Genesis 3,24 ) את החרב המתהפכת, as a reference to circumcision. He explains his reason as being Joshua 5,2 where the instruments used to circumcise the people are described as חרבות צורים “swords of flint.” The other Rabbis consider the word חרב in that verse in Genesis 3,24 as referring to the Torah. They point to Psalms 149,6 וחרב פפיות בידם, “and a  two-edged sword in their hands,” as their reason. Rabbi Abdimai also interprets the entire verse there as connected to both Gehinom and circumcision; he considers circumcision as an insurance against a Jew becoming a permanent victim of Gehinom. G-d is portrayed as asking; “who will save My children from the blazing fire (in Gehinom)? The answer given is that the rite of circumcision will be the instrument saving Jews from Gehinom and its fires.
  	In Pirke d’Rabbi Eliezer chapter 29 we are told that Avraham circumcised himself on Yom Kippur. This is based on Leviticus 23,28 וכל מלאכה לא תעשו בעצם היום הזה, “you shall not perform any work on this very day.” We find the same expression בעצם היום הזה here where Avraham is described as circumcising himself in verse 26 with the words: “on this very day.” G-d reviews the blood of Avraham’s circumcision every year on that day and this contributes to His granting atonement for his descendants who continue to circumcise themselves.
  	A rational-investigative approach to our verse: It is a well-known fact that surgery, i.e. removal of a person’s organ weakens the body of the person undergoing such surgery. There is not a single organ of a person’s body which if removed does not  result in weakening his whole physique. The commandment of circumcision was designed to weaken sexual desire and to diminish the degree of physical enjoyment which results from sexual activity. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 80,11 have already made this point when they said that when a Jewish girl (Dinah) has sexual relations with an uncircumcised male it is more difficult for her to resist the temptation to repeat the experience. On the other hand, circumcision does not interfere in any way with a male’s ability to beget children. This is one of a number of natural abilities, and remains unimpaired. The ability to procreate is such a natural ability. The reason the Torah commanded that this commandment be performed on the eighth day of the baby’s life  is because prior to that the baby is too weak to undergo the procedure without danger to its well being. It has not yet been weaned from its pre-natal condition. This is the way Maimonides explains the matter. 
  	A kabbalistic approach: the words והיתה בריתי בבשרכם לברית עולם mean that “My covenant on your flesh” shall be a symbol of an eternal covenant, ברית עולם. This is the deeper meaning of what Solomon said in Proverbs 10,25 וצדיק יסוד עולם, “and the righteous has an enduring, everlasting foundation.” This is also the meaning of Numbers 18,19 ברית מלח עולם, a covenant containing salt is enduring.” We derive this from an unusual nuance in our verse which by rights should have read והיתה בריתי בבשרכם לעולם, (without the word ברית being repeated). The repetition of the word לברית means that the covenant the Torah speaks of is between the legs of the male which are known as נצח והוד, “eternal and glorious.” This is also what is meant by the sages who coined the phrase המאיר עיני הלב, “who enlightens the eyes of the heart.” We find a comment in Eychah Rabbati 2,3 on the words (Lamentations 2,1) ולא זכר הדום רגליו ביום אפו, “and He would not remember His footstool on the day of His wrath.” The word הדום is viewed as an allusion to the blood between Avraham’s legs when he circumcised himself. On the day of His wrath G-d did not want to remember this deed in favour of the Jewish people. [The word הדום is understood by the Midrash as a double-entendre, meaning both something serving the legs and blood. Ed.] Seeing that the emanation מלכות is close to the emanation יסוד and we have demonstrated that the righteous is considered the foundation (יסוד) of the world, our sages interpret the Talmudic dictum מל ולא פרע כאלו לא מל, “if someone performed the removal of the foreskin without at the same time revealing the flesh beneath it, i.e. removing a thin membrane under the foreskin, a procedure known as פריעה, he might as well not have circumcised himself (or the baby) at all” (compare Shabbat 137). The reason is that such a person is considered as if he first separates something and then detaches it, whereas the purpose of any commandment is to “unite something.” This “uniting” symbolises the Oneness of G-d. Students of Kabbalah will understand what I mean.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  וברכתי אותה “and I have blessed her.” The blessing consisted in Sarah regaining her youthfulness and her experiencing her menstrual cycle as is mentioned in 18,12 where the Torah speaks of her saying אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה which Rashi interprets as: “after I had become wilted I again experience a menstrual cycle.” G-d also blessed her by providing her with an ample supply of mother’s milk as the Torah testifies when Sarah said (21,7) היניקה בנים שרה, “Sarah nursed a number of children at her breast.” The meaning of the words מלכי עמים, “kings of nations,” is a reference to both Yaakov and Esau.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויפול אברהם על פניו, “Avraham prostrated himself, etc.” This had already been mentioned in verse three. At that time Avraham prostrated himself in order to be able to receive G-d’s communication. In this verse he did so in order to pray for the continued well being of Ishmael. 
  The reason the Torah mentions the word נפילה, “falling down” each time is to teach that until Avraham had circumcised himself he was not able to receive communications from G-d unless he first prostrated himself. This was because the foreskin is something G-d detests. We find something similar when Bileam, an uncircumcised Gentile prophet, received communications from G-d. He himself describes himself asנופל וגלוי עינים , “someone who has to fall down in order to receive revelations with his eyes.” Once Avraham had undergone circumcision we find that he was able to receive such communications while remaining upright. This is the meaning of 18,22: “and Avraham still remained standing in the presence of the Lord.”
  	הלבן מאה שנה יולד? ,”shall a child be born to a hundred-year old man?” The last thing that Avraham meant to question was that G-d could arrange for his fathering a child by invoking miracles. 
  He questioned only if it was possible to arrange for this without interfering with the laws of nature. This is why he drew attention to his age. He meant that if he had been unable to sire a child while he was full of youthful vigour how could he do so now without recourse to miracles? Seeing that the Torah had already credited Avraham with believing G-d’s promise in 15,6 when he was only 70 years old, much had happened in his life since to strengthen his belief in G-d’s ability to perform supernatural miracles. 
  The word ויצחק, “he laughed,” must not be understood then as derisive laughter but as an expression of joy such as in Psalms 126,2 אז ימלא שחוק פינו, “then our mouths will be full of laughter.” This is why Onkelos translates these words as וחדי, “he rejoiced.” The proof that the word is to be understood as an expression of joy is that G-d commanded him to name the child יצחק to reflect his joyous reaction to the announcement that he would become a father at that age. Had his reaction been one of disbelief it is hardly likely that G-d would have wanted him to name his son with a name which reflected his disbelief. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  וקראת את שמו יצחק, “and you will name him ‘Yitzchak.’” Yitzchak was given this name by G-d. This is why we never find that he was given another name such as his father or his son Yaakov who was given the additional name Yisrael. Both Avram’s name and Yaakov’s name had been given them by their respective fathers and not by G-d Himself. I have found a remark confirming this in the Jerusalem Talmud at the end of the first chapter of Berachot. The rhetorical question posed there is: “Why was Yitzchak’s name never amended whereas the names of Avraham and Yaakov were amended?” Answer: ‘’because the latter’s name was G-d-given, whereas the names of the former were given to them by their respective fathers.” The Talmud quotes our verse here as the source for claiming that G-d commanded Avraham to call the name of his son Yitzchak. You might retort that we also encounter Yitzchak’s name spelled with the letter ש instead of the letter צ in Psalms 108,9, and that this is as much of a change as spelling אברהם without the letter ה. Actually, the word ישחק is not a new name at all. The prophet wanted to draw attention to the element fire which was one of the basic elements in Yitzchak’s character as we know from the ספר יצירה where the author writes (edition of Gaon from Vilna chapter 6 Mishnah 2) “there are three אמות which are known as אמ'ש “which are air, water and fire.” Whereas the מ is silent, static, the א is constantly in motion so that the letter ש is an allusion to the great fire, a characteristic of Yitzchak. [Fire is perceived as vanquishing water, rising even during the process of water “extinguishing” fire and remaining behind on the ground. (abbreviated quote from the comment of the Gaon from Vilna). Ed.] Another reason why Avram’s name had to be changed whereas Yitzchak’s name did not need to be changed: G-d had given Avraham an additional destiny, i.e. to become a founder of many nations. This had to be reflected in his name being changed. Similarly Yaakov. His additional name Yisrael was in recognition of his having successfully contended with opposing celestial forces as attested to by the angel who struggled with him (Genesis 32,29). Yitzchak had not had similar experiences so that these did not require any changes or additions to his name. He had remained throughout his life on holy soil in the Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ולישמעאל שמעתיך, “and concerning Ishmael, I have heard (your prayer).” G-d meant that He would bless Ishmael because Avraham had offered a prayer on his behalf but not on account of G-d’s covenant with Avraham which included only Yitzchak.
  	שנים עשר נשיאים יוליד, “he will sire twelve princes.” Ishmael had twelve sons and they have been listed by their names at the end of Parshat Chayei Sarah. We read there: בכור ישמעאל נבוית, וקדר, ואדבאל, ומבשם, ומשמע, ודומה, ומשא, חדר, ותימה, יטור, נפיש, וקדמה. This gives you a total of 12. As to the reason the Torah speaks of twelve princes and not of twelve nations, this is to inform us that their distinction lay in their being so extraordinarily fruitful and numerous, far more so than other nations. The word נשיא then reflects their numerical “superiority.” This is precisely what G-d predicted when He said: “Here I have blessed him and made him fruitful and greatly increased his numbers very much indeed. “ The expression נשיאים also implies that these people will disappear from the world after having attained great stature The word is related to Proverbs 25,14 נשיאים ורוח וגשם אין, ”Clouds, wind and rain are as naught.” Solomon uses this term to describe people or phenomena who achieve a brief moment of glory which soon disintegrates into nothingness. Job 7,9 speaks of כלה ענן וילך, “a cloud fades away and disappears.” You will note that the word נשיאם when used to describe the leaders of the Ishmaelites lacks the customary letterי  in the plural ending (25,16). This shows that the kingdom of the Ishmaelites, while beginning with great fanfare, will gradually fade away into weakness. This is the deeper meaning of what the angel said to Hagar when he described the child she carried in her womb as והוא יהיה פרא אדם. “He will be an undisciplined person.” This meant that he will be like a wild person who initially vanquishes everybody. However, the angel added the words יד כל בו, eventually, “everybody will be against him.”
  	ונתתיו לגוי גדול, “and I will make him into a great nation.” Rabbeinu Chananel wrote: we note that this prophecy was fulfilled for them only after 2333 years. [Rabbi Chavell writes that this is an accurate number seeing that Avraham was circumcised in the year 2047 after the creation. The Islamic religion was founded in the year 4374 after the creation. Allow for another ten years until it started spreading throughout the world and you will arrive at the number 2333 after Avraham was circumcised, the date of this prediction.] This delay was not due to their sins as they had been looking forward to fulfillment of the prophecy during all those years. Once the prophecy came true Islam conquered the civilized world like a whirlwind. We, the Jewish people, lost our position of pre-eminence in the world due to our sins. Seeing that at the time of writing we have yearned for the fulfillment of the prophecy that we will be redeemed for a mere 1330 years, we certainly have no reason to abandon hope that it will be fulfilled. 
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויעל אלוקים מעל אברהם, “G-d ascended from above Avraham.” The patriarchs on earth are considered as occupying positions parallel to that of the cherubs in the celestial regions. This is why the Torah describes G-d’s departure as “from above Avraham.” We find a parallel expression in Ezekiel 9,3 וכבוד ישראל נעלה מעל הכרוב, “The Presence of the G-d of Israel rose from above the cherub.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 47,6 are even more explicit when they stated: “the patriarchs are the real carriers of G-d’s entourage (מרכבה), i.e. “they are the real cherubs.
  
  Verse 23
  
  וימל את בשר ערלתם, “he circumcised the flesh of their foreskin.” Avraham first engaged in circumcising the male members of his household before circumcising himself. We are told immediately afterwards: “on that very day Avraham circumcised himself.” Had he circumcised himself first he would have been sick and it would have been dangerous for him to proceed to circumcise the other members of his household.
  
  Verse 24
  
  בהמולו בשר ערלתו, “when he was circumcised on the flesh of his foreskin.” The procedure followed exactly the instructions he had received in verse 11. The Torah teaches us here that this commandment leaves a permanent mark on the flesh of a person so that this mark can be considered the sign of the covenant. This is why this commandment is known for short simply as אות, “sign.”  There are a total of tree commandments in the Torah which are called אות, “sign.” They are: circumcision, Sabbath, and phylacteries. All of them, i.e. performance of them by a Jew are testimony to his belief in G-d and His Torah. It is not appropriate for a Jew to not have at least two of these commandments as his advocates. Maintaining a claim to something successfully requires that the claim be supported by two valid witnesses (Deut.19,15). This is why a Jew needs to constantly move in the company of two such witnesses. They are the circumcision and the commandment of the תפילין, the phylacteries. They should never deport from him. A Jew who is careful to mind this may say of himself as did Rabbi Zeyra (Megillah 28) “I have never walked four cubits without Torah and without the phylacteries.” On the Sabbath, when the commandment to wear phylacteries does not apply, one still has both the Sabbath and the sign of the covenant on one’s flesh as the two valid witnesses which one should never be without. From the above we learn that observing the commandment to wear phylacteries fastidiously means that one is never without the protection of these two witnesses who may testify on one’s behalf.
  	A Midrashic interpretation (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 20) on the words בהמולו בשר ערלתו: “the commandment is an important one as anyone who has undergone this procedure will not descend to Gehinom. This is based on the verse here ביום ההוא כרת ה' ברית עם אברהם, “on that day G-d concluded a covenant wirh Avraham,” and a verse in Leviticus 12,3 ובים השמיני ימול, “and he shall be circumcised on the eighth day.” Who is it that is liable to descend to Gehinom? The one concerning whom it is written afterwards את הקיני, ואת הקניזי, ואת הקדמוני, “and the Keyni, the Kenizite, and the Kadmoni all of whom were of uncircumcised heart.” All the wicked people will descend to Gehinom as we know from Ezekiel 32,18 בן אדם נהה על המון מצרים והורידהו....שם אשור וכל קהלה שם משך תובל וכל המונה....כולם ערלים מחללי חרב, שמה נסיכי צפון. “  Ben Adam, wail for the multitude of Egypt and cast it down,....there is found Ashur and all her multitude, there is found Meshech, Tuval and all their multitude; all of them slain who fall by the sword and who descend uncircumcised to the bowels of the earth for they spread their terror in the land of life.” The author quotes verses of similar meaning from Isaiah 5,14, indicating that those who inherit Gehinom are the ones who do not have the legislation of מילה. On the other hand, we have a verse promising those who observe the ברית מילה covenant that they will not experience such a fate. For instance we read in Zechariah 9,11: גם את בדם בריתך שלחתי אסירך מבור אין מים בו,”You, for Your part have released your prisoners who have undergone the blood of your covenant from the pit without water.” Another verse alluding to the same promise is found in Proverbs 31,21 לא תירא לביתה משלג כי כל ביתה לבוש שנים, “her house does not need to be afraid of snow seeing her entire house is insulated with wool.” The Midrash understands the word שלג, snow,” as a reference to Gehinom. Thus far Tanchuma. This is why it has become customary to even perform the rite of circumcision on babies who died before this rite could be performed on them while they were alive. (compare Yore Deyah 263).
  	The Jewish people merited this commandment as a result of which they have received three promises. 1) The kingdom of the house of David. that would endure forever. 2) the gift of the land of Israel which would remain our inheritance forever. 3) that the Presence of G-d would be manifest over the people of Israel. All these three promises have been hinted at in this paragraph. The promise involving the dynasty of the house of David is alluded to in the words ונתתיך לגוים ומלכים ממך יצאו “I will give you to be nations, and kings will come forth from you.” (17,6). This verse speaks of the consequences of this covenant. We also have a verse in Psalms 89,4-5 concerning David which uses similar language. כרתי ברית לבחירי נשבעתי לדוד עבדי עד עולם אכין זרעך ובניתי לדור דור כסאך סלה, “I have made a covenant with My chosen one; I have sworn to My servant David ‘I will establish your offspring forever, I will confirm your throne for all generations.’” The gift of the land of ארץ ישראל is hinted at in our paragraph when the Torah writes  (verse 8 in our chapter) ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגוריך את כל ארץ כנען לאחוזת עולם, “and I have given to you and to your descendants after you the whole land of Canaanas an eternal possession.” The meaning of this verse is that though there may be times when others occupy this land it will never be theirs, and the Jewish people will return to it in due course after their exile.” The proof of the truth of this promise is that no nation which tried to settle in this land ever succeeded to make it a land of milk and honey as it had been when occupied by the Jewish people. It remained largely desolate ever since the destruction of the Holy Temple. The reference to he third promise that G-d’s presence would be manifest over the Jewish people  is based on 17,8 והייתי להם לאלוקים, “I will remain as their G-d.” This means that only the Jewish people  will be able to claim G-d as their exclusive national G-d. Hail to the nation to whom three such assurances have been given. No other nation has ever received such a package of promises. This is what David had in mind when he said (Psalms 144,15) אשרי העם שככה לו, אשרי העם שה' אלוקיו “hail to the people who have it so; happy the people whose G-d is the Lord.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  באור פני מלך חיים ורצונו כעב מלקוש,”In the light of the king’s face there is life; his favor is like a cloud of spring rain.” (Mishlei 16:15)
      King Solomon explained by means of this verse the benefit that man derives when a king is well disposed towards him and shows him favor. He compares this goodwill to a cloud which promises to discharge its moisture in the spring, something that everyone looks forward to with anticipation. In another verse Solomon compared such goodwill of the king as dew. In Proverbs 19,12 he writes נהם ככפיר זעף המלך וכטל על עשב רצונו, ”The rage of a king is like the roaring of a lion; but his favor is like dew on grass.” The reason Solomon chose two hyperboles to describe the king’s favor is because the benefit of rain is something which is only noticeable in the future. When there will be a bountiful harvest the benefit of the rain is noticeable retroactively. The benefit derived by dew is noticeable immediately, however. Similarly, there is a difference between the manifestation of G-d’s goodwill. Sometimes its effect becomes visible at once; at other times its beneficial effect is not felt until after a considerable period of time has elapsed.   On other occasions Solomon teaches us in Proverbs about harm which results to man as a result of G-d’s anger even though man does not actually experiences (becomes aware) that he has been hurt, and even though G-d’s anger may never be translated into action. There is no need to mention that if G-d wants to vent His anger on those who anger Him that He is able to do so. Solomon explains that when G-d is angry at someone but does not take action against that person, the person in question will experience fear and general unease as does someone who hears the roar of a lion or some other ferocious beast. Such a person becomes frightened at the mere sound of potential danger. This is an experience which the object of G-d’s anger feels although in the end G-d does not cause him actual harm. Concerning such an experience Solomon said that “the rage of a king is like the roaring of a lion whereas His favor is like dew on the grass.” If, however, G-d is angry and wants to enact retribution from the object of His anger, this means death. Concerning such a situation Solomon wrote (Proverbs 16,14) חמת מלך מלאכי-מות, “The king’s wrath is a messenger of death.” Just as G-d’s wrath spells death for its victim so His goodwill or favor spells life; this is why Solomon says there (verse 15) באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life.” Solomon applies the a fortiori kind of reasoning. He extrapolates from a human king’s power to G-d’s power suggesting that if even a human king’s pleasure or displeasure results in the life or death of his victim, how much more so must this be the case when one attracts the wrath or approval of the King of Kings, G-d Almighty. G-d, after all, controls not only the life of the body in our terrestrial universe but the eternal life or death of the soul in the celestial spheres as well. Isaiah 55,10 underlines that G-d does not “waste” any activity or even utterance. “For as the rain or snow drops from heaven and returns not there but soaks the earth and makes it bring forth vegetation,...so is the word that issues forth from My mouth; it does not come back to Me unfulfilled.” In Psalms 30,6 we are told  כי רגע באפו חיים ברצונו, “for He is angry but a moment, and when He is pleased there is life.” Concerning this Psalm Solomon said in the verse we quoted above that Life is attached to the benevolent manifestation of G-d’s presence. We find such manifestations of G-d’s presence on three levels. 1) G-d instructs the prophet concerning one or several commandments in the Torah such as when He commanded Avraham to circumcise himself and his household. 2) G-d manifests His presence in order to protect and defend the righteous such as happened when the people were ready to stone Joshua and Calev for disagreeing with the spies’ majority report. G-d intervened to save them by displaying His glory at the Tent of Meeting (Numbers 14,10). A third level of G-d’s presence manifesting itself is recorded in Leviticus 9,23 ויצאו ויברכו את העם וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם, “when Moses and Aaron came out of the Tabernacle and blessed the people, the Presence of the Lord appeared to all the people.” Avraham experienced a special manifestation of G-d’s benevolent Presence as a reward for fulfilling the commandment of circumcision. This was a practical demonstration of the meaning of Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים “in the light of the king’s face is life.” The word חיים, “life,” includes “healing.” As a result of G-d manifesting Himself to Avraham as recorded at the beginning of our portion, Avraham was healed from the effects of the circumcision on his body. We find a close association of the words חולי, “sickness,” and the word חיים, “life,” in Isaiah 38,9 when King Chiskiyah was cured from his sickness and the prophet describes this in the words ויחי מחליו. Another verse in which sickness and life appear side by side is Isaiah 38,16 ותחלימני והחייני, “You have restored me to health and You have revived me.”
   וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא והוא יושב פתח האהל כחם היום “The Lord appeared to Avraham at the terebinths of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot.” This portion is a continuation of the previous portion; this is why the Torah writes: “He appeared to him,” without identifying to whom G’d appeared. In chapter 12,7 where it would not have been clear to whom G’d appeared, the Torah added the word ”to Avram,” although there too the last previously mentioned subject had been Avram. In our situation nothing material had occurred since the circumcision and G’d’s manifestation to Avraham. By not spelling out what, if anything, G’d communicated to Avraham at this time it is clear that G’d’s manifestation was in the nature of someone visiting a sick friend. He had qualified for this “visit” as a result of circumcising himself. Tanchuma 1 on Parshat Vayera confirms this interpretation.
     באלוני ממרא, “at the terebinths of Mamre.” The Torah informs us of the site where the circumcision took place. This was also the place where he received an immediate sign that G’d appreciated Avraham’s deed. We find that manifestations of G’d’s presence to the prophets occur by means of 1) fire; 2) wind; 3) water, and 4) earth [either of the four basic raw material the terrestrial earth is made of. Ed.] G’d appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Exodus 3,2). He also appeared to the entire Jewish nation in an environment of fire  (Deuteronomy 4,36: “He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words out of the fire”).  In Exodus 24,17 G’d’s manifestation is described as “a consuming fire on top of the mountain.” In connection with the ascent to heaven by the prophet Elijah we read in Kings II 2,1 “when the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, etc.” In Kings I 19,11 והנה ה' עובר  ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים, ”there was a great and mighty wind; splitting mountains and shattering rocks by the power of the Lord.” We also encounter a manifestation of G’d through a mighty wind in Job 38,1 “Then the Lord replied to Job out of the tempest and said, etc.” An instance of G’d manifesting Himself by means of water is found in Ezekiel 1,1 “It was in the thirtieth year... when I was in the community of exiles by the river Kevar, etc.” We encounter another example of G’d manifesting Himself by means of water in Ezekiel 1,24 ”I could hear the sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters, like the sound of Shaddai."   We find G’d manifesting Himself in connection with earth in Ezekiel 43,2 “the whole earth is filled with His glory.” We also find a revelation described as “and the earth was lit up by His Presence.” In this instance, G’d manifested Himself to Avraham by means of a tree. The Midrash uses the word אלוני ממרא to emphasise the fact that these were trees, אילנות. Actually, Mamre was the name of one of Avraham’s close associates as we know from 14,13 “Mamre the Emorite, the brother of Aner and Eshkol who were allies of Avram.” Had the Torah only wanted to tell us that Avraham circumcised himself near the place where Mamre lived, it would have been appropriate to describe the area as ערבות ממרא, “the fields of Mamre.” The emphasis on the word אלוני shows that the Torah wanted to draw our attention to the fact that we are talking about a tree or trees. When Avraham told the men who came to visit to rest “under one of the trees,” this shows that there was more than one tree. Why did G’d choose a tree to be the site at which He manifested Himself to Avraham on this occasion? It was because the angel was going to tell him that within a year he and Sarah would have a son. He would experience something similar to that which was experienced by an aged tree which still produced fruit. It is written in Job 14,7-9: “There is hope for a tree; if it is cut down it will renew itself; its shoots will not cease. If its shoots are old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, at the scent of water it will bud and produce branches like a sapling.” We also have a verse comparing the righteous to trees in Psalms 1,3 “He (the righteous) is like a tree planted beside streams of water which yields its fruit in season.” This is also how Rabbeinu Chananel explains our verse.
     והוא יושב פתח האהל כחם היום, “and he was seated at the entrance to the tent as the day grew hot.” The plain meaning of these words is that seeing Avraham was weakened by the circumcision he took advantage of the heat of the sun to act as therapy for his wounds. This is why he was outside at a time when normal healthy people stay inside to take advantage of the shade. The basis for the sun providing therapy is derived from Maleachi 3,20 כי השמש מרפא בכנפיה, “for the sun brings healing on its wings.”
      A Midrashic approach views this detail as a reference to the fourth hour in the morning which is the time most people sit down to a meal. Avraham was waiting for visitors to share his meal with him.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words “he was sitting at the entrance of the tent” is an allusion to the spiritual counterpart of the Jewish people in the celestial regions soothing Avraham’s  mind when he became aware of its existence in those regions at this time. This is deduced by the wording וירא ה' אליו. We have a tradition that the patriarchs were never addressed directly by the four-lettered name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה. [compare Exodus 6,3. Ed.] If nonetheless, we encounter this name of G’d here in connection with a vision Avraham was granted, we must conclude that this name was revealed to him only indirectly. The words “at the entrance of the tent,” are a hint that he had not yet been able to enter that “tent.”
  
  Verse 2
  
   וישא עיניו וירא, “He raised his eyes and saw, etc.” At this point he had only a dim vision of someone approaching. שלשה אנשים נצבים עליו, “three men already on top of him.” At this point the Torah repeats the word וירא, as only now did Avraham see these people close up. At this point he also realised that they were angels. This is why the Torah writes that Avraham ran towards them and prostrated himself before them on the ground. The angels were Michael, Raphael, and Gavriel. Michael had been assigned the task of announcing that Sarah would have a child and to save Lot. Both of these assignments were expressions of G’d’s love or mercy respectively, and could therefore be described as being of the same category. Raphael  had the task of healing Avraham. Gavriel’s task was to turn Sodom upside down. This is why the Torah writes (19,1) “the two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening.” This is a reference to Michael and Gavriel. Since it was Michael’s task to save Lot we find that when describing the destruction of Sodom the Torah uses the singular when it writes (19,25) ויהפוך את הערים האלה, “he” turned these cities upside down,” instead of writing “they” turned these cities upside down.” We learn from this that whereas one angel may not carry out two tasks of different categories, such as one that emanates from G’d’s attribute of Justice and another emanating from the attribute of Mercy, he may carry out two assignments when both originate from the same attribute, in this instance the attribute of Mercy. This is why we find Michael performing what appear to be two separate tasks. He gave Sarah, who had previously been unable to conceive, a message of love and hope, and he saved Lot who did not have a valid claim to be saved. Should you ask, if so, why was a special angel needed to heal Avraham? Is not healing another aspect of G’d’s attribute of Mercy? Could not Michael have performed this task also? The fact is that healing, especially people who deserve to be healed, is not part of the heading of performing an act of loving kindness. If Michael had accepted that assignment he would have trespassed on  Raphael’s territory. This is why G’d assigned to each of these angels only tasks which were within their respective spheres of competence.   It is not permissible in the celestial regions to have overlapping areas of competence; this is what is meant by Job 25,2 “He imposes peace in His celestial regions.” If you look at our paragraph with an analytical eye you will discover that G’d granted Avraham an insight into he workings of the celestial hierarchies. These three angels were the respective heads of three of G-d’s “armies.” They were part of the four encampments (armies) surrounding the שכינה, “the Divine Presence.”
      We have been told in Shemot Rabbah 2,8 that wherever you encounter the archangel Michael you encounter the glory of the שכינה. When Avraham beheld these three angels and he ran after them he was actually running after the שכינה, trying to welcome it. As to the fourth “army,” G-d employs His forces in accordance with the requirements of the occasion. The fourth “army” had already been revealed to Avraham in chapter fifteen during the episode of the covenant between the pieces.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר, אדני אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך, He said: “my lord, if I have found favor in your eyes, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the words (as presented by Rashi) Avraham included all three men in his address and invitation saying to the senior one amongst them: “if I have found favor in your eyes (singular).” The assumption then is that the word אדני is secular and does not refer to someone representing the Divine. The problem with this kind of approach is the vowel kametz in the word adonay. Wherever we find this word vocalised in this manner it always means “my Lord,” i.e. someone is addressing G’d and that is the reason the plural is used. The reason for the plural is that celestial beings always appear in the plural such as elohim, malachim, etc. 
  It is possible to argue that Avraham addressed only the archangel Michael when he said “adonay.” Michael, in his capacity as the angel representing the attribute of love and kindness (Mercy), was the direct superior of Avraham whose outstanding characteristic was this very virtue or attribute חסד. It was no more than right that he should address him as “my lord.” This would also account for the fact that Avraham first offered water and subsequently butter and milk without mentioning wine as part of the meal at all. This is self-explanatory. [for those to whom it is not so self-explanatory such as this editor, “wine” is considered as part of the domain and emanation גבורה, the opposite of the emanation חסד. “Water,” on the other hand, is the epitome of the emanation חסד, compare chapter 23 in שער ערכי כנויים of Pardes Rimonim. Ed.]
      According to the discipline of vocalisations there are seven gradations in the vowels [not including semi-vowels which are not audible but which nonetheless are not part of the consonants]. The vowel kametz ranks as highest of these seven levels. It is followed in descending order by patach, tzeyre, segol, cholem shuruk, and chirik. The entire Torah is structured around these seven vowels which affect pronunciation of the words. They are also known as "seven syllables", or "seven sounds", concerning which David said in Psalm 29 [known as the hymn in honour of the giving of the Torah. קול ה', “the voice or the sound of G’d,” occurs seven times.] This is also the meaning of Shemot Rabbah 28,4 that the Torah was given with seven קולות, “sounds.” Concerning these seven sounds, Solomon said in Proverbs 9,1  חצבה עמודיה שבעה, “she has hewn her seven pillars.” These seven sounds are the foundation upon which the whole structure rests. The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.” Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).  Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood  by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.   Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach  to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
      A kabbalistic approach sees in the vowel kametz in the word א-דני a combination of two of the Holy Names of G’d both comprising four letters. The one name symbolizes both G’d’s preceding any phenomenon in the universe as well as His Oneness and uniqueness in the world. The second name of G’d in that expression teaches the Nobility of G’d, that He transcends even the highest of the ten emanations. This is why the word א-דני commences with the letter א and concludes with the letter י. The letters דנ in the middle represent the attribute of Justice. You ought to realise that  the three names of G’d  which are comprised of four letters each are all alluded to in a single verse in Exodus 35,17 את קלעי החצר, את עמודיו ואת אדניה, “the curtains of the Courtyard represent the all encompassing name of G’d, the name א-היה which testifies to His being Eternal and unchanging.” The word את עמודיו represent the Ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה; finally, the words ואת אדניה are comprised of the letters in the word א-דני and symbolise His relationship as Master of the universe, i.e. the influence of what is above on what is below. Another verse reflecting a similar message is found in Job 38,6 [where these words have been put in the mouth of G’d Himself. Ed.] על מה אדניה הטבעו? או מי ירה אבן פנתה? “Onto what were its bases sunk? Who sets its cornerstone?” The subject of the verse is the Holy Temple (Holy Tabernacle) and G’d compares its construction to the creation of the universe which He personally had undertaken. The fourth four-lettered name of G’d is alluded to in connection with Rivkah’s reply (24,19) that she as a three-year old would draw water for the ten (or more) camels of Eliezer, contains an allusion to divine assistance based on another less well known name of G’d comprising the letters א-ג-ל-א. This will be discussed in greater detail when we examine that verse.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ואקחה פת לחם, “and I will take a piece of bread, etc.” This is an example of what the sages said in Baba Metzia 87 that the righteous promise very little whereas they do a great deal, more than they promised. This is why the Torah reports in verse 7 that Avraham prepared a sumptuous meal for his guests including meat from his best calves.
     וסעדו לבכם,  “refresh your hearts.” These words are clear proof that Avraham had realised already that the men he was facing were angels though they appeared to him in the guise of ordinary mortals. This is why he spoke of לבכם when he referred to their heart. Had they been human beings Avraham should have said לבבכם, as the heart of a human being is called לבב as we know from Psalms 104,15 ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד, “and bread refreshes the heart of man.” Angels who do not have an evil urge (Megillah 14) have a heart which is simple, not exposed to contradictory demands by two urges, the good urge and the evil urge. The absence of a letter such as this ב has often been the means by which we have learned a variety of lessons. For instance, in Exodus 31,17 the Torah writes כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ “for on six days G’d completed the making of heaven and earth.” According to correct grammar, the word ששת should have been preceded by the letter ב for this translation to be correct. The absence of that letter teaches that the maximum period of time which this universe is going to endure before undergoing a major transformation is six thousand years, seeing that in G’d’s calendar one thousand years in our time are only considered one day. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19,14 based on Psalms 90,4 כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול “for a thousand years in Your eyes are merely like yesterday.”) This is another example teaching you that not a single letter in the Torah- be it a letter too many or a letter too few- is without profound significance. Moses stressed this point when near the end of his life (Deut. 32,47) he said: כי לא דבר רק הוא מכם, “for not a single word is empty, (devoid of meaning) for you.” Our sages (Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 1,5) interpret this line as follows: “if a word appears “empty,” the “emptiness” is due to you, i.e. מכם. We find another example of the importance of a single letter in Psalms 48,14 where the psalmist (one of the sons of Korach) writes שיתו לבכם לחילה, “take note of its ramparts;” the letter ב is missing in the word לבכם although it is clear that mortal human beings are being addressed here. The answer is that the psalmist speaks of a distant future when the people of whom he speaks will no longer be troubled by an evil urge. Our sages (Midrash Tehillim 48) were aware of this and pointed out that this is the reason the word חילה (read cheylah) is actually spelled as חולה (from מחול, dance, as well as חולה, sick) to hint at the dancing performed by the righteous (now sick, i.e. Avraham) in a perfect  world of the future. 
     כי על כן עברתם, “this is why you have come by, etc.” Avraham meant that had he been aware beforehand that these men were going to visit him he would have prepared a feast for them.
     ויאמרו, כן תעשה כאשר דברת, they said: “O.K. you may proceed in accordance with what you have said.” They meant for this to be a lesson: “you are quite right; a piece of bread such as you have offered is perfectly adequate. Do not bother to go to the trouble of serving anything additional.” One may prefer to interpret the words of these (men) angels to mean “O.K. you take the piece of bread.” He implied that he would not eat it, however. If this is the correct interpretation, it was an allusion to what happened with the cake which Sarah baked which the angels never ate as Sarah had begun menstruating while making the dough (compare Baba Metzia 87).
  
  Verse 6
  
    שלש סאים, “three measures of, etc.” The three measures described are known as a single measure called איפה. Our sages in Menachot 76 say that three measures called Sa-ah constitute the measure known as Eyfah. Seeing that the Torah usually ecomomises with its words, why did it not write איפה , a single word, instead of writing שלש סאים in two words? It is possible that the reason Avraham spoke in terms of three measures was due to etiquette. He meant to assure each one of the three angels of a whole measure for him exclusively, which would be made into cake. This would ensure that each of them received equal portions and that there would not be any kind of envy between one and the other during the meal (compare Megillah 12). He may have had yet another consideration. He wanted to attract a crowd in order to demonstrate to them to what lengths he and Sarah would go in order to entertain uninvited strangers. It was similar to what our sages recommended we should do in order to welcome the Sabbath (compare Shabbat 119) where we find a discussion on the manner in which the Sabbath is to be welcomed. The Talmud relates that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was constantly busy coming and going on the Sabbath eve (making a commotion). When asked why he was in such an uproar on account of the Sabbath, he replied that if the two leading scholars of his time Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi were to be his guests would he not go out of his way to honour them? The Sabbath does not deserve any less honour. Another thing we can learn from this detail the Torah provides us with when mentioning the amount of flour used by Sarah to bake cakes for her guests, is that Avraham was of a generous disposition. Had he used the expression איפה, the impression created would have been that he wanted to limit the amount of flour to be used, i.e. “one measure, not more.” In order to prevent such an impression being created the Torah decided to write an extra word in order to preserve Avraham’s image as a generous person. 
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואל הבקר רץ אברהם, “while Avraham himself ran to the cattle, etc.” He could easily have sent one of his numerous servants to go to the stables and to select the animals for slaughter. After all, we know that he had a minimum of 318 male servants (14,14). He refrained from doing so, however, and went himself, and with accelerated gait, in order to honor his guests. All this in spite of the fact that he was both aged and weakened by the circumcision. The Torah reports all this to round out the picture of Avraham as a generous person.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויקח חמאה וחלב ובן הבקר, “he took butter, milk, and a young calf, etc.” No mention is made of Avraham serving the bread. Our sages (Bava Metzia 87) use this to surmise that at that time Sarah became a menstruant, (although she had long ceased to be), and that since Avraham was in the habit of eating even ordinary food only if it could have been eaten by a priest in a state of ritual purity, he did not want to offer such food to his guests either. 
  Some people ask that seeing there was no halachic reason that Avraham should impose such restrictions on people other than himself, it seems unreasonable for him to not serve the very thing he had first said he would offer. These scholars suggest a different reason for Avraham not serving the bread. They claim it was the date on which Passover would occur in the future and that this was the reason he spoke of the bread in terms of עגות, cakes, i.e. unleavened cakes. Whereas in this instance the Torah spoke only of עגות, “cakes,” the Torah completes the expression by adding the word מצות, “unleavened bread,” when the same men arrive at Lot’s home in Sodom the same evening (19,3) and the Torah reports that this is what Lot served these men. It is typical of the Torah to reveal hints of something here and there. Something  not made clear in one part of the Torah can often be understood properly only when comparing two different sections of the Torah.
     ויאכלו, “they ate.” The plain meaning of the text is that the subject of the word are those who were in the habit of eating, i.e. Ishmael and the other members of Avraham’s household. We encounter something similar in Isaiah 5,12 והיה כנור ונבל תף וחליל ויין משתיהם “and their banquets consisted of lyre and lute, timbrel and flute and wine;” it is obvious that people do not drink musical instruments such as the ones mentioned in that verse, but that these instruments provide only background music to the banquet whereas the wine is fit to drink. A Midrashic approach: The word ויאכלו is not to be understood literally (Bereshit Rabbah 48,14); the angels appeared to eat seeing that the meat was the first thing to disappear. This was not unlike Judges 6,21 in an incident involving Gideon. We are told there: וישלח מלאך ה' את קצה המשענת אשר בידו ויגע בבשר ובמצות, ותעל האש מן הצור ותאכל את הבשר ואת המצות, “The angel of the Lord held out the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened bread with its tip. A fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread.” The term אכילה, “eating, consuming,” is applied to matters which disappear. A classic example of such use of the word is found in Deut. 32,42 וחרבי תאכל בשר, “my sword will consume flesh.” Another such example is also found in Deut. 7,16 ואכלת את כל העמים, “you will consume all the nations, etc..”
      There are conflicting views concerning the nature of this entire paragraph. Some (including Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim 2,42), hold that the entire story is merely a description of a prophetic vision which Avraham experienced. People who hold this view believe that human beings never see angels in the flesh but only experience visions of angels. According to the people who believe this, Sarah never baked any cakes for these angels, neither did Avraham prepare animals for slaughter and cook the meat. If we accept this view as a consistent approach, Lot never entertained any angels but instead attained the level of prophecy in order to see the kind of visions which resulted in his leaving Sodom at a crucial moment. We would even have to believe that the inhabitants of Sodom were given prophetic insights in spite of their wickedness and that they assailed Lot and his daughters. If all this were so, how is it possible that G’d refrained from communicating with Avraham as long as Lot was in his company because he did not qualify for such visions while voluntarily in the company of an evil person such as Lot? (compare 13,13 where the Torah emphasised that G’d spoke to Avraham “after Lot had separated from him?”). There is no doubt in my mind that in the main the whole paragraph has to be understood literally, i.e. according to the plain meaning of the text. All the experiences related as having happened to Avraham, to Sarah and to Lot, were not figments of their imaginations but actually happened. If your heart chafes or your mind boggles at such happenings and you find it difficult to credit that mere mortals had such encounters with heavenly beings, you have a point; this is why we need to fall back on kabbalistic interpretations seeing that normal human beings are unable to cope with such encounters on a purely rational basis. We will therefore consider that if our sages have given these angels “names” corresponding to human beings and have made them appear as if they were dressed as human beings, this did not mean that the garments perceived by Avraham were garments made of fabrics such as used by human beings. Rather, these celestial beings wrapped their essence within “robes,” much as G’d Himself is perceived as having surrounded His essence with “light” which serves as something parallel to our garments. [After all, our garments are also designed to hide our essence. Ed.] Celestial beings known as אד'ם, a term reflecting three superior characteristics, are composed of these characteristics which serve as their מלבוש “garment.”  Ever since the Temple was destroyed, this kind of מלבוש has no longer become visible to people on earth; in other words, apparitions of celestial beings such as the angels who visited Avraham or even Lot, are no longer part of the human experience.
   In this context we must not forget that our own bodies are nothing but the מלבוש, the “garments” of our soul. In fact, we have a verse which testifies to the truth of this perception (Job 10,11) עור ובשר תלבישני, “You have clothed me in skin and flesh.” The verse means that the body is merely the garment and the soul uses it to dress itself in it.    The meaning of the word אנשים when applied to these phenomena in our verse as well as in other similar occurrences of angels not only being “seen” by humans but interacting with them,  means that during those appearances these angels were “dressed” in such “garments.” To show us that this is the case, the authors of the respective Books of the Bible called such celestial phenomena אנשים, “men.” To indicate that the term אנשים should not be misunderstood by us to mean that these angels assumed real human-like form, the Torah uses the term מלאכים, “angels” for them such as in 19,1. The word מלאכים means that in spite of  appearances to the contrary, these phenomena were true celestial beings. On the other hand, they were also called אנשים, to reflect the fact that they were wearing these “garments.” If you reflect on a statement in Chagigah 3 עשה אזנך כאפרכסת, “make your ear like that of a grasshopper,” [According to Rashi this means that we must carefully study all the opinions offered on a problem and then decide which of the approaches to the problem is most acceptable before ruling how to act in practice. Ed.] you will realize how carefully our eyes and ears must be tuned to notice all these nuances in the text.
      It is interesting that when these angels appeared to Avraham the Torah refers to them as אנשים, whereas when they appeared to Lot they are referred to as מלאכים. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 50,2 explain the reason for this as follows: As long as the benevolent Presence of G’d (שכינה) was accompanying them they are called אנשים; when the benevolent Presence of G’d was no longer accompanying them they had to “dress up” as מלאכים, as “angels,” in order to be perceived as of celestial origin. A minor detail in the text, demonstrating the deep insight of our sages is verse 33 where it says: “G’d went (away) from Avraham.” Remember that we had never even been told that “G’d came to Avraham” in the first place. We had only been told about אנשים, “men” visiting him. In connection with Lot we find that initially the angels are called מלאכים (19,1) whereas in the ensuing verses we also find them referred to as אנשים (19,10; 19,12), whereas in 19,15 when Lot is being urged to finally leave Sodom before it is too late the same אנשים suddenly again appear as מלאכים. 
  If the Torah had referred to these “men” when they were in Sodom as מלאכים exclusively, the reason provided by the Midrash we have quoted would be adequate. The constant change of appellation that the Torah uses in the narrative describing both the destruction of Sodom and the saving of Lot forces us to look for further enlightenment on the subject. What this appears to show is that these phenomena, i.e. the angels/men operated on two “wavelengths” simultaneously. Whatever these “men” did they did as “agents” of the angels.
      Let us now explain these verses as truly corresponding to the text as the Torah presents them to us (what we are in the habit of calling פשט). The visible aspect of what happened, i.e. the appearance of “men” is true; however the term מלאכים whenever it appears in the text is literally true also. This is a classic example of both the “hidden” and the “revealed” aspect of Torah being equally true,” i.e. relevant. The intelligent reader will understand what I have said. Our sages in Baba Metzia 85 have told us that an appearance by the prophet Elijah was something with which the students in the academy of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi were quite familiar. One day, it was New Moon, Elijah did not arrive at the usual hour and when he arrived considerably late Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi asked him why he had been late on that occasion. Elijah explained that he had to awaken Avraham, wash him, wait while the latter said his prayers, and then put him to bed again. He then had to repeat the same procedure with Yitzchak, and again with Yaakov. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanasssi asked why he could not have awakened all three patriarchs at the same time? (after all, they are all buried in the same cave). Elijah replied that if he did this they would all pray simultaneously and as a result the Messiah would arrive prematurely. Rabbi Yehudah then asked if there were any great men alive in his own time whose combined prayers could have such an immediate and powerful effect. Elijah replied that Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi’s nephew Rabbi Chiyah and his sons were such individuals. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi ordered a general fast and he appointed Rabbi Chiyah accompanied by his sons to act as the ones to lead the others in prayer. As soon as Rabbi Chiyah intoned the word מוריד הגשם, “Who causes rain to fall,” rain started falling. When he mentioned the words  מחיה מתים “Who revives the dead,” a terrible storm started shaking the world. At that moment the celestial beings in heaven asked: ”who has revealed this secret?” The answer was that Elijah had revealed it. Thereupon they punished Elijah by disciplining him with 60 fiery brands. At that point Elijah descended to earth and appeared in the guise of a bear (on the attack). As a result, the assembled  worshipers fled for their lives and Rabbi Chiyah never got as far as completing the benediction with the words “the One who revives the dead,” I am sure you will understand the point of this story.
  
  Verse 9
  
  . ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך, They said: ”where is your wife Sarah?” According to our sages in Baba Metzia 87 the dot  on the letters אי"ו in the word אליו indicate that the angels also asked Sarah about Avraham’s whereabouts. It would have been appropriate to place a dot on the letter ל of that word. Seeing that there is no such dot we must draw some inference from the absence of such a dot on that letter [instead of having to put dots on three letters of that word. Ed.]. Actually, the reason  the dot was not placed on the letter ל is the fact that it already has the tone-sign zakef katan. Placing an additional dot on that letter would have resulted in confusion. [i.e. a third dot and where exactly to place it. Ed.] This is why the chachmey hanikkud decided to place the dots on the other three letters of the word אליו instead.
      I believe that in addition to the fact that the word אליו provides a reason for interpretation beyond its plain meaning, there is a compelling mystical message contained in that word. The angels hinted to Avraham that the bounty of blessing from G’d descends from the higher regions to the emanations, thence from the emanations to the disembodied intelligent creatures (such as the angels), and only via these disembodied intelligent creatures does it descend to our regions in the terrestrial part of the universe. After Avraham had sanctified himself by undergoing circumcision and putting the sign of the holy covenant on his flesh, the angels were anxious to convey to him the mysteries of how and by what routes G’d’s bounty reaches His creatures on earth. They wanted him to know that they themselves, as well as all other celestial beings, derive their specific powers from the tenth (i.e. the lowest, מלכות) emanation. This “tenth” emanation receives its input via what is called the קו, “the line.” The קו itself receives its input via the א. This is the reason the letters י=10, ו and א all of which symbolise stations in the conduit of G’d’s bounty to man on earth have been provided with these dots. In short, the route is: from the א to the י via the ו which represents the קו, the “line.” From that point on the שפע travels via the disembodied celestial beings and from there via the prophet who bestows the blessing on earth. Seeing that Avraham was about to receive a promise of G’d’s bounty for himself and Sarah from the angels, they  considered this an appropriate moment to take Avraham into their confidence and to reveal these mysteries to him.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמר שוב אשוב אליך, He said: “I will most certainly return to you again, etc.” The angel who said this was the one who had revealed that Sarah would bear a son. He said this, meaning that his prophecy would come true in the following year. Nonetheless, we do not find a mention anywhere that the angel did in fact return to Avraham in the following year although he had said so twice. [the repetition of שוב אשוב plus verse 14. — Ed.] Perhaps the angel had not meant that he, personally, in his present manifestation, would return to visit Avraham but that the fulfillment of his prophecy would be equivalent to his return. After all, what would be the purpose of the angel returning in person when he did not have a specific message for Avraham? Another approach to the problem: The word שוב אשוב was not used in the sense of returning, but in the sense of שובה ונחת, as in Isaiah 30,15 where the meaning is “you will be helped by means of quiet and stillness.” The word נחת refers to נחת רוח, “a serene state of mind, a state of mental satisfaction.” The angel meant to tell Avraham that his message would lead to his attaining such a mental state within a year seeing that a son would be born to him and Sarah. He indicated that seeing he was the angel in charge of conveying messages of mercy, he was in a position of promising this to Avraham.
     כעת חיה, “in a year’s time.” Although, normally, a pregnancy does not exceed nine months, there are exceptions. The angel  alluded to the maximum period of time that could elapse between now and the fulfillment of the prophecy. We are told in Yevamot 80b that Ravah Tospha'ah once ruled that a baby which according to the mother’s testimony was born 12 months after her husband had left for overseas was indeed fathered by her absent husband. The angel simply may have told Avraham that by the following “Passover” his mind would be at rest as he would have a son by his wife Sarah.
     והוא אחריו, “and he was behind it.” This verse tells us that Sarah was sitting inside the tent as it says: והנה באהל (verse 9); she had meanwhile risen from her chair in order to listen to what was being said at the entrance of the tent. The angel who relayed the message stood on the other side of the entrance to the tent. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויאמר ה' אל אברהם, “G’d said to Avraham, etc.” The messenger is given the title of the Sender. This is the reason why the Torah calls the angel “G’d.” It was also he who said in verse 14: היפלא מה' דבר “is anything too wonderful for G’d?” If G’d Himself had spoken in  verse 14 (and here) then the Torah should have written there: “is anything too wonderful for Me?” This is also the meaning of למועד אשוב, “I will return at the appointed time.” He, the angel, and not G’d had challenged Sarah’s laughter. It makes sense therefore that he speaks about returning. Seeing G’d Himself had never come to visit Sarah how could He have mentioned ”returning?”
     היפלא מה' דבר, ”is anything too wonderful for G’d?” This was the angel Michael speaking. He meant: “is anything concealed  and beyond performance so that the letter ה in your name which alludes to G’d’s אצילות, transcendental powers,  and which was added in order for G’d to be able to make your siring a son with Sarah a natural process would have been wasted?” He implied further: “Just as you complement the attribute of חסד on earth, so G’d  will give you a son who will be able to complement the attribute of Justice.” [I believe our author meant that Yitzchak would prove that man can lead the sort of life on earth which even the attribute of Justice cannot find fault with. This is why Yitzchak is always considered the representative of the emanation גבורה. Ed.]
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
    ותכחש שרה, “Sarah denied having laughed;” How is it conceivable that our matriarch Sarah should not have believed the words of the angel? Was she not a prophetess? (compare Megillah 14) Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 1,1 explained that even Avraham was secondary in his stature of a prophet to Sarah! They derive this from 21,12 where G’d told Avraham: “whatever Sarah tells you to do, listen to her instruction!” Surely there is no prophet who is not aware that the angels are messengers of G’d, and that everything they say emanates from G’d. Furthermore, assuming that she had indeed not believed that the prediction of the angel would come true, surely she had no reason to deny what her reaction to the prophecy had been! This especially after the angel had demonstrated that he could read her thoughts and quoted her reaction back to her? What was the point of denying something the angel knew to be true?!   The answer is that Avraham was well aware that these visitors were men; however, he had realized that they must be angels due to his superior wisdom. I have already hinted at this in my commentary on verse two of this chapter. Sarah, however, did not have that sort of insight. She was under the impression that these were ordinary human beings. This is why she had laughed (silently) at what she considered a preposterous prediction. As to her denying that she had laughed when challenged, she did so out of fear of Avraham; she thought that Avraham had challenged her laughter (not the angel) not because he heard it but because he knew her psyche. When the angel insisted that Sarah had indeed laughed, it suddenly became clear to her that Avraham had been given a prophetic insight which had revealed to him that she had laughed. At that point she kept quiet. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides of these verses.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם, “and Avraham walked with them to see them off.” Immediately afterwards the Torah writes: “and G’d had said shall I hide from Avraham, etc.” It appears that Avraham merited this visit from G’d because he had performed the מצוה of accompanying his visitors some distance on the next part of their journey. Our sages in Sotah 46 have derived from here that a student has to accompany the teacher when the teacher departs from him as far as the outer perimeter of the town. The Talmud adopts guidelines as to the respective distances  which people of different degrees of prominence need to be accompanied. It is all based on a specific verse in Psalms 91,11 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך, “for He will command His angels to (guard, accompany) you.”
  
  Verse 17
  
   המכסה אני מאברהם, “shall I hide from Avraham?” G’d spent a great deal of verbiage praising Avraham whereas Avraham did not allow these praises to go to his head; on the contrary, he put himself down so much that he referred to himself as “dust and ashes” in verse twenty-four. From here we should learn that if a person receives praise he should not allow this to inflate his ego but on the contrary, he should act even more humbly than previously. [I find this whole comment less than convincing, as whereas the Torah tells us that G’d thought highly of Avraham, there is absolutely no evidence that G’d spoke in this fashion to Avraham himself, in contrast to the way G’d had spoken to Noach at the time. The entire passage speaks of Avraham in the third person. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי ידעתיו, “for I know him intimately,” The root ידע is used here in the sense of bestowing recognition on someone, just as in Psalms 144,3 מה אדם ותדעהו, “what is man that You should put him on a pedestal?” Alternatively, the meaning of the word is that “I have supervised him closely.” When G’d “knows” a person this implies that He keeps careful track of all that this person does and He protects him. The words כי ידעתיו single out Avraham from other ordinary human beings who do not enjoy the constant supervision by G’d of what they do and what happens to them. The righteous enjoy this advantage over their secular-oriented  fellow human beings.
      You should appreciate that G’d operates in this universe by means of both השגחה כללית and השגחת פרטית, “supervision of a general kind,” and “supervision of a particular, personal kind.” We have a verse in Jeremiah 32,19 which spells this out. The text is: גדול העצה ורב העלילה אשר עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי בני האדם לתת לאיש כדרכיו וגו', “wondrous in purpose and mighty in deed, whose eyes observe all the ways of men, so as to repay every man according to his ways, and with the proper fruit of his deeds!” Considering other living creatures, however, G-d’s supervision of their fates is of a more general nature; it concerns itself only with preserving the respective species. The השגחה פרטית, personalized supervision of mankind,  operates in the following manner. 1) There is supervision in the sense that G’d is aware  of all of man’s actions and thoughts; this extends both to Jews and to Gentiles alike. We know this from Psalms 33,15 היוצר יחד לבם, המבין אל כל מעשיהם, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings.” The supervision becomes manifest in G’d protecting people against mishaps. This type of benevolent supervision does not extend to Gentiles and not even to all Israelites except the righteous among them. G’d saves the righteous from experiencing the kinds of disasters which non-deserving people are prone to experience. This is meant by the words כי ידעתיו in our verse (according to the view of Nachmanides).
      The words כי ידעתיו are words by G’d directed at man, i.e. G’d is informing our patriarchs that in order to qualify for this kind of benevolent supervision of their individual fates it is essential to be righteous. Once Avraham was aware of this he would have powerful incentive to command his offspring to observe G’d’s commandments. This is spelled out in the words: “so that G’d may indeed bring upon Avraham all that He has promised him concerning them.” The reference once again to the four-lettered Ineffable Name  י-ה-ו-ה  is an allusion to the same attribute of G’d with which the patriarchs had not become familiar as guiding their own fates, as G’d dealt with them on the basis of the attribute Shaddai as we have explained already in connection with 17,1.
     למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו, “in order that he may command his sons and household after him, etc.” Rabbeinu Chananel writes as follows concerning this verse: “The “mere” words of the patriarchs in their lifetime were as binding as what is recorded in the written Torah at the time of the revelation.” This teaches you that oral traditions handed down from the times of the patriarchs are as binding as laws written down in the text of the Torah as direct commandments from G’d. After all, only the Ten Commandments were heard by the people directly from the mouth of G’d. The remainder of the written Torah was communicated to us by a prophet, i.e. Moses, who wrote them down and taught them to the people. Just as there is no qualitative difference between the Ten Commandments and the other commandments in the Torah, so there is no qualitative difference between traditions taught by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov (who were all prophets) and by Moses.” Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. [Clearly these words were aimed specifically at the Karaites.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  'ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה, ארדה נא ואראה וגו  “G’d said: ‘the outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, let Me descend and investigate, etc.’” These verses (30 &amp; 31) are closely linked to one another. It is as if the Torah had written: “the outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah and their sins which have become great are such that I have to descend and investigate if they are all guilty or not; if not all are guilty I will determine who the guilty ones are.” The word חטאת in verse 20 covers a multitude of sins and negative characteristics. Our sages in Sanhedrin 109 have interpreted the word רעים as referring to sins involving money, i.e. asocial behaviour, based on Deut 15,9 ורעה עיניך באחיך האביון, “and your eye will be mean against your destitute brother,” whereas the word חטאים referred to sins committed by their bodies as illustrated by Genesis 39,9 וחטאתי לאלוקים “and I would commit a sin against G’d;” (Joseph explaining why he could not sleep with Potiphar’s wife) The additional word לה', refers to the sin of blasphemy. The word מאד, “very much,” refers to the sin of murder, bloodshed by indirect means. We know of this word מאד being used elsewhere in the same context from Kings II 21,16 וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה הרבה מאד “and King Menashe was also guilty of shedding much innocent blood.” The sin which sealed the fate of the Sodomites  was that they despised charity, i.e. they legislated against people who practiced the virtue of giving charity or being otherwise charitable. They did not even take care of their own needy who were suffering from hunger. The meaning of our verses based on the simple explanation of the text is: “the men of Sodom were very evil and they sinned greatly against G’d, so much so that the echo of their sins reached the ears of G’d.” We find a warning in the Torah concerning the needy and oppressed crying out to G’d complaining about their condition in Deut. 15,9 וקרא עליך והיה בך חטא, “when he cries out about your conduct you will be guilty of a sin.” We find a specific verse about the sins of the Sodomites in Ezekiel 16,49  הנה-זה היה עון סדם אחותך גאון שבעת-לחם ושלות השקט היה לה ולבנותיה ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקו ותגבהינה ותעשינה תועבה לפני ואסיר אתהן כאשר ראיתי. “See! This was the sin of Sodom: pride, surfeit of bread, and undisturbed peace were hers and her daughter’s but the hand of the poor and the needy she did not support. And they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. So I removed them when I perceived it.” They were dealt with so harshly because they persisted in their evil ways more so than anyone else. There is no other nation on earth which does not practice some degree of charity towards its own members. The people of Sodom not only considered such an attitude as pandering to the economically unsuccessful, but they treated the victims with cruelty to boot. Even though the Torah and its social legislation had not been given as yet, the commandment of giving charity belongs to the group of commandments which one’s intellect dictates, and it is something despicable when a human being watches another human being suffering from hunger without trying to relieve his condition. When G’d destroyed the people of Sodom He avenged the poor who had been allowed to die from hunger or whose condition had been deliberately aggravated by those people in order to accelerate their death. This is why our sages in Ruth Rabbah 5,9 stated that “the vengeance of the Gentile nations has been entrusted to the people of Israel whereas the vengeance of Israel has been entrusted to their poor.” They quote Ezekiel 25,14 to support the first part of the statement. The prophet writes: ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד ישראל ועשו באדום כאפי וכחמתי. “And I shall take My vengeance from  Edom by the hand of My people Israel, and they shall act upon Edom in accordance with My anger and My fury.” They quote Deut. 15,40 in support of the second half of their statement. The Torah writes there: וקרא עליך אל ה' והיה בך חטא, “when he (the helpless) calls out against you to G’d it will be accounted a sin for you.” The lesson to be drawn from all this is that wealth is not something that has been bestowed on the wealthy to do with what he pleases, but it has been given to him to test him if he knows how to handle it, how to employ it most usefully. Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi in that paragraph in Ruth Rabbah adds: “when this poor man appears at your doorstep asking for a handout, G’d Himself stands on his right. If you, i.e. the wealthy man give a donation to the poor, he  will bless you; if not, the One standing on his right side will exact payment from you for your insensitivity.” He based this on Psalms 109,31 כי יעמוד לימין אביון, “for He is standing on the right side of the destitute,” and on Proverbs 22,2 עשיר ורש נפגשו עושה כלם ה', “the rich man and the poor man meet; G’d has made them all.” There is another verse (Proverbs 29,13)רש ואיש תככים נפגשו מאיר עיני  שניהם ה', “when the poor and the fraudulent meet G’d gives light to the eyes of both.” How can we reconcile these verses?  One verse describes a situation when the poor receives a handout, the other when he did not.
      A Midrashic approach to our verse: The word  רבהis understood to refer to a young and kind-hearted girl. According to tradition as related in Sanhedrin 109, this girl had been feeding a poor beggar in Sodom until suspicion fell on her because the poor (who had been given money but whose money had not been accepted by the local merchants in exchange for food and drink) had somehow refused to die. When it was found that she had indeed broken the local law by feeding the beggar she was bound, placed on the roof, smeared with honey all over so that the bees stung her to death. The outcry from that girl’s (ריבה) soul came to G’d’s attention and this is what triggered His reaction as described in our verse.
  
  Verse 21
  
   הכצעקתה הבאה אלי, “if it is indeed like the outcry that has come to Me, etc.” The plain meaning of the text is exactly in line with the way Onkelos translates it, “if as the complaint that has come to Me they have done I will make an end of them.” This is the meaning of the word כלה, “they are guilty of extinction.” Unless they would repent G’d would now punish them. The words ואם לא, “and if not,”  mean “if they will not repent.” The word ואדעה in this instance means punishment as it does in Judges 8,16 ויודע בהם אנשי סכות, “he punished them with them (the briers).” The author quotes additional examples of the root ידע appearing in that sense.
      A Midrashic approach: the word הכצעקתה is unusual as we would have expected it to be in the plural, הכצעקתם, referring to more than one single outcry, complaint. It appears therefore that the Torah had in mind a special outcry, namely the one by the soul of the girl they had murdered in such a cruel manner (Bereshit Rabbah  49,6).
      A kabbalistic approach: The words הכצעקתה הבאה אלי mean that the people of Sodom refused to accept any celestial authority, were atheists in the truest sense of the word, just as the people who had built the Tower before G’d dispersed them and confused their language. The Torah wrote here that “G’d descended,” just as it had written וירד ה' לראות “G’d descended in order to see, etc.,” in Genesis 11,5 before G’d meted out the punishment. The Torah means that the reason G’d “descended” was to demonstrate His power on earth. The attribute of Mercy is perceived as being “at home” in a higher celestial region than the attribute of Justice. When G’d is described as “descending,” this means that whereas before He had operated by means of the attribute of Mercy, He now “descended” from that region to activate the attribute of Justice. Nonetheless, the attribute of Mercy would not be totally excluded, hence G’d added the words ואראה, “and I shall see, i.e. evaluate before I decide.” We find something similar (in reverse fashion) in Exodus 2, 25 וירא אלוקים את בני ישראל, “and G’d (the attribute of Justice) ‘saw’ the children of Israel.” In that instance the Israelites who had experienced mostly the attribute of Justice at work, were now going to experience the attribute of Mercy, as a result of their prayers and G’d’s response as related in Exodus 2,23-24). The word הכצעקתה would have to be understood as הכצעקת ה-"אלף"  “if as its outcry to the א, i.e. to the מדת הדין, to the attribute of Justice, עשו, “they have done,”...”I will finish them off with the attribute of Justice, i.e. כלה.” The verse continues: ואם לא אדעה, “if not I will continue to employ the attribute represented by דעת” such as in Exodus 2,25 וידע אלוקים, “G’d became aware, i.e. His attribute of Mercy became actively aware.” To sum up the meaning of Exodus 2,25: “Here the outcry from the children of Israel has come to Me and outcry the people address to the King, G’d, due to the great pressure to which the Egyptians have subjected them.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויגש אברהם ויאמר האף תספה, “Avraham approached and said: ‘Are you really going to destroy, etc.?” If you will take an analytical look at this paragraph you will observe that Avraham was under the impression that G’d wanted to destroy everybody and everything in these towns by employing the attribute of Justice. This is why he phrased his question as “are You really going to destroy the just together with the wicked, will You indeed destroy and not forgive the place?” The word תספה is not to be understood as in the second person i.e. Avraham addressing G’d in dialogue, but as third person feminine, a reference to the attribute of Justice, as if to say: “will the attribute of Justice indeed kill both the guilty and the innocent?” It would be analogous in construction to Hoseah 14,3 כל תשא עון וקח טוב, which the author understands as “address your words to the One (the attribute of Mercy) who can tolerate all kinds of guilt, etc.” All of Avraham’s prayers in this paragraph must be perceived as addressing themselves exclusively to the attribute of Justice This is also why he prefaced his remarks in verse 27 by saying (employing the name א-דני) “here I have already agreed to speak up, etc.” [It takes a great deal more courage to appeal to the attribute of Justice than to appeal to the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] Avraham therefore repeatedly used words to justify his intercession on behalf of the people of Sodom altogether (compare verse 30, “do not become angry,” or verse 31, “I have already begun, etc.” and again in verse 32 “please do not become angry.”) Avraham repeated the words חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה, “may it be far from You to do such a thing.” By repeating the word חלילה, Avraham made it plain that he addressed both the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy. He meant that even the attribute of Justice must not be perceived as killing the Just together with the guilty, etc. This would only result in an increase of the number of people who denied that there is a G’d and that this G’d practices Justice. There would be no point in the exercise of free choice, i.e. to choose being good rather than evil, and there would also be a decrease in the number of people devoting their lives to the service of the Lord. The second חלילה is an exclamation underlining that if the destruction of all the people in Sodom had been decreed by the attribute of Mercy, the argument Avraham had just presented would be even stronger, even more powerful. After all, the One who claims to be the Judge of the whole earth must certainly be perceived as practicing Justice! We repeatedly point out on New Year’s Day in our prayers that G’d practices Justice. A few examples of such statements: ויגבה ה' צבאות במשפט, “and the Lord of Hosts is exalted by Justice” (Isaiah 5,15); at the conclusion of a benediction in the principal prayer  עמידה  we refer to G’d as המלך המשפט, “the King who represents absolute Justice.  In response to Avraham’s question and concern, G’d informed him that man’s considerations and G’d’s considerations are not identical. Contrary to what Avraham thought, He would relate to the people of Sodom by invoking the attribute of Mercy even while performing Judgment, i.e. Justice. As proof of this you will note that G’d is referred to throughout this paragraph by His attribute as the merciful One, by the four-lettered name י-ה-ו-ה.
  
  Verse 24
  
   אולי יש חמישים צדיקים בתוך העיר, “supposing there are fifty just people inside the city, etc.” Rashi writes on this that there were a total of five towns in the valley and that by selecting the number fifty, Avraham did not a pick a random number but meant that each of these towns could boast of at least ten righteous people. When Avraham continued speaking about the “missing five righteous people” (verse 28), he meant if G’d would not be prepared to consider Himself as completing the necessary quorum of ten good people in each town by adding Himself to the nine good people who were there already. When, in verse 29, Avraham spoke about only forty good people being found in those five towns, he pleaded for the saving of four out of five of these towns. The same applied when he spoke about thirty good people being found in verse 30 and about twenty good people in verse 31 he referred to thirty good people in three of the towns. When he spoke about twenty good people being found there he meant that there was a quorum of ten good people in two of the towns. Finally, when Avraham pleaded on behalf of ten good people, he meant that there was at least one town which could prove it had such a quorum. Avraham did not bother to mention a smaller number as he knew from Noach’s experience that a lesser number could not suffice to save a generation. When the number of righteous people is below the quorum of ten only the righteous themselves may qualify for salvation. They do not have the power to confer salvation or even a delay of the impending disaster on their peers. Eight people had entered the Ark. Had there been another pair of deserving human beings at that time the deluge might have been delayed or might not have occurred at all.  Furthermore, Avraham had reason to believe that there were ten righteous people in Sodom. He counted Lot and his wife, his four daughters and their respective husbands (or fiances) as making up that quorum. Seeing there were fewer than ten good people whose presence could protect their town against impending doom, G’d departed (verse 33) as soon as He had heard Avraham speak about ten good people. G’d knew that there were no ten good people in Sodom, and He also knew that Avraham would not continue to plead for a lesser number to protect the town they lived in. If Avraham had quasi asked permission to continue for a number fewer than fifty each time he continued, this was because though he thoought that ten people might be sufficient to save a single one of these towns, he nevertheless assumed that the greater the total number of good people the more their combined presence would count to stir G’d’s mercy. We have a comment by Rashi on Leviticus 26,5 that when a great number of people perform the Torah their collective impact on G’d’s response to their conduct is disproportionate to their actual number; in other words, the more people keep the Torah the progressively greater is their influence. Avraham may have reasoned similarly in reverse. In our instance, G’d informed Avraham each time that even the smaller number that Avraham had mentioned would still be sufficient for Him to invoke the attribute of Mercy.   Now to the reason G’d’s response to Avraham’s plea varied, i.e. at first He said: “I will forgive the entire place for their sake (the fifty), whereas later on, G’d once said: “I will not destroy,” and  another time He said: “I will not do (it).” When G’d said “I will not destroy, He meant that though the people deserve to be destroyed, He would impose a different kind of punishment as a disciplinary measure. When He said; “I will not do it,” He meant that in the event discussed He would neither destroy the town nor subject it to harsh disciplinary measures. The reason for such mildness was the assumption that there would be ten good people in each of the towns. This entire paragraph teaches us a valuable lesson about the importance of a minimal congregation of ten good people and their impact on the fate of the larger community.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ואנכי עפר ואפר, ”though I am only dust and ashes.” The plain meaning of these words is: “I started out as עפר, “dust,” and I am destined to become אפר, “ash.” This is part of the standard confessional of the righteous. David also used similar phraseology in Psalms 103,14 כי הוא ידע יצרנו זכור כי עפר אנחנו, ”for He knows our various urges; He is mindful that we are dust.” Job 42,6 also made a similar comment על כן אמאס ונחמתי על עפר ואפר, “Therefore I recant and relent, being but dust and ashes.”
      A Midrashic approach based on Sotah 17: The descendants of Avraham were given two commandments as a reward for Avraham having described himself as “dust and ashes.” One is the commandment of Sotah, (the dust put in the water such a woman has to drink to prove her innocence. Numbers 5,17 and 24); the second one being the commandment of the red heifer whose ash purifies people who have become ritually impure through contact with he dead (Numbers 19,9-19). In fact we find that the Israelites collectively are referred to as אפרים (Jeremiah 31,19). The word may be understood as the plural of אפר, ash, <i>afarim</i>. [In that verse it is clear that the term אפרים is applied to the Jewish people as an endearment. Ed.] The reason for the plural may be a reference to the ash which Yitzchak almost turned out to be, as well as the ash Avraham would have been (if G’d had not miraculously saved him) when he submitted to a test of his faith  at the time Nimrod threw him into a furnace.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ואברהם שב למקומו “and Avraham went back to his own place.” According to the plain meaning of the text, “his own place” is a reference to Eloney Mamre. This is where he had first separated from the angels. 
  One may also understand the word למקומו as “to his customary preoccupation of entertaining visitors and guests.” Having fulfilled this מצוה in respect of the angels who had now departed he went back to his tent to look for other visitors to entertain. This was Avraham’s central virtue and whenever he was able to practice it he is described as “being in his element”, i.e. במקומו. Another way of explaining the word למקומו, is “to his regular emotional state.” As long as Avraham had been in a dialogue with G’d he was on a totally spiritual and intellectual level, not allowing for normal emotional responses which are part of the human condition. Now that  the immediate benevolent presence of G’d had departed he resumed his customary frame of mind and his approach to matters of a more terrestrial nature. The word מקומו של אדם “a person’s place,” defines the parameter within which certain people operate, are at home, and where they know their  place within the society they live in.
      A kabbalistic approach to this expression: the verse is a reference to the attribute of חסד, “loving kindness.” Seeing that attribute had failed to find within Sodom any deserving individuals who would enable it to become active on behalf of the town they lived in, this attribute now returned to its former place and left the field to the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical aspect of the words ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה, “the two messengers (angels) arrived at Sodom (19,1).” Shortly afterwards (19,29), the Torah writes: ויהי בשחת אלוקים את ערי הככר, וג', “when Elohim destroyed the towns in the valley, etc.” The attribute of Justice is not allowed to operate until it has received “authority” to do so from the attribute of Mercy. In 19,29 we find for the first time since Avraham had begun to plead that the name of G’d used by the Torah is the name representing the attribute of Justice. At this point in the story the attribute of Justice became active against people concerning whom the die had already been cast.  When Avraham is described in 22,6 as ויקח בידו את האש ואת המאכלת, “he took in his hand the fire and the knife (in preparation for slaughtering Yitzchak),” this expression also indicated that at that point the attribute of Mercy had handed over Yitzchak to the attribute of Justice. The words וילכו שניהם יחדו, “they both walked together,” which follow the expression that אלוקים יראה לו השה, “that G’d in His capacity of the attribute of Justice will select the lamb for Himself,” are a strong hint that what was about to happen was being orchestrated by the attribute of Justice. In that episode Yitzchak was the willing object of the attribute of Justice. We must not forget that basically, the attribute of Justice remains “bound,” before the attribute of Mercy as otherwise the world would be destroyed by the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical dimension of the words ויעקד את יצחק בנו, “he bound his son Yitzchak” (22,9),  and this is the meaning of the words ורב חסד, in Exodus 34,6, i.e. that the attribute of חסד, “love, kindness, mercy,” is stronger than the attribute of דין, “Justice.”  [Rabbi Chavell quotes commentaries on this which explain the words “he took the knife in his hand” to mean that Avraham took in his hand the combined attributes and spiritual forces of his son Yitzchak which are symbolised by “fire and knife.” When Yitzchak is in full possession of these two spiritual forces of his no creature could prevail against what is known in Rabbinic parlance as פחד יצחק. By Avraham gathering in his own hands these spiritual weapons of his son Yitzchak, such as at the time when he pleaded for the people of Sodom, the attribute of Justice (Yitzchak) could not operate at full capacity until Avraham again released these “weapons of Yitzchak” (after he had completed his plea).Yitzchak had not been born yet, it is clear that such terms as פחד יצחק used by the kabbalists, are not to be understood as something exclusively Yitzchak’s, but as similes for these spiritual forces. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה “When the two angels arrived at Sodom, etc.” At this point the Torah calls the men “angels.” In order to understand why the Torah switches between the terms “men” and the term “angels” according to the plain meaning of the text, we would have to say that whenever these messengers performed a mission involving mundane matters, matters which are the exclusive domain of terrestrial beings, the Torah refers to them as “men.” After they had completed their respective tasks on earth involving earthly creatures, the Torah reverts to calling them “angels.” They then assumed their original lofty stature. As far as a kabbalistic approach is concerned I have already dealt with this on 18,8.
     וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם, “Lot saw and rose to meet them.” Avraham had beheld these “men” already from afar as it was full daylight, i.e. “during the heat of the day,” and this is why the Torah had underlined “he ran towards them.” Lot, however, did not see them until they were close by as they arrived in the evening. This is why the Torah merely mentions that “he arose (from his seat) to welcome them.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ומצות אפה ויאכלו, “and he had baked unleavened bread, and they ate.” The reason the Torah mentions the kind of bread being served was to contrast it with the fact that Avraham never did serve bread to the angels. Here the Torah wanted to alert us to this. Here the angels did eat the bread as opposed to the meat which disappeared when it was served by Avraham to the angels. The “meal” when the angels were at Avraham’s resembled a sacrifice on the altar (compare our comments on 18,8).
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום, ”and the men of the town, the men of Sodom, etc.” The Torah wanted to hint that the men of Sodom and the men of “the city and the Tower” (in Genesis 11,4) had a great deal in common. Both were absolutely wicked. The men here described as “the men of the city,” were survivors of that episode [less than 100 years earlier]. (According to another view, these men were re-incarnates of the people who had died at the time of the Tower and they resurfaced a third time as re-incarnates and formed the rebels who joined Korach in his uprising. (Compare our author’s comment on Numbers 27,29)
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  'הנה נא לי שתי בנות וגו'...רק לאנשים האל וגו, “See here, I have two daughters, etc;...only to these men, etc.” Lot went to great lengths to protect the people who were his guests from any harm. Nonetheless his attempt to assuage the illegitimate demands of the townspeople to save these men at the expense of the chastity of his daughters revealed that his heart was not in the right place. He could not have performed a greater act of abandoning his own flesh and blood to the perverted lust of his compatriots than by his offer to let them do whatever “was good in their eyes” to his daughters. This is why our sages (Tanchuma Vayera 12) said: “according to standard civilized conduct a father risks his life in order to protect the innocence of his daughters. Lot, by contrast, tried to buy his own safety at the expense of the honor of his daughters.” This is why G’d said to him: “you are only preserving them from the men of Sodom in order to violate them yourself.” [a reference to the end of our chapter where Lot sired two sons who were mothered by his daughters. Ed.]
      You should know that what happened here was similar to the incident known as Pilegesh be-Givah” (Judges chapter 19), which triggered a civil war. In fact, Lot’s conduct was even worse than that of the aged host in that chapter. In that instance the local inhabitants were satisfied with violating the guests’ concubine, not molesting the host’s daughter who was a virgin. (Judges 19,23-25). In our instance the men of Sodom could not even be appeased when they were offered Lot’s two daughters to make sport with. Furthermore, in the incident at Givah “only” the men in their prime participated in that outrage, whereas here all the men “from young to old” participated in the attempt to commit this foul deed. Thus far the commentary of Nachmanides. Bereshit Rabbah 50,6 understands the words לאנשים האל to mean “these ‘men’ are messengers of G’d.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כי משחיתים אנחנו, “for we are about to destroy, etc.” They should have said: “G’d is about to destroy this place.” Instead they made it appear as if they had a free hand in the matter. This is why G’d did not allow them to move from the town until they had made an admission that they themselves were unable to do anything by themselves, but that they merely carried out a mission from G’d. This is the meaning of the line (verse 13) “and G’d has dispatched us to destroy it.“ What happened in this instance with the angels lends support to what we read in Job 4,18 הן בעבדיו לא יאמין ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה, “If He cannot trust His own servants, and casts reproach on His angels.” Another verse along similar lines is found in Job 15,15: הן בקדושיו לא יאמין ושמים לא זכו בעיניו, “He puts no trust in His holy ones; the heavens are not guiltless in His sight.” We find that even Moses was guilty of a similar slip of the tongue when — concerning the appointment of the chiefs of tens, fifty, hundred and thousands in Deut. 1,17 — he said: ”any matter which is too difficult for you, bring it to me so that I can hear it;” He was punished for this arrogant-sounding comment by being unable to resolve the problem posed by the daughters of Tzelofchod without first inquiring from G’d about their status as potential heirs. The prophet Samuel also once became guilty of such arrogance when he described himself to King Saul as “I am the Seer” (Samuel I 9,19). G’d showed him that he had been arrogant when he was unable to pick the son of Yishai who was to replace Saul as King. He had picked Eliav (Samuel I 16,6). G’d had to tell him that whereas he, Samuel, was only able to judge exteriors it was reserved for G’d to judge a person’s interior (Samuel I 16,7). David too was once guilty of such arrogance when he said ותורתך בתוך מעי , “and your Torah is in my entrails.” [He meant I can divine Your law as a gut-feeling. Ed.] (Psalms 40,9). David was punished in that he forgot the kind of commandment which even children in elementary school are familiar with. [I presume that the author refers to David having forgotten that the Holy Ark must be carried only on the shoulders of the Levites and not in a carriage. This law is clearly spelled out in Numbers 7,9. Had he not forgotten, Uzzah might not have died. compare Samuel II 6,7. Ed.]  The prophetess Devorah who complimented herself even in the song of thanksgiving when she said עד שקמתי אם בישראל “until I arose to function as a mother for Israel,” (Judges 5,7). According to our sages the moment she said these words the Holy Spirit departed from her and she regained it only in verse 12 of the same chapter when she said: עורי עורי דבורה דברי שיר, “awake, awake Deborah utter a song.” As to the verse in Job 4,18 in which we heard that G’d even has occasion to rebuke the angels, this was a reference to the incident here where the angels arrogated to themselves the right to say: “we are going to destroy the place.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 50,9 the angels who were guilty of this statement were not allowed to return to their celestial habitat nor to perform another function on earth for 138 years, i.e. not until “and here angels of the Lord were ascending and descending on it,” (the ladder in Yaakov’s dream in Genesis 28,12). This vision is taken as proof that only at that time were these angels allowed back to earth to perform a function there. From all the above we learn that if someone makes use of G’d’s glory to enhance his own reputation he will face a major punishment.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אל תביט אחריך, ”do not look behind you!” Rashi comments on these words: “you have been an accessory to their evil deeds and you have only been saved by the merit of Avraham. Hence you are not entitled to watch them die.
      Nachmanides claims that the reason the angel forbade Lot and his family to look behind them was that the air behind them was potentially lethal, and when they would turn around to look they would themselves become victims of the poisoned atmosphere. He argues that even looking at any other diseases, i.e. the microbes which bring them about, are in themselves a danger to those who look at them. Nachmanides singles out rabies, claiming that looking at the urine of a person bitten by a rabid animal is liable to infect the person who has looked. He claims that the mere thinking of this is liable to produce such an infection. 
  Apparently, in those days, when someone had been bitten by a rabid dog he was not allowed to drink any liquids at all. Also, if people had been bitten and were desperate to have something to drink they would see a reflection of the dog that bit them in the liquid.
      A Midrashic interpretation: The reason the angels forbade Lot to look back was that he would see the presence of G’d as it was pouring sulphur and brimstone on the valley. Such a vision would prove fatal for him. Irith, Lot’s wife, had feelings of compassion for her married daughters whom she had left behind, and this is what caused her to turn around. She wanted to see if these daughters now followed them. She beheld the שכינה instead and turned into a pillar of salt.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   וה' המטיר, “and G’d had made it rain, etc.” We find three divergent opinions amongst our sages as to the meaning of the words in this verse. [The basic difficulty is the repeated mention of the name of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Mercy in this verse.]  Rabbi Yehudah bar Seymon in Bereshit Rabbah 51,2 understands the angel Gavriel as being the subject of the words וה' המטיר, “and G’d made it rain.” The second expression: מאת ה' מן השמים, he understands as referring to G’d personally; Rabbi Eliezer said that wherever the name of ה' is introduced with the prefix ו, it refers to “G’d with His celestial court.” Rabbi Yitzchak said we find in both the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, as well as in the Hagiographa that ordinary individuals are apt to repeat their own names. He quotes the following verse as example Genesis 4,23: “Lemech said to his wives: ‘wives of Lemech, etc.’” Thus far the quotation from the above Midrash. So you see that there are three interpretations of this verse. Rabbi Yehudah considers Gavriel as the messenger of destruction and he feels that this angel was so described by the words וה' המטיר על סדום ועמורה גפרית ואש, “G’d (His messenger) had made it rain sulphur and brimstone on the city.”  Rabbi Eliezer feels that the verse testifies that both G’d Himself and His celestial court agreed to this form of punishment, but that it emanated from G’d directly. Rabbi Yitzchak sees no need to read between the lines of the text but considers the syntax as perfectly normal.
      A kabbalistic approach: The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is the correct one. Shemot Rabbah 12,1 postulates as an important rule  that every place we encounter the word וה', this is a reference to “G’d plus His celestial court of advisors.” 
  You need to appreciate that the “so-called celestial court,” is referred to by G’d as אנכי האל בית א-ל, I am the G’d of Bet El” (31,13). Yonathan ben Uziel translates the words קדוש קדוש... קדוש Isaiah 6,3 as קדיש בשמי מרומא עלאה בית שכינתה, “the Holy One in the lofty heavens in the house of His residence.” Yonathan ben Uziel distinguishes there between the expression “house” and “residence.” Concerning such a “house” G’d had said of Moses (Numbers 12,7) “He is at home in My entire ‘house.’” This is the בת which has been emanated from the יסוד העולם as mentioned by Nachmanides in his commentary on Genesis 24,1 וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “and the Lord had blessed Avraham with “something called בכל.” This is also what the Torah had in mind when it writes in Exodus 13,21 וה' הולך לפניהם יומם “and G’d was walking ahead of them by day,” and this is followed a short while later by ויסע מלאך האלו-הים “and the angel of the Lord traveled, etc.” (Exodus 14,19). According to Nachmanides the words מלאך האלוקים in that verse are not to be understood as a possessive clause, but the meaning is similar to 18,17  where G’d had spoken of “Himself” in the third person, i.e. the words המכסה אני מאברהם “shall I hide from Avraham, etc., followed by: “seeing that they will observe the path of the Lord, etc.” (instead of My path), as you would have expected if G’d personally had said the words “shall I hide from Avraham, etc.” did not really refer to Himself but to an agent, a מלאך, who because he spoke in the name of the Lord is described as if it were the Lord Himself speaking. The verse there goes on to speak about למען הביא ה', “in order that G’d may make come true all that He said to Avraham.” Had G’d’ personally been the speaker in that verse, the Torah would have written אביא, “in order that I may bring upon Avraham all that I said concerning him.” As pointed out previously, every time the prefix ו appears before the name of G’d it is an allusion to the angel who at that particular time acts on behalf of G’d. You are already aware that the angel who runs G’d’s universe on His behalf is called מטטרן so that it is easy to recognise an allusion to him in the very word המטיר.
     מאת ה' מן השמים, “from G’d from heaven.” This is a reference to the “great” name of G’d. We find something similar in Kings I 8,32 when Solomon offered a prayer to G’d on the occasion of dedicating the Temple he had built. He appealed to the G’d in heaven to listen to his prayer by saying ואתה תשמע השמים, “You, the heaven, will hear,” instead of saying ואתה תשמע בשמים, “You will hear in heaven.” Clearly, Solomon did not pray to “heaven,” he prayed to G’d. The wording of Solomon’s prayer indicates that he expected an agent of G’d  whom he referred to as “heaven,” to hear his prayer. The reason the Torah referred to the agent of G’d who carries out G’d’s judgment as G’d is because for the moment he acts in lieu of G’d Himself. We have encountered the expression “I will go down,” or “we will descend,” both in Genesis 18,21 and Genesis 11,4 prior to such judgment being carried out. In each such instance the reference is to the agent of G’d carrying out the punishment.
  
  Verse 25
  
  .ויהפך את הערים האל , “He overturned these towns.” The choice of the word האל to describe “these” instead of the more common ההם, is somewhat puzzling. The reason the Torah chose this expression may be that two of the names of the towns had been named before. By using the prefix ה before the word האל the Torah may hint that actually five towns were being overturned by the angel in charge of this destruction. The reason that Avraham at the time had commenced his plea by mentioning the number fifty was also because he was aware that each of five towns required a minimum quorum of ten good people each in order for the whole town to have any hope to escape immediate judgment.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ותבט אשתו מאחריו ותהי נציב מלח, ”his wife looked behind him and was turned into a pillar of salt.” It is possible to understand the word “behind him” as referring to the angel who overturned these towns, seeing the angel has already been credited with this activity in verse 25 where the Torah mentioned sulfur and fire being rained on the towns. The reason Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt may have had to do with the power of the fire [which dehydrated all fluids and left only solids which endure like salt? Ed.] When we find Moses refer to this event in Deut. 29,22  where he credits “G’d” with having turned that area into uninhabitable sulfur and salt, something completely burned, he refers to the agent of G’d who performed this as אפו וחמתו. The fact that he first mentioned “G’d,” and then “אף and חמה,” indicates that these were the names of the respective angels who had carried out this destruction.
  ותהי נציב מלח, “she became a pillar of salt.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that the word ותהי in our verse refers to the “earth.” In other words, the earth beneath her turned into a pillar of salt, not she herself. Our sages interpret <i>vatehi</i> that Lot’s wife turned into salt herself. The Midrash relates that a poor person came to her door to borrow salt and she refused to give any, and was therefore punished measure for measure: by salt she has sinned and with a pillar of salt she was punished. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויהי בשחת אלוקים, ”it was when G’d destroyed, etc.” The word אלוקים here refers to the angel of G’d who performed this task. ויזכור אלוקים את אברהם, “G’d remembered Avraham.” Here the word אלוקים refers to G’d Himself. וישלח את לוט, “He sent away Lot, etc.” As soon as the name of Avraham is mentioned G’d saves those who cleave to him. The meaning of the verse is that had it not been for Avraham, Lot would still have been in Charan, his land and his birthplace. He left his birthplace only for the sake of Avraham and in his honour. This is what the Torah testified in Genesis 12,4 “Avraham went as G’d had told him, and Lot went with him.” Having this in mind, the Torah says here that G’d remembered Avraham and that as a consequence He saved Lot. The Torah is careful not to say that  Lot was saved because G’d remembered Avraham. This what our sages meant when they said (Tanchuma Vayera 9) “one may save the cover of a book together with the book itself just as one may save the bag containing the phylacteries together with the phylacteries contained therein even if there was also money inside that container at the same time” (in case of a fire on the Sabbath). The reason for this is that the container or cover respectively lend additional distinction to the phylacteries or the sacred text inside the cover. From these words of the Tanchuma we learn “hail to the righteous as well as to those who support them.” We can support this from Genesis 8,1: “G’d remembered Noach and all the creatures that were with him inside the Ark.”
     בהפוך את הערים אשר ישב בהן לוט, “when He overturned the towns in which Lot used to reside.” The question arises why G’d chose such a drastic means of punishing the people of Sodom. It is likely that other nations or the inhabitants of people in other times throughout history have been guilty of similar or even worse conduct and neither they nor the earth they lived on have been wiped out. Besides, seeing that Avraham the most successful exponent of the efficacy of repentance was alive, why was he not encouraged to try and influence the lifestyle of the Sodomites? If he would have achieved a measure of success this would have prevented this human disaster! The principal reason that the judgment of the Sodomites was so harsh was the fact that they lived in the Holy Land. This land cannot tolerate sinful people for long and has always expelled them as one vomits indigestible food. 
  What happened to the Sodomites was an illustration of how the very earth of ארץ ישראל responds to the perversion of all human and religious values such as practiced by the people who live on it. Sodom’s destruction was to serve as a warning to the Israelites in the future not to become guilty of similar acts. Before the Israelites conquered the land they themselves became witnesses to the manner in which the land vomited the Canaanites. Even the spies had described the land as “consuming its inhabitants,” (Numbers 13,32) but they had misinterpreted the cause for this. For all these reasons Moses recalled what happened to Sodom and the Sodomites in his parting address to the Jewish people in Deut. 29,22. He warned his people of what would happen to them if they failed to adhere to the Torah and would forsake its laws.
  
  Verse 30
  
   וישב בהר ושתי בנותיו עמו , “he settled in the mountains and his two daughters with him.” The action which the daughters of Lot took in order to receive semen from their father was something novel. They were chaste and were too shy to ask their father outright to impregnate them, something which  was perfectly permissible in their time. It had never been forbidden for a father to have a child from his daughter (Sanhedrin 58). 
  Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 51,10 give these daughters credit for having wanted to preserve the human species as they thought they and their father were the sole survivors during that generation. Seeing that their mother had died during the flight from Sodom, their father was left without a mate and had no other chance of perpetuating the human species unless his daughters would give birth to a male child  by being impregnated by him. This is why they went on record with the words: “there is no other man on earth to have intercourse with us” (verse 31) in order to justify what would otherwise appear as frivolous conduct. This is why the Torah refrained from using any expression criticising their conduct as incestuous or licentious. Their intentions were absolutely pure. This is also why the older daughter was granted the distinction of becoming the ancestor of Ruth, eventual great-grandmother of King David who accepted the 606 commandments of the Torah which Gentiles are not obligated to observe. The younger daughter’s offspring included  Naamah from the kingdom of Ammon who became a daughter-in-law of King Solomon when she married his only son Rechavam (Kings I 14,31). In this manner both of Lot’s daughters acquired a share in the Kingdom of David. This is also why our sages in Baba Kama 38 have said that the reason G’d commanded the Israelites not to harass either the Moabites or the Ammonites when they were traveling through the desert (Deut. 2,19) was the conduct of these peoples’ founding mothers, i.e. Lot’s daughters. Our sages go so far as to quote G’d as saying that it had only been these two פרידות טובות, “good seeds,” which emerged from these two nations which justified Him in keeping these people alive in history. This particular portion of the Torah is one of a small number concerning which the sages said that it may be read both in the original Hebrew and may be translated into the language the readers are familiar with. To the question why this is not obvious, the sages answered that there was a contrary consideration, namely that out of concern for the honor of the family purity of Avraham this passage should not be read in translation for unlearned people. The Talmud decided that such a consideration was not sufficient to withhold the information in our portion from wider audiences.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   לכה נשקה, ”let us give a drink of wine.” The daughter should have said לכי (feminine form) instead of לכה (masculine form), as the older daughter urged her sister to do something which is the prerogative of the male who initiates such an activity. Our sages in Yevamot 65 interpreted the words וכבשוה in Genesis 1,28 as meaning not only that the human species is to subjugate nature and the animals, but as reference to the fact that “conquering” is the prerogative of the male rather than that of the female. This is why the word is spelled defectively, the letter ו being missing. This is a hint that the male also “conquers” the female. The words “for there is no man on earth, etc.” were the older daughter’s way of saying that since it is impossible to proceed in the way civilization and nature had decreed, they, the daughters, had to initiate the act of procreation in this instance. The Torah reflects what had happened by writing לכה instead of לכי when describing the introductory remark by the older daughter to her younger sister.
      I believe that the letter ה in the word לכה is justified as it is a reference to the attribute of Justice. We find other examples of such usage of the letter ה such as in Exodus 3,10 when G’d sends Moses on his mission to Pharaoh and says to him: לכה ואשלחך אל פרעה, “go on and I will send you to Pharaoh.” This was a hint that the attribute of Justice would be invoked against Pharaoh. When the Torah continued in that instance with the words וזה לך האות, “and this will be the sign for you,” a better translation would be: “this extra letter ה which I, G’d, have added to the word לך, ”go!” is your sign that I will invoke the attribute of Justice against Pharaoh.” The wine which the daughters gave Lot to drink is an allusion to the attribute of Justice (see our commentary on Genesis 9,20). This is why the Kabbalists have said that we are not to recite a benediction over wine unless water had first been added to it. [They meant that undiluted red wine represents an undiluted attribute of Justice, not a symbol we want to raise to our lips. Ed.] Actually, in doing what they did, the daughters of Lot copied what the first woman Chavah had done when she seduced her husband Adam. According to the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 19,5) she had squeezed the juice from the grapes of the tree of knowledge and thus made Adam drink from the fruit of the forbidden tree. The blood of menstruation which women suffer from was the punishment for that particular sin. The appearance of blood is so similar to the colour of red wine that it serves as a reminder of the sin. This is also the mystical dimension of the verses in which blood and wine are linked linguistically such as in Deut. 32,14 ודם ענב תשתה חמר, “and foaming grape-blood was your drink.” Another verse demonstrating a similar affinity between grapes (wine) and blood is Genesis 49,11 כבס ביין לבושו ובדם ענבים סותה, “he washes his garments in wine, his robe in blood of grapes.” The additional letters ה in this verse are not gratuitous; this is what our sages meant when they said in Niddah 31: “man fertilises the white part of the ovum whereas woman fertilises the red part.”  
  In this instance the sin committed by the mother (Chavah) and the daughters (Lot’s) was identical in that it was committed by means of wine which has brought much tragedy on mankind. Possibly, the additional word אבינו, “our father,” in this verse is even an allusion to the father of mankind, Adam. It reminds us that he too had been given wine to drink by his wife.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ותשקין את אביהן יין בלילה הוא, “they gave their father wine to drink in that night.” Actually, the Torah should have written בלילה ההוא instead of בלילה הוא. The absence of the prefix ה suggests that the word הוא is a reference to G’d, i.e. that it is one of G’d’s names. This is why the sages said that Lot’s daughters enjoyed a divine assist in their undertaking. The wine itself was found in their cave. They had not brought it with them. G’d had provided it to make their undertaking easier. [G’d’s interest was to commence the process which would ultimately result in the birth of King David.]
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  . ותלד הבכירה בן ותקרא שמו מואב, “the older one gave birth to a son whom she called Moav (from the father).” Our sages say: “do not read this name as מואב, but as מאב, “from the father.” The naming of the baby was certainly not a chaste thing to do. The younger daughter, by contrast, displayed more discretion when she named her son בן עמי, “a member of my people.” Our sages in Horiot 10 taught that G’d does not withhold a reward even for such minor things as appropriate conversational expressions. When G’d told Moses not to harass either Moav or Ammon, He used different terms for the type of harassment the Israelites were not allowed to employ. In the case of Moav (Deut. 2,9), G’d said אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה “do not harass Moav and do not provoke them into war,” whereas in the case of the בני עמון G’d said:  אל תצורם ואל תתגר בם “do not harass them or start a fight with them (Deut. 2,19).” The latter were not to be harassed in any shape or form by the Israelites. This added prohibition was the way G’d rewarded their ancestral mother for employing discreet language when naming her son. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה, “Avimelech the King of Geror sent (servants) and he abducted Sarah.” Seeing that Sarah had once before been abducted by Pharaoh in Egypt and G’d had performed great miracles punishing Pharaoh by means of afflictions so that he had returned her to Avraham, why did Avraham repeat the same mistake in Gerar which he had committed once before and which had resulted in Sarah’s almost being raped? Why did he again describe Sarah as his sister? Was he really entitled to assume that G’d would once again perform a miracle for him to extricate him from a situation which he had brought about by his own machinations?
      Rabbeinu Chananel wrote that this time Avraham divorced Sarah when he came to Geror because he was afraid that the local people might kill him if he were to admit that Sarah was his wife. Nonetheless, G’d did not allow her to be separated from Avraham. Neither did He allow the righteous woman Sarah to remain with the wicked Avimelech as it is not G’d’s way to “allow the scepter of the wicked to rest upon the land allotted to the righteous” (Psalms, 125,3). The divorce was considered invalid as it had been prompted only by Avraham fearing for his life. This is what the Torah meant when G’d described Sarah as בעולת בעל, a married woman,” in the dream in which He appeared to Avimelech. He made it plain to Avimelech that the technical status of Sarah as a divorced woman was caused only by circumstances over which Avraham had not had any control at the time.  When Avimelech challenged G’d by saying: “will You kill people although they are innocent?” He referred to the status of Sarah as a divorced woman, claiming that he could not have known that her divorce was legally invalid. By using the expression הגוי, he implied that amongst the Gentiles there is no distinction between divorces which result from the free will of the husband and others which were the result of duress. Furthermore, he claimed that he was totally righteous not having violated her. So why would G’d threaten to kill him? Another factor in his favour was that her brother Avraham had personally told him that Sarah was his sister, something which Sarah herself had confirmed time after time so that he could claim he had taken her not only in innocence but that even his hands were clean seeing he had not forced his attentions upon her!
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  .  הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג,“are You going to kill also innocent people?” It is entirely possible that Avimelech referred to himself when he said: “are You going to kill a “people?” He meant that as a result of killing him, G’d would cause the death of the צדיק, the righteous Avraham, seeing that the king’s servants would then kill Avraham. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . וגם אמנם, “and besides, indeed, etc.” The word אמנם is equivalent to אמונה בפי, “I spoke truthfully; she is my sister seeing that she is the daughter of my father.” Actually this was not quite so seeing Sarah was a daughter of Haran, Avraham’s brother, a son of Terach, as we know from Genesis 11,29 “the daughter of Haran, father of both Yiskah (Sarai) and Milkah.” We learn from here that grandchildren may be described as children. The words “daughter of my father” therefore meant “daughter of my father’s son.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  .ויהי כאשר התעו אותי אלוקים מבית אבי , “it was when G’d made me wander from my father’s home, etc.” By the choice of the word התעו, which also means “led me astray,” Avraham hinted that his father Terach was an idolater and that his emigration was due to his father’s teachings and the making of strange gods he had been forced to leave that environment and to move to another country and to say to his wife: “this is the loving kindness you can perform for me, etc.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   הנה נתתי אלף כסף , “here I have already paid one thousand pieces of silver to your brother, etc.” Avimelech mentioned this seeing that the Torah had reported earlier (verse 14) that he had given to Avraham both livestock and both male and female slaves at the time he returned his wife Sarah to him (as compensation for mental anguish?). Here the Torah put a value on these gifts Avimelech had given to Avraham, i.e. that the combined value was 1,000 pieces of silver. The word “your brother” may be understood as a form of sarcasm, i.e. the one whom you described to me as your “brother.” Avimelech described this money as הוא לך כסות עינים, “it will serve you as vindication.” He meant that the fact that he gave this money to Avraham instead of to her would make it plain to all who became aware of this that it was not a payment for sexual favours received.” Now that he had given the money (or the presents) to Avraham instead, it would be plain to all that he, Avimelech, had been forced to part with this money against his will, as a penalty for having illegally abducted Sarah. People know that their King hates Avraham and wishes him dead. The object of the exercise was to convince the entourage of Avraham and Sarah as well as everybody else in the world that she was quite blameless in the whole episode.
     ואת כל ונוכחת, “and you are cleared before everyone.” Neither Avimelech’s gifts to Avraham nor his conciliatory words to Sarah had sufficed to put her at ease. In spite of all this Sarah still argued with Avimelech and was not willing to forgive him for the shame of having been abducted. This was due to Sarah’s extreme modesty. If we understand the verse in this fashion the words ואת כל belong to the following word ונוכחת. Another way of understanding these words is to assume that they belong to the previous words לכל אשר אתך, “for all the people that form part of your entourage.” In that case the word ונוכחת means that “as of now you are vindicated.”  The Talmud Baba Kama 93 understands the words כסות עינים, “cover for the eyes,” as a curse Avimelech applied to Sarah’s offspring. The Talmud claims that this curse was fulfilled when Yitzchak became blind in his old age (Genesis 27,1). The Talmud uses this example to teach that one should never discount the curse uttered even by seemingly unimportant people. Another lesson learned from this incident is that Avimelech criticized Sarah with these words saying: “let the fact that you incorrectly described your husband as your brother be a lesson to you. Act more honestly in the future.”
      From a moralistic point of view the words לכל אשר אתך imply that in the future if you want to call Avraham “my brother,” do so within the confines of your home, people who are familiar with you. As far as the world at large is concerned do not make such misleading statements, as they are apt to boomerang and you will become their victim.
      Bereshit Rabbah 52,12 takes the words literally and interprets that Avimelech advised Sarah to keep even her eyes covered so that her dazzling beauty should not arouse sinful thoughts in those who looked at her. Still another meaning of the words כסות עינים is: “something made of embroidered material with patterns known as עינים.”
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויתפלל אברהם אל האלוקים, “Avraham prayed to G’d, etc.” Using a kabbalistic approach, the (unusual) name for G’d used here by Avraham is a reference to the tenth emanation. [this is the “lowest” of the ten emanations and therefore closest to our world. Ed.] As a result, his prayer was answered immediately as we read in the very same verse that “G’d healed Avimelech, his wife, his maidservants, and all those who were expecting to give birth could do so again and did so successfully.” As a result of Avraham’s prayer the attribute of Justice which had been active in that region was supplanted by the attribute of Mercy. We had previously read that the attribute of Mercy i.e. ה', had been exchanged for the attribute of Justice as you will see by reading the text carefully. In verse three G’d appears to Avimelech as אלוקים, i.e. as the attribute of Justice in honour of Avraham. When Avimelech justified his behaviour he addressed the attribute א-דני. G’d responds to him as ה-אלוקים, the definite article ה indicating that it was the same attribute that had appeared to him in verse three. At that point G’d tells Avimelech that He too is aware of Avimelech’s thoughts as well as his deeds. G’d used the אנכי rather than the pronoun אני when referring to Himself. This word אנכי refers to the One who is invisible, who was instrumental in preventing Avimelech from committing any sin with Sarah. This aspect of G’d is less manifest than that represented by the term אני when employed as G’d speaking, or identifying himself to His creatures. Perhaps the absence of the letter א in the word מחטו-לי  in verse 6 is a hint that when someone commits a sin against G’d [as distinct from a sin against his fellow man, Ed.] he actually rebels against G’d in His Uniqueness, Oneness, i.e. against the invisible non-manifest G’d. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  . כי עצור עצר ה' בעד כל רחם ”for the Lord had closed fast every womb, etc.” This refers both to large and small orifices. This is why the Torah repeats the verb עצר. The words בעד כל רחם are a reference to the closing of the birth-canal; it included all orifices amongst man and beast. Our sages in Baba Kama 92 state that even the hens in Avimelech’s palace stopped laying eggs. At this point the Torah spelled out the afflictions suffered by both Avimelech and his household, whereas up until now it had not specified the nature of these afflictions. It had also not mentioned Avimelech by name until he was healed in order to preserve as much of the Royal Dignity and as a sign of respect for Sarah. These names were mentioned only when they served the immediate purpose of enhancing the stature of Sarah. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . וה' פקד את שרה כאשר אמר, “and G’d had remembered Sarah just as He had said.” This means  she became pregnant. ויעש ה' לשרה כאשר דבר, “and G’d did for Sarah as He had spoken.” This is a reference to her giving birth. This is why the Torah immediately follows by recording: “she became pregnant and gave birth.” The reason the Torah wrote this paragraph immediately after having informed us of the closing of the birth-canals in Avimelech’s household, etc., is to remind us that both the “so-called” natural process of becoming pregnant and giving birth and the inability to do so are in G’d’s hands. He alone is in charge of who becomes pregnant and who does not.
      The Midrash (Tanchuma Vayera 15) uses this verse to remind us of Ezekiel 17,24: “Then shall all the trees of the field know that it is I the Lord who have abased the lofty tree and exalted the lowly tree, who have dried up the green tree and made the withered tree bud. I the Lord have spoken, and I will act.” According to this Midrash the prophet referred to Sancheriv when he spoke about G’d “abasing the lofty tree,” seeing that in Ezekiel 31,3 Ashur (Sancheriv’s country) is described as “a cedar in Lebanon with beautiful branches of lofty stature.” On the other hand, the words: “I have exalted the lowly tree,” are a reference to the Jewish people who debased themselves as we know from Maleachi 2,9: “I too have made you despicable and vile in the eyes of all the people...said the Lord of Hosts.” The words: “I have dried out the green tree,” are a reference to Avimelech of whom the Torah said that G’d had closed up all his orifices, whereas the words “and I have made the withered tree bud,” refer to Sarah. The words: “I the Lord have spoken and I have acted,” refer to our verse in which G’d is reported as having remembered Sarah. As to the choice of the word והשם, “and the Lord,” Rabbi Yitzchak said: we find that the Torah writes in connection with the Sotah, the wife suspected of infidelity who had secreted herself with another man (Numbers 5,28), “but if the woman had not defiled herself and remained pure, etc.” Such a description fits Sarah who had been alone  with Pharaoh in Egypt and Avimelech in the land of the Philistines and had retained her purity on both occasions. Such a woman had certainly established a claim that G’d should remember her. This is why the paragraph starts with the prefix ו, i.e. “and” in front of the word השם, “The Lord.”
  
  Verse 2
  
   למועד אשר דבר אותו אלוקים, “at the appointed time G’d had spoken of.” In this instance the word מועד is a time which G’d announced directly to Avraham when he was about to circumcise himself (compare 17,21) when He said “at this time in the coming year.” It was when Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah and Avram’s name to Avraham.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ויעש אברהם משתה גדול, “Avraham prepared a great feast.” There is no doubt that the notables in the land were invited to this feast seeing that the birth of Yitzchak had been a most remarkable event. Also, Avraham was a very wealthy man, and it is quite possible that even kings of surrounding countries attended this feast. We know that kings and other rulers sought out Avraham’s advice and made a point of being on good terms with him (compare 21,23). As the occasion was one of physical indulgence, the names of the participants have not been mentioned by the Torah. We find that Scripture does make a point of mentioning who went to a house of mourning as these people troubled themselves to share in someone’s else’s grief. This is why the Book of Job mentions not only who came to visit him but also that these people traveled a great distance in order to offer their support to Job in such a time. (compare Job 2,11) This caused Solomon to say in Kohelet: 7,2 “it is better to go to a house of mourning than to a house of feasting.” By not mentioning the names of the participants the Torah hints that  all pleasures in this life are only vain and pointless.
     ביום הגמל את יצחק, ”on the day Yitzchak was  weaned.” It is customary for people to throw a party when a baby is born or on the day it is being circumcised, in order to honour the fulfillment of the commandment. We need to explore why Avraham had waited so long (24 months according to Rashi) before throwing this party. It is possible that he delayed because he wanted to wait until the day Yitzchak would begin to study the Torah. This is not as strange as it may appear at first glance as according to tradition Avraham himself was only three years old when he first recognised that there is a G’d in heaven who is the prime cause of the universe’s existence (compare Nedarim 32). This is why he did not make this festive meal either on the day of Yitzchak’s birth or on the day he was circumcised. He wanted the weaning to coincide with the joy of introducing his son to Torah-study, a joy of which David said פקודי ה' משמחי לב, “The Lord’s commandments fill the heart with joy” (Psalms 19,9). We have another verse in Isaiah 28,9 את מי יורה דעה, ואת מי יבין שמועה? גמולי מחלב, ”to whom would he give instruction? To whom expound a message? To those newly weaned from milk.” As soon as the baby is weaned it becomes sanctified to be separated and trained in the service of the Lord. From that point on Yitzchak would become potentially ready to be a burnt-offering for G’d according to Bereshit Rabbah 64,3. As such he was not allowed to leave the sacred precincts of the Holy Land just as such an offering must not leave the sacred precincts of the Holy Temple.
   Furthermore, it is a well known fact that a father’s love for his son is not usually something that develops strongly from the day he is born or is weaned, but after he has been weaned and begins to grow up.
      A Midrashic interpretation sees in the words ביום הגמל את יצחק an allusion to ביום ה'ג מל יצחק, that Avraham circumcised Yitzchak on the eighth’s day. This would be the basis for our tradition to make a festive meal on the day we circumcise our children, seeing that according to that Midrash  (Pessikta Zutrata on this verse) the meal described in the Torah did take place on the day Yitzchak was circumcised. The custom is perfectly legitimate. Moreover, concerning this David said (Psalms 50,5) אספו לי חסידי כורתי בריתי עלי זבח, “Bring in My devotees. who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice!”
  
  Verse 9
  
  . מצחק, “making sport.” The word is a euphemism for idolatry, as well as murder and incestuous sexual relations. The subject of Ishmael’s and Yitzchak’s quarrel concerned the inheritance. Ishmael said to Yitzchak: “I am the firstborn and as such I am entitled two thirds (two parts) of the inheritance.” When they were out in the field Ishmael would shoot arrows aimed at Yitzchak. This is the true meaning of Proverbs 26,18-19: כמתלהלה היורה זקים חצים ומות. כן איש רמה את רעהו ואמר הלא משחק אני. “Like a man who throws firebrands, arrows and death; is who deceives his neighbour claiming “I am only joking.” We can derive this from Sarah’s reply: “the son of this slave-woman will not inherit together with my son “ This is the way Rashi explained these words.
      Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the word מצחק as meaning “playing.” The activity was normal for any young boy but Sarah was jealous of the fact that Ishmael was senior to her son in years.
      Nachmanides understands the word to mean that Ishmael was disparaging Yitzchak, insulting him by belittling him. This is why Sarah emphasised that Ishmael was “the son of the Egyptian woman Hagar,” i.e. the son of a slave. The Torah need merely have written that “Ishmael was mocking,” and we would all have known to whom the words referred. The Torah used this introduction to justify Sarah’s request to expel both the mother and her son as the penalty for a slave who mocks his master is death. Sarah did not demand that the death-penalty be imposed but was satisfied if Avraham would expel both Ishmael and his mother. The whole episode caused Avraham a great deal of anguish; he was in a dilemma. The Torah underlines that his dilemma was על אודות בנו, ‘on account of his son’, not on account of Hagar who had served as his concubine when he slept with her and she conceived Ishmael. Had Sarah demanded only that Ishmael’s mother be expelled, thus neutralising her negative influence on her son, Avraham would not have objected at all.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . וישכם אברהם בבוקר ויקח לחם וחמת מים, “Avraham rose early in the morning; he took bread and a skin-bottle of water, etc.” He should have given Hagar silver and gold and camels to transport both her, Ishmael, and their belongings seeing he had plenty of money to spare. After all, had he not prayed for his son’s welfare in 17,18 saying to G’d: לו ישמעאל יחיה לפניך, “if only Ishmael live (a good life) in Your presence?” However, seeing that Sarah had told him to expel Hagar and her son, and G’d had told him to obey everything that Sarah said to him (verse 12), Avraham complied and expelled them with the minimum of creature comforts plus a survival kit only. This is Nachmanides’ view.
      One may view the fact that Avraham provided Hagar with bread and water as an allusion to something that he foresaw concerning the future when his descendants would be oppressed by the Arabs. He foresaw that the Ishmaelites would hate the Jews more than any other nation on earth hated them. Avraham was careful not to deny Hagar and Ishmael the necessities to ensure their survival, something with which Jews provide even their enemies. He modeled himself after Proverbs 25,21 “If your enemy is hungry feed him bread; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . כי שמע אלוקים אל קול הנער באשר הוא שם, ”for G’d has heeded the cry of the lad in his present state.” This means  that “I” will give him water and he will drink it before leaving this site. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 16 learn from here that a person is not judged or convicted for sins which G’d foresees that he will commit in the future. He is judged merely on the basis of his present state of guilt or innocence. This is the meaning of the otherwise redundant words באשר הוא שם.
  
  Verse 18
  
   קומי שאי את הנער, “arise and lift up the lad, etc.” The angel meant that after Ishmael had drunk from the well Hagar should lift him and lead him by her hand. 
  According to the sequence of the story as related in the Torah Ishmael must have been between 16 and 17 years of age at that time. He was born when Avraham was 86 years old (16,16). Yitzchak was born when Ishmael was 14 years old as the Torah describes Avraham as being 100 years of age when he was born. Two more years (minimum) had elapsed until Yitzchak was weaned. This means that this episode took place when Ishmael was at least 16 years old. This raises the question why Avraham placed a 16 year old on his mother’s shoulder when he expelled them? (verse 14).  Should you argue that the words ואת הילד in verse 14  do not refer to the words על שכמה, “on her shoulder,” the fact that the Torah describes Hagar as “throwing the child under one of the bushes” (verse 16) makes it clear that she must have been carrying him first. Alternatively, she had held him in her lap and when he cried too much she threw him off her lap. Another difficulty in this verse is that the Torah suddenly refers to Ishmael as הילד, “the child,” although previously (verse 12, G’d speaking) he had been referred to as הנער, “the lad, the adolescent.”  The word ילד is usually reserved for very young children, certainly not for a sixteen-year  old boy. (compare ויגדל הילד ויגמל, “the child grew up and was weaned.” This suggests that already when being weaned the description ילד no longer applies, verse 8) Furthermore, the angel had told Hagar to lift up the נער, “the lad,” not the ילד. In addition we see that in verse 20  the Torah speaks of “G’d being with the נער, “the lad,” and that “he grew up.” We can only fall back on the principle of אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה that the Torah is not obligated to relate events in their chronological order.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   אם תשקור לי ולניני ולנכדי , “that you will not deal falsely with me nor with my son nor with my grandson.” Avimelech demanded two separate covenants. 1) That Avraham would not drive his children out of the land. 2) Avraham’s descendants should not destroy the fruit and produce belonging to the Philistines. This is why he added: ועם הארץ אשר גרת בה “and the land wherein you have dwelled.” Avraham acceded to both requests and said: “I swear an oath.” You should note that this was the first oath that is recorded in the Torah. Seeing that the word שבועה, “oath,” is derived from the word שבעה, “seven,” Avraham set aside seven sheep to symbolize this and called the name of that site באר שבע, “the well of the oath.” 
  The mystical dimension of the number seven is that the person who has been made to swear or who has volunteered to swear does so by promising to forfeit צרור החיים, ”the “bundle” of life (his terrestrial life as well as his life in the celestial hereafter) if he does not abide by the oath he has sworn. This “bundle of life” consists of the seven emanations from חסד at the top to מלכות at the bottom. He who violates his oath places himself outside the circle of responsible human beings; his denial of the oath is equivalent to the denial of G’d and such a person forfeits all claim to an afterlife.
      The lower six emanations all bear the stamp of G’d’s name on them. This is why the Kabbalists (Shevuot 39) claim that violating the commandment not to render a vain or false oath results in the whole earth undergoing violent tremors. No such claim is made concerning the violation of any of the other commandments in the Torah. 
      It is important to understand the philological construction of the word as this root does not occur in the conjugation kal. The normal conjugation is a form of the passive, the nifal, and that is why we always find constructions such as נשבע, or נשבעו, meaning “he swore,” or  “they swore.” The reason for this is that the person who renders an oath has entered the circle of “seven” who will enjoy afterlife if they keep the oath they have sworn. On the other hand, if such a person fails to keep his oath, נשבע, he has become ostracized from this circle of the seven emanations which represent these various forms of life including lofty areas in the hereafter. The word has two totally opposite meanings just as the word דשן when applied to the altar; the latter word sometimes means “to remove the ash from the altar, such as in Numbers 4,13, whereas on other occasions the same word means “to grow fat.” [another example of dual meanings is the word משביר which may mean “seller of grain or “buyer of grain,” all according to the context of the verse. Ed.] Similarly, נשבע may mean: ”to swear,” or “to be  sworn.”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויטע אשל, “he planted an orchard.” The word אשל is the name of a certain type of tree. This is why the Torah writes that Avraham “planted it.” Seeing there was a well nearby he considered it appropriate to plant orchards to take advantage of that source of water. He meant to enjoy the fruit of these trees both himself and together with any guests whom he would entertain. Seeing that such agricultural activities when undertaken by a righteous individual such as Avraham (who was a shepherd by profession) are merely a preparation for spiritual activities in their wake, the Torah immediately testified to this by writing ויקרא שם בשם ה', “He called out there in the name of the Lord.”
      A Midrashic approach: The three letters in the word א-ש-ל are an acronym for אכילה- שתיה- לויה that true hospitality involves providing one’s guests with food,-drink, - and an escort when they depart. [some versions have the word שכיבה, “lodging”, instead of שתיה “drink.”]. Avraham was in the habit of saying to his guests: “ask whatever I can do for you and I will endeavour to do it.” 
  We know already from Genesis 18,16 where Avraham escorted the angels who had visited him, that he was in the habit of escorting his guests. This last stage in fulfilling the commandment of being hospitable is in fact the part for which the host receives his true reward. We find, for instance, that immediately after Avraham had escorted the angels away from his house, G’d rewarded him by revealing to him the impending fate of Sodom and giving him a chance to plead for their lives. We find something similar in Psalms 135,4 where the psalmist wrote כי יעקב בחר לו י-ה, and the reading of the last two words is one word, i.e. לויה, suggesting that the reason G’d chose Yaakov as His people was because they practice the virtue of escorting their guests. We find that the Torah also provides a hint of this when relating the journey of Eliezer to get a bride for Yitzchak. In Genesis 24,56 Eliezer is quoted as saying to his hosts: אל תאחרו אותי וה' הצליח דרכי, “do not delay me seeing that G’d has made my mission successful.” (The respective last letters in the words spell אל תאחרו אותי וה-י-ה-ו-ה spell the word לויה, “escort.)”
     'ויקרא שם בשם ה', “he preached there in the name of the Lord.” The expression used here by the Torah refers to both “calling on,” and “proclaiming.” We have the expression קרא in Proverbs 20, 6 רב אדם יקרא איש חסדו, “He calls most people true friend.” We also encounter this word in Deut. 32,3 where Moses says כי שם ה' אקרא, and the meaning is: “I shall proclaim the name of the Lord.” In our verse the meaning of these words is that Avraham was proclaiming that G’d had created the world, that it had not preceded Him, that there is a “Director” of the fate of mankind who has always existed. When the Torah adds the words בשם ה' “in the name (singular) of the Lord,” it alerts us to the fact that Avraham was at pains to emphasise the Oneness and uniqueness of the Lord, something that would not be suspected if the Torah had used the word אלו-הים which has a plural ending. The words א-ל עולם, mean that G’d was eternal, not preceded by any physical phenomenon. Another way of interpreting the word ויקרא could be in accordance with Onkelos who views the word as reflecting prayer. It would be analogous to Psalms 30,9 אליך ה' אקרא, “I call upon You O G’d (in prayer).”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   והאלוקים נסה את אברהם, “and G’d had tested Avraham.” This is the portion dealing with the binding of Yitzchak, an event which is the cornerstone of the Jewish faith throughout the ages. Jews have placed their trust in their eternal future in the merit accumulated by both Avraham and Yitzchak as protecting them against extermination by their enemies. We must not make the mistake of thinking that G’d tested Avraham in order to find out for Himself how Avraham would respond to this trial. It was a “test” only when viewed from the vantage point of his contemporaries who could not have known in advance how Avraham would respond to a trial which conflicted so absolutely with everything he thought he knew about what G’d wanted from man. G’d used this “test” in order to demonstrate to the people of his own time as well as to his descendants the greatness of this man’s devotion to G’d. He did not flinch for a moment nor even argue with G’d as he had done when advised of the impending judgment of the people of Sodom. We read of a general principle that G’d tests the righteous in Psalms 11,5 ה' צדיק יבחן, “G’d will examine (test) the righteous.” The reason why this paragraph follows the report about what happened to Avraham and Sarah when they were in Gerar with Avimelech has been explained in the Midrash. The word נסה is an expression similar to זעף, “to be angry, displeased.” Onkelos translates it thus in 40,6 where he explains the word זועפים as נסיסים. G’d had been displeased with the oath Avraham swore to Avimelech guaranteeing future immunity of Avimelech’s offspring from incursions by Avraham’s descendants. He should not have given the seven sheep to Avimelech. Eventually, (during the time of the High Priest Eli) the Holy Ark was captured and remained in the hands of the Philistines for seven months before the latter returned it having found that it was a source of curse for them. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 54,4).
      The incident of the binding of Yitzchak was designed to demonstrate the extent of Avraham’s reverence for G’d as well as his love for G’d. Love is something which can exist on three levels: 1) Someone loves his king and because he loves him he tells others about the king’s virtues and his accomplishments. Such a tribute to his king does not involve the one who extols the king’s virtues in any sacrifice. It does not cost him a penny to tell others complimentary things about his king. 2) Love on a higher level is someone who spends a great deal of his own money to make his king popular; however, even he draws the line at laying down his life on behalf of that king. 3) This subject not only tells the world about the greatness of his king and spends all his money advertising this fact, but he is also prepared to lay down his own life on behalf of his king. 
  Avraham’s love for G’d, the king of Kings, included all the levels we have just described. We know from 21,33 that he publicly proclaimed the greatness of G’d. He did so because the other people of his generation attributed the order in the universe to horoscopes, etc. (Maimonides Hilchot Avodah Zara 1,2). Avraham guided people along the path of true religion and monotheism. We are told in Job 5,8 saying exactly this, i.e. ואל אלוקים אשים דברתי, “I aim my words as proving that G’d is the cause of events.” The speaker, Eliphaz, makes the point that fate is not blind but that an all-seeing G’d guides it. He does not assign your fate to the stars, leaving it all to them. Avraham had also demonstrated the second level of love for G’d by the manner in which he entertained guests lavishly at great cost to himself, all in order to proclaim G’d’s greatness. Our sages (Midrash Tehillim 110) illustrate this when they said that Avraham’s tent had an entrance in all four directions. Any guest who entered by one door would leave by another so as to avoid feeling embarrassed by other travelers who would see him. We find support for this in 21,33: “he planted an orchard at Be’er Sheva;” we had already explained that this referred to Avraham providing food, shelter and escort for his visitors. Not only would he welcome guests but he would actually run after them to make sure they did not pass him by; He did this even while still suffering from the after-effects of the circumcision (18,2).   He had demonstrated the third and highest level of love for G’d when he laid down his life and preferred to be burned in Nimrod’s furnace rather than desist from preaching the greatness of his Creator. This is why G’d called him (Isaiah 41,5) אברהם אוהבי, “Avraham who loves Me.”  In the matter of his binding Yitzchak in preparation for slaughtering him as an offering to G’d, Avraham demonstrated  his love for G’d in a manner which is quite beyond comparison to any of the three levels we have mentioned. This was a level which goes way beyond martyrdom. Had Avraham even possessed 100 bodies, it would have been appropriate that he sacrifice all of them for the sake of his son Yitzchak. What he did here bears no resemblance to anything he had ever done before. This “test” was totally different from any previous tests which Avraham had passed with flying colors. Our imagination is quite inadequate to properly grasp the enormity of what was demanded of him and how he complied.     Avraham had longed to have a son such as Yitzchak for many decades. When Yitzchak was finally born, his love for him grew from year to year, and the certainty that such a miracle would not be repeated and that he would not have another if anything were to happen to Yitzchak must have crossed his mind many times. When he was suddenly commanded to kill Yitzchak with his own hands, we can hardly imagine how he must have felt on a journey of three days towards the unnamed site of the sacrifice, and how his reason must have assailed his feelings of reverence for G’d which alone could prompt him to go through with such an act. Avraham realised that in spite of all his love for Yitzchak, his love for G’d must take precedence in a situation where the two loves could not be reconciled. Had G’d told Avraham to slaughter Yitzchak immediately, without giving him three days during which he had to reflect on what he had been asked to do, the command would have been far easier to comply with. On the other hand, seeing that G’d gave Avraham three days to think about the enormity of what he had been asked to do made the decision to go through with it one that could not be attributed to a momentary spiritual high, to a spontaneous act, but it was an act which had been carefully considered and which reflected Avraham’s deep-seated feelings of overriding reverence for G’d. This is what the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 55,5 must have had in mind when they said: “why was Avraham to offer Yitzchak only on the third day and not on the first day of his journey? Answer: in order not to give the gentile nations an opportunity to claim that he had been emotionally disturbed, that G’d’s command had overwhelmed him so much that he went and slaughtered his son. This is why he performed this task with his own hands as a demonstration of both his love and reverence for G’d.” The element of reverence referred to has nothing to do with the fear of being punished for non-compliance, and the love demonstrated had nothing to do with any compensation he hoped to receive from G’d in return for displaying this degree of love for His Creator. Any act dictated by love which looks forward to some kind of reward be it only at the back of the person’s mind performing the deed, is not truly an act of love. There are people who drink a bitter-tasting medicine because they hope that in the end the beneficial results will compensate them for the galling experience. 
  When G’d said to Avraham (22,12) at the end of the paragraph עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלוקים אתה, “now I know that you are indeed a G’d-fearing individual,” (and we know that G’d knew beforehand that Avraham would not flinch), this simply meant that as of that moment Avraham’s potential had been converted into an actuality. Not only had G’d had proof of Avraham’s deed, but He had observed with what alacrity and single-mindedness of purpose Avraham had applied himself to the task.  He could have taken with him a number of members of his household. He had taken only the two “lads” the Torah spoke of i.e. Eliezer and Ishmael (according to Targum Yonathan as well as Rashi). Even these two “lads” did not accompany him to the top of Mount Moriah (22,5) as Avraham had told them: שבו לכם פה עם החמור, “remain here with the donkey, etc.” He did not want them to come with him on “the last mile,” in order that neither of them should attempt to stay his hand at the last moment.
  
  Verse 2
  
   קח נא את בנך את יחידך אשר אהבת את יצחק, “please take your son, your only one, the one whom you love, etc.” The Torah describes G’d’s command as particularly long-winded in order to lend extra importance to the fulfillment of this commandment. Our sages in Tanchuma Vayera 22 phrase it thus: “When G’d said: ‘take your son,’ Avraham asked: ‘which son?’ When G’d continued: ‘the one whom you ‘love,’ Avraham countered: ‘I love them both.’ Finally, G’d said: ‘Yitzchak.’”
     ולך לך, “and go for yourself, etc.” Avraham underwent ten trials of his faith. The first one commenced with the words לך לך, “go for yourself,” and the last one concluded with the introduction לך לך, “go for yourself.” Avraham scored perfect marks each time (Avot 5,3). The first trial was “leave your country;” the last one was the binding of Yitzchak.
     אל ארץ המוריה, “to the land of Moriah.” Mount Moriah is Jerusalem. G’d called the entire land around it “the land of Moriah” because Mount Moriah is situated within it. (compare Chronicles II 3,1). The reason why Jerusalem is called ”mountain,” is because Solomon refers to it by this name in Song of Songs 4,6 when he wrote: אלך לי אל הר המור, “let me proceed to the mount of myrrh, (Moriah) etc.;” cinnamon and other categories of spices used to grow there. Our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Peah 7,3 stated that cinnamon was something consumed by the goats and the Israelites used to grow it. Onkelos translates the word as ארע פולחנא, “land of Temple service.” He appears to derive the word מוריה from מורא, “fear, reverence,” the place where in the future the Jewish people would demonstrate their reverence for G’d by serving Him there. 
  Bereshit Rabbah 55,9 derives the word from הוראה, “instruction.” From this place G’d’s instructions would be transmitted on a permanent basis (a reference to the seat of the Jewish Supreme Court being in one of the offices of the Temple Mount)
     והעלהו שם לעולה, “and offer him there as a burnt-offering.” The letter ל in front of the word עולה is somewhat puzzling. Why did the Torah not simply write והעלהו שם עולה, and I would have known exactly what was meant? According to the plain meaning of the text the letter ל here means “instead.” The verse means: “offer him there in lieu of a burnt-offering.” The meaning of the letter ל in this word is similar to Genesis 11,3 הלבנה לאבן, “the brick would serve in lieu of stone.” If the meaning of our verse had been that G’d actually wanted Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak as a burnt offering, how could He have countermanded His own instructions afterwards? Avraham misunderstood G’d out of his great love for Him. He thought G’d really wanted him to slaughter Yitzchak and burn his remains as a burnt-offering. Seeing that G’d had only wanted to “test” Avraham, He did not command him to actually slaughter Yitzchak. This is the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 19,5 אשר לא ציויתי ולא דברתי ולא עלתה על לבי, “which I did not command, nor ever said, nor had it ever occurred to Me.” [The prophet speaks of the abominable cult of human sacrifice. Ed. The Talmud Taanit 4, adds that the words: ”it had never occurred to Me,” refer to the actual slaughtering of Yitzchak].   It is also possible that the wording of this commandment contains within it the mystical dimension applicable to the offering of any (animal) sacrifice. The word לעולה would be an allusion to the tenth emanation, the emanation which is the “link” from a terrestrial to a celestial dimension. The word לעולה then means: “as a means of rising to spiritually lofty dimensions.” It is remarkable that the same formulation appears again when Avraham had offered a ram in lieu of Yitzchak. The Torah writes; ויעלהו לעולה תחת בנו, “he offered it as a burnt-offering in lieu of his son.” By rights the Torah should merely have written ויעלהו עולה. We also find that when Yitzchak had inquired about the absence of the lamb for the offering, that he had said: ואיה השה לעולה “and where is the lamb for the offering?” When his father answered him he also used the word לעולה in his reply. It seems clear from the repeated use of the letter ל when there was no need for it, that we are dealing with an additional dimension of what underlies the entire episode of the עקדה, i.e. it was intended to be a preamble to ascension of the participants to a higher, loftier spiritual dimension. The Torah teaches here that the attainment of such loftier spiritual dimensions is tied to the offering of the bodies of the animals being sacrificed. We may combine the extra letter ל with the letter ה in the word המזבח in verse 9 [which was also superfluous seeing we had not previously heard about “the” altar], to make לה' “for G’d”, i.e. for a loftier spiritual dimension.” The intelligent reader will draw the correct conclusions.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויבקע עצי עולה, “he split the wood for the burnt-offering.” Avraham did this already at this stage as he was concerned that when he would arrive at the site he might not find suitable kindling. This demonstrated that he was so eager to carry out G’d’s command that he carried the wood with him a distance of three days’ journey.   It is also possible that Avraham was aware of the halachic ruling that firewood for the altar which is worm-infested is unfit, and that this is the reason he took wood from his home which  he had had a chance to examine for the presence of worms. According to Bereshit Rabbah (55,8) G’d paid Avraham his reward for having troubled himself to split the firewood when He split the sea of reeds for Avraham’s descendants to walk through on their march out of Egypt. This is alluded to in the text when the Torah describes the splitting of the waters in terms of splitting wood, i.e. ויבקעו המים, ”the waters were split” (Exodus 14,21). There is an opinion expressed in the same Midrash that such an interpretation does not do justice to the event, but that both G’d and Avraham respectively each did what they could to bring about a desired result.
  
  Verse 4
  
   וירא את המקום מרחוק, “he saw the place from a distance.” According to Tanchuma Vayera 23, at that point Avraham asked Yitzchak: “Do you see what I see?” Yitzchak answered: “I see a beautiful mountain which has a cloud attached to it.” Thereupon Avraham said to the two lads: “Do you see anything unusual?” They said: “we do not see anything unusual at  all, only deserts and a bare mountain.” Thereupon Avraham said to them: “you and the donkey stay here,” (seeing they had not noticed anything beyond what also the donkey must have seen). He added that he and Yitzchak would go somewhat further, i.e. ואני והנער נלכה עד כה. Avraham may have unwittingly chosen the expression כה (a Freudian slip) seeing that at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,5 G’d had assured him כה יהיה זרעך, “so will be your descendants.” He must have wondered how this statement could be reconciled with what he was being asked to do at that time. Alternatively, he meant he would go to face the G’d who had assured him of numerous offspring at a time when he had not yet fathered even Ishmael. It is remarkable that the Torah describes a man of 37 years of age such as Yitzchak as נער, “lad.” When you peruse Scripture you will see that this is not as remarkable as it appears at first glance. Joshua is described as a נער at a time when he was 56 years old (Exodus 33,11).
  
  Verse 5
  
   ונשובה אליכם “and we will return to you.” At that time Avraham intended to bring back Yitzchak’s bones (for burial) and this is why he said “we will come back.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ויאמר יצחק אל אברהם אביו ויאמר אבי, ויאמר הנני בני, “Yitzchak said to his father ‘my father!’ His father said: ‘I am here my son.’”  This verse contains four statements and I do not know why. In Bereshit Rabbah 56,5 the words “Yitzchak said to Avraham” are understood to mean that Samael came to Avraham and challenged him: “what kind of  father are you? Are you really going to slaughter a son who has been born to you when you were already one hundred years old?” Avraham answered “nevertheless.” Thereupon Samael addressed Yitzchak saying: “you son of a disappointed mother! He (your father) is going to slaughter you!” Yitzchak answered: “nevertheless.” This is why the Torah wrote twice: “Yitzchak said to his father.” Why do the words “my father” appear twice? In order that his father’s parental mercy be stirred; the exclamation was like that of a man who is in difficulties and, referring to himself, says: “woe to me, woe to me.”
     ויאמר הנה האש והעצים ואיה השה, “he said: ‘here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?’” Avraham answered him that “G’d will select the lamb for the offering,--my son.” From the way Avraham placed the colon in this verse, Yitzchak understood that he had been chosen to be the “lamb.” In spite of this realisation, the Torah continues: וילכו שניהם יחדו, “they continued to walk together”, i.e. they were of one mind. In order to make this point clear, the Torah had to repeat the sentence: “they walked together.” The release of the information that Yitzchak was going to be the victim did not drive a wedge between his relations with his father. At the time the Torah wrote these words for the first time, Yitzchak did not yet know that he was going to be the sacrifice.
      Many people asked who of the two principal characters in this drama displayed greater love and devotion vis-a-vis G’d? Was it Avraham who had to perform this commandment of slaughtering his son with his own hands, or was it Yitzchak who had to submit to being slaughtered? Some people argue that Avraham displayed greater strength seeing that it is easier to suffer something passively without resisting than to summon the emotional fortitude to kill one’s beloved son with one’s own hands. Besides, according to the general principle that שב ואל תעשה, that passive participation in a sin or in the performance of a מצוה is inferior to active participation, there can be no question that Avraham’s  part in this drama was by far the greater of the two.
      Those who argue that Yitzchak’s (“sacrifice”) was the greater of the two, point to the difference between fulfilling a command by G’d and one by one’s father. Avraham, after all, had been commanded to do what he set out to do by G’d Himself, whereas Yitzchak had to take his father’s word for it that he had been so commanded. If, nonetheless, Yitzchak did not make an issue of the matter, this demonstrates his absolute faith both in G’d and in his father. Personally, I believe the argument which claims that Avraham displayed greater strength of faith is the correct one. Yitzchak, though he had not been commanded to lay down his life by G’d directly, knew that his father was an accredited prophet, and that therefore he was under an obligation to consider his father’s instructions as equivalent to G’d’s instructions. We are told in Deut.18,19 concerning the commandment to listen to the instructions of an accredited prophet: והיה האיש אשר לא ישמע אל דברי אשר ידבר בשמי אנכי אדרוש מעמו, “it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words which he shall speak in My name, I shall exact it from him.” This is the reason that Avraham and not Yitzchak was given this commandment; G’d wanted to give Avraham the opportunity to fulfil His commandment and to demonstrate the power of his faith.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויבן שם אברהם את המזבח , “Avraham built the altar there.” The letter ה at the beginning of the word המזבח, shows that a specific altar was meant, i.e. the altar. According to the plain meaning of the text it means that the altar corresponded halachically to the rules governing such altars in Jewish law, i.e. that they must not be constructed from stones which had been treated with iron tools (compare Exodus 20,22).
      A Midrashic approach: (Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 31) sees in the letter ה which is a definite article an allusion to the altar which Adam had built and on which also Cain and Hevel had offered their respective sacrifices. The site of this altar had been known to be at Mount Moriah. This was also reputed to be the altar on which Noach had offered his thanksgiving to G’d after the deluge.[The latter detail is difficult to reconcile with the distance Noach would have had to travel from Mount Ararat in North Eastern Turkey to offer his thanks to G’d. Ed.]
      A kabbalistic approach: The meaning of the Midrash we quoted is that the original “recipient” is the final product of the “structure.” In other words, there is a causal relationship between the words ויבן, “he built,” and the word מזבח, “altar.” [I believe a good way of phrasing this may be this. As soon as G’d had completed “building” the universe with the creation of man, the time had come for man to reciprocate in some form by offering gifts to the Creator by means of the altar. Ed.] Kabbalists view this altar as one on which both terrestrial beings and celestial beings offered sacrifices. I will have more to say on the subject in my commentary on Parshat Vayikra 1,9. [The altar is viewed as a place where benevolent celestial input to the terrestrial world evokes input by terrestrial man addressed to the celestial spheres. Ed.] 
     ויערך את העצים, “and he arranged the fire-wood.” The letter ה at the beginning of the word העצים is a reference to the wood which Avraham had taken with him from home with which we are already familiar. On the other hand, the letter ה may simply teach that not all kinds of wood are acceptable as the kindling for an offering on the altar.
     ויעקד את יצחק בנו וישם אותו על המזבח, “he bound his son Yitzchak and placed him on top of the altar.” We are told in Tanchuma Vayera 23 that when Avraham was about to slaughter his son, that Yitzchak asked to be bound hand and foot in order that he should not invalidate the offering if he were to move at the moment his father would cut his throat.
     ממעל לעצים, “above the wood.” Rabbi Chanina is reported to have said that Avraham built the altar facing the throne of G’d’s glory in the heavens. He derived this from the wording here i.e. ממעל לעצים, and Isaiah 6,2 שרפים עומדים ממעל לו.
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ויקח את המאכלת, “he took the knife.” According to the Tanchuma quoted above, Yitzchak told his father: “when you tell my mother about what happened, do not tell her while she is standing on the roof or near a well so that she will not fall into the well or to the ground from shock.” When Avraham was about to slaughter Yitzchak, an angel called to him from the heaven calling out his name twice. The reason the angel had to repeat Avraham’s name was to stop him in time as Avraham was in such a hurry to complete his task and to slaughter Yitzchak. (compare Tanchuma Vayera 23). He said: “do not stretch out your  hand, etc.” Avraham replied: “who are you?” The angel responded: “I am an angel of G’d.” Avraham retorted: “when I was instructed to offer Yitzchak as a sacrifice G’d told me personally. Now that He apparently wants me to desist, He would have to tell me personally.” Thereupon the Torah (verse 16) writes: “An angel called out to Avraham a second time from the heaven saying to Avraham: “I have sworn an oath by Myself says the Lord, etc.” When Avraham heard this he said “You have sworn;” “I have also sworn an oath that I will not descend from this altar until I have said to You what is on my mind. Did You not first say to me כה יהיה זרעך, ‘this is how numerous your descendants will be?’ Who did You have in mind would be the one from whom these descendants would come forth?” G’d answered “from Yitzchak.” Thereupon Avraham said This is the sort of thing I meant to answer you: ‘Yesterday You told me that my descendants will be known though Yitzchak and now You told me to offer him as a burnt-offering! I suppressed my impulse to ask You all these questions. Now, if and when my descendants will sin and they will experience difficulties, I want You to suppress Your feelings when You punish them remembering that I suppressed my inclination to ask You some embarrassing questions. I want You to consider as if Yitzchak’s ashes had already been piled up on this altar, as if his blood had been sprinkled on it and as a result You will forgive the transgressions of my offspring.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   וירא והנה איל, “and he saw, and here there was a ram, etc.” This ram was one of the ten things which were created on the original sixth day of creation at dusk (according to Avot 5,6). This is why this animal was called איל instead of כבש. Normally, when the Torah refers to these types of animals in connection with their being used as sacrificial animals they are always referred to as כבש or כבשים בני שנה “one year old sheep.” The word כבש suggests that this animal (when offered as a sacrifice) is כובש, “suppresses” the sins of the Jewish people. When this animal grows to maturity it is known as איל,  when it is only a day old it is referred to as כבש, as we know from Leviticus 22,27 שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, “when an ox, a sheep or a goat is born, etc.” Another reason why this ram which was sacrificed as a burnt-offering was called איל  is the similarity of this word with the word אילת השחר, a complimentary name applied to the כנסת ישראל, “the spiritual concept represented by the Jewish people” (compare Psalms 22,1). Allegorically speaking, this ram represents Israel which receives its spiritual input via שחר which protects it generation after generation due to the merit accumulated by Avraham as a result of his having bound his son. [The word describes something which precedes the light of the morning. G’d preceded everything in this world. Israel receives its spiritual and material input from such pre-historic sources. Ed.]
     אחר נאחז בסבך בקרניו, “subsequently, caught by its horns in the thicket.” The plain meaning of the text is that after the angel had told Avraham not to touch Yitzchak he saw this ram. The  word בסבך suggests that the part of the mountain on which the binding took place was full of trees and low brush, a place also known in Kings I 7,2 as יער לבנון, a type of Cedar forest. In Psalms 132,6 David said of the שכינה, G’d’s benevolent presence, מצאנוה בשדי יער, “we found it in the fields of Yaar.” This place was within the boundaries of the territory of Benjamin of whom it is said (Genesis 49,27) בנימין זאב יטרף. These words are translated by Onkelos as “G’d’s benevolent presence will reside in the territory of Benjamin, and His Holy Temple will be built there.” 
      A Midrashic (Bereshit Rabbah 56,9) approach: the words אחר נאחז בסבך בקרניו, “after Israel has become enmeshed by its sins all year round, and as a result find themselves in deep trouble, they will blow the horn of the ram, i.e. the שופר on New Year’s Day appealing to G’d to remember the binding of Yitzchak.” Another allegorical interpretation: After Israel has become “enmeshed” in sins and as a result has been exiled amongst the “thicket,” the kingdoms of Babylon, Medes, Greece and Rome, they will ultimately experience redemption. This will be heralded by the blowing of the ram’s horn as we mention in our daily עמידה prayer in the paragraph commencing with the words תקע בשופר גדול לחרותנו, “blow the great horn to announce our freedom.” This prayer is based on Zechariah 9,14 who assured us that G’d Himself will blow this Shofar. 
  Our sages (in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer at the end of chapter 31) believe that we are dealing here with an allusion to the Shofar that G’d was going to blow during the revelation at Mount Sinai (19,16). It is written of that Shofar that its sound was very strong (Exodus 19,16) and that it was the Shofar of the ram found during the binding of Yitzchak. We are commanded to blow the Shofar on New Year’s Day. Although, halachically speaking (Rosh Hashanah 26,1), a number of horns from a number of animals are acceptable for this ceremony, the best way to fulfill the commandment is by means of a ram’s horn.
      When the sages described this Shofar which was blown on the occasion of the revelation as “the Shofar of Yitzchak,” they referred to the virtue of Yitzchak, to his outstanding characteristic. They did not mean to imply that the horn used on that occasion (some 360 years after the binding of Yitzchak) was physically the same horn as the one belonging to the ram which Avraham slaughtered. In fact, this would have been impossible as the rules of the burnt-offering include that the entire animal be burned (except its skin and hair). The horns and hooves are included in the parts which need to be burned. Our sages alluded to the attributes of גבורה, power, we heard from G’d’s mouth directly when He addressed the entire assembly of the Jewish people and told them the first two of the Ten Commandments, i.e. “I am the Lord, etc.,” and “you must not have any other gods, etc.” G’d revealed this attribute at that time and it  is called by our sages פחד יצחק, (compare Genesis 31,53). This attribute of G’d to which Yitzchak more than any other of our patriarchs related, is what we call upon in times of distress when we say עננו פחד יצחק, “answer us ‘attribute’ which Yitzchak related to with utmost reverence.” This is the voice of the soul which was audible at the time when the Torah was given and we allude to this voice when we blow the Shofar on New Year’s Day, the anniversary of the creation (completion) of the universe. You should understand that the day on which the Torah was given was the first day G’d’s kingdom had been accepted as such by the Jewish people, seeing that there cannot be a king without an army. [The Jewish people in their capacity as G’d’s people, are considered G’d’s “army.”] 
      You also need to know that the apparently strange phenomenon in this paragraph, i.e. that G’d is the one who subjects Avraham to the trial whereas the angel prevented him from going through with it, needs to be understood as follows: The “angel” mentioned in our paragraph is not of the category of the נפרדים, ”disembodied spiritual creatures,” but it belonged to what are known as the נטיעות, “the emanations of G’d.” [a divine voice much closer to G’d’s Essence than “mere” angels. Ed.] Had the angel who called out to Avraham and instructed him to desist belonged to the category known as נפרדים, Avraham would have ignored him, would not have allowed himself to be countermanded by a subordinate of the One who had instructed him in the first place. Moreover, it is quite unthinkable that an angel of the “lower” category נפרדים would have been allowed to say to Avraham ולא חשכת את בנך ממני, “and you did not withhold your son from Me.” He would have had to say: “you have not withheld your son from Him.” All of this proves that the voice which the Torah describes as emanating from an “angel of G’d,” was of a superior divine level. This “angel” is also known as the “great angel,” who manifested himself in Exodus 14,19 when the Torah describes him as traveling in front of the encampment of the Jewish people (performing all kinds of miracles). The words מלאך האלו-הים employed there by the Torah do not mean “angel of the Lord,” i.e the word מלאך is not a possessive clause, the angel being merely an attribute of G’d. The word האלו-הים in that verse must be understood as an explanation of the word מלאך. When the Torah describes this divine emanation as מלאך, the meaning is that G’d is “contained, present,” within this divine emanation. We encounter something similar in Exodus 23,21 where G’d explains to Moses that the מלאך who will be accompanying the Jewish people needs to be related to with the utmost reverence as “My Name is within him.” Apparently, the word substituted for this attribute of G’d we called פחד יצחק, an attribute which brooks no defiance of any sort. When we read in Genesis 48,16  when Yaakov blesses before his death המלאך הגואל אותי....בקרב הארץ “the angel who has rescued me, etc. etc.  is in the midst of the terrestrial world,” this is an allusion to the אדנות, the attribute of “mastery” which this “angel” represents. He has authority בקרב הארץ within the whole terrestrial universe. Seeing that this attribute contains also the element of mercy, “He” suddenly describes Himself as י-ה-ו-ה when He says 'בי נשבעתי נאום ה “I have sworn by Myself says Hashem, i.e. the attribute of Mercy, etc.” Up until this moment the attribute mentioned in this chapter had only been the attribute אלו-קים, i.e. G’d manifesting Himself as the attribute of Justice. Whereas before the binding Avraham had spoken of אלוקים יראה לו השה, that the G’d known as elokim would select the lamb for Himself, after the episode Avraham begins to view this elokim as Hashem when he said  בהר ה' יראה, “at the mountain of the (merciful) G’d He may be seen (experienced).” At that time this attribute promises Avraham that He would bless his descendants making them numerous and bestowing powerful blessings on them. The repetition of the words ברך  אברכך and הרבה ארבה are proof that these blessings will be more numerous and more powerful than ordinary blessings. 
      Such expressions always mean that the power from which such blessings emanate contain another power within the overall attribute from which such blessings emanate. The Torah drew attention to this subordinate “power” by comparing it to the “stars of the heaven” and “the sand on the beaches of the sea.” G’d also describes the result of such powerful blessings as being that not only would Avraham’s seed be numerous, but that it would take permanent possession of the gates of its enemies. When the blessing concludes with the words עקב אשר שמעת בקולי, “as a result of your having hearkened to My voice,” it becomes plain that G’d Himself is the One bestowing this blessing.
     ויעלהו לעולה תחת בנו, “he offered it as a burnt-offering in lieu of his son.” Rashi explains the words תחת בנו, as meaning that from that time on every time Avraham would perform a sacrificial service he would commence the ceremony by saying: “may this act of service be considered as equivalent to my offering up my own son.” In other words: “may the act of slaughtering the animal be considered as if I were to slaughter my son. May the act of sprinkling its blood on the altar be considered as if I were to sprinkle the blood of my son on this altar, etc.”
  
  Verse 14
  
   ה' יראה, “the Lord (attribute of Mercy) may be experienced.” He “renamed” G’d as ה' יראה, i.e. that this attribute of G’d may be manifest  for all future times. In other words: “the merit acquired by the act of binding Yitzchak will endure  throughout the generations.” אשר יאמר היום, “of which it is said (already) today, etc.” Even this day that I find myself on this mountain, what I have done is already reflected in G’d responding to my righteousness. Avraham prayed both for the present and for the future. This is how Nachmanides explains this verse.
      Personally, I would divide the verse into two parts. The words ה' יראה refer to the present, whereas the words אשר יאמר היום refer to the future, i.e. a future which will be influenced by the new-found insight of this day that G’d primarily relates to the Jewish people as the attribute of Mercy. This would be an allusion to the homiletical explanation I quoted already on verse ten where I quoted Avraham as engaging G’d in a dialogue where he retroactively tells G’d of the various questions concerning this whole episode which he had refrained from asking though it had not been easy for him to do so. At this point the Torah presents these words of Avraham as a form of prayer.  Shem had called this site שלם, (Bereshit Rabbah 56,10) whereas Avraham called the same site now יראה. G’d decided to call it ירושלים, thus combining the names given to it by both Shem and Avraham.
      According to a Midrash, Yitzchak saw the image of a lion while he lay bound on the altar. The meaning of this “lion” is to illustrate to us the concept of פחד יצחק. [His reverence or fear of the Lord was comparable to a person who faces a ferocious lion. Ordinary people do not relate to invisible sources of danger in the same way as they relate to visible and immediate dangers facing them. Ed.] It is also possible that the “lion” referred to in that Midrash is the same as that referred to in Chulin 59 where the Talmud relates that the Roman Emperor insisted on seeing the lion called the “lion of Ilai.” When he was warned that he might not like what he would see, he still insisted and finally, the roar of that lion was heard from 400 miles away and it made the towers of Rome tremble and pregnant women lose their fetuses, etc. These occurrences became even more frightening as the lion drew somewhat closer with the result that the Emperor begged to have that lion return to its lair. We may see an allusion to this in our verse where we are told: “it (G’d’s attribute) will be manifest on the mountain of the Lord.”
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 56,11 the words בהר ה' יראה refer to two visions Yitzchak experienced of the two Temples being built as well as being in ruins. They base this on the verses (Lamentations 5,18) על הר ציון ששמם, “on the mountain of Zion which is in ruins”, and on Deut. 16,16 יראה כל זכורך, “everyone of your males shall appear there” ( the site of the Temple). A third verse describing the Temple as rebuilt is found in Psalms 102,17 כי בנה ה' ציון נראה בכבודו, “for the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in all His glory.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויגד לאברהם לאמר הנה ילדה מלכה גם היא, “Avraham was informed that ‘here Milkah too has given birth, etc.’” Nachmanides explains that this news concerning his older brother being blessed with children which Avraham is reported to have received at this time was reported now as both Nachor and Milkah were already quite advanced in years when they were blessed with offspring. They too were beneficiaries of such a miracle in their old age. The miracle occurred due to their sister Sarah’s merit. This is why the Torah wrote the extra words גם היא, “she too,” when reporting that Milkah had born children. If all this is so, how does Nachmanides explain that Nachor’s concubine gave birth? Surely, even granting that Sarah’s merit may have sufficed for G’d to work a miracle for her sister, why would G’d trouble Himself to perform a miracle for Nachor’s concubine so that the Torah wrote the words “she gave birth also?” The Torah reports that Milkah bore eight sons. These eight sons corresponded to the eight sons born to Yaakov by his two major wives Leah and Rachel. The four sons born to his concubine corresponded to the four sons born to Yaakov by Zilpah and Bilhah. The Torah compares Nachor’s family to that of Avraham The point of informing us about all these details is to relate to us that Rivkah  who became the mother of Yaakov, the founding father of the Jewish nation, was born to a member of Avraham’s family. All of this was related to stress that members of Nachor’s family were suitable to intermarry with the descendants of Avraham. who cleaved to the Lord G’d as testified by Moses in Deut. 4,4 “and you who have cleaved to the Lord your G’d are all alive as of  this day.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל למען סור משאול מטה , “for an intelligent man the path of life is upward, so that he may turn away from heading towards hell, downwards” (Proverbs 15,24)
      In this verse Solomon informed us that an intelligent human being is aware that terrestrial life, by definition, is headed for destruction, for disintegration. He is aware that the true life is to be found only in the “upper regions,” in the celestial spheres, in an environment which is eternal. As a result of such knowledge the intelligent man removes himself from the attractions of the terrestrial world, performs such tasks as are necessary only because they preserve his health and life without making them an objective in themselves. He does so in order to escape the prospect of שאול מטה, “hell and eternal damnation.”  Let me explain this by means of a parable. A person lives in a certain city, aware that his dwelling is only a temporary one. He craves to move to another town where he may be able to secure for himself a permanent residence. While such a person has hope to secure a permanent residence in another city he is certainly not going to make investments in fields, buildings, and other properties which he cannot transfer to the city which he hopes to move to. He will limit his investments and efforts in the city in which he dwells presently to a minimum, conserving his strength to acquire things useful to him when he does make the move. The intelligent person is aware that the עולם הבא, the hereafter, is the only permanent residence; he will therefore prepare himself in this life for his hereafter so that when he arrives there he will find that a suitable residence has been prepared for him. Having this in mind, Solomon began his book Kohelet with the words הבל הבלים, “vanity of vanities,” whereas he concluded it (Kohelet 12,13) by exhorting his listeners to practice יראת השם, reverence for G’d. Another way of understanding the verse we have quoted from Proverbs is this: אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל, Solomon is addressing the intelligent person saying to him: ”you, intelligent person that you are, should know that there is a path of life which leads upwards. In order to secure this path of life for yourself you have to abandon the path that leads to hell, downwards.” In other words, you have to abandon your cravings for all kinds of physical pleasures and indulgences as otherwise these physical pleasures will drag you down to hell. 
  According to this interpretation, the word סור is a command, not an infinitive. The whole verse then has to be understood as a warning and commandment to the intelligent human being that if he is really interested in something enduring, something of infinite duration, he must abandon his preoccupation with transient values. The worst danger is to be preoccupied with physical pleasures.   As to the meaning of the word אורח instead of the normal דרך which we would have expected to describe a “path,” the reason for that choice of word is that it suggests something  temporary, i.e. a “visitor.” Any human being who lives on earth is nothing but a visitor, a transient (compare Jeremiah 14,8 “why should you be like a stranger on earth, like a guest in need of lodging”). Just as a guest who enters a tavern knowing that he will continue his journey on the following day and that therefore he will stay only for a brief period at that tavern, all the while longs for his proper home, so the intelligent person on earth is aware that there is a life beyond this earth where he will experience proper life. The reason the נפש, “physical life-force,” is known as חיה, is that it operates (lives) only within the domain known as טבע, nature. Philosophers/researchers have said  that this נפש which lives as part of nature dies due to a quirk of fate. Such “quirks” of fate are triggered through sins. The body lives only through being inhabited by such a נפש. The reason that the mortal body ever lived was only because it was connected to this disembodied life-force we call נפש. Separation of this נפש from the body is equivalent to death of the body. 
  It is also known that the death of the body causes the “life” of the נפש, i.e. releases it from imprisonment in a body. This is why Solomon said (Kohelet 7,1) “better the day of death than the day of birth.” He praised the day of death when compared to the day of one’s birth on two counts. On the one hand, dying in this life means transferring to the hereafter. Once the נפש has arrived in that region, it can no longer accumulate merits which will help its stature in the eternal world. Therefore, seeing that death of the body implies birth of one’s afterlife, such a “birthday” spells finis to any moral/ethical achievements of the נפש. At the same time, death of the body puts an end to the trials and disappointments which are an inevitable part of life on earth; achieving freedom from such troubles is preferable to being born to them. Hence, from that angle too the day of death has much to be said for it. Only when a person dies do his achievements during his life on earth become visible, appreciated and irreversible. As long as he is alive we can never be sure that he will not undo any good he may have done previously. Our sages have illustrated this concept in connection with the blessing provided for mankind during the lifetime of Sarah (compare Rashi on 24,67). We are told there that as long as she was alive there was a light burning in her tent which burned from one Friday to the next. Her dough was always blessed and a cloud was seen to hover over her tent. When Sarah died these phenomena disappeared. Only then did her merit become public knowledge, i.e. only then did it become clear that these blessings had been due to her all the time. Moreover, she died on holy soil [the first of the patriarchs or matriarchs of whom death and burial in Eretz Yisrael is reported. Ed.] and was buried in the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael after she had lived a long life. The Torah writes: “Sarah lived for 127 years, these were the years of the lives of Sarah.” The Torah continues: “Sarah died in Kiryat Arba which is Chevron in the land of Canaan.” This whole passage should have appeared immediately after the Torah concluded its narrative about the binding of Yitzchak seeing that according to Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 the immediate cause of her death were the rumours that her son Yitzchak had been slaughtered. We know that the order in which the various passages of the Torah have been arranged are not accidental, nor are they necessarily chronological. The sequence in which the Torah relates matters to us is of crucial significance to our proper understanding of the message the Torah wishes to teach us.
  	On occasion, the very order in which the Torah relates matters reveals such important truths as that the existence of G’d preceded the universe, or some secrets about the composition of the creatures G’d has created as in this paragraph, or, the Torah takes us into its confidence concerning laws of nature by the wording and the positioning of certain passages such as the first part of Parshat Tazria, where the secrets of who will be born male and who female appear next to the paragraph dealing with certain skin diseases caused by meta-physical rather than natural considerations. The reason why the Torah interrupted its report about the repercussions of the binding of Yitzchak also including the death of his mother Sarah was in order to bring us up to-date on Nachor’s family, seeing that Yitzchak was going to replace his mother with his future wife Rivkah who had been born now so that there would be continuity in Yitzchak’s life and he would continue to experience the blessings he had enjoyed while his mother had been alive. 
  According to a Midrash cited by Rashi the report of Sarah’s death follows immediately upon the report of Rivkah’s birth to inform us that Sarah and Rivkah were viewed as if the younger one was merely the embodiment of the virtues of the senior one, i.e. as if Sarah and Rivkah were virtually one. Had Rivkah’s birth preceded the death of Sarah this would have been impossible; as it were, Sarah had to die first so that her soul could resurface in the body of Rivkah. The word אמו in 24,67 is unnecessary as we all know that Sarah had been Yitzchak’s mother. The reason the Torah wrote this word was to hint that her soul had been reincarnated in the body of Rivkah. When the Midrash stated that as soon as Rivkah moved into the tent of her mother-in-law, the light started burning again and the various phenomena which had been commonplace during Sarah’s lifetime began to manifest themselves anew, this is proof of the metaphysical continuity between Sarah and Rivkah.
   מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים, “one hundred and twenty-seven years.” Ordinarily, the Torah should have written מאה ועשרים ושבע שנים. 
  Still, it is quite acceptable to write the word “year” or “years” after every unit of years in order to separate these 3 different parts of a person’s life by inserting the word “year,” or “years” between each group.  It is appropriate to separate a century from a decade and a decade from individual years lived. We find such patterns when the Torah describes the lifetime of Avraham as well as when it describes the lifetime of Ishmael. The unusual way about describing Sarah’s lifetime is only the repetition of the words שני חיי שרה, “the years of the lives of Sarah.” From these words our sages derive the message that all her years were lived in the same state of piety, etc.
      A Midrashic approach (Bereshit Rabbah 58,1) to these words: “at 100 she was as free from sin as at 20; at 20 years of age she was as beautiful as at seven years of age.” The meaning of these words is that just as a girl’s looks are apt to improve after she has reached the age of seven, Sarah’s looks kept improving even after she had reached the age of twenty (which is usually the time when physical beauty is at its best). Man’s life is divided into three periods. 1) youth, i.e. the period when one grows towards maturity. 2) maturity; roughly the period between 20-30 before one’s physique begins to decline. 3) old age, a period when decline becomes visible.
      Another Midrashic approach: The verse may be divided into the sections ויהיו חיי שרה, that the numerical value of the life of Sarah was equivalent to the numerical value of the word ויהיו, i.e. 37. These were the 37 years during which she was able to practice motherhood, having given birth to Yitzchak when she was 90 years old. The second part of the verse which mentions the number 127 records the number of years she lived not from her point of view but from an historian’s point of view.  We find something similar when the Torah reports the years of Yaakov’s life in Genesis 47,28. The numerical value of the word ויחי is 34, i.e. a combination of the 17 years Yaakov enjoyed Joseph’s company after he had been born and the last 17 years of Yaakov’s life when he again enjoyed Joseph’s company. These 34 years were the only truly happy ones he experienced.
      Another way of looking at the words ויהיו חיי שרה is that they refer to the hereafter. This would reflect the fact that the Torah reported her death immediately after she had heard that Yitzchak’s soul had “flown” to heaven as a result of his having been offered to G’d as a sacrifice. The form ויהיו would hint that both her soul and that of Yitzchak departed from earth at the same time to take up permanent residence in the celestial regions. The word ויהי or ויהיו basically means that something exists permanently. The word שני, “years of,” is deliberately omitted at that point as the very word “year” implies something of limited duration. The same word does, however, appear at the end of our verse, as at that point the Torah underlines another aspect of the message it tries to convey. At that point the Torah speaks about Sarah’s life on earth. Naturally, in that context the words “years of” are very relevant.
  
  Verse 2
  
    ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע, “Sarah died there at Kiryat Arba, etc.” The main thrust of the verse is to alert us to the fact that this righteous woman died and was buried in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah emphasises that the place called קרית ארבע at that time was renamed חברון afterwards in order that no one should forget that we speak about a town inside Eretz Yisrael. At the conclusion of Sarah’s burial in verse 19, the Torah repeats once more that the cave of Machpelah where she is buried is situated היא חברון בארץ כנען, “at Chevron in the land of Canaan.” The Torah teaches that it was a great privilege to be buried in the same burial ground reserved for such outstanding individuals as Adam, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, a place which would later on (28,17) be called “the gateway to heaven.” [The author apparently views the site where Yaakov had the dream as being Chevron rather than Mount Moriah. Ed.]  The reason the town was called קרית ארבע, “the city of Four,” is because four pairs of outstanding human beings were buried in the cave of Machpelah there. They are: Adam and Chavah, Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, and Yaakov and Leah. 
  The mystical dimension of the name חברון is that the soul of everyone buried in that cave joins (מתחבר) the celestial city of G’d, i.e. the four encampments of the שכינה. Our patriarchs would not have made great efforts to be buried there had they not been aware of a profound spiritual dimension involved. They knew that transfer to the עולם האמת from that site would be a crucial experience for them. It is the place from which the souls return to their origin, the throne of G’d’s’ glory. 
     ויבא אברהם לספוד לשרה ולב-כ-ותה, “Avraham came to eulogise Sarah and to weep for her.” If it had been the intention of the Torah to inform us that Avraham came from elsewhere, i.e. from another town, the Torah would have written: “he came from such and such a place.” The meaning of the word ויבא is simply that Avraham roused himself (from his shock) in order to eulogise Sarah. When a person rouses himself to undertake a certain activity, this is described as בא אליה, “coming to it, i.e. coming to grips with the planned activity.” The Talmud in Tamid 4,3 when discussing the skinning and cutting up of of animals which had been slaughtered in preparation for being offered on the altar, uses the expression בא לו לגרה והניח שתי צלעות, בא לו לעוקץ וגו', “when the officiating priest got ready to deposit two ribs near the neck, etc.” The expression בא לו cannot mean “that he came to a certain location,” as a single animal is discussed. All parts were in the same place. It must refer to something different. In Bechorot 20 we encounter Rabbi Akiva saying: לא באתי למדה זו, and it certainly cannot mean “I have not come to this measure,” or something similar. It is clear that the meaning of the word is: “I have not (yet) begun to work on this subject,” or something similar. In our verse too, the Torah describes that now Avraham would attend to the task of eulogising his wife. Had the meaning been that Avraham came from afar, the Torah would have written ויבא אברהם ויספוד את שרה, “Avraham came and eulogised Sarah.”  The two words לספוד לשרה i.e. mentioning her name which was well known to all those present, need clarification. We would have expected simply לספדה ולבכותה, “to eulogise her and to weep for her.” The reason the Torah did not write this abbreviated version is that it is the custom of the professional eulogisers to again and again mention the name of the departed whom they eulogise. We find that when David eulogised King Shaul and his own intimate friend Yonathan, that he spoke of שאול ויהונתן הנאהבים והנעימים,  “Shaul and Yonathan the beloved and the cherished ones.” Seeing that in the same chapter (Samuel II 1,18) David already had mentioned both Shaul and Yonathan by name, he could have now referred to them by the pronoun “they.” Nonetheless, during the course of that eulogy David mentions both Shaul and Yonathan by name no fewer than six times.  In our verse, all the Torah had to write was that Avraham set out to “weep for her, and to bury her.” After all, burial is the principal act of true kindness one performs for one’s dead  and concludes the acts of eulogising and  weeping. Burying a human being is one of the great acts of kindness which G’d Himself performs on occasion. Had the Torah written the sequence of the words we mentioned, the impression this would have created amongst the readers  would be that all these activities occurred one immediately after the other. The truth is that whereas eulogising and weeping occurred consecutively, there was quite an interval before Sarah was finally laid to rest. Avraham first had to secure a plot of land in which to bury Sarah.
      I believe further that if Avraham and Yitzchak came from out of town in order to eulogise Sarah, etc, then the Torah should have written that “Avraham and Yitzchak came to eulogise, etc.” Yitzchak most certainly should also have eulogised his mother and wept for her. In fact, his duty to do so would have been even greater than Avraham’s seeing that he was her flesh and blood. In addition, the love Sarah must have lavished on Yitzchak whom she bore after waiting for him for 90 years must certainly have evoked reciprocal feelings in Yitzchak so that he would have eulogised her. 
  Perhaps, at this point in the story Yitzchak had not heard yet that his mother had died. Seeing that Sarah’s death had been attributed to the binding of Yitzchak, people might have tried to withhold the information from him as long as possible. This is most likely the reason why we do not hear a single word about Yitzchak in the whole paragraph, neither during the eulogy and weeping nor even during the burial ceremony. In fact, we have not heard a word about Yitzchak ever since he took part in the binding on the altar. Although Avraham had told the lads that both he and Yitzchak would return to them from the mountain, the Torah did not report that this happened. All we were told is that “Avraham returned to his lads” (22,19). We would have expected the Torah to write that “Avraham and Yitzchak returned to the lads.” 
  Possibly, Yitzchak had decided to remain for some time on Mount Moriah until he became forty years of age when he married Rivkah. At that point the Torah does mention that Yitzchak had come fromבאר לחי רואי,  “from the well of the Living One who Sees,” the well at which Hagar’s prayers had once been answered.
   According to Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 the words “Avraham came,” mean that he came from Mount Moriah, that Sarah heard about what had transpired there, as a result of which her soul departed from her. This is the reason why this paragraph follows the one of the binding of Yitzchak.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויקם אברהם מעל פני מתו...וידבר אל בני חת, “Avraham rose up from the presence of his dead and he spoke to the Hittites, etc.” The local inhabitants were members of the tribe of the Hittites. The Torah had reported in Genesis 10,15 that Chet (Heth) was one of the sons of Canaan. All of the tribes residing in the land described as the “land of Canaan,” were sons of Canaan, the grandson of Noach.    The Torah taught us something concerning good manners, namely, that if one addresses an assembly of people one needs to be standing upright rather than sitting down. The Torah repeats the formula ויקם אברהם, “Avraham rose, etc.” again in verses 7-8. 
  It appears to have been an established custom that when an individual addressed a community that the individual first rose in order to do so. When he concluded whatever he had to say, he would resume his seat. When Avraham referred to himself as a resident stranger (verse four), he did so while standing up. In verse five he  apparently already resumed his seat. Had he not done so, why would verse 7 again mention that Avraham rose, etc.? Whenever Avraham wanted to say something in front of the people assembled at “the gate of the city,” he rose from his seat first.
      As to the unusual masculine construction in the words מעל פני מתו instead of מתה seeing that Sarah had been a female, the reason for this is that the word גוף, body, is masculine. Now that Sarah had died, she was only a body. The soul of a person does not die. Hence, the word מתו is absolutely appropriate here.
  
  Verse 4
  
   תנו לי אחוזת קבר עמכם, “let me have possession of a burial ground amongst you, etc.” It was the custom for every family to have its own field as a burial ground for its members, whereas they had set aside a special plot of land on which to bury aliens. This is what prompted Avraham to use the preamble: גר ותושב אנכי עמכם, “on the one hand I am an alien, seeing that I have come here from a distant land, and this is why I do not own a burial plot of my own. On the other hand, I have been very willing to become a resident amongst you, etc.” They answered him: “Listen to us, my lord etc.” On the one hand they addressed him as a group, saying: “listen to us.”  On the other hand, they continued with the singular “my lord.” The reason for this was that a single individual was conducting this conversation though he spoke in the name of a multitude. When this individual, i.e. the spokesman, continued by saying: “you are a prince in our midst, choose from the choicest of our burial grounds, etc.,” adding the compliment: “you are a prince of G’d,” he spoke in the name of the people who had made him their spokesman. The term גר, “stranger, alien,” is demeaning, whereas the expression נשיא אלוהים אתה בתוכנו, “you are a prince of G’d amongst us,” is a compliment, contrasting Avraham’s stature amongst them with that of a stranger. They suggested that they themselves as well as their land was at Avraham’s disposal. (compare Genesis 47,19 where loss of land is equated with the status of subservience). As a result of their considering Avraham as royalty, he had the right to choose whatever piece of land he desired as his burial ground. Nobody would deny him even land he had previously reserved for his own eventual interment. When Avraham heard this, he immediately responded with the words: “if indeed you wish me to bury my dead, etc.” He meant that he had no intention of burying his dead in any unknown  field; rather, he had a particular spot in mind for which they needed to speak to Efron son of Tzochar, the owner of that particular piece of property. This is Nachmanides’ version of what transpired here.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויתן לי את מערת המכפלה,  “so that he may give me the cave Machpelah which adjoins his field.” The reason it was called מכפלה is related to the expression כפל, “double.” Apparently G’d had “doubled” the height of the cave in order to bury Adam’s remains inside it. The local residents had been unaware of this. Efron himself was also unaware of any special significance of the cave in spite of its name. He had had no reason to suspect who, if anybody, had previously been buried inside that cave. [Seeing that this had occurred before the deluge, how could anybody have been aware, unless Noach had found the land of Israel intact after the deluge. Ed.]  When Avraham repeatedly spoke about Efron “giving” him the cave, he did not mean that he was unwilling to pay for it. He meant that he would consider transfer of the title to that cave to him as a gift, regardless of any commercial transaction they would conclude concerning it. In order not to be misunderstood, Avraham added the words (verse nine)  בכסף מלא יתננה לי, “in return for full monetary compensation he shall give it to me.”  Avraham neither asked for a gift, nor even for the field (which would have meant a loss to Efron, [seeing he could no longer till it. Ed.] All he asked for was the cave at the edge of Efron’s field. Efron’s answer was couched in ethical/moral terms. “I have donated the field to you as well as the cave which is situated on it; it would not be fitting for someone of your stature to own merely the cave and not the field of which it is part.” He continued: “this is why I have given you the whole package as a gift, field as well as cave.” When Efron used the expression “I have given,” he meant “it is equivalent to a gift.” Avraham took him up on this expression and that is why he said: “I have given the money for the field, take it from me,” although Efron had not even named his price yet (verse thirteen). The entire transaction was intended to create the impression that Avraham had received a tremendous bargain by being allowed to pay an outrageous price. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ארץ ארבע מאות שקל כסף, “a piece of land worth four hundred silver shekel,” etc. This is the meaning of the words according to Onkelos. Another meaning of these words could be that Efron suggested that either he or his ancestors had paid this sum of money for this piece of land. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,7 took the view that the piece of land in question was not worth anywhere near the price Efron was charging Avraham. This is why his name is suddenly (verse sixteen) spelled without the letter ו, to show that instead of becoming rich by overcharging Avraham, Efron became impoverished as a result of his greed.
      On the words ביני ובינך מה היא, “what is such a paltry sum between me and you,” the Midrash (Baba Metzia 86) says that the righteous promise little and perform in excess of what they promise. An example is Avraham who promised to serve his guests only a piece of bread, whereas he prepared a sumptuous feast (Genesis 18,8), instructing Sarah to bake cakes from the finest flour, while he himself ran to the stables to prepare the best calves for the meal. The wicked, on the other hand, promise a lot and do not keep any of it, such as Efron who kept speaking about what he was going “to give” to Avraham whereas when it came to the conclusion of the transaction he overcharged him. The Torah testified that Avraham paid him in hard cash, the price being exorbitant. As proof of the miserly and avaricious attitude of Efron the sages in the Talmud draw our attention to the numerical value of the name עפרון which the Torah abbreviated to עפרן when it became clear that he did not give Avraham anything. The remaining letters in his name amount to 400, the same as the numerical value of the letters in the expression רע עין, grudging, envious.
      Avraham did not want to accept any gifts from him but to pay full value, בכסף מלא, as is the custom of righteous people. We find that King David (Samuel II chapter 24) also did not want to accept any gifts and paid handsomely for the threshing ground of Aravnah the Jebusite, although offered the site plus animals to serve as sacrifices as well the animals’ yokes to serve as fire-wood. David paid 50 shekels for the threshing ground plus the animals and their yokes as he did not want to appear cheap in the eyes of G’d (Samuel II 24,24).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקם השדה והמערה אשר בו , “and the field and the cave  which is in it ‘rose.’” The Torah appears to repeat itself as we had been told already in verses 17-18  that the field and the cave passed from the possession of Efron to that of Avraham and the Torah specified its precise location. However, verses 17-18 speak about what happened to the field and the cave before Sarah was buried in there. At that time the property passed to the hands of Avraham only as a מקנה, a “purchase.” Now that Sarah had been buried in the cave of Machpelah the Torah speaks of it becoming an אחוזה, an inalienable piece of property. By burying Sarah in that cave Avraham had performed an act of permanent acquisition. The reason the Torah again stresses מאת בני חת, as if the sellers had been a whole group of people instead of merely Efron is of crucial importance. The Torah wants to forestall anyone ever raising any objection against this sale. This is why the Torah repeats the story of the acquisition of this piece of property again at the end of the Book of Genesis (49,32) prior to Yaakov being buried there.
  The Torah speaks about this transaction no fewer than eight times in this portion, and twice more at a later date, making a total of ten references to what should be viewed as a simple transaction. [Anyone living in our own times realizes that all this was not enough to safeguard our claim to make it universally recognized. Ed.] 
  
  Our prescient sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 have already foreseen such spurious counterclaims when they wrote: “how much ink has been spilled, how many styluses have been broken merely in order to write the words בני חת, ‘the Hittites.’” Ten times did the Torah repeat its reference to the Hittites. The Torah did so in order that anyone who acknowledges our title to the cave of Machpelah be considered as if he had observed the Ten Commandments.” We find similarly excessive sounding verbiage in Chronicles I chapter 21 where David’s purchase of the threshing ground of Arnon the Jebusite is described by Ezra Hasofer. The word  Arnon appears no fewer than ten times in that report! One of the moral lessons to be derived from our chapter is that even if man may conquer the whole of the inhabited part of the earth during his lifetime, in the end, when it is time to be buried, all he will own are the four cubits where he has been laid to rest. Avraham had been given the entire earth as a gift from G’d and what he had acquired by paying for it was only the cave of Machpelah in the “city of four, i.e. in Chevron.” Even though the Israelites conquered the whole of the land of Canaan by the sword, we find that three locations in that country are distinguished especially. This was so because they had not been acquired by force of arms but by legal tender, the previous owners having willingly forfeited their claim to these properties. They are Chevron, Mount Gerizim and Mout Eyval, and Mount Moriah. The Torah has documented our claim to Chevron in this portion. Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval were the mountains where G’d concluded a covenant with the Jewish people (the generation which had not been of age or had not been born at the time of the Exodus). This area had already been bought by Yaakov when the Torah reported in Genesis 33,19: “Yaakov bought the piece of land, etc.” Mount Moriah’s purchase has been documented in Chronicles I chapter 21,.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואברהם זקן בא בימים, “Avraham was old, getting on in years, etc.” The meaning of the verse is 1) seeing Avraham felt that he had aged he was afraid that he might die before Yitzchak had married. He did not want to send off his servant without an oath in the event he would not return from his mission before he, Avraham, had died. By making Eliezer swear he assured himself that Yitzchak would do what he wanted as Yitzchak was in the habit of listening to Eliezer’s advice. The reason Avraham did not impose an oath on Yitzchak instead was so that the servant would not be able to fool Yitzchak by presenting any number of arguments seeing hat he was not under oath to Avraham. Avraham considered the Canaanite as captive to deceitful practices as we know from Hoseah 12,8: כנען בידו מאזני מרמה לעשוק אהב, “A Canaanite uses false weights, loves to overreach.” He made the servant swear to reinforce Eliezer’s obligation in the matter.
      Tanchuma Chayey Sarah 2 claims that  there are four possible causes why premature old age suddenly settles on a person. 1) because he lives in fear of something; 2) because he is angry at his children; 3) because he is married to an evil person; 4) because of being involved in waging wars. The respective verses from Scripture quoted by that Midrash to support its claim are 1) Chronicles 1 21,30 “and David was unable to go to it to worship the Lord because he was terrified by the sword of the angel of the Lord.” We also have a verse in Kings I, 1,1 “and King David was old, advanced in years.” As to the anger caused to a person by his children aging him, we read in Samuel I 2,22: now Eli was very old. When he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, etc.” We have proof that being engaged in constant warfare ages a person from Joshua 13,1: “Joshua was old, advanced in years.” Concerning a husband’s aging prematurely due to being married to bad women, we find a verse in Kings I 11,4 “it was when Solomon grew old because his wives had turned his heart, etc.” On the other hand, we know that Avraham’s wife had always honoured him and not caused him any grief, for even when she referred to him as old (Genesis 18,12), she still called him אדוני, “my lord.”
    וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “and G’d had blessed Avraham with everything.” The plain meaning of the word בכל is Avraham was blessed in every undertaking; he had all types of properties, enjoyed honour both locally and amongst distant countries. He enjoyed old age. He had not been denied any of the things the average person hopes for. The only thing he had not yet achieved was to be blessed with grandchildren. Seeing that he was anxious to become a grandfather, Avraham made his servant take an oath that he would secure a suitable wife for Yitzchak.
    A Midrashic approach (Baba Batra 16): Concerning the words וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, Rabbi Meir said that seeing Avraham did not have a daughter, this was a blessing. Rabbi Yehudah said that Avraham did have a daughter. A third (anonymous) view quoted in the Talmud is that  the name of that daughter was בכל, hence this was part of the blessings the Torah speaks about Avraham enjoying.  Rabbi Meir meant that if Avraham had had a daughter he would have faced the difficulty of finding a husband for her. He most certainly would not have chosen a son-in-law from amongst the local Canaanites, and even if such a daughter would have married someone in Charan, the people there were also idolaters and a woman who is subservient to her husband would have had an untenable position if she had been loyal to her father Avraham’s teachings in the home of her pagan husband. Rabbi Yehudah simply felt that one cannot describe someone as enjoying “all of G’d’s blessings,” unless such a person had also been blessed with having a daughter. The unnamed scholars (אחרים) who claim that Avraham’s daughter was called בכל, revealed a profound mystical dimension to us. 
  When they said that Avraham’s daughter was called בכל, they did not refer to a biological daughter. They referred to a spiritual dimension called בת, “daughter.” Their statement is of a kabbalistic nature [elaborated on by Nachmanides in his commentary on this verse]. They meant that Avraham achieved a virtue known as כל. Anyone who attains this virtue will find himself blessed both on earth and in heaven. This is why these sages said that Avraham was blessed בכל, i.e. “with“ the virtue known as kol. The reason why these sages called this virtue “bat,” is that the greatest (hollow) measure known in the Bible (Kings I 7,26)  was the so-called ים של שלמה, the copper basin in front of the Temple from which the priests washed their hands and feet. This basin had a capacity of 2000 bat [equal to 225 times the minimum size of a ritual bath. Ed]. The reason these sages used this measure as their terms of reference when alluding to Avraham’s achievement in the spiritual spheres is that the bat is a sub-category of the virtue (מדה) known as כל. Being a sub-category the name בת, “daughter” is appropriate (just as a subsidiary commercial company is called חברת בת in Hebrew; i.e. “daughter-company.”) In kabbalistic parlance this “virtue,” or “emanation,” is known as the “celestial tribunal of G’d.” This is the reason our verse did not commence with the customary ויברך ה' את אברהם, first describing the actvity, i.e. ויברך, but it first described who carried out the activity, i.e. השם. It is important to appreciate this rule, as it is one of the mystical dimensions of understanding a Torah text. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “please place your hand under my thigh, etc.” The plain meaning of the text is hat Avraham demanded two separate matters from Eliezer. 1) that he should make a covenant with him to serve him as a servant serves a master; i.e. to pay homage to Avraham. 2) an oath sworn by Almighty G’d, the G’d of both heaven and earth .
    Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also explains the request of Avraham for Eliezer to place his hand under his thigh in a similar fashion. He writes that it was customary in those days to place one’s hand beneath the thigh of one’s master while the master was seated, so that in effect the master “sat” on the hand of his servant at the time he made him take an oath. According to Ibn Ezra this custom continued in his time in India.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 59,8 cited by Rashi: The words: “place your hand under my thigh so that I can make you swear an oath,” are all a single request [not as we said previously that there were two requests here.] Avraham made Eliezer swear by placing his hand on the place where he had been circumcised, i.e. where he wore the sign of his covenant with the G’d of heaven and earth. This had been a commandment which Avraham had revealed to the world. The reason the Torah mentions that G’d is the G’d of the heaven is to remind us that the entire Torah is an elongated name of G’d. As a result of this truth, any single commandment in the Torah may be viewed as a “portion” of the name of G’d. When G’d endows us with one of His commandments it is as if He endows us with a part of His elongated name.
     ואלוקי הארץ, “and the Lord of the earth.” Do not be surprised if Avraham spoke about “the G’d of the earth,” seeing that he made Eliezer swear in the land of Canaan, a place where G’d most certainly had not yet been recognised as such. It is customary throughout the Bible to relate the term G’d to a certain country as most nations had “national gods,” deities which supposedly had the interests of the inhabitants of that country at heart. This is why we have such expressions as “the God of Israel,” (Exodus 5,1 and many others), “the G’d of Jerusalem,”  (Chronicles II 32,19). The name of our G’d is never associated with other nations or their countries. The reason is that the Holy Land is G’d’s special “inheritance;” when Avraham referred to אלוקי הארץ, he referred to G’d as the especial Patron of the Holy Land, the very land in which he resided. If Avraham had found himself in Egypt at that moment, he would not have referred to G’d at that time as אלוקי הארץ, “the G’d of the land. This is why he added a little while later (verse six) “the G’d of heaven who has taken me out from my father’s house, etc.” Whereas Avraham lists a number of places G’d has taken him away from, he never once refers to G’d as being the G’d of any of these places. The reason was that he did not want the G’d in heaven to be associated in Eliezer’s mind with any country other than the Holy Land.  This may help explain the famous statement in Ketuvot 110 that anyone who resides outside the Holy Land is as if he did not have any god at all. They quote as proof Samuel I 26,19 “For they have driven me out today (David speaking), so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession, but am told: ‘go and worship other gods!’”
   The meaning of the word “as if” in the statement we quoted from Ketuvot is: “such a person is as if he did not belong to the special people who enjoy the protection of the only true G’d, the G’d who is the Lord of the whole universe.” 
  Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the word הארץ to mean that all marriages on earth are the result of divine input. This is what is meant by the Talmud in Sotah 2 that 40 days before the gestation of the fetus a heavenly voice decrees: “the daughter of so-and-so will be married to so-and-so.” These predictions apply even if the parties involved live on opposite sides of the ocean.
  
  Verse 3
  
  אשר לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני, “that you will not take a wife for my son from amongst the daughters of the Canaanite, etc.” He warned Eliezer not to take a wife from a nation which was cursed. When a woman is predestined for destruction, she is apt to drag her husband in the same general direction. This is precisely what the mother of all human beings did (compare Genesis 3, 20). You are aware that this is what happened to Solomon who married a number of alien women (Kings I 11,1). The prophet testifies there that it was these women who turned his heart from being completely loyal to G-d. This is the reason that it has become the custom of the Jewish people to read this portion (in the presence of the assembled guests)  to a bridegroom on the day when he gets married to remind all the people to be very circumspect in their choice of life-partners. (There is a section on this custom in Zunz: “Ritus” page 15). The Avudraham at the end of ברכת נשואין brings the custom as “on the Sabbath of the seven days of the Chuppah one reads this section before the bridegroom, etc.” (apparently in the Synagogue during the regular morning service). The groom is reminded not to marry a woman because of her physical beauty, as Solomon has said in Proverbs 31,30 ,שקר החן והבל היופי, “grace is deceptive, and beauty is vain.“ He should also not marry a woman because she is wealthy, as money is apt to develop wings and to fly off just like an eagle (compare Proverbs 23,5). The groom should also not marry a woman because she is a member of a powerful, and influential family and he hopes to  become powerful and influential himself due to his wife’s connections. If these are a groom’s considerations in the choice of his wife he will be punished and will likely fail on all three counts. The guiding considerations when choosing a wife have to be reverence for G-d, choosing a family which enjoys a good reputation. Seeing that in the majority of cases the daughter‘s character is similar to that of her brothers, one may form some idea about a girl by observing the way her older brothers conduct themselves. (compare Baba Batra 110). 
  	Our portion also teaches that it is appropriate to select a bride from amongst one’s family, as did Avraham (compare verse 4) for his son Yitzchak, and as did Amram who married Yocheved (an aunt, Exodus 2,1 something that the Torah forbade later on). Whenever people marry someone to whom they already have a natural affinity, such as members of their own family (excluding incest, of course), the likelihood of harmonious relations not only between husband and wife but between the mutual members of the respective families is enhanced. If someone marries a wife from a lower social strata, there is a chance that he will feel superior to her and this will lead to bad blood and resentment on his wife’s part. The result will be an ongoing friction. Our sages in Pessachim 49, have described families  who are cleaving to one another because they are all part of the same social strata as ענבי הגפן בענבי הגפן דבר נאה ומתקבל, “grapevines joining grapevines are something beautiful and acceptable.” The author continues in this vein, concluding with the quotation from Psalms 125,4 הטיבה ה’ לטובים ולישרים בלבותם, “Do good, O Lord to the good, to the upright in their heart.” The psalmist  implores G-d to grant His blessing to people whose motivations in their choice of wife are guided by the principles we have just outlined. The psalm goes on by predicting that those who are guided by base motivations will join the path of the evildoers. When such clear lines of distinction are drawn between  people who are sincere in their motivations and those who are not, Israel will be at peace (as one will not confuse one group with another).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  פן תשיב את בני שמה, “lest you bring my son back there.” The meaning is “do not lead him back to there.” Avraham did not want Yitzchak to leave the boundaries of the Holy Land. This was because he had once been designated as a sacred offering, and something sacred must not be desecrated by reverting to a secular status.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  וכל טוב אדניו בידו, “and with all the bounty of his master in his hand.” Actually, for the sake of accuracy, the Torah should have written  ומטוב אדניו, “and with (samples of) all the bounty of his master,” just as it goes on to say מגמלי אדניו from amongst the camels of his master,” (where the Torah also did not write that Eliezer took all the camels.) According to the plain meaning of the text the verse describes the greatness and superior loyalty of Avraham’s servant. The Torah reveals that Avraham had entrusted all his wealth to be administered by Eliezer, everything was “left in his hand.” Eliezer was in full control. We may understand this verse as similar to Numbers 21,26 ויקח את כל ארצו מידו, “he took his entire land from his hand.” (The reference is to Sichon having taken all of Moav’s land) Clearly, the meaning of the verse is a figure of speech. Here too the Torah employs a figure of speech to describe the status Eliezer enjoyed in Avraham’s household.
  	A Midrashic (Bereshit Rabbah 59,11) approach: the words וכל טוב אדוניו בידו, “all the bounty of his master in his hand,” refer to a document which Eliezer carried in his hand in which Avraham had appointed Yitzchak as his sole heir. Avraham had done this in order to encourage the parents of any bride Eliezer would choose to allow their daughter to marry out of the country. The Torah  writes: “in his hand,” to inform us of this. The word וילך, “he went,” is also meant to draw attention to this, as obviously, Eliezer did not “walk” all that way but rode on one of the camels. The combined words וילך וכל טוב אדוניו בידו, are a clear hint that Eliezer walked while holding something in his hand. What did he hold in his hand? “The gift-certificate donating all of Avraham’s wealth to his son Yitzchak,” in the event that he would not be alive when the servant returned. The word וילך appears a second time in the same verse  to show that Eliezer set out armed with such a document which was going to be helpful to his mission. According to this interpretation, the words ויתן אברהם את כל  אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham (now) gave all that was his to Yitzchak,” a verse we find only in 25,5 have been repeated there only in order to forestall any claims by any other children of Avraham to part of his estate. The fact is he had already given his accumulated wealth to Yitzchak before the sons of Keturah had been born. They only shared in possessions Avraham acquired after he had remarried. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ועשה חסד, “and perform a kindness!” The servant implored G-d’s attribute at the beginning of his prayer as well as at its conclusion when he said ובה אדע כי עשית חסד עם אדוני, “and through her I will know that You have indeed performed a kindness for my master.” Seeing that Eliezer was aware that the outstanding characteristic of his master Avraham was the quality of חסד, this was the attribute of G-d he addressed when he prayed to the Ineffable Name, י-ה-ו-ה.
  
  Verse 13
  
  הנה אנכי נצב על עין המים, ”here I am standing at a fountain of water, etc.”  We have to be alert to the fact that this whole paragraph appears to be merely a repetition of what the Torah already told us. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,8 have explained that this teaches that the small talk of the servants of the patriarchs was dearer to G-d than some of the profound Torah insights of the children of the patriarchs. We can prove this from the fact that the Torah was very expansive in reporting everything the servant did, whereas it was most concise in relating some very basic legislation which applies to the Jewish people throughout the ages. Sometimes, such legislation is merely hinted at in the text so that if it had not been revealed to Moses orally we would never have found it in the written text. The whole matter is further proof that the patriarchs were carriers of G-d’s “chariot,” i.e. that their stature exceeded that of the angels who had preceded them as the carriers. There can be no doubt that the Torah did not repeat this whole report of Eliezer’s prayer and his dialogue with Rivkah without an ulterior motive. I will explain this as we proceed with the text of this entire paragraph. I advise you the reader to keep your eyes open as all these matters were directly related to the success of Eliezer’s mission. For instance: the Torah speaks of the עין המים, the well (fountain) of water three times, each time varying the syntax somewhat. In our verse here the well is simply described as עין המים, “a fountain of water.” In 24,42 the servant is reported as saying: ואבא היום אל העין, “I arrived this day at the well.” in 24,16 the Torah says of Rivkah: ותרד העינה, “she descended to the well.” In other words, the Torah speaks of the same well in three slightly different versions, עין, העין, העינה. We need to understand the precise reason for each of these nuances. [The author leaves it there, but Rabbi Chavell quotes that according to תורת חיים the combination of the word עין (numerical value 70) plus two more times the same word equals an allusion to the name of G-d consisting of 72 letters. The additional letters ה, either at the beginning of the word or at the end, allude to the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name, a reference to G-d’s attribute of חסד. Eliezer invoked this attribute in order to secure for Yitzchak the mate who was appropriate for him.]
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   והיה הנערה אשר אומר אליה הטי נא כדך, “let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say:  ‘please lower your jug so that I may drink,’ etc.” We have learned in Taanit 4 that there were three people who did not phrase a request to G-d in an appropriate manner. The three were: Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, Saul, son of Kish; and Yiftach from Gilead. Concerning Eliezer the Torah writes: (quoting our verses) “the criteria Eliezer listed to enable him to choose a bride for Yitzchak could have been met by a blind or lame girl.” [Eliezer surely did not mean for a girl with either one of such a handicap to become the bride of Yitzchak. Ed.]. Nonetheless, G-d arranged for the girl whom Eliezer met to be Rivkah, i.e. an eminently suitable choice. Saul, son of Kish requested victory over Goliath the Philistine blasphemer, promising the man who would kill Goliath his daughter as well as material wealth (Samuel I 17,28). If a slave or a bastard had taken up the challenge and succeeded, Saul would have been bound by a promise so carelessly formulated. G-d was kind enough to send him David who took up the challenge. In the case of Yiftach, we are told (Judges 11,31) that he foolishly vowed to offer as a sacrifice to G-d the first living creature which would come to meet him when he returned victoriously from battle. As it happened, his only daughter came out to welcome him. He had laid himself open to having to sacrifice any animal that was not even permitted to be offered as a sacrifice. G-d arranged that his daughter should meet him instead of what he had had in mind. This was the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 8,22 הצרי אין בגלעד אם רופא אין שם? “is there no balm in Gilead, no physician either?” The prophet points out that Yiftach could have had his vow annulled by the High Priest Pinchas or even by someone else had he not been too proud to do so. This thought [that there is not the slightest reason to honour a vow when it involves human sacrifice. Ed.] is underlined by the same prophet in Jeremiah 19,5 אשר לא ציויתי ולא דברתי, ולא עלתה על לבי, “which I have not commanded, nor spoken about, nor even thought about.” In other words, it was not G-d’s fault, or the fault of G-d’s legislation about honouring one’s vows which led to the death of Yiftach’s daughter.
  אותה הוכחת לעבדך ליצחק,  “her you have designated for your servant, for Yitzchak.” She is fit for him as she performs deeds of loving kindness and she therefore is suitable to enter the household of an Avraham.
  ובה אדע,  “and by means of her (actions) I will know, etc.” this was an appeal to G-d to let him know that G-d had performed an act of kindness for Avraham (compare Rashi).
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויהי הוא טרם כלה לדבר, “and it was before he had finished speaking, etc.” We need to understand the need for the apparently extraneous word הוא in this verse. All the Torah had to write to tell us that Rivkah appeared before Eliezer had completed his prayer was ויהי ככלותו לדברו, “as soon as he had finished speaking, etc.” Actually, the word הוא in this verse is not a personal pronoun, i.e. “he,” but a name of G-d. (compare Genesis 19,33 where we encountered this word in that context) We have numerous examples of the word הוא being a reference to a name of G-d, such as Psalms 100, 3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him;” Numbers 18,23  ועבד הלוי הוא, ”and the Levite will serve G-d, etc.;” the word הוא in that verse means that Eliezer enjoyed G-d’s special assistance in his mission by means of the angel concerning whom Avraham had prayed to G-d that He should make Eliezer’s mission successful (verse 7).The angel, was at hand already before Eliezer had completed praying and he arranged for Rivkah to be the maiden whom Eliezer would address first with his request for water. This is why the Torah wrote: והנה רבקה יוצאת, “and here Rivkah was already in the process of coming out, etc.” The word והנה means that what follows was the result of a special arrangement, invitation. If the servant immediately ran towards her (verse 17) it was because he had noticed the water of the well rising to meet Rivkah on her descent. This is what our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,5 have derived from the wording in our verses here. At that moment Eliezer already understood what Avraham had meant when he had said to him that G-d would send His angel ahead. This is also what he related once he was in Bethuel’s house when he told the family that Avraham had assured him already before he set out on his journey that G-d would send His angel ahead and that he would succeed (verse 40). In view of this it is easy to understand that from the moment that Eliezer had become aware that the angel was supporting him the Torah refers to him no longer as עבד, servant, but as איש, a man of stature. Up until then we read about וישם העבד, “the servant placed;” ויקח העבד, “the servant took;” וירץ העבד, “the servant ran.” From this point on the Torah keeps referring to Eliezer as האיש until he leaves the house of Bethuel with Rivkah. The expressionהאיש  is applied to the angel Gavriel in Daniel 9,21. It is also applied to the angel who told Joseph that his brothers had moved away from Shechem, (Genesis 37,17) and that they had been overheard as planning to move to Dothan. In other words, as of the time the angel joined Eliezer in his quest, he himself assumed the role of the angel in an executive manner. The words והאיש משתאה לה (verse 21) which appear to be somewhat problematical if we assume Eliezer and the angel to have become as one, must be understood as “he was waiting for her;” he did so as he had become aware that his mission was about to be crowned with success. Having done so, the Torah from now on refers to him constantly as האיש, such as when we read (verse 22) ויקח האש, or (verse 26) ויקוד האיש, or (verse 30) כה דבר אלי האיש, etc. When, a little while later, Lavan and Bethuel gave their consent for Eliezer to take Rivkah (verse 51) and they said הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך, “here Rivkah is in your presence, take her and go,” at which point Eliezer’s mission had been completed, the Torah reverts to describe Eliezer as עבד instead of as האיש. In verse 53 when Eliezer is reported as sharing out gifts, as well as in every subsequent move of his, the Torah speaks of העבד, “the servant,” seeing that the angel’s assistance was no longer required for that part of his activity. Avraham’s prayer which invoked the assistance of an angel had been answered in full. If you were to ask that when Lavan and his mother asked Rivkah if she were willing to go עם האיש הזה, “with this man,” and this occurred only in verse 58, after verse 51 which we described as the point at which Eliezer’s mission had basically been completed, the answer is simple. The words reported in verse 58 were not spoken by the Torah but by Lavan and his mother. They certainly were not bound by the considerations we described before. How could they be expected to refer to someone as “this slave,” when the person in question was distributing lavish gifts to every member of their household, not to mention to Rivkah herself? Would it not have been a gross insult to their sister to ask her is she were willing to leave her parental home in order to travel to a distant land “with this slave?” Concerning verse 61 in which both Rivkah and her maids are reported as traveling אחרי האיש, which appears to contradict the explanation I have offered that Eliezer had reverted to being an עבד the moment consent had been obtained for her to become Yitzchak’s bride, this wording was chosen by the Torah in honour of Rivkah. It would not have looked respectful if she had been described as riding “behind the slave.”	Another approach to the words והאיש משתאה לה. It is an allusion to the angel who had tarried and waited at the well until the arrival there of Rivkah. From that moment on Eliezer took over the task of the angel; hence he is referred to as האיש from that moment on. Support for this theory is found in the text near the end of the episode  where the Torah said (verse 61) “they walked behind האיש, “and the עבד took Rivkah and he went.” This verse makes it crystal clear that the subjects איש and עבד respectively could not have been one and the same.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ותרד העינה ותמלא כדה ותעל. “She descended to the well, filled her jug, and she came up.” The crucial word “she drew water,” is missing in this verse. On the second occasion when Rivkah again descended (verse 20) to provide water for Eliezer’s camels the Torah does insert the words ותרץ עוד אל הבאר לשאב, ותשאב וגו’, “she ran to the well once more in order to draw water; she drew water, etc.” These fine differences in the text prompted our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,6 to say: “all the women go down to the well to fill (their jugs). This one, as soon as the waters saw her they rose up to meet her.” G-d said to her: “just as the waters have seen fit to rise in your honour so other waters will rise in honour of your children.” [The reference is to Numbers 21,17 אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת עלי באר, “then the Israelites broke out in song: “rise up, O well,- sing to it, etc.”] This also explains the unusual verse 17 “the servant ran towards her, etc.” As soon as Eliezer had noticed the strange phenomenon that the waters rose to meet this girl, (verse 16) he hastened to meet her.
  	You ought to realise that here we encounter for the first time that the 72-lettered version of the 4-lettered Ineffable Name is alluded to. The first letters in the words כדה ותעל spell 26 in numerical value. The numerical value of the 4-lettered Ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה when spelled in letters only equals 26. When these four letters are spelled out as words i.e. יוד הי ויו הי, the result is 72. Such permutations of the holy name of G-d exert their influence on water and the waters which responded to the arrival of Rivkah did so as a result of being sensitive to such considerations. At a later time, when the Israelites were on the edge of the sea of reeds the water was able to rise in the form of walls to let the Israelites pass through in response to Moses’ staff which had this name of G-d (72 letters) inscribed on it. A similar consideration enabled Moses to strike the rock and to bring forth water from it (Exodus 17,6). [Rabbi Chavell cites Targum Yonathan on Exodus 14,21 as the source of our author.] 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ותאמר גם לגמליך אשאב, she said: “I will also draw water for your camels.” The physical strength required for Rivkah to draw water for all of Eliezer’s camels could only be explained if she enjoyed divine assistance. This is all the more so if we accept the opinion of the sages in the Seder Olam that at that time Rivkah was only three years old. The whole matter can be viewed only as part of the success of which Avraham had assured Eliezer at the outset when he told him: “He will send His angel ahead of you and make your mission successful.” (24,7) This is the reason you find an allusion to G-d’s great name in our verse  the name we have discussed in the previous paragraph. The fact that the letter ג in the word גמליך has a dagesh is additional evidence of an allusion to the attribute of גבורה being involved in what transpired at this well. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויקח האיש נזם זהב בקע משקלו ושני צמידים, “the man took a golden nose-ring weighing a beka and two bracelets, etc.” Why did the Torah need to tell us the weight of these pieces of jewelry? We are dealing with an allusion to the fact that eventually Rivkah’s descendants, i.e. the generation who would contribute to the building of the Tabernacle in terms of shekalim. In Exodus 35,26 the Torah speaks of the weight of these shekalim also in terms of בקע לגולגולת, one “beka per person.” When the Jewish people received the two tablets with the Ten Commandments you will find that these comprised 172 words. This corresponds to the numerical value of the letters in the word בקע. This corresponds to what we read here ושני צמידים על ידיה עשרה זהב משקלם. The words עשרה זהב are an allusion to the Ten Commandments. We may also perceive the word שקל as an acronym describing אש קול, i.e. the ingredients most prominent during the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai. We were told that on that occasion מן השמים השמיעך את קולו ליסרך ועל הארץ הראך את אשו הגדולה, “from the Heavens he let you hear His powerful voice, and on earth He showed you His great fire“  (Deut. 4,36). 
  This also leads us to examine the amount of shekels offered by Haman in order to secure permission from King Achashverosh to do to the Jewish people as he saw fit. He offered 10,000 talents of silver, or 600,000 shekels. (compare Esther 3,9) It was his plan to neutralise the 600,000 shekels the Jews had contributed at the time for the sockets of the Holy Tabernacle and to deprive them of any merit they might have accumulated due to that donation. In short, Haman wanted to neutralise the accumulated merit of the people who had embraced the Torah at Mount Sinai. He wanted to annul what had been acquired with fire and sound. This is what has been hinted at here in Eliezer’s prayer (verse 27) when he said: 'אנכי בדרך נחני ה’, “I was on the way when G-d guided me, etc.” He meant that the merit of the “אנכי” which the Jewish people would accept in the future was active on his behalf at the time he stood by the well. 
  All the details of what was happening with Rivkah at this time foreshadowed events of the future involving her offspring. Similarly, all that happened to the servant of Avraham on this mission foreshadowed events in Jewish history of the future when that people was in the desert. Just as an angel had been at his side through the efficacy of Avraham’s prayer who had said that “G-d will send His angel ahead,” so it happened to Avraham’s descendants in the desert. Seeing that the angel in question was not a regular natural phenomenon but one of the disembodied spiritual creatures, so the angel who accompanied the Jewish people was such a disembodied spiritual force who had been emanated by the merit of Avraham. This was whom the Torah had in mind when it quoted G-d as telling Moses in Exodus 23,20 הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך. “Here I am about to send an angel ahead of you.” Just as Avraham in our chapter referred to this divine force as מלאכו, “His angel,” so G-d referred to the same divine force as מלאכי, “My angel,” (not just any מלאך, angel, in Exodus 23,23). Just as the waters had risen towards Rivkah, so the waters rose towards her “children” in the desert as we explained. The servant also alluded to such future developments when presenting her with the jewelry mentioned in our chapter. This mission was carried out by a trusted servant, i.e. Eliezer. The Jewish people in the desert were led by G-d’s trusted servant Moses. When the Torah wrote in this chapter that Eliezer had been equipped with all the “good” of his master Avraham, the Torah, in a parallel reference, tells us that G-d equipped Moses for his task by equipping him with all ‘His goodness.” This is what is meant by Exodus 33,19 “אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך, “I will let all My goodness pass before you.” Just as Eliezer gave gifts to Rivkah not only at the well but also in her father’s house (verse 53), so the Jewish people who received the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai again received the gift of a covenant shortly before they entered the Holy Land (Deut. 28,69). At that time many commandments which were applicable in Eretz Yisrael were revealed for the first time in detail. 
  This reflects the statement of our sages in Gittin 60 that “the Torah was given to the Jewish people in individual scrolls.” The sages meant that although Moses had received all 613 commandments while he was on Mount Sinai in the first year of their wanderings, he did not teach all of these commandments to the people at once. Just as the story of Rivkah and Eliezer at the well has been repeated in the Torah and the servant relates all that happened to him at the well, so Moses repeated many parts of the events the Jewish people experienced during their trek through the desert once more in the Book of Deuteronomy. Also, the Jewish people received both the first and the second set of Tablets.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויאמר בת מי את, “he said: ’whose daughter are you?‘“ The true meaning of this verse is that the servant had asked this question already before he gave Rivkah the jewelry. It is quite inconceivable that Eliezer should have been handing out such expensive jewelry to a stranger he knew nothing about. This is not the only time that you find in this story that the Torah did not report it in the exact sequence in which the events occurred. You find proof that when Eliezer recounted in Bethuel’s house what had occurred, (24,47) he related that he gave her the jewelry after having ascertained who she was. In Leviticus 9,22 the Torah writes that Aaron raised his hands and they (Moses and Aaron) blessed the people, after which he (Aaron) descended from having performed the sin-offering.” The meaning there is clearly that Moses and Aaron blessed the people after Aaron had descended from the altar. Nonetheless, the Torah saw fit to describe this in a manner which could lead us to receive the wrong impression. 
  ללין,  ”for an overnight stay.” The word is a noun, as opposed to ללון which would be the verb from the same root. The meaning is that there is accommodation for a single night’s lodging. This is the way our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,6 interpret this word. Rivkah had changed the word and had said ללון, implying that Eliezer would be welcome for a more extended stay although he had inquired only if he could stay for a single night. She used the word in its infinitive which does not carry any connotation of a limited time. The correct interpretation is that the word ללין is a transitive form of the verb, i.e. Eliezer asked whether lodging overnight could be provided in her father’s house. Whereas Eliezer had asked whether he and his entourage could be assigned a place in her father’s house to spend the night, Rivkah replied that he did not need to be assigned such a place but that he could choose where in her father’s house he wished to spend the night. By saying ללון, i.e. using the intransitive form of the word, Rivkah indicated that Eliezer would have the choice of a number of accommodations in her father’s house.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   אנכי בדרך נחני ה’ בית אחי אדוני, “I was on the way when G-d  guided me to the house of my master’s brothers.” It is possible to read into this wording that Eliezer had experienced that the earth miraculously telescoped beneath him while he was travelling, thus shortening his trip considerably, as our sages have explained in Sanhedrin 73. We would then have to understand the word בדרך, as if he had said: “I was on this long and tedious journey, and here G-d brought me to this well in one fell swoop when I had only just set out.” This would also be the reason he emphasized his arrival היום in verse 42, as if to say: “I started out today and I arrived today.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויפתח הגמלים, “he unmuzzled the camels.” Rashi  comments that he unmuzzled the camels which he had muzzled before  so that they would not graze in land owned by others. This is taken from Bereshit Rabbah 60,8. Rabbi Yirmiyah there asked whether the camels of Avraham were not as pious as the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who would not eat grass in another’s field even without being muzzled. [In fact these donkeys were reported once to have remained without fodder for three days due to their piety.] The matter is raised in the Midrash as it was difficult for people at that time to imagine that the piety in the house of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair should have exceeded that in the household of Avraham. Keeping this in mind, Rabbi Yirmiyah interpreted the word ויפתח to mean that Eliezer loosened the yokes that these camels normally wore around their necks, and  from which the bags they carried were suspended. A parallel of this expression is found in Isaiah 52,2 התפתחי מוסרי צוארך, “loosen the bonds from your necks!” The word ויפתח actually refers to Lavan who performed this task and provided the camels with straw to lie on, fodder to feed, and water to wash the feet of the men traveling with Eliezer.
  
  Verse 33
  
  ויושם לפניו לאכול, “food was placed before him.” There is a difference between the spelling and the reading of the word ויישם, which is read as if it had been spelled ויושם. According to ancient sources, including Yonathan ben Uziel, some poison had been placed in Eliezer’s food so that he would die and Bethuel and Lavan would appropriate to themselves all the riches he had brought with him. The attempt ended in failure, as a mistake was made and the plate with the poisoned food was placed in front of Bethuel. This is why the word was spelled with two letters י, the equivalent of the name of G-d. [When you combine the two letters י which are part of the written text, and you add the letter ו, which is read, you obtain the number 26, the same as the numerical value of the four-lettered ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה. Ed.] According to Psalms 124,2 [the psalmist reputedly had this incident in mind when he composed that hymn, Ed.] this was a hint that had it not been for the merit of Avraham Eliezer would have eaten the poisoned food. While he waited with eating until he had spelled out why he had come there, this afforded the angel the opportunity to switch plates. When the Torah says at the end of that paragraph ויאכלו וישתו הוא והאנשים אשר עמו, “they ate and they drank, he and the men who were with him,” this is to draw our attention to the fact that the members of Bethuel’s household did not eat as they were mourning the sudden death of Bethuel caused by his eating the poison he had prepared for Eliezer. This also accounts for the fact that in verse 55 only Rivkah’s brother and mother are mentioned as requesting a delay in her departure. Her father had died and thus could not offer an opinion.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  ותאמר שתה, “she said: ‘drink!’” This is the version of Eliezer when he recounted what had happened at the well. Actually, for the sake of accuracy, he should have repeated Rivkah’s exact words which had been “drink my lord!” The reason he did not repeat that version in the house of Bethuel was one of etiquette. [I believe Eliezer, who was a slave, did not want to repeat that he had been addressed as “my lord.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  ויען לבן ובתואל, “and Lavan and Bethuel responded, etc.” The fact that Lavan spoke before his father already indicated that he was wicked (based on Rashi). Another indication that Lavan was evil is discernible from the fact that in his remarks he first alluded to the negative when he said (regretfully) “we cannot speak to you negatively or positively.” A righteous individual would have reversed the order saying: “positively or negatively.”
  מה’ יצא הדבר,  “the matter originated with G-d.” Lavan meant that it was evident from the order in which matters had occurred that a higher power was involved here. They acknowledged that matchmaking was a preserve of celestial forces. Sotah 2. states that forty days prior to the development of the fetus a heavenly voice proclaims that the “daughter of X will be married to Y, even if the two people involved live on opposite sides of the ocean.” Solomon referred to this in Proverbs 19,14 בית והון נחלת אבות, ומה’ אשה משכלת, “whereas wealth may be determined by what one inherits from one’s father, an intelligent woman is a gift from heaven.” Clearly, parents are only able to bequeath you material riches whereas only G-d can provide you with the soul-mate you crave. Parents are unable to bequeath you the proper wife. In a manner of speaking, such sentiments are also reflected in Solomon’s famous poem about the woman of valour (second half of Proverbs chapter 31). In Midrash Tehillim the author writes: “come and note how difficult it is to match the proper people to each other in marriage, seeing G-d refers to this problem both in the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Torah we have our reference here when even a pagan such as Lavan acknowledged that bringing about optimal marriages was a task only G-d knows how to solve. In the Books of the Prophets, concerning the unfortunate choice of wives or female companions made by Samson, we read in Judges 14,4 ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה’ היא, “and neither his father nor his mother were aware that this matter originated with a plan by G-d. We have just quoted the verse in Proverbs 19,14 to show that also in the Hagiographa the problem is referred to. We have another verse concerning this problem in Proverbs 18,22, where Solomon writes: מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה’, “he who found a wife has found a good thing; he will obtain favour from the Lord.” Some scholars interpret Isaiah 46,3 העמוסים מני בטן הנשואים מני רחם, to mean that even if the respective partners grow up on opposite sides of the universe, G-d arranges for them to meet in order that they can get married. [The verse refers to the passive role man plays in the matter of זווג, matchmaking, though he may fancy himself as totally active and the result as due to is own initiative. Ed.] This is what the Talmud meant when saying that long before the birth of an individual plans had been made in heaven who would become her partner in marriage.
      A kabbalistic approach to the statement בת פלוני לפלוני, “the daughter of X will be married to Y.” The word בת in the statement בת פלוני לפלוני, is an allusion to the י (the tenth emanation), whereas the male, i.e. פלוני is a reference] to the ו, and the word לפלוני is an allusion to the א, (G-d) who is beyond the ocean of the emanation חכמה, wisdom. The reason the Talmud did not phrase this statement simply as פלוני ישא את פלונית, “X will marry Y,” was to show us hat the statement is not to be taken literally but that it applies to the relationships between different spiritual concepts. Such concepts too have to exist in a form of “marriage” to one another. This is also why the sages in the Talmud mentioned the female before the male in that statement [The “tenth”, i.e “lowest” emanation, is “lower,” hence female, when compared to the fifth emanation represented by the word פלוני. This emanation in turn is inferior to the emanation א  which is deemed as “beyond” even the highest of the ten emanations. Ed.] The sages in that statement in Sotah paraphrased the meaning of Genesis 2,8 גן בעדן מקדם, that G-d had “planted” something in advance of creating a physical universe.
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  . ויצחק בא מבוא, “and Yitzchak was in the process of coming from Be-er lachay Ro-i.” The plain meaning of the text is precisely what the sages wrote in Bereshit Rabbah 60,14 in answer to the rhetorical question where Yitzchak was coming from, that he came to bring Hagar who dwelled near the well mentioned in order for her to become the wife of his father. Hagar had named this well to acknowledge that G’d had seen her disgrace and had helped her regain her dignity.
      This verse and the words בא מבוא may be a reference to the spiritual equivalent of the Jewish people, i.e Mount Moriah. Yitzchak had only now returned from a three-year stay at that holy site. He had been shown by G’d that this was the spiritual well of the Jewish people, the source from which they receive the water  (i.e. Torah) which  keeps them alive. During all this time when Yitzchak had lived in solitude his whole thinking had concentrated on the concept and eventual realisation of what the Jewish people are supposed to stand for in G’d’s scheme of things. We may view the words עם באר לחי רואי as support for our interpretation as otherwise the Torah should have written ב-באר לחי רואי, “at the well of  Lachay Ro-i.”
  
  Verse 63
  
  . לשוח בשדה, “to meditate in the field.” According to both Ibn Ezra and David Kimchi these words mean: “to stroll amongst the shrubs.” Yitzchak had gone for a stroll to enjoy nature.
      A Midrashic interpretation based on Bereshit Rabbah 60,14. The word לשוח means “to pray,” as it does in all instances where it occurs. Well known examples are Psalms 102,1 תפלה לעני כי-יעטוף ולפני ה’ ישפוך שיחו, “A prayer of the lowly man when he is faint and pours forth his plea before the Lord.” Our sages in Berachot 26 have derived their view that Yitzchak inaugurated the daily Minchah prayer from this verse.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words  לשוח בשדהteach that when someone prays to the One and only G’d he employs a כנוי, “a pronoun” of G’d’s name. In other words, one is not to enunciate the four-lettered name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה. Having used a substitute name for G’d (out of reverence for the “real” name), one will “find” G’d. This is the mystical dimension of the words לשוח בשדה. We find something similar with Yaakov in Genesis 28,11 where the Torah describes such a prayer as occurring in the evening, ויפגע במקום, the word במקום being the substitution for the real name of G’d. We employ this substitute in the Haggadah of Pesach when we recite ברוך המקום, meaning “blessed be the Lord.” Whenever the verb פגע appears it occurs with the preposition ב such as in Jeremiah 7,16 ואל תפגע בי, or in Job 21,15 ומה נועיל כי נפגע בו. All the activities of G’d are ascribed to such substitute names, כנויים, when they are still in the theoretical stage, whereas they are ascribed to the “real” name of G’d when they have reached the operative stage. We find confirmation of this in Jeremiah 8,14 כי ה’ אלוקינו הדמנו וישקנו מי ראש כי חטאנו לה', “for the Lord our G’d has doomed us, He has made us drink a bitter draft, for we have sinned against G’d.” Significantly, the verse does not end with “for we have sinned against Him,” as we would have expected but the prophet says “against G’d.” This means that up until the moment G’d actually executed His judgment on us, a “substitute” attribute rather than His Essence was involved. It is worth reflecting on this.
  
  Verse 64
  
   ותפול מעל הגמל, “she fell off the camel.” Rivkah did not “fall”” off the camel she was riding on when she saw Yitzchak; rather, she inclined her head as one does prior to falling off an animal.” This interpretation is supported by the choice of the word מעל in our verse. Had she really fallen off, the Torah would have written: ותפול מהגמל. This is also why Onkelos translates these words as ואתרכנית, the same expression he used when he translated what Eliezer was going to say to Rivkah at the well, where the Torah wrote הטי נא כדך, “please incline your jug” (24,14). We have a similar example in Kings II 5,21 where Jeremiah wrote of Naaman ויראה נעמן רץ אחריו ויפול מעל המרכבה לקראתו, “when Naaman saw him (Gechazi) run after him, “he fell” from the chariot toward him, etc.” There too the meaning clearly is not that the general Naaman literally fell out of his chariot because he saw Gechazi running. The meaning is that he bent down, inquiring why Gechazi had run after him, etc. Ibn Ezra interprets  ותפול literally, adding that she fell down deliberately, i.e. on her face and prostrated herself. It is similar to Numbers 16,4 where it says of Moses ויפול על פניו, “he ‘fell’ on his face.”  Moses did not fall against his will but he prostrated himself deliberately. When the Torah here continues with: ותאמר אל העבד, “she said to the servant,” we must understand this as what she said prior to prostrating herself.
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
   את כל הדברים אשר עשה , “all the things he had done.” This included the recourse to the “sign” he had asked from G’d to determine which was the right girl for him to approach at the well, when he had pleaded with G’d: הקרה נא לפני, “please let it happen before me this day, etc.” in verse 12. He told Yitzchak about the jewelry he had given to Rivkah on the way, and the gifts he had shared out when at her father’s house; he also told Yitzchak that he had experienced a miraculous telescoping of the earth under him so that he had arrived in Charan on the day he departed  from Be-er Sheva.
  
  Verse 67
  
  ויביאה יצחק האהלה שרה אמו , “Yitzchak brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah.” Here the Torah first refers to Rivkah merely with the pronoun “her, whereas when the same verse continues to report that Yitzchak married Rivkah she is mentioned by name.” The normal procedure should have been to mention Rivkah by name at the beginning of the verse and to refer to her by pronoun when she becomes the subject again in the same verse. Why did the Torah depart from the norm? Perhaps the underlying consideration was to mention Sarah first as she had been her predecessor in that tent and Rivkah had only been born after Sarah had already died and Bethuel had fathered Rivkah (22,23). At that juncture the Torah had seen fit to report Sarah’s death (23,2) which meant that at the time Yitzchak was bound Sarah had already died. Bereshit Rabbah 55,4 said that Yitzchak was 37 years old at that time and that when Sarah heard what was going to happen to him her soul departed and she died. The Torah itself testifies that Yitzchak was 40 years old when he married Rivkah (25,20), which makes Rivkah 3 years old when she was married. 
  Keeping all this in mind explains  why the Torah first spoke only about Yitzchak bringing Rivkah into the tent of his mother Sarah as at that tender age she was not yet  a real soul-mate for him. Yitzchak’s love for Rivkah was kindled when he observed how perfectly she filled the role his mother Sarah had fulfilled in her tent. At that point, Yitzchak felt ready to complete the proceedings of marriage, i.e. ויקח יצחק את רבקה ותהי לו לאשה, Yitzchak married Rivkah and she became a real wife for him.” 
  	 וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו,,“he comforted himself over the loss of his mother.” Yitzchak did not accept the condolences of his peers for the loss of his mother until he was able to console himself with Rivkah. 
  The words: “Yitzchak brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah,” teach that if someone’s wife dies and he had (grown up) children from her he should not remarry until he married off his children first. Having done so, he should remarry. The Midrash derives all this from the sequence of what the Torah tells us here about the conduct of Avraham who waited with remarrying until after Yitzchak had a home of his own.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . ולבני הפילגשים אשר לאברהם, “and to the sons of the concubines who were Abraham’s, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 61,4, the word פלגשם is spelled without the letter י which indicates a plural ending, suggesting that Avraham had only one concubine ever, Hagar, and that he had remarried her after Yitzchak was married. Keturah was none other than Hagar whom we know from both Lech Lecha and Vayera. The reason she is here called פלגש, “concubine,” is only because she was descended from slaves. In 16,3 she was called אשה, “wife,” because Avraham had given her a כתובה, a financial settlement, something not given to concubines. Sanhedrin 21 explains the verse in a similar fashion. [Our versions of the Torah have פילגשים with an extra letter י, not without any letter י. Ed.] The reason why the Torah did not tell us whose daughter Keturah was may have been that she was a Canaanite and therefore the Torah did not want to bother with her genealogy, (Nachmanides). Had she been Egyptian, or from any nation other than the Canaanites, the Torah would have given us more details about her background. We have proof of this when the Torah detailed the genealogy of the women whom Esau and Ishmael married (compare 28,9). Seeing that Keturah was a member of an accursed nation, the Torah preferred not to go into details (for the sake of Avraham?) 
  Do not question me how it was possible for Avraham to marry a local Canaanite woman after he had made such a point of making even his trusted servant Eliezer swear that he would not take a woman of Canaanite descent for his son Yitzchak. The prohibition never applied to anyone with the exception of Yitzchak who was predestined to carry on the line of Avraham and to be a further link in the formation of the Jewish people. Only concerning Yitzchak had G’d said: “for through Yitzchak your seed shall be known” (Genesis 21,12). Once Yitzchak was married and the stage had been set for fulfilment of the prophecy that Yitzchak would become the founding father of the Jewish people, Avraham had no reason not to marry any woman who was qualfied as suitable for him on the strength of her personal virtues.
     Bereshit Rabbah 61,4 which held that Keturah was none other than Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, Avraham’s other son, claims that the name Keturah reflects the concept of קטורת, incense, because her personal deeds were as pleasing to G’d as incense is to Him as a sacrificial offering. The approach reflected by this Midrash would account for the fact that this paragraph has been introduced with the words ויסף אברהם ויקח, “Avraham continued and married (remarried), etc.” After all, she had already been his servant before he had expelled her at the command of G’d and Sarah. The expression ויוסף has been used also in that sense in Genesis 35,26 when the Torah reports that Yehudah did not again sleep with Tamar after he had become aware of her true identity.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   זקן ושבע ימים,  “old and content.” Seeing that the Torah had told us previously that Avraham had been blessed by G’d in all that mattered, and that he had been the recipient of material wealth and honour of every conceivable kind, the Torah tells us that because of this he died without any regrets, did not feel that there were things he had not been able to achieve. This was in pronounced contrast to the fate of the average person of whom we are told in Kohelet Rabbah 1,34 that “when a person dies, half his aspirations in life for acquisitions went unfulfilled.” If he had once made the acquisition of say 1 million his objective, he had raised this objective as soon as he had realised it, so that when he died he  had felt cheated by life. The author of Kohelet called this syndrome אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “he who loves silver will never get enough of it (Kohelet 5,9).” 
    ויאסף אל עמיו, “and he was gathered to his people.” Seeing that essentially, death is a separation of phenomena namely the different raw materials which combine to make up the body, which were previously integrated, the Torah informed us that the soul was gathered into his people, i.e. did not disintegrate. The soul returned to the distinguished environment around G’d’s throne of glory. The soul itself is also known as כבוד, “honour” or “distinction.” We find this term applied to the soul in Psalms 30,13 למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום, ”in order that [my] soul sing hymns to You endlessly;” as well as in Isaiah 58,8 כבוד ה' יאספך, “the place where the כבוד of G’d is gathered in.” The choice of the term עמיו, “his people,” is analogous to expressions used in the Bible for the soul such as Exodus 31,14 where the Torah decrees a form of death of the soul with the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מקרב עמיה, “and such a soul shall be cut off from amongst its people,” (its fellow-souls, obviously( Innocent souls are gathered together forming a family, a nation. The same thing applied here. The expression ויגוע to describe the death of the body here may be in order to illustrate that what happened to the body of Avraham was no different than what happened to all the bodies of the animals and the people who died during the deluge where the Torah described their death (Genesis 7,21) as ויגוע כל בשר הרומש על הארץ, “all flesh which moved on the earth died, etc.” Compare also Genesis 6,17 when the deluge had been predicted, and  the Torah wrote כל אשר בארץ יגוע, “everything on earth will die.” The author refers to a statement by our sages that the term גויעה for death is used only in connection with the righteous and the obvious problem of the verses quoted from the Torah’s report of the deluge where the sinners died. He says that what was meant by that statement is to be understood as a combination of גויעה plus אסיפה.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו , “and his sons Yitzchak and Ishmael buried him.” Seeing that Ishmael was the senior of the brothers, the Torah should have mentioned his name first. The fact that the Torah did not do so shows that our sages were correct when they said (Baba Batra 16) that Ishmael had become a penitent while Avraham was still alive and that he had acknowledged Yitzchak’s status as Avraham’s major descendant. When Yitzchak died, the Torah writes: “Esau and Yaakov his sons buried him” (Genesis 35,29). Clearly, the contrast between what is written here and what is written there must tell us something, seeing Esau was a non-penitent firstborn born of the same mother as had given birth to Yaakov. Though he had “sold” his birthright, the Torah still lists Esau there as the elder brother.
     Death is described in six different forms throughout the Bible, three of which are applicable to the wicked and three to the righteous. The three terms applied to a wicked person dying are: מחייה, אבדן, כרת. Death described as מחייה is the worst of the three deaths. It is applied to the deaths of the kind of wicked people who have neither Torah knowledge nor ordinary wisdom to their credit and remained unaware of the Creator and His wonderful deeds. Such people’s death is no different than the death of animals. Their souls perish as absolutely as do their bodies. Proverbs 13,9 ונר רשעים ידעך, “and the lamp of the wicked will be extinguished,” compares the soul of the wicked person to a lamp, explaining that this soul is dependent on the body it inhabits much as the light of a lamp is dependent on its oil supply. When that supply fails the light is extinguished. This group of wicked people has neither reward nor punishment to look forward to ever. [I suppose the reference is to the time of resurrection. Ed.] Examples of such people were the people of the generation who perished during the deluge of whom the sages have said that just as they have been wiped out on earth their life expectancy in the hereafter has also been wiped out (compare Sanhedrin 108). The sages there concentrated on the words וימח את כל היקום, “He erased all creatures” (Genesis 7,23). This line refers to their destruction in this life, whereas the subsequent words וימחו מן הארץ in verse 24 in the same chapter refer to their becoming extinct in any form of life in the future. The expression אבדן when applied to the death of the wicked refers to such Israelite sinners as died without benefit of having repented their sins prior to their deaths. They are being judged after their physical death in Gehinom; this is the meaning of Leviticus 23,30 והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא. Such a death is worse than the death described by the Torah as כרת. The people guilty of the penalty called כרת are judged and after they have completed whatever length of punishment has been decreed for them, their souls are admitted to the hereafter.  The three types of deaths mentioned in connection with the righteous are: 1) גויעה, אסיפה, ביאה — All three of these types of death are mentioned in connection with Avraham. This means that these three are all of the same category [as Avraham certainly died only once. Ed.] We read in 25,8 ויגוע ויאסף; we also have the Torah telling Avraham about his death in the future where G’d said to him in Genesis 15,15  ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, “as far as you are concerned you will come to join your fathers in peace.”  Expressions of death involving either of the three words mentioned in connection with Avraham apply to the kind of righteous people who transfer to Gan Eden immediately upon the death of their bodies, not having to face any punishment at all. Such a death was the lot of Ishmael, of whom the Torah writes ויגוע וימת ויאסף אל עמיו. Clearly, he had become a penitent. 2) The second type of death involving the righteous is described in the Torah by the word לקיחה, “being taken away.” Such an expression is applied to people who enter Gan Eden while physically alive such as Chanoch (Genesis 5, 24) of whom the Torah wrote: “he was no longer, as G’d had taken him.” The prophet Elijah experienced a similar “death,” as he had told his disciple Elisha (Kings II 2,10) אם תראה אותי לוקח מאתך, “if you will see me taken from you, etc.”  3)	The third type of death applicable to the righteous is described  as “rest.” This is an expression promising the righteous participation in the resurrection, a time which our sages have described with the words מנוחה or שבת. This promise was applied to Daniel who had been told (Daniel 12,13) ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין, “But you, go on to the end; you shall rest and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   עטרת זקנים בני בנים ותפארת בנים אבותם, “Grandchildren are the crown of their elders, the glory of children are their parents” (Proverbs 17,6). 
  According to the plain meaning of this verse, Solomon informed us that the true crown of parents are their children and grandchildren. We find that Terach, Avraham’s father was crowned  with his son Avraham. [Had he not had such a son, his soul would have perished. As it is, Avraham’s outstanding life resulted in Terach’s soul deriving some reflected glory so that he did not forfeit his share in the hereafter; this is one way in which the verse (25,6) describing Avraham as “joining his people may be understood.” Ed.] The parents are truly the glory of their children only when they themselves are upright, G’d-fearing, and are setting the personal example upon which their children can model themselves. When such children point with pride at their parents, the parents can experience real glory. This is why Solomon used a different word to describe the parents’ feelings, not עטרת, “crown.” Viewed superficially, a crown is something of higher rank than תפארת, glory, worn on the inside. However, when children do not follow the path set for them by their parents, it would be foolish to describe such parents as wearing their children as a crown, as something they boast about for all to see. On the contrary, in such instances the children actually shame their parents by their conduct (compare Isaiah 30,5).
     A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Toldot 4) to these verses. The words עטרת זקנים refer to grandchildren. The righteous are crowned by their grandchildren. This is a reference to Avraham who was crowned by the merit of his grandson Yaakov. When Nimrod threw Avraham into the furnace, G’d saved him because of the eventual merits of his grandson Yaakov. This is the meaning of the words in Isaiah 29,22 לכן כה אמר ה' אל בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם, “indeed, this is what G’d said to the house of Yaakov who had redeemed Avraham.” How did Yaakov “redeem” Avraham? He redeemed him from Nimrod’s furnace. This is an example of grandparents being crowned by their grandchildren. How do children “crown” themselves with their fathers? When Yaakov had departed from Lavan and Lavan was in hot pursuit, G’d appeared to him in a dream and warned him not to say anything threatening or complimentary to Yaakov. When, eventually, Lavan caught up with Yaakov he said to him: “had it not been for the fact hat the G’d of your father had addressed me last night, etc.” (Genesis 31,29). Clearly, on that occasion it was Avraham and Yitzchak’s merit which saved Yaakov. Yaakov personally acknowledged this when he said to Lavan during their argument: “if it had not been for the G’d of Avraham and the G’d whom Yitzchak fears who was with me, you would have now sent me away empty-handed” (Genesis 31,42). Lavan was unable to carry out his evil designs due to the interference of the merit of Yaakov’s father and grandfather. Similarly, the evil design of Pharaoh to drown all Jewish boy-babies (Exodus 1,22) boomeranged when G’d drowned Pharaoh and his chariots in the sea (Exodus 15,4). Many hundreds of years later when G’d thwarted the decree of Haman to wipe out all the Jews, it was again the merit of the patriarchs which helped reverse his plan (Esther 9,1). When Bileam wanted to curse the Jewish people and G’d turned his intended curses into blessings (Deut. 23,7), this too was due to the merit of the patriarchs. This is the meaning of Isaiah 54,17 כל כלי יוצר עליך לא יצלח, “No weapon formed against you shall succeed.” Our sages in the Tanchuma there quoted the Roman Emperor Hadrian as having said to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that the power of the sheep which stands (has managed to survive) amongst 70 wolves (the Gentile nations) is very great indeed. To this observation Rabbi Joshua replied that it is the power of the shepherd who wards off the attacks against this sheep and breaks the power of the attackers which is great. He quoted the verse from Isaiah 54,17 to support his words. The prophet there referred to the Gentiles who will perish from this world. This is also implied in Jeremiah 2,3 קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתה כל אוכליו יאשמו רעה תבוא עליהם נאום ה'. “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruit of His harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty, disaster will befall them- declares the Lord.” Our history is full of proof that those who tried to eliminate us were eliminated instead. A few examples are: Pharaoh, Amalek, Siserah, Sancheriv, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, and many others like them. This is why the prophet compared Israel to something sacred, like an offering. When a non-priest consumes a portion of that which is sacred, the penalty for such people is death. This is why all the Gentile nations who at one time or another have “eaten” part of the Jewish people will pay for that with their very existence.  The reason the Torah had to repeat here that Avraham had fathered Yitzchak was that there were a number of scoffers who attributed Sarah’s pregnancy to her stay at the palace of Avimelech. G’d arranged for Yitzchak to look extraordinarily like his father Avraham in order to discredit the rumours circulated by these scoffers.
   ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק , “and these are the descendants of Yitzchak the son of Avraham; Avraham fathered Yitzchak.” Tanchuma Toldot 6 explains that we find an interesting parallel between Avraham and Yitzchak on one side and David and his son Kilav. When David’s messengers had gone to see Naval and asked for some material assistance, (Samuel I 25,11) the latter replied: “Who is David  Who is the son of Yishai? There are many slaves today who run away from their masters....Should I take my water, my bread, and my meat, which I slaughtered for the benefit of my shearers and give it to people whom I do not know whence they have come?” When David heard this he made ready with his men to assault Naval and to take what they wanted. At that point, Avigayil, Naval’s wife, hastened to take 200 loaves of bread, two jars of wine, five dressed sheep, etc., and she told her servants to carry these ahead of her as a gift offering for David and his men. (Avigayil succeeded in persuading David not to act violently against her husband.) The Book of Samuel continues  (verse 38) to describe that ten days after this event Naval took sick with a stroke and died. Upon hearing this, David proposed marriage to Avigayil his widow. After Avigayil accepted his proposal, David did not sleep with her for three months in order to avoid the suspicion that any child born to them would be suspected as having been fathered by Avigayil’s first husband. After the three months had passed, David had marital relations with Avigayil and she conceived and  gave birth to a son named כלאב, meaning כולו אב “he looked entirely like his father (David),” to preclude anyone thinking that he had been  fathered by Naval.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויעתר יצחק לנכח אשתו כי עקרה היא, “Yitzchak prayed in the presence of his wife seeing she was barren.” Actually, the Torah should have commenced this verse with the statement  ותהי רבקה עקרה וגו', “seeing that Rivkah was barren, Yitzchak prayed, etc.” The reason the Torah first mentioned the prayer was to tell us that this was Yitzchak’s main concern. If the prayer had been evoked only by Rivkah’s being barren, this would make the barrenness the major element in this verse. The Torah wanted to be certain that we appreciate that the major element of what the verse tells us is that Yitzchak prayed and that the prayer was effective. In other words, the only reason G’d had allowed Rivkah to be barren until that time was to get Yitzchak (and Rivkah) to pray. Her barrenness was merely a detail in bringing about Yitzchak’s prayer. A major reason why Rivkah had been barren in the first place is explained by our sages in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,32: “Why were the matriarchs barren? Because G’d longs for the prayers of the righteous.” This teaches the powerful effect prayer has. It is so powerful that it can bring about changes in the laws of nature. This is also the reason the Torah uses the unusual word עתר to describe Yitzchak’s prayer. We would have expected either ויתפלל, or ויצעק, or other expressions associated with the offering of a prayer. Why did the Torah write ויעתר?. Our sages explain this in the first chapter of Tractate Sukkah. The question is asked why the prayer of the righteous is compared to an Attar, “a shovel, a pitchfork?” The answer given is that just as a pitchfork turns the floor of a threshing ground upside down (after its use), so the prayers of the righteous succeed in changing the mind of G’d from an intention to employ the attribute of Justice (which implies sorrow for the person at whom it is directed) to the decision to use instead the attribute of Mercy.    Technically speaking, the (use of) the pitchfork brings the grain which is on the floor to the top of the heap while placing the grain which was on the top to the bottom. In a similar manner the prayer of the righteous raises certain matters which had been at the bottom of G’d’s priorities to the fore, while submerging other considerations of G’d which had been in the forefront of His thinking until the righteous offered a prayer. As a result, G’d’s bounty which had been held back in an inaccessible region is moved to a region from which it is released for man’s benefit forthwith. The word ויעתר is also related to מחתרת, i.e. from the verb חתר, “dig under,” “subvert,” and is similar to עתר. This would be similar to Sanhedrin 103 where Chronicles II 33,13 dealing with G’d’s efforts to accept King Menashe’s repentance is described. We read in that verse ויתפלל אליו ויעתר לו וישמע תחנתו, “He (Menashe) prayed to Him, and He (G’d) allowed Himself to have His priorities changed, He listened to his prayer, etc.” The fact that before the words: “He listened to him,” we find the words ויעתר לו, indicates that some transformation had to occur in G’d’s thinking before He decided to listen to this prayer. 
      You should remember that three out of our four matriarchs  were naturally barren. The Torah wrote concerning Sarai ותהי שרי עקרה, (Genesis 11,30); concerning Rivkah it says here כי עקרה היא, “for she was barren.” The Torah also used the term עקרה, “barren” in connection with Rachel in Genesis 29,31. 
  There is a simple reason for the barrenness of these three women. There were two reasons why Sarah was barren; I) in order that Ishmael should be fathered  by Avraham. After all, she herself is on record as saying “G’d has prevented me from giving birth, etc., please sleep with my maid servant.” (Genesis 16,2). 2) This was in order for G’d to change her name and to demonstrate an important lesson. The name change was essential in order to teach her and all of us that just as G’d used the letter ה to create the physical part of the universe, so He uses this same letter to bring about changes in the laws of nature in that universe. The potency of the horoscopic influences on man’s (or woman’s) life was nullified by the substitution of the letter ה' in Sarai’s name (compare commentary on Genesis 2,4  בה-בראם).    As to Rivkah’s barrenness, we know that Yitzchak was forty years old when he married her and that he was sixty when Esau and Yaakov were born. In other words, she lived with him for twenty years during which no mention is made of their praying to have children. G’d arranged her barrenness in order that Avraham should not experience the disappointment of seeing that one of his grandchildren became disloyal to his teachings. After all, G’d had assured Avraham (Genesis 15,15): “you will join your fathers in peace (of mind).” We have already pointed out that Ishmael became a complete penitent during Avraham’s lifetime. According to Baba Batra 16, Esau began his career as a wicked person on the very day Avraham died (and he sold his birthright). The reason Rachel remained barren for a few years was so that Bilhah and Zilpah could give birth to four of the twelve tribes (Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher) prior to her becoming pregnant with Joseph.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה, “the children quarreled inside her.” This particular pregnancy was totally different from all the pregnancies experienced by women up until that time. It was quite unknown for women who gave birth to twins to experience turbulence within their wombs during their pregnancies. The fact that these fetuses had begun to behave in such a manner already while inside the womb made Rivkah very distraught. She had her worst fears confirmed when G’d told her through His prophet Shem (Bereshit Rabbah 63,7) that she was going to give birth to founders of two nations whose outlook on life would be totally different from one another. He assured Rivkah that she, personally, had no cause to worry about the physical phenomenon of that tumult within her.
      A Midrashic opinion (Avodah Zarah 11) draws attention to the unusual spelling of the words גיים in our verse. The correct spelling should have been גוים. This prompted Rabbi Yehudah to see a hint that there would be two individuals belonging to these two nations, i.e. Emperor Antoninus and Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, whose wealth would be such that  all manner of vegetables which were not in season would nonetheless be served on their tables all year. At first glance such a statement is difficult to reconcile with the statement made by the same Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi on his deathbed (compare Ketuvot 104), that he had never permitted himself to use his wealth to indulge himself or to otherwise enjoy the pleasures of life on earth, but had made do with absolute necessities only. We need to understand the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah as describing what Rabbi Yehudah served his guests, not what he himself partook of. Antoninus was a descendant of Esau, of course. He had studied Torah secretly with Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi so that his servants and other members of his Empire would not become aware of this. According to tradition (also quoted in Avodah Zarah 10), Antoninus, (while governor of Palestine) had a subterranean room which was linked by a passage to the home of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. He would take two slaves with him every day. He would kill the first one at the entrance to the house of Rabbi Yehudah, and the second one at the entrance to his own palace so that there would not be any surviving witnesses to his visits at the home of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. He requested of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi that at the pre-arranged times when he would visit, Rabbi Yehudah should not have anyone else present at the house. It happened that on one occasion Rabbi Chanina bar Chama happened to be at the house of Rabbi Yehudah when Antoninus arrived. He became very agitated and complained: “did I not tell you not to have anyone present when I come?” Rabbi Yehudah replied that the apparition in the guise of Rabbi Chanina was not a human being. Thereupon Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehudah: “tell this man to get me the slave who stands on guard at the entrance.” Rabbi Chanina, aware that this slave was going to be killed, deliberated what to do. When he came to the place from where he was supposed to get the slave he found that the slave was already dead. He meditated on what to do, saying to himself that if he told Antoninus that the slave was already dead, he would accuse him of having murdered him. At the same time there is a rule that one need not return to the sender in order to bring bad news. On the other hand, he reasoned, if he were simply to leave the dead man and not go back to the house of Rabbi Yehudah at all, this would be a disgrace, and an insult to the Roman Empire. So he decided to pray. As a result of his prayer the dead guard came to life again and he sent him to his master. Thereupon Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehudah: “I am aware that even relatively insignificant Jews possess the power to bring the dead back to life. Nonetheless, I wish that when I come here no other living soul shall be present.” Antoninus used to provide Rabbi Yehudah with a variety of personal services as well as feed him if necessary on a daily basis. He even expressed a wish to be able to serve Rabbi Yehudah in the hereafter as his mattress. One day he asked Rabbi Yehudah if he could expect to be granted life in the hereafter. Rabbi Yehudah answered in the affirmative. Antoninus questioned this, quoting Ovadiah 18 “there will not be anyone remaining of the house of Esau.” Rabbi Yehudah replied that this verse speaks only of people who live in accordance with the principles of Esau. Thereupon Antoninus quoted another verse, this time from Ezekiel  32,29: “There are Edom, her kings and her princes” [The entire passage deals with the descent to Gehinom of all these Gentile people. Ed.] Rabbi Yehudah replied that the verse referred to “her kings,” but not to “all her kings.” He added that Ezekiel had specifically excluded Antoninus as well as a certain Ketiah bar Shalom from his prediction.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   והנה תומם בבטנה , “and here there were twins in her womb.” The word תומם, “twins,” is spelled defectively, with the letters י and א missing. The reason for the defective spelling is that one of Rivkah’s children was going to be a wicked person. The next time the birth of twins is mentioned in the Torah, i.e. the sons of Tamar and Yehudah, Peretz and Zerach, the word is spelled properly, i.e. תאומים, seeing that both of the sons Peretz and Zerach were going to be righteous.
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויצא הראשון אדמוני, “the first one emerged all reddish looking.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,8 the performance of the commandment to take the Lulav and Etrog on the first day of Sukkot (Leviticus 23,40) and to give thanks to G’d for His bounty is the reason that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first, demands payment (for their sins) “from the first one,” “builds for them first,” “brings them (to the Holy Land) first”. The fact that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first is derived from Isaiah 44,6 אני ראשון ואני אחרון; the fact that G’d enacts payment from the first one, i.e. Esau first, is derived from our verse i.e. ויצא  .הראשון אדמוני“He builds for them first,” is a reference to the Holy Temple as we know from Jeremiah 17,12 כסא כבוד מרום מראשון, “O Throne of Glory exalted from the first.” The fact that G’d brings the redeemer to the Jewish people first, is attested to by Isaiah 41,27 ,ראשון לציון הנה הנם ולירושלים מבשר אתן, “the things predicted to Zion originally, behold they are here! And again I send a herald to Jerusalem.” [I am not sure why our author brings this Midrash unless it is to demonstrate that the word ראשון, “first,” does not necessarily imply an advantage, such as when G’d demands an accounting for his sins from Esau first because he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. Ed.]
     כלו כאדרת שער, “all of him looking like a fur coat.” The meaning is as if the Torah had written כלו שער, כאדרת, “his entire body covered with hair, just like a mantle.” Seeing he was born with this much hair, people called him איש שעיר, “a hairy man” (27,11). The word שעיר is an all encompassing expression which includes the demonic qualities which are attributed to the deities called שעירים, which the Torah enjoins us from offering sacrifices to (Leviticus 17,7.) The author quotes an unidentifiable Midrash according to which the strength of that demonic power is concentrated in the hair which covers its heart. At the time of the redemption, (arrival of the Messiah), G’d will make the demonic power collapse when He blows the Shofar heralding the redemption, as we know from וה' אלוקים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערת תימן, “and My Lord G’d will sound the ram’s horn, and advance in a stormy tempest” (Zechariah 9,14). [The author appears to substitute the letter ש for the letter ס in the word סערת, something quite common.  Ed.]
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,10 after Esau attained the age of 13 he frequented houses of idolatry while Yaakov frequented Torah academies. Our sages  in the same Midrash also said that Rivkah had experienced similar experiences during her pregnancy. Whenever she passed either one of the aforementioned institutions one of the fetuses within her seemed anxious to emerge. There is a verse in Jeremiah 1,5 בטרם אצרך בבטן ידעתיך, “even before I formed you in the womb I already appointed you (as a prophet).” From this verse we see that distinct prenatal tendencies are not mere figments of our sages’ imagination. Psalms 58,4 זרו רשעים מרחם, “the wicked are defiant even while in the womb,” confirms this piece of psychological insight. 
     ויהי עשו יודע ציד איש שדה, ויעקב איש תם יושב אהלים, “Esau became a hunter, a man of the field, whereas Yaakov was a simple man a dweller in tents.” This verse conveys the fact that though the brothers were twins they had totally different interests in life. Esau pursued the material pleasures available in life whereas Yaakov was of a philosophical bent. This is why the Torah characterises the difference in the two phrases that Esau was a man of the field, i.e. a man dedicated to the earth, the physical. This is why later on he is called אדום, a word closely reminiscent of אדמה, earth. 
  It is a well known fact that if man dedicates himself to the pursuit of the pleasures which life has to offer, this estranges him to G’d and makes it difficult for him to serve the Lord at the same time as he is busy pursuing his major concerns. Making earthiness a priority must result in making godliness a secondary concern. We see this best reflected when Esau sold the birthright and the Torah (25,34) describes this in a few words: ויאכל וישת  ויקם וילך, ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “he ate, he drank, he arose and went of his way; thus Esau demonstrated his disdain for the birthright.” Anyone who is characterised by this negative virtue will eventually find himself deceived. [I believe the author means that sooner or later such people will be disappointed in what they had expected out of life. Ed.] In the case of Esau we find him describing himself as deceived twice when he said to his father (27, 36) “and he (Yaakov) has tricked me twice, he took my birthright and now he has taken my blessing.” Whatever pleasures and satisfactions such people do experience are only temporary and the time will come when they rue their former lifestyle and they cry out bitterly when they realize that “life” has deceived them. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 5,3-4: “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil. But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.” This is precisely the lifestyle of Esau and all those who support him. The philosophy and lifestyle of Yaakov are diametrically opposed to this, for someone characterized as איש תם  and as יושב אהלים is the antithesis of someone described as יודע ציד, איש שדה. Not only this, whatever Esau was willing to give up, i.e. to sell, Yaakov was anxious to buy. When the Torah speaks about the dish of lentils, something round, always returning to its beginning, this merely illustrates the concept of the pursuit of the pleasures of this world. This physical universe and all the phenomena in it are constantly being recycled, as Solomon said already at the beginning of Kohelet: “there is nothing new under the sun.” What is perceived as progress, eventually is seen to be merely a retread of something old. Yaakov who had perceived this was therefore anxious to sell such “merchandise,” in return for something which promised enduring progress. The instrument of securing this spiritual progress is the birthright, as it represents the privilege of performing service for the Lord in sacred precincts.
      Know that seeing the Torah had described both Esau and Yaakov already as איש, i.e. adult, mature in years, it is clear that they must have been at least 13 years of age at the time Yaakov bought the birthright from his twin brother. If, as the Midrash told us, Avraham died five years early in order not to experience how Esau displayed his disdain for spiritual values, this means that the brothers were 15 years old at the time the sale of the birthright took place. Avraham was 160 years old at the time Yaakov and Esau were born. He died at the age of 175, i.e. at a time when  his grandchildren were 15 years of age. 
  There is also an allusion in our verse that people such as Esau are slated for Gehinom whereas people such as Yaakov are destined for Gan Eden. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 65,22 that when Yaakov entered Yitzchak’s room in order to receive the blessing, Gan Eden entered with him. On the other hand, when Esau entered the same room a little later, Gehinom entered with him. We have a Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Tzav, 2 which expresses a similar sentiment when the author writes that  the words היא העולה, ”it is the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6,2), are a reference to a nation which is totally אדומית, wrapped up in earthly concerns, and which elevates itself as is written in Ovadiah 4, “even if you rise as high as the eagle I will bring you down, על מוקדה, on the site of the altar where the fire is burning.” The word is a reference to the fires of Gehinom in the hereafter. The words of Daniel 7,11 apply to such people ויהבת ליקדת אשא, “and consigned to the fire’s burning.”
     ויעקב איש תם, “and Yaakov was a straightforward man.” Actually, the Torah should have written: ויעקב היה איש תם. This would have corresponded to the line ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד, or ויהי הבל רועה צאן (Genesis 4,2). On the other hand, there too Kayin’s vocation is described in the terms וקין היה עובד אדמה, “Kayin had become a tiller of the soil.” Why these changes in describing the development of the respective people and their vocations? The expression היה, “he was,” or “he had become,” is used in connection with Esau as he had been called “Esau” already at birth and he remained Esau until the day he died. Just as Esau’s name did not change so his character did not undergo any change either. Not so Yaakov, who eventually qualified for the name Israel (Genesis 35,10). This is why the word היה, or ויהי would not have been appropriate in connection with describing his vocation. When G’d changed his name, He emphasised the permanence of that change by using the very word יהיה, (a form of הויה) which the Torah had avoided using earlier.
      Furthermore, actually the Torah should have written: ויעקב איש אמת, “and Yaakov was a man of truth.” His principal characteristic was אמת, “truth.” This is what Michah was at pains to point out when he said (Michah 7,20) תתן אמת ליעקב, “Grant truth to Yaakov, kindness to Avraham, etc.” Instead the Torah added the word תם to describing Yaakov as a יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents,” a student of Torah, in order to already hint at that quality אמת by attributing to him two of the three letters in that word. The letters תם also allude to the quality of being מכריע, reconciling apparent contradictions and deciding on a certain path. The quality is known as תיומת. We encounter the word in connection with the adhesion between two leaves in the Lulav. The quality is one which reconciles opposites and pursues a middle of the way between the two extremes. In this instance Yaakov combined the major characteristics of his grandfather Avraham, i.e. חסד, love, and the major characteristic of his father i.e. פחד or גבורה, and he moulded them into a viable combination. This is why he succeeded in raising 13 children all of whom remained true to his heritage. You are aware that the numerical value of the letters in the name Yaakov (182) when combined with 4 letters of the Ineffable Name (each counted as 1)  amount to 186. At the same time, the numerical value of the letters in that Ineffable Name when squared also amount  to 186. This may be the reason why Rabbi Akivah said that קוף=the name of G’d.
     יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents.” The plain meaning of the text is that Yaakov spent his time in the tents of Shem and Ever, i.e. in their academies.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words: The reason the Torah speaks about the word “tents” in the plural, i.e. אהלים, seeing hat most people dwell in only one tent at a time, is that Yaakov demonstrated that one could live in the tent of the “higher” regions and in the tent of the “lower” regions of the universe simultaneously; We have been taught already (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12) that the countenance of Yaakov is engraved on the throne of G’d. In view of this, the expression יושב אהלים (404) is equivalent to the numerical value of the words יושב הכסא, “The One who sits on the Throne.” 
  
  Verse 28
  
  . ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו, “Yitzchak loved Esau for he had a taste for game.” The Torah conveys to us here that the reason Yitzchak loved (preferred) Esau was not because he was the firstborn, but because he used to enjoy the venison Esau brought home from the field. This teaches us that the wicked Esau hunted on two tracks. He used to hunt the animals in the field and the desert, true to the Torah’s description of him as an איש שדה. At the same time, he also used to “hunt” his father’s mind, i.e. to mislead him as a hunter does his prey, making Yitzchak believe that he was pious. This is the double entendre of the words כי ציד בפיו, for “the art of hunting was with his mouth.” 
  Our sages in Tanchuma Toldot 8 have said that Esau used to ask his father such questions as “does salt have to be tithed?” This would impress Yitzchak favourably and he would wonder how careful Esau was with the performance of all the commandments. When he used to ask Esau: “my son where have you been today?” Esau would reply that he had been in the house of study. He would proceed to tell his father what he had learned on that day. The Holy Spirit, when hearing such lies, would proclaim: “When he speaks graciously, do not believe him; for there are seven abominations in his heart.“ (Proverbs 24,25) Furthermore, the sages in the same Midrash derived from this wording  that the reason Esau went hunting and was feeding the venison he hunted to his father was only in order to secure the blessing for himself. This is the mystical dimension of the Torah writing in Deut. 16,19 “for the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise.” In connection with Yitzchak, the Torah had written “his eyes had become weak from seeing” (Genesis 27,1). Just as Esau was a man paying bribes, so his descendants were willing to receive bribes. The Torah (25,30) reports Esau as saying to Yaakov הלעיטני נא, “please feed me, etc.” Concerning this David said in Psalms 68,31 מתרפס ברצי כסף , “till they come cringing with pieces of silver.” They (Esau’s descendants) derive their power from their celestial counterpart (the scapegoat mentioned in Leviticus 16 offered to Azzazel) who accepts this offering as a bribe by the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement. (compare commentary on Leviticus 16,7). In a similar manner every single nation derives whatever power sustains it from its celestial representative at the court of the angels. It is the same source from which the original serpent had derived its power and ability to seduce Eve. Once it was able to seduce, it was capable of spilling the blood of its victims. Such seducers became the cause of all those who choose to eat blood. Such forces are diametrically opposed to the Israelites who are circumcised (i.e. had given up their blood for G’d instead of consuming it), and who therefore abstain from eating any kind of blood. When an accuser of the Jewish people wants to seduce us, one of the first laws he wants us to break is that of circumcising our male children. Once this law has been broken the consumption of blood is only a small step. [It appears that the author refers to philosophical attempts at converting Jews to Christianity seeing that the Moslems abide by circumcision. Ed.] Adhering to these two laws (circumcision and the prohibition to eat blood), is therefore cardinal in our effort to stave off conversion and this is why the prophet said of the descendants of Esau (Ezekiel 15,6)  אם לא דם שנאת, ודם ירדפך, “surely you have hated blood (the prohibition of it) and blood will pursue you.” The prophet predicted Esau’s (Edom) eventual destruction because as descendants of Avraham they rejected the commandment of circumcision as they hated to lose blood (instead of consuming it) This is also the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 48,10 וארור מונע חרבו מדם,”cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood.” (The prophet speaks of the blood of circumcision).
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויזד יעקב נזיד, “Yaakov cooked a dish.” We would have expected the Torah to write that Yitzchak cooked such a dish seeing it was on account of mourning for his father Avraham. Seeing that the mourner must not eat what he has cooked himself, this dish had to be prepared by a third party, i.e. Yaakov. It was a dish of lentils as it was the custom to eat such a dish in the house of mourners. The lentil is round and closed like a wheel, and it thereby symbolizes the recurring nature of physical life on earth which ends where it began, i.e. “dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return.” As the lentil has no “mouth,” opening, so the mourner is not to open conversations (or speak at all). Avraham had died on this day. He had been fortunate to have been spared seeing one of his grandchildren despise the birthright and to forsake his teachings. According to Baba Batra 16 Esau committed five different sins on that very day. 1) He slept with a girl who was betrothed to another man. 2) He killed a human being. 3) He scoffed at the idea of resurrection. 4) He denied the existence of G’d, and reward and punishment. 5) He despised the birthright. The Talmud finds allusions in Scripture to support all these allegations:  The Torah describes Esau here as ויבא עשו מן השדה, and in connection with the prohibition of sleeping with a girl who is betrothed to another, the Torah worded this in Deut. 22,27 כי בשדה מצאה “for he found her in the field.” The choice of the words: “in the field” is not arbitrary but an allusion to what happened here. The allusion to Esau committing murder is based on the words here כי עיף אנכי, “for I am exhausted,” and the verse in Jeremiah 4,31 כי עיפה נפשי להורגים, “for my soul is exhausted from killing.” The allusion to Esau denying resurrection of the dead is based on Esau saying here הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going towards death,” and Job 7,9 כלה ענן וילך כן יורד שאול לא יעלה, “as a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down to Sheol does not come up.” As to Esau denying the existence of G’d and the system of reward and punishment, the sages point at the expression in our paragraph where Esau said למה זה לי, “what good is all this for me,” and the words זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will glorify him;” this was the affirmation of G’d sung by the Jewish people after they had emerged from the sea and the Egyptians had been drowned in it (Exodus 15,2). The fact that Esau despised the birthright needs no allusion as it is spelled out right here.
  
  Verse 30
  
   הלעיטני נא, “please let me gulp down, etc.” he spoke foolishly by using such an expression which is normally applied to the manner in which camels eat their food (compare Shabbat 155). This prompted our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 13 to say that “the righteous eat their food in order to sate their biological needs, i.e. לשובע, whereas the belly of the wicked always feels unfulfilled.” You may contrast the conduct of an Eliezer, Avraham’s servant, with that of Esau. The former said הגמיאיני נא מעט מים, “please let me sip a little water(24,17),” whereas Esau said: “let me gulp down!” When the sages spoke of the righteous they referred to Eliezer, whereas when they spoke about the belly of the wicked, they referred to Esau.
     מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking stuff;” the lentils were red, or they were spiced in red looking spice-dishes so that they reflected the colour of the container they were in. Seeing that Esau could not identify the exact nature of the dish he referred to it only by colour, calling it “this red stuff.” Subsequently people who heard about this called him אדום, “the red one,” making fun of his boorishness. They referred to someone who traded a valuable birthright for a mess of some reddish-looking stuff with sarcasm.
      Another way of looking at our verse: the fact that Esau repeated the word אדום, red, had to do with the discipline of astrology. The planet Mars is (looks) red and as such is a symbol of war and bloodshed. According to the scientists the red-coloured fruit also derives some of its power from that planet. The same applies to certain red-coloured gemstones such as rubies. In other words, the planet Mars extends influence over some of all three categories of phenomena in our world, the living creatures, the plants, as well as the inert. This planet (horoscope) was Esau’s especially, and that is why later on Yitzchak blessed him with a power he already possessed, i.e. the power of the sword. When he asked Yaakov to give him from the “red” dish he meant that this dish more than any other was germane to his character. He expected to renew his flagging spirits from a red dish faster than from any dish of another colour. Esau came by his inclination to shed blood naturally as he had been born under that horoscope. 
  Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in Bereshit Rabbah 63,12 expanding on that theme, said that just as Esau himself was red, so his food was red, his country was red, his clothing was red  and when the time comes that he has to give an accounting for his crimes the payment demanded from him will be red, i.e. blood. Mount Seir, which was the land allocated to Esau was also known as ארץ אדום, “the red land” (Genesis 32,4). The Midrash quotes verses documenting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement.
  
  Verse 31
  
  . מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי, “sell me your birthright effective today!” At that time, the privileges connected with the birthright did not include a double portion in the father’s inheritance as was legislated in the Torah later on. The principal value of the birthright consisted in filling the father’s position of head of the family once the father passed away. It was more a position of honour than of immediate financial advantage. It also was accompanied by a certain amount of authority within the family, of course. According to Nachmanides, once the father had died,  the firstborn would be in charge of the family’s estate. This is what Esau referred to when he said: “what good is the birthright to me as my pursuits will lead to my death,” i.e. I will never outlive my father to reap the benefits of my potential privileges. This then is the meaning of the sequence: “he ate, he drank, he went (on his way), i.e. Esau despised the birthright.” He demonstrated his lifestyle by the manner in which he negated the value of the birthright for him.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  . ויעקב נתן לעשו לחם ונזיד עדשים, “and Yaakov had given to Esau bread and a dish of lentils, etc.” At this point in the story the Torah reveals the nature of the dish Yaakov had cooked when Esau arrived home when we read: “Yaakov was cooking a dish.” It would have been more appropriate to mention the kind of dish Yaakov had been cooking already at the beginning of the paragraph and to continue later that Yaakov had given Esau a dish of lentils. It is possible that the Torah chose this sequence in order to describe the haughtiness of Esau as well as his lack of etiquette and regard for others; this is why the Torah did not mention what precisely Yaakov had been cooking until it had told us Esau’s whole range of reactions to what he found at home on that day. As long as we did not know what kind of ordinary dish Yaakov had cooked, we could have credited Esau with demanding the exotic dish that his brother had been preparing and that this had been the reason that he was so willing to trade his birthright for it. When the Torah, finally tells us at the end of the paragraph the nature of the dish for which Esau traded his birthright, it wanted to show us how Esau had related to it in the first place.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי רעב בארץ מלבד הרעב הראשון , “There was famine on earth, apart from the first famine, etc.” Nachmanides writes concerning this statement that it is possible that the first famine on earth was the one reported in Genesis 12,10 during the days of Avraham. His comment is surprising in view of what we learned in Bereshit Rabbah 64,2 that there were a total of 10 famines which have been mentioned in the Bible, the first one of which occurred in the days of Adam as a result of G’d cursing the earth for his sake (Genesis 3,17). The second is supposed to have occurred during the time of Lemech, Noach’s father who greeted Noach’s birth as a good omen, saving mankind from the earth which had been cursed (Genesis 5,29).  The correct interpretation of our verse is that the word “the first famine,” referred to in our verse describes the post-deluvian world, not the “first” ever. This is evident even from the continuation of Nachmanides’ commentary in which he writes: “for they were remembering the first famine and telling each other about it.” On account of that famine Avraham had felt impelled to leave the land of Canaan and to descend to Egypt. Yitzchak, true to the example set by his father, wanted to do the same, until G’d restrained him by telling him not to go to Egypt.
      Nachmanides, in commenting on this whole paragraph, involving Yitzchak and Avimelech, writes: “this entire paragraph is full of allusions and foreshadows what would happen to the Jewish people when they would go into exile to the land of the Babylonians. Whereas the exile of Avraham into Egypt had been due to a famine, foreshadowing that his descendants would also descend there on account of a famine, this exile of Avraham to Gerar was voluntary (Genesis 20,1) “Avraham journeyed from there to the land of the South and settled between Kadesh and Shur and he sojourned in Gerar.”The descent of Yitzchak to Gerar, as opposed to that of his father, was involuntary and occurred at the specific command of G’d. (verse 2) It therefore can serve as a preview of an exile to a land one’s fathers had come from. Just as Avraham had come from Babylonia before migrating to the land of Canaan, so when his or Yitzchak’s descendants would march into exile it was fitting that the place they would be exiled to would be the land they had originally come from. 
  Please remember that Yitzchak’s “exile” was different from his father’s. Avimelech did not rob him of his wife. He only lived in fear that this might happen, fear being one of the hallmarks of living in exile. At the beginning, as soon as Yitzchak arrived, Avimelech had issued instructions that no one should dare harm Yitzchak (verse 11), whereas ultimately he expelled him from his country (verse 16). Eventually, the same people who had expelled him sought an alliance with Yitzchak. This is very similar to the experience of the Jewish people during the Babylonian exile. The exile commenced due to the terrors of hunger (Lamentations 5,10). During the Jews’ stay in Babylon they were not oppressed, and many of them rose to positions of great influence. Finally, [after the Babylonians had themselves become vassals of the Persians, Ed.] King Coresh proclaimed that they were free to return to their homeland and gave them money and a military escort to protect them on the way (Ezra 1,3). He even warned the surrounding kingdoms not to molest the returning Jews (Ezra chapter 4 and Daniel chapter 7).
      Basically, what the Torah tells us in this paragraph is that there was a famine and Yitzchak went to the land of the Philistines, a land governed by the same Avimelech who had already governed it in the days of Yitzchak’s father and who had concluded a sacred covenant with his father. This was the reason Avimelech did not dare touch Yitzchak. [Originally, Avimelech had requested the covenant because he was afraid of what might happen to his offspring when the Jews would take over the country. It had not occurred to him that Avraham’s son might use his own country as a safe haven from famine. Ed.] The inquiry about the status of Rivkah was not made by Avimelech but by the local inhabitants, and this is why the Torah was careful to write (verse 7) “the men of the place inquired about his wife.” In spite of being told that Rivkah was not Yitzchak’s wife they did not molest her remembering the covenant with Avraham, Yitzchak’s father. When Avimelech protested to Yitzchak that “someone from the local population almost slept with Rivkah,” (verse 10) he meant: “I did not touch her and I was extremely careful not to get involved with her. But, at the same time, it was very possible that one of my countrymen could have done so and then you Avraham would have been the immediate cause of making us guilty just as happened in your father’s time.” Thus far Nachmanides
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   גור בארץ הזאת, “dwell in this land.” G’d commanded Yitzchak not to leave the boundaries of the Holy Land. The reason was that he had been sanctified when he lay bound on the altar on Mount Moriah in order to become a burnt-offering (Bereshit Rabbah 64,3). [some ancient sources combine this with the fact that Yitzchak was born in Eretz Yisrael. Ed.] Had Yitzchak left the country he would have become ritually impure, just as are all the people outside the land of Israel.
      Why did G’d phrase the command not to leave Eretz Yisrael as גור  “dwell as a stranger,” when He had already told him in the previous verse שכון בארץ, “live permanently in the land!?” He wanted to give Yitzchak a hint of the גור אריה, the vision Yitzchak had seen while lying bound, something which transformed him into the epitome of פחד יצחק, the heading under which our tradition sums up Yitzchak’s relationship with G’d. It was because of this vision that when Yitzchak found out that he had been deceived by both his sons when he gave the blessing to Yaakov, that the Torah reports: ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה, ”Yitzchak experienced a very great trembling (27,33).” [Being wrong in one’s assessment of such an important matter as almost giving the power to bless and to curse to an unworthy person was a traumatic experience for someone whose life was based on the attribute of Justice. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי, "“because Avraham was obedient to Me.” This is the source of our sages in Nedarim 32 claiming that Avraham recognized his Maker when only three years old. He had lived for 175 years. When you add up the numerical value of the letters in the word עקב, you get 172. If you deduct this number from 175, the resulting number 3 is the number of years when Avraham was not yet obeying G’d’s commandments because he had not yet recognized Him as such.
     וישמר משמרתי, מצותי, חוקותי ותורותי, “he observed My safeguards, My commandments, My statutes and My moral/ethical instructions.” If we follow the approach of interpreting these nuances as the plain text, we must assume that G’d spoke of the seven Noachide laws which are applicable to all of mankind. The word מצותי then applies to the prohibition of robbery and bloodshed; the word חוקותי applies to the law not to eat tissue or blood from a living creature, as well as not to mate different species of animals with one another or to do the same with trees by crossbreeding. The word תורותי refers to the prohibition of all kinds of idolatry as well as to the positive commandment to establish a judiciary. People observing these laws are considered as doing G’d’s will. Finally, וישמר משמרתי “keeping G’d’s safeguards,” is a reference to “fences” around Biblical commandments to ensure that even if a “fence” had been violated, the Biblical commandment itself would remain inviolate. According to Bereshit Rabbah 64,4 Avraham was familiar even with such concepts as making an עירוב in private property to avoid becoming guilty of transferring property from one domain to another on the Sabbath. There is a view expressed in the same Midrash that the tractate Avodah Zarah dealing with idolatry and its sub-categories studied by Avraham was comprised of 400 chapters. The repetition of the word משמרתי after G’d had already said that Avraham observed, i.e. וישמר, is a reference to secondary incestuous relationships which were not even spelled out in the legislation concerning forbidden (sexual) marital relationships  in the written Torah. The opinion of our sages is that the words וישמור משמרתי refers to Avraham observing voluntarily all the laws of the Torah which had not yet been legislated. According to this opinion it would be inappropriate for the Torah to commence the list with subordinate rabbinical ordinances before mention had been made of Biblical commandments. The verse divides these 613 commandments into specific categories each with its own heading. Basically, there are three categories of commandments. The first are called עדות, ”testimonies,” and comprise commandments which the mind can readily understand and which are therefore easy to fulfill. The second category is called חוקים. They are in the nature of Royal decrees which are usually incomprehensible to the human being, the subject of the King, as they are based on a superior intelligence. Finally, there is the category called משפטים,  social laws, which are generally readily understandable. We find that the Torah quotes future generations of Israelites as dividing the Torah into these three categories when the Torah writes: מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים, “what is the respective significance of these three categories of laws in the Torah?” (Deut. 6,20) The division in our verse is similar except that the social laws are referred to as תורותי, “My moral/ethical imperatives.” Furthermore, the reason for that word (and two others) appearing in the plural is that it refers to both the written as well as the “oral” Torah.
   The Talmud Yuma 28 states that Avraham even observed the various rabbinical ordinances such as עירובי תבשילין  and עירובי תחומים. [The former involves preparing food for the holiday before the holiday if the Sabbath occurred immediately after the holiday, in order that it would not appear that the holiday was used to prepare for the Sabbath. עירובי תחומים, on the other hand, is a device employed to change the radius of one’s habitat prior to the Sabbath by means of depositing food at the centre of the new radius in order to fulfill duties such as welcoming Torah scholars who did not reach that area prior to the beginning of the Sabbath. Ed.]. In illustrating the fact that our patriarchs taught their children all these aspects of Torah which had not been legislated as yet, they quote Genesis 45,21 in which the Torah refers to the wagons Joseph sent to transport his father Israel down to Egypt. The choice of the word עגלות for such wagons [which is less appropriate than, say, מרכבה, Ed.] is interpreted as Joseph reminding his father that the last subject in their Torah study they had learned prior to his going on his ill-fated mission, was the one called עגלה ערופה, the heifer which needs to be killed in order to atone for a murder committed near a Jewish community when the murderer has not been found. Joseph hinted to his father that during the 22 years he had not seen him he had maintained his custom to study Torah.
      The meaning of the word משמרתי according to this approach would be “the safeguards erected by the rabbis against violating Biblical injunctions on the Sabbath.” When we reflect on these opinions offered by the Talmud and subsequent scholars that the patriarchs observed even minutiae of later rabbinical ordinances, the question comes to mind how Yaakov could ignore a Biblical injunction and marry two sisters while both were alive, or how he could erect a מצבה, a monument, or how Amram could marry his aunt Yocheved? Not only that, but Moses himself, after the Ten Commandments had been revealed, erected 12 monuments as spelled out in Exodus 24,4. In answering these questions Nachmanides (in his commentary on Leviticus 18,28) points out that the principal function of the laws of the Torah is that they be observed within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. When the patriarchs did observe them, they did so in an entirely voluntary fashion. Seeing that the “so-called” infractions we mentioned occurred outside of Eretz Yisrael they were no infractions at all. The patriarchs had decided in each of these instances that the reasons for not observing these laws at that time and in that place were stronger than that they should voluntarily observe them.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויזרע יצחק בארץ ההיא,  “Yitzchak planted in that land, etc.” The reason the Torah emphasised “in that land,” is that it was hard ground, did not usually produce much. Considering the fact that the year was one of famine the achievement by Yitzchak in securing a hundredfold return on his seed was all the more remarkable. The place where he had planted the seed was Gerar. This is where these remarkable “hidden” miracles happened for him. The land was so parched that when the local people finally found some water, they exclaimed: “we have found water!” (verse 32)
     מאה שערים, “one hundredfold.” At the end of tractate Ketuvot (folio 112) our sages explain that when the land of Israel enjoys G’d’s blessing, one בית סעה, of earth will yield a crop of 50,000 כור of grain. In the period when Tzoan in Egypt was at the height of its development, the yield of a measure of earth of a בית סעה would be equivalent  to 70 כור. This is documented by Rabbi Meir having personally observed that in the valley of Beit Shean (Jordan valley) one בית סעה produced 70 כור. He added that there is no soil which is reputed to be richer than that of Egypt, i.e. the region around Tzoan, which the Torah described as being “like a garden of G’d” (Genesis 13,10), and where the Egyptian kings were being raised. We know this from Isaiah 30,4 where the prophet mentions that Egypt’s princes and kings were in Tzoan, and that the fertile region extended a far as Chaness. On the other hand, there was no more rocky region in Eretz Yisrael than the region of Hebron and in spite of this the single cluster of grapes which were brought back by the spies from that region had to be carried by eight men. The Torah had reported that Hebron had been cultivated seven years earlier than Tzoan in Egypt (Numbers 13,22). This number is not to be taken at face value, as it would have no bearing on what the Torah was trying to tell us in that verse. The meaning is that even in a rocky place in the land of Israel such as Hebron, the yield is seven times that of the yield of similar produce planted in Tzoan, i.e. 490 כור. In an area which is not covered with rocks such as Hebron the yield may be presumed to be 500 כור. The Talmud concludes its discussion on the relative fertility of the best part of Egypt and the worst part of the land of Israel by saying that the reason why the Torah makes a comparison is to teach that the worst part in the land of Israel is seven times superior to the best part of Egypt even if that part of Eretz Yisrael does not enjoy a special blessing during the year in question. Our verse then points out that when G’d does send His blessing the result is 100 times as great as in normal years (which themselves are phenomenal by world-wide standards.)
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וכל הבארות אשר חפרו עבדי אביו, “and all the wells which the servants of his father had dug, etc.” The Torah simply tells us that the Philistines were so jealous of Yitzchak’s success that they closed down wells which Avraham had dug in order to deny Yitzchak the opportunity of benefiting from his father’s foresight. They wanted to deny Yitzchak the water he needed to sustain his herds and flocks. Eventually, Yitzchak bestirred himself and he redug the same wells making sure he kept the names his father had given to these wells. The Torah reports this seemingly insignificant detail to acquaint us with the meticulous way Yitzchak adhered to the norms his father had taught him. Perhaps, this is even the reason why the Torah never reports that Yitzchak’s own name was changed, as distinct from the names of both his father and his son Yaakov. This would be a further illustration of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that G’d responds in kind. [Yitzchak had been named already prior to his birth and never needed to have his name adjusted in order to encourage him to become more perfect. Ed.]
      Some commentators claim that the wells are allusions to converts who had been converted in Avraham’s time to monotheism. The allusion would symbolise that conversion was as easy as accepting a source of water which the earth provides for free. Opening a heart which had been closed to belief in G’d is compared to “digging.” This is why the Torah describes the Philistines as having stopped up the hearts of these converts, i.e. filled them with dust. Allegorically speaking, whereas Avraham had filled the mouths of these converts with “water,” i.e. life-giving Torah knowledge, their pagan compatriots filled them with earth. The expression עפר, “earth, dust” to describe pagan religious concepts is not novel; we find it in Baba Batra 16 as describing someone like Job who used specious arguments to decry G’d’s system of Justice. The Torah reports that after a while Yitzchak made the effort to reconvert these converts his father had made. It is the nature of people who engage in missionary activity to place a great deal of emphasis on the names they give to their converts. Yitzchak did just this and named the people with whom he succeeded with the very same names his father had given them when they converted to monotheism. The source for this is Isaiah 65,15: “He calls His servants by another name.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  .ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל וימצאו שם באר מים חיים , “Yitzchak’s servants dug in the valley and they discovered there a well of living water.” Nachmanides comments on this as follows: “The reason the Torah devotes so much space to the digging of wells  is not because the knowledge of these facts is so useful to us, nor is the reason that the Torah wished to publicly honour Yitzchak for his activities in developing the area agriculturally. Rather, the reason is hat these details are allusions to what would happen to the Jewish people in their history long after Yitzchak had died. The words באר מים חיים, “a well of living water,” is an allusion to the Holy Temple of which it is written in Jeremiah 17,13: מקור מים חיים את ה', ”The Fount of living waters.” The first well which was called עשק is an allusion to the first Temple which became the object of contention (התעשקו) between the Jewish people and its adversaries until, in the end, they managed to destroy it. The second well, named שטנה, hatred, illustrates an even greater hatred than that which surrounded the first Temple and is an allusion to the second Temple, concerning which it has been written: “during the reign of Achashverosh, at the beginning of his reign, they issued letters of hate against all the inhabitants of Yehudah and Yerushalayim” (Ezra 4,6). This hatred continued throughout the existence of that Temple. Eventually, our opponents succeeded in destroying it and the Jewish people were exiled under very adverse conditions. The name of this well reminds you that this is where the source of Satan is to be found. Satan is none other than the spiritual representative of Esau in the celestial regions. Satan’s preoccupation in this world is to always oppose the Jewish people with a display of hatred.
      Yitzchak named the third well רחובות, the Torah mentioning ויעתק משם, that he had previously moved from the sites of the first two wells. The meaning of these words is that Yitzchak freed himself from the mentality surrounding the second Temple and he was able to concentrate and look forward to the idyllic conditions which would exist once the third Temple would be built. Concerning that Temple it has been written in Ezekiel 41,7 ורחבה ונסבה למעלה, למעלה, “and the passage will become wider and wind its way upwards and upwards.” When that time arrives there will be no strife and hatred and G’d will expand the boundaries of our country as is written: (Deut. 12,20) “it will be when G’d will expand your boundaries as He has said to you.” This verse was written concerning a time in the distant future, the time envisaged in greater detail in the prophecies of the latter chapters of the Book of Ezekiel. Thus far Nachmanides.
      The fact that in connection with the digging of that third well the Torah associates G’d’s name with it, i.e. כי הרחיב ה' לנו ופרינו בארץ, “for G’d has granted us ample space and we can be fruitful in the land,” was a prediction applicable to the future. Seeing that the first two Temples were constructed by human hands by the instructions of Solomon and Coresh respectively, they did not endure. The third Temple which will be constructed by G’d Himself (compare Rashi in Rosh Hashanah 30,1 צריכא), will no longer be subject to destruction. This is why G’d’s name is associated here with the digging of the third well.
      I have found a Midrash which supports this. Our sages commented on Samuel II 5,7 where we read וילכוד דוד את מצודת ציון היא עיר דוד, “David captured the citadel of David which became the city of David.” The Midrash asks why the city was called after a mortal, i.e. after King David? The answer provided is that G’d knew perfectly well that the city would initially be built and subsequently destroyed by mortal human beings. This is why during the periods preceding the final Temple, Jerusalem was known as the city of David, i.e. the city of a mortal human being. However, in the future, it will bear the name of G’d Himself seeing that it would then no longer be subject to destruction. This is the meaning of Isaiah 60,14 והלכו אליך שחוח בני מעניך והשתחוו....וקראו לך עיר ה' ציון קדוש ישראל, “they shall come before you, the children of those who have tormented you....and you will be called ‘city of the Lord, Zion, the Holy One of Israel.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, “and Avimelech walked to him from Gerar.” The reason the Torah wrote מגרר, something quite superfluous, is so that we can read the word as מגורר, full of eczema; his skin had developed painful boils, etc. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 64,9).
  
  Verse 27
  
   מדוע באתם אלי ואתם שנאתם אותי ותשלחוני מאתכם, “why do you come to me? You hate me and have driven me away from your midst!”  Yitzchak reminded Avimelech and his chief of staff of three matters. 1) “why do you come to me?” He referred to the distance between Gerar and Beer Sheva where he now lived. 2)  “You hate me” on account of my being successful and the vast numbers of cattle and sheep which I own. 3) You drove me away.” He referred to the district of Gerar where he had settled previously and Avimelech had told him “go away from us for you are too powerful for us” (26,16).
  Avimelech responded to all three questions: Concerning the question why he had come, he acknowledged: “we have seen very clearly that G’d is with you" (verse 28). They repeated this, thus implying that Yitzchak’s success in planting and bringing in a bumper crop, plus the fact that he always found water was ample proof that G’d was on his side. As a result of this belated realization they had come to make a covenant with him. Onkelos translates the word אלה, oath, as מומתא, “oath,” and the word תהי was meant to reconfirm an existing obligation entered into by Avraham. [They were afraid that by expelling Yitzchak they had given him cause not to feel bound by his father’s covenant with the same king. Ed.]  A totally different explanation is quoted by our author in the name of Rabbi Ishmael the author of Sifri. [Our editions of the Sifri do not have this — Rabbi Chavell]. Rabbi Ishmael views the offer of a covenant as not related to the covenant concluded with Avraham but as a new “non-aggression pact” between Yitzchak and Avimelech not to cause each other damage in any way. They wanted this to be a secret agreement that the world was not to know about. It was embarrassing for Avimelech if the world at large would hear that he had come all the way to Yitzchak to make the latter swear not to harm him in any way, and that he was so scared of Yitzchak’s power. Concerning Yitzchak’s second point about their hating him, Avimelech said that this was absolutely not the case and he had no cause to be hostile to them. In fact he would be ungrateful if he did them any harm seeing they had not only allowed him to depart in peace but had not prevented him from taking all his wealth with him. [In the opinion of the Gentiles, letting a Jew depart with his locally made fortune is proof that they do not hate him. Ed.]  As to the third point Yitzchak had made, i.e. that they had expelled him, he had not suffered by this as G’d had made him equally successful elsewhere so that the fortune he had made could not be attributed to the location Gerar which they had recently denied him.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
    ויהי עשו בן ארבעים שנה ויקח אשה את יהודית בת בארי החתי ואת בשמת, “when Esau had reached the age of forty he took as a wife Yehudit daughter of Be-eri the Hittite and Bosmas.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,1 interpreted the wording to mean that during the first forty years of his life Esau chased married women. When he attained the age at which his father had married his mother, he decided to emulate his father’s example and to take a wife also. He reasoned: “just as my father married at the age of forty, I shall do the same.” Concerning this strange attack of sudden piety on the part of Esau, Rabbi Pinchas quoted Rabbi Simon that it is strange that the pig has been mentioned only on two occasions by the prophets. Once by Moses who emphasized that it is unfit to be eaten by Jews (Leviticus 11,7), and the second time by Assaph in Psalms 80,14  “the wild boar gnaws at it and creatures of the field feed on it.” The psalmist uses the pig as an example of a creature which when “lying down” extends its hooves to display that it is a pure animal,  while at all other times it unabashedly disregards civilized conduct. Esau,  when getting ready to settle down, pretended to be following in the footsteps of his father by choosing the age at which his father had gotten married to emulate him. The nation descended from Esau also excels in pretending to apply civilized standards as something demanded of others while they themselves rob, plunder and murder. They have a record of perpetrating evil under the cloak of being servants of the Lord. Both Esau’s wives were Hittites, Canaanites, members of the seven tribes whom the Jewish people have been instructed to exterminate if they do not vacate the land of Canaan first (Deut. 20,17). The Torah informs us that wicked Esau married wives belonging to a wicked people. The verse applied to the marriages of the wicked is found in Psalms 125,5: “but those who in their crookedness act corruptly, let the Lord make them go the way of the evildoers; peace on Israel.” The psalmist means that when the wicked join other evildoers the ultimate result will be peace for Israel as the wicked will self-destruct. Hail to Israel who do not act in this fashion. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,3 have stated  “when a starling is seen joining a raven, this is not by accident. It proves they have something in common.” [In current parlance this is the meaning of the expression “birds of a feather.” Ed.] If Esau, though biologically descended from a father who epitomized holiness nevertheless married such women, it proved that spiritually he was totally corrupt.
  
  Verse 35
  
  . ותהיינה מורת רוח ליצחק ולרבקה, “they were a source of aggravation for both Yitzchak and Rivkah.” Satisfaction with something as well as knowledge of something are called רוח in our tongue as we know from Sifri Pinchas on (Numbers 27,16) that the leader must be able to confront every individual’s spirit and make it amenable to his own. We are told in our verse that each of the wives of Esau refused to fall in with the wishes of either Yitzchak or Rivkah. They angered both Yitzchak and Rivkah in all they did, as they did so provocatively.
      According to a Midrash Tanchuma Toldot 8 the words  מורת רוח mean מרימת רוח, “they caused the holy spirit which had previously rested on Yitzchak as well as on Rivkah to lift itself off Yitzchak and Rivkah and  to depart from them.” Departure of holy spirit from a person may be due to two reasons. 1) Because a person becomes angry and loses his “cool.” We have a tradition that holy spirit rests on a person only when he is in a joyous frame of mind (Berachot 31). 2) Another reason why the holy spirit departs from a person is when he keeps company with wicked persons. We have observed a classic example of this when the Torah did not report G’d as communicating with Avraham until the latter had separated himself from Lot (compare Genesis 13,14). Bereshit Rabbah 65,4 states that one of Esau’s wives was a daughter of a priest. Seeing that Rivkah herself was a daughter of an idolatrous priest, she did not mind so much when she saw garbage of idolatry. [My version of this Midrash. All of this would only explain why Yitzchak reacted earlier to this phenomenon than Rivkah. Ed.].
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותכהין עיניו מראות, ”his eyes weakened due to seeing.” According to the plain meaning of the text, a decline in the quality of vision is a normal phenomenon in people who reach a certain age, We find such a phenomenon as occurring to the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni (Kings I 14,4). When the Torah testified that Moses at 120 had not lost any part of his vision or any other bodily functions, (Deut. 34,7) this is reported precisely because it was a miracle.
      A Midrashic approach: Bereshit Rabbah 65,7 attributes Yitzchak’s failing eyesight to his being bribed with venison by his son Esau. The Torah had taught in Exodus 23,8 that one must not accept bribes and that accepting bribes “blinds the eyes of the seeing.” At that point, the Torah addresses judges and warns them not to accept bribes. Continuing with that subject, Rabbi Yitzchak said: “if someone who accept bribes from someone (such as his son who is obligated to feed him in his old age) is punished for accepting such favours, how much more is this true of someone who accepts such favours from a person who does not owe him anything!” Another approach of an homiletical nature is this: Yitzchak’s eyesight was impaired in order to enable Yaakov to obtain the blessing (Tanchuma Toldot 8). Still another approach: Yitzchak’s failing eyesight was due to the smoke from the incense his daughters-in-law offered to idols. [This leaves open why Rivkah’s eyes were not similarly affected. Maybe because she was so much younger. Ed.] Yet another reason offered in the Midrash: It was to prevent Yitzchak from leaving his house so that when people saw him they should not point to him as the father of the wicked Esau (compare Bereshit Rabbah 65,10). G’d hit on a stratagem to keep him indoors by blinding him. This would be reflected in the verse (Proverbs 28,28) “when the wicked rise up, other men go into hiding;” this prompted our sages to say that if someone raises a son who turns out to be wicked his eyes will become dimmed. They quote what happened to Yitzchak as proof for their contention. The reason that Achiyah Hashiloni lost his eyesight was that Jerobam ben Nevat, the King who placed golden calves on the road to Jerusalem to prevent his subjects from travelling to the Temple, was his star pupil. A totally different approach (Bereshit Rabbah 65,10) ascribes Yitzchak’s failing eyesight not to his age but to the fact that while he was bound on the altar he had beheld a forbidden vision of G’d, something which G’d did not want to punish him for at that stage. However, G’d decreed at that very hour that He would deprive Yitzchak of his eyesight at some time in the future. If G’d had punished Yitzchak immediately, He would have subjected not only Avraham to a test but also Yitzchak; this was not His intention at the time. This is based on the Torah writing מראות, “as a result of seeing something.” Had the Torah simply wanted to inform us that Yitzchak’s failing eyesight was a normal phenomenon it would have written מלראות, i.e. “his eyes became too weak to see.” Bereshit Rabbah 65,10  illustrates this with a parable. A King went for a private stroll behind the gate of his palace. When he raised his eyes he noticed that the son of a dearly beloved friend espied him from his window. Thereupon the King reasoned as follows: “if I kill that son, I will cause anguish to my friend. I will instead decree that the windows all  be closed so that the son in question can no longer use it to spy on me.” A similar thing happened during the binding of Yitzchak. If G’d had punished Yitzchak for not closing his eyes and watching something he was not supposed to watch, He would be causing anguish to Avraham at the very moment when He was testing him. This is the meaning of Isaiah 5,23 מצדיקי רשע עקב שוחד וצדקת צדיקים יסירו ממנו,  “who vindicate him who is in the wrong in return for a bribe, and withhold vindication from him who is in the right.” The prophet alludes to Yitzchak who, because of the venison he used to provide for his father, enjoyed his father’s favour. The second half of the verse refers to Moses and the fact that his eyesight was not withheld from him even at the age of 120 as he had never accepted any bribe.
     ויקרא את עשו בנו הגדול, “he called in Esau his elder son.” Both his father and his mother referred to Esau as גדול, “senior.” Rivkah is on record as doing so in verse 15 when the Torah tells us where Esau kept his valuable clothes. G’d, on the other hand, referred to Esau as קטן, “junior.” We know this from Ovadiah 2 הנה קטן נתתיך בגוים, “here I have made you junior amongst the nations.” The meaning of the word גדול is justified according to the popular proverb לקבל תורא טבחא, “one hands over the fully grown ox for slaughter.” Compare Isaiah 34,6: “For the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” The prophet speaks of retribution being meted out to the descendants of Esau. Ed.] On the other hand, the reason the description “junior” when applied to Yaakov may be appropriate on occasions is that in verse 30 where he is so described  by his mother, G’d retaliated in due cause by referring to Israel as ומי גוי גדול בארץ, “who is a great nation on earth such as Israel” (Deut. 4,5).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ועתה שא נא כליך, “and now, please make ready your gear, etc.” Yitzchak referred to Esau’s sword and to his bow. It is customary for the hunter to gird both his sword and to take his quiver and bow with which to hunt fowl. This, at any rate, is the plain meaning of these words. Yitzchak also hinted that the weapons Esau’s offspring would depend on were precisely these lethal instruments.
      According To Bereshit Rabbah 65,13 the words שא נא כליך are a reference to the Kingdom of Babylon as we read in Daniel 1,2 ואת הכלים הביא בבלה, “and the vessels (Temple utensils) he (Nebuchadnezzar) brought to Babylon.” The word תליך, “your quiver,” refers to the Medes as we read in Esther 7,10 ויתלו את המן, “they hung Haman.” The word וקשתך, “and your bow,” is a reference to the Greek Empire as we read in Zechariah 9,13: כי דרכתי לי יהודה קשת, “for I have drawn Yehudah taut as a bow, etc.;” finally, the words וצא השדה are a reference to the Roman Empire as we read in Genesis 32,2: ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, “to the land of Seir, which will become the field of Edom, Rome.”
  
  Verse 4
  
    ועשה לי מטעמים ...בעבור תברכך נפשי, “and prepare them for me as a tasty dish,...in order that my soul may bless you.” When Yitzchak appeared to emphasize the taste of the food he asked Esau to prepare for him he did not allude to the physical enjoyment he would derive from this as an objective in itself. He meant that the pleasant frame of mind he would be in after eating such a meal would result in his enjoying a degree of holy spirit so that his blessing of his son would become effective. Our sages in Shabbat 30 are on record that the שכינה, the benevolent presence of G’d, does not rest on a person when he is inert, lazy, nor when he is sad, but only when he is in a joyous frame of mind. They base this on Kings II 3,15 (where Elisha could not muster the spirit of prophecy and he instructed that music be played) “as the musician played, the hand of the Lord came upon him, etc.” This is the reason Yitzchak was careful to speak of his נפש, “his soul” enjoying the food; he did not want Esau to think that he wanted his body to enjoy this food. You will notice this repeated emphasis on נפשי, נפשך during this entire episode. The Torah wanted us to know the real reason Yitzchak ordered מטעמים, “delicious food,” to be prepared for him. If you were to ask why he did not simply order music to be played as did the prophets, or for that matter as did King Saul when he wanted to rid himself of a melancholy state of mind, the reason is that the blessing he was about to bestow was not of a spiritual kind but of a mundane nature, commanding earthly, bodily blessings to be granted to Esau by G’d. We see that in verse 19 Yitzchak called down “dew from the sky,” assured Esau (whom he thought he was addressing) the fat parts of the earth, corn and wine to be plentiful, etc.” It is quite understandable then that the frame of mind he was trying to achieve in order to pronounce these blessings with full concentration had to be based on his having enjoyed these very benefits himself recently.
      Here is an interesting excerpt of how our sages viewed the detail provided by the Torah in this whole paragraph. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 16 asks: “why did the Torah command the libations of water which had to accompany the Mussaph offerings on the festival of Tabernacles?” Answer: “In order for G’d to bestow on us the blessings of an adequate water supply, Tabernacles being the season when we pray for this, i.e. for the rains to be rains of blessing.” Why did the Torah command the Jewish people to offer the “Omer” offering, (a measure of the first ripe barley of the season)?” Answer: “In order for G’d to extend His blessing for the grain harvest which begins around this time of year.” Why did G’d command the Jewish people to offer two loaves of the new wheat harvest in the Temple on the festival of Shavuot?” Answer: “In order for G’d to bless the fruit of the trees which begin to ripen at that time of year.” These blessings, if and when they materialise, would constitute a reward for the public offerings which the Torah  commanded to be brought on those festivals. The Talmud is at pains to demonstrate the מדה כנגד מדה principle, i.e. that G’d always responds to us in the manner in which we have related to Him. We must not think that a good harvest constitutes the true reward for Torah observance, G’d forbid!  After all, our sages have told us explicitly in Kidushin 39 that the real reward for Torah observance is not dispensed in this life at all. Whatever blessings we experience in this life are only in the nature of a “dividend” compared to the capital reward which we will receive in the hereafter. Our sages illustrated this with the following example: when someone is especially meticulous about observing the commandment involving ציצית, fringes, he will find that in due course he will have prestigious looking garments. When someone is especially meticulous in the manner he observes the commandment involving מזוזות, (attaching a parchment containing the words of this commandment on his door posts), he will find that in due course he will become the owner of an imposing residence., etc. etc. The idea the sages conveyed is that the “dividend” will correspond in a recognisable manner to the type of commandment observed meticulously; however, the sages only spoke about the “dividend,” not about the real reward which has not been revealed as it is reserved for the hereafter.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . שני גדיי עזים טובים, “two choice kids.” Rivkah specifically commanded Yaakov to bring her two choice kids. The question that is almost forced upon one is: “did Yitzchak consume two whole young kids every day?” According to Bereshit Rabbah 65,14 the marriage contract between Rivkah and Yitzchak made her a daily allowance of two young kids (so that she was not encroaching on her husband’s property when slaughtering these animals and selecting the most tasty parts thereof to prepare for him). Rabbi Chelbo, in the same Midrash, concentrates on the word טובים which appears superfluous seeing that Yaakov had no reason to select mediocre or undernourished kids. He says that the word is an allusion to what was going to prove “good,” i.e. beneficial for Yaakov and his descendants. Seeing that these kids would be the instrument of securing the blessings for Yaakov they would prove to be “good” for him. In addition, they would prove to be good for Yaakov’s children as they would be the principal sin-offerings offered on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16,5) securing forgiveness for the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants. “They are good for you,” i.e. Yaakov’s ascendancy over Esau who is described as an איש שעיר, “a demonic individual,” was due to the scapegoats one of which was offered to the azzazel, the spiritual equivalent of Satan-Esau by the Jewish people as something like a bribe. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 14 that the words ונשא השעיר עליו את כל-עונותם, “he (the scapegoat) will carry (figuratively speaking) upon himself all their sins,” refer to the sins committed when no warning had been received by the perpetrators. The sinners were תם, not rebellious. Seeing that Yaakov has been described as איש תם, it was appropriate that such an animal should serve as the instrument of atonement for his descendants. The delicacies which Rivkah instructed her son Yaakov to enable her to prepare for Yitzchak were not of the type of free-roaming beasts to be found in the field, but they were domesticated animals. This is why she emphasised: “please go to the flocks.” Yaakov, after all, was not a hunter; he was a homebody, a dweller of tents who despised the sword as an instrument to gain one’s livelihood. The Israelites never offered sacrifices from categories of animals which are free-roaming, not domesticated. The prophet Jeremiah characterised the distinction between the Jewish people and the Gentiles when he said (Jeremiah 10,16) “not like these is the portion of Yaakov.” The word חלק means either “portion,” or it can mean “smooth” (with different vowels). The prophet referred to Yaakov as being a smooth-skinned man (according to 27,11). As a result of these considerations, Yaakov’s descendants were never told to offer sacrifices from the free-roaming beasts but only from the domesticated beasts as the Torah said (Leviticus 1,2) אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' מן הבהמה, “anyone of you who wishes to offer a sacrifice to G’d, from the domesticated beasts, etc.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
    אנכי עשו בכורך,  “it is I Esau, your firstborn.” When Yitzchak asked again: אתה זה בני עשו, “are you this son of mine Esau?” and Yaakov answers אני, “that is me,” we also have to understand the words in the same manner as here. There is no question that Yaakov spoke the truth on every occasion. This is what the prophet (Michah 7,20) emphasized when he said תתן אמת ליעקב, “You gave truth to Yaakov.” A further example of Yaakov speaking the truth when it does not appear this way at first glance, is when he said: “of all that You will give me, I will give a tenth to You as a tithe” (Genesis 28,22). He had twelve sons. When you add Ephrayim and Menashe who were Joseph’s sons of whom Yaakov said: “they shall be for me just like Reuven and Shimon,” (Genesis 48,5) this makes a total of fourteen. When you exclude from these the four firstborns (1 from each of his wives) that left ten sons who were Yaakov’s as opposed to being G’d’s. We have a rule that קדש, something already holy from birth or inception, is not subject to tithing. As a result of all this one of the ten sons had to become G’d’s, i.e. reserved for sacred rather than mundane tasks. This tribe was Levi. You observe that Yaakov’s words turned out to be true (though not recognised as true at the time they were uttered). Something similar is evident in our verse. When Yaakov said אנכי עשו, בכורך, he referred to the fact that he had acquired the birthright from Esau; he meant: “I am the one who replaces your firstborn Esau.” He knew that the only reason his father wanted to bestow the blessing on Esau was that Esau was the firstborn. He therefore hinted to his father Yitzchak that Esau had long ago ceased to be the firstborn (48 years ago) when he had sold his birthright to him. Yaakov was therefore entitled to receive the blessing his father wanted to bestow at this time. He considered himself Esau’s representative in the matter, and we know that legally speaking anyone who is the representative of the principal may act on behalf of that principal.  If we needed proof of this, the best proof is that angels who are acting on behalf of G’d are accorded G’d’s name even, such as the angel in Exodus 3,1 who referred to himself as אני ה', “I am the Lord.” There are numerous such examples. One of the most pronounced such examples is found in Genesis 31,13 where the angel says to Yaakov: “I am the G’d of Beit El for whom you have anointed a monument (as an altar) where you have vowed to me, etc.” Clearly, the angel was speaking in the name of his Sender. [Surely, he did not mean to imply that Yaakov had built an altar in honour of an angel. Ed.] When Yaakov said אנכי עשו, בכורך, this was equivalent to his saying: “I am Esau,-to the extent that I am your firstborn.” Had he merely said: “I am Esau,” without adding the words “your firstborn,” this would have been a lie. The reason he added the words “your firstborn” was to draw attention to the fact that the blessing about to be dispensed was meant for the firstborn. When in response to Yitzchak’s question: אתה זה בני עשו, “are you indeed my son Esau, meaning “the one I am supposed to bless,” Yaakov answered: אני, this means: “I am the one.” Had he added the word Esau, he would have lied. By saying אני he merely meant that he was the one entitled to the blessing. As to Yaakov saying immediately afterwards עשיתי כאשר דברת אלי, “I have done as you instructed me,” how could this be truthful seeing that Yitzchak had not instructed him to do anything? We need to understand the word אלי as not meaning “to me,” but  as “for my benefit.” Had Yitzchak not instructed Esau to bring him venison, Rivkah would not have overheard this and would not have ordered Yaakov to obtain the blessing (albeit by subterfuge). As to Yaakov’s asking his father: (verse 19) ואכלה מצידי, “in order to eat from my venison,” seeing he had not been hunting at all, how do we explain this without making a liar out of Yaakov? The word מצידי, means “from my food, i.e. from the food I have prepared for you.” We have a parallel example in Scripture of the word ציד meaning simply “food,” in Joshua 9,14 (where the Gibeonites tricking the Israelites are described) Samuel reports ויקחו האנשים מצידם, “the men (the leaders of the Israelites) took from their (the Gibeonites’) food supply,” (in order to check if indeed these people had come from afar) etc.
     קום נא שבה, “rise up please and sit.” Esau by contrast ordered his father to rise by saying: “may my father rise” (verse 32). He did not ask him to be seated. Bereshit Rabbah 65,18, addressing this difference between how the two sons spoke to their father, writes as follows: “seeing that Yaakov had addressed his father with sensitivity and respect G’d returned the compliment in a similar manner when Moses, Yaakov’s descendant used similar language when addressing G’d in Numbers 10,35 and 10,36 with the words קומה ה’ ויפוצו אויביך..... שובה ה’ רבבות אלפי ישראל, “Arise Hashem and let Your foes be scattered;....Reside tranquilly, Hashem, among the myriad thousands of Israel.” Esau, on the other hand, who had spoken in a gross and haughty manner to his father will be paid back (to his descendants) as we know from Psalms 68,2 יקום אלוקים יפוצו אויביו, “when Elokim arises, His enemies scatter.” [The meaning of this strange sounding comparison seems to be that whereas when G’d deals with the descendants of Esau He employs the attribute of Justice, when He does so at the behest of the Jewish people there will not be a negative fallout for those who implored Him to take vengeance on His enemies, seeing not only the expression קומה is used by Moses, but he referred only to the attribute of Mercy, Hashem, being involved. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   הקול קול יעקב, “the voice is the voice of Yaakov.” We are taught in Bereshit Rabbah 65,21 that “Yaakov (the Jewish people) controls (employs as his weapon) only his voice (his weapon is prayer).” The Midrash bases this on our verse here. The Midrash continues that by the same token Esau’s control extends only over his hands (he relies only on the sword), as Yitzchak had added: “and the hands are the hands of Esau.” Similarly, we have a verse in Psalms 20,8 אלה ברכב ואלה בסוסים ואנחנו בשם אלוקינו נזכיר, “They (call) on chariots, they (call) on horses, but we call on the name of the Lord our G’d.” Moses referred to this in Numbers 20,16 when he reminded the king of Edom of the experiences of the Jewish people in Egypt. He said: “We cried out to the Lord  and He heard our voice.” Rabbi Abba bar Kahane said that the most prominent Gentile philosophers such as Bileam son of Beor and Avnimus the Ardi were asked how one could overcome the power of the Jewish people. They were told to go to the synagogues and check on whether the young children were busily engaged studying Torah and praising the Lord. If so, they were told, there was no chance in the world to overcome these people, as their principal weapon was their voice appealing to G’d to come to their support. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   גם ברוך יהיה “he shall also remain blessed.” Yitzchak meant that Yaakov should remain blessed by all the emanations. He said these words to teach us that if someone received a blessing from the patriarchs [who had been specifically endowed by G’d with the power to bestow blessings, Ed.] he is as if he had been blessed by G’d directly. The expression chosen by our author is מפי אלוקי אמן. [This is an expression borrowed from Isaiah 65,16 meaning that the blessing  —even though its fulfillment may have been delayed — stems from the G’d who can be trusted to fulfill His promises Ed.]
      Tanchuma Toldot 13 concentrates on the word ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה, “Yitzchak experienced a great trembling,” explaining that the Torah repeats the word חרד to show that this was already the second time Yitzchak had trembled. The first time was on the altar on Mount Moriah. The reason why the Torah added the words עד מאד in this instance was to tell us that this trembling was of a more far reaching nature than the one he experienced when he thought he was going to be a sacrifice.
      Bereshit Rabbah 67,2 asks why a man whose one son left the room to make room for his other son should be seized by such violent tremors. The answer given is that when Esau entered Gehinom entered with him. Rabbi Nathan, quoting Rabbi Acha said  that the walls of his house started shaking. This is alluded to by the words מי אפוא in our verse and meant: “who in the future was going to ‘be baked?’” [Yitzchak had a vision of someone being burned by the fires of Gehinom and considered that it might be himself for having misjudged the character of his children so tragically. Ed.] G’d answered him that neither he nor Yaakov was going to be burned by those fires but the one הצד ציד, who had constantly been “hunting,” i.e. misleading him, Esau.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ולכה אפוא מה אעשה בני, “and as to you, where, what can I do my son? This verse teaches that Yaakov had been blessed with the blessing ויתן לך אלוקים, an all encompassing blessing, a blessing which extended both to his body and to his soul. Although, from a strictly textural point of view, such things as “corn, wine, dew, and fatness of the earth appear to be something totally physical, material, these words also contained allusions to the soul.   The words ולכה אפוא מה אעשה, cannot mean that Yitzchak did not bless Esau that he should enjoy the dew of the heaven, etc. Surely he had no reason to deny him such a blessing. By assigning the dew of heaven to one person surely that does not exclude another person from enjoying a similar blessing! We must look for some exclusive factor in the blessing Yitzchak had bestowed on Yaakov while he thought that Esau stood before him! The answer therefore must be that Yitzchak bestowed a double blessing aimed at both body and soul. This being so, it left no room for Esau to receive a blessing also. 
  The letter ה at the end of the word ולכה, which really should have been ולך, was an allusion to the five sons Esau would father, i.e. Eliphaz, Reuel, Yeush, Yaalem and Korach. Yitzchak referred to these when he said: “what can I do for you?” He meant that they had already been made servants to Yaakov. This part of the blessing did not allow him to second-guess himself.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  .  הנה משמני הארץ, “here from the fat part of the earth, etc.” You do not find mention of the name of G’d in the blessing Esau received, whereas the name of G’d has been mentioned in the blessings given to Yaakov when Yitzchak had said: “and may the Lord give you from the dew of the heaven, etc.” This teaches that Yitzchak did not invoke a direct bounty from G’d when he promised Esau that he would enjoy the bounty of nature, i.e.משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך , “you will reside in a part of the earth which is of the best, the most fertile.” Yitzchak left Esau’s fortunes to the vagaries of the stars, to astrological influences only. This is what he meant by מטל השמים מעל, “from the dew originating in the sky above.” The words ומשמני הארץ יהיה מושבך, are a thinly veiled hint that Yitzchak was concerned only with Esau’s life on earth; he did not foresee an afterlife for him. We have a parallel expression in Numbers 24,21 when Bileam prophesied about the future of the various nations surrounding the people of Moav and Israel and said of the Kenite איתן מושבך, “your dwelling is strong.” There too the implication is that all this will come to an end with the physical death of the person who receives the blessing. The mention of the word הנה is equivalent to an invitation, i.e. Yitzchak inviting these blessings of nature to be available to his son Esau. We find G’d Himself using the same expression when He answered Avraham’s prayer concerning the well-being of his son Ishmael in Genesis 17,2 when he said הנה ברכתי אותו, “I have prepared a blessing for a him.” Blessings introduced with the word הנה are applicable only in this terrestrial world, and in the case of Esau only at times when the Jewish people fail to carry out G’d’s will. These blessings were all subject to certain conditions. When a blessing commenced with the letter ו, i.e. ו-יתן לך האלוקים, “and the Lord may give you, etc.,” this implied “if you have met the prerequisites for this blessing to become effective.” It is clear from verse 40 in our chapter that when the prerequisites of Yitzchak’s blessing have not been met the blessing was not to materialise. This is the meaning of the words  והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עולו מעל צוארך, “and whenever you are aggrieved you will cast off his yoke from your neck.” In other words, the blessings for Esau even in this world are applicable only when Israel is not deserving of its own blessings.
  
  Verse 40
  
  . ועל חרבך תחיה, “and you will live (survive) by means of your sword.” This blessing was an acceptance by Yitzchak of Esau’s vocation as a hunter, a person who spends most of his time in wildernesses, uncivilised countries where danger always lurks. It was appropriate then that Yitzchak assured his son of protection against these dangers, blessing his sword as an instrument of his survival, so to speak. Esau’s patron was the planet Mars, the planet associated with warfare, bloodshed, with the sword. This is why the descendants of Esau also excelled in military conquest. Basically, Esau’s patron in the celestial spheres indulges in killing and represents the power of the sword in this world. In order to contrast Yaakov’s (Jewish) philosophy with that of Esau, the Torah legislated that the altar or Sanctuary of the Jewish people must be built without any metal instruments being used as these instruments symbolise war and bloodshed. In connection with the construction of the Tabernacle, the Torah writes in Exodus 25,3 where the materials to be donated for that structure are listed, that gold, silver and copper are to be contributed. Iron was not solicited as a contribution at all. In Kings I 6,7 we are told ומקבות והגרזן כל כלי ברזל לא נשמע בבית בהבנותו, “and hammers and axes and any other iron instruments were not heard in connection with the Temple’s being built.” The reason was that iron symbolised war and the sword which brings destruction to the world. The function of the Temple, on the other hand, is to ensure hat the world endures.
     ואת אחיך תעבוד, “and you will serve your brother.” Provided Yaakov deserves his blessing.  והיה כאשר תריד, “and when you are aggrieved, etc.,” when Yaakov is not in a state when he deserves his blessing.  ופרקת עולו מעל צוארך, “you will cast off his yoke from your neck.” This is in line with the opinion of Onkelos who translates this verse as: “when they violate the commandments of the Torah.”
  
  Verse 41
  
  . ויאמר עשו בלבו, “Esau said to himself, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 67,8 used this phrase to remind us that the wicked are always “prisoners” of the dictates of their hearts, whereas the righteous are in full control of their hearts. We have a number of verses speaking of wicked people in which the Bible uses the same expression. Examples are: Psalms 14,1: “Naval said in his heart,” (to himself), Jerobam said to himself (Kings I 12,26) et al. The word בלבו must be contrasted with the expression אל לבו, “to his heart,” as distinct from “in his heart.” When you speak “to your heart,” you are the boss. When a voice speaks “in your heart,” the heart is the boss. This why we find in Samuel I 1,13 where Chanah is praying that the wording used to describe this is וחנה היא מדברת אל לבה, “and Chanah, she was speaking to her heart.” When G’d is reported as speaking to Himself in Genesis 5,21 the wording used is also ויאמר ה’ אל לבו.
     יקרבו ימי אבל אבי, “may the days of mourning for my father approach, etc.” He did not want to kill Yaakov while Yitzchak was alive as he was afraid of being cursed by his father and that the blessing he had received would turn into a curse. Seeing that Yaakov had gone into hiding and left town, Rivkah had to send a message to him [ותשלח in verse 42] to warn him of Esau’s plan.
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  . עד אשר תשוב חמת אחיך, “until the anger of your brother abates.” This was the anger at having sold the birthright.
  
  Verse 45
  
  . עד שוב אף אחיך, “until your brother’s wrath subsides.” This was a reference to the blessing Yaakov had stolen from him. This is the reason the Torah speaks of two different types of anger Esau was filled with.
  
  Verse 46
  
   קצתי בחיי מפני בנות חת, “I am fed up with my life on account of the Hittite women” (Esau’s wives). You notice that the letter ק  at the beginning of the word קצתי is written is smaller script. The reason was that Rivkah foresaw with her holy spirit that the Holy Temple which measured 100 (ק) cubits in length would one day be destroyed due to he sin of intermarriage between the Israelites with local Gentile women. We find a similar occurrence of the letter ק being written in larger than usual script in Psalms 84, 4  (גם צפור מצאה בית ודרור קן לה, “even a sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself”). The Psalmist in this instance refers to the silver and gold David had amassed in preparation for the building of the Holy Temple which his son Solomon would complete. In other words, when you look forward to establishing a Temple 100 cubits long, the letter ק is written larger, whereas when one envisages the destruction of this Temple the same latter ק is written in smaller script. David had complete details of the precise measurements of the Temple which would be built by Solomon as we know from Chronicles I 28,19 “All this that the Lord made me understand by His hand on me, I give you in writing—the plan of all the works.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  .  וישלח יצחק את יעקב, “Yitzchak sent Yaakov, etc. Here the question arises that seeing Yaakov left his father’s home at the command of his parents, why do the sages claim that the separation of 22 years which Yaakov experienced from his son Joseph was due to his failure to observe the commandment of honouring father and mother during that period? (compare Megillah 17) Perhaps we must assume that his parents had meant for him to marry Leah and to return home forthwith when his father would send for him. Yaakov, however, had set his mind on marrying Rachel on account of her beauty; he was therefore not fulfilling a parental command by doing so and his delay in returning home was accounted against him. In fact, he had volunteered to serve seven years for Rachel (Genesis 29,18).
     וילך פדנה ארם אל לבן בן בתואל הארמי, “he went towards Padan Aram, to Lavan son of Bethuel the Aramite.” While he was on his way he intended to marry one of the daughters of Lavan. This is why the Torah describes him as going “to Lavan.” After all, this had been what his father had commanded him to do when he said to him (verse 2): “arise and go to Padan Aram to the house of Bethuel and take for yourself from there a wife from amongst the daughters of Lavan your mother’s brother.” There is also the question of why the Torah had to write: “the brother of Rivkah, the mother of Yaakov and Esau.” Did we not know that Lavan was Rivkah’s brother, etc.? 
  According to the plain meaning of the text we must interpret this line as a complimentary comment on Yaakov who was prepared to follow a parental command and marry a girl who was the daughter of two generations of wicked people, i.e. Bethuel and Lavan. The Torah wanted to justify Yaakov by pointing out that though Lavan was a wicked person, his sister Rivkah was a fine woman, righteous in her own right. He could therefore assume that Lavan’s daughters, much like Bethuel’s daughter Rivkah, might be  just like their aunt. The Torah continues complimenting Rivkah who became the mother of both “Yaakov and Esau.” The Torah wanted to emphasise that Rivkah, as opposed to her husband, had always loved Yaakov best (25,28), although she could have preferred her elder son as is customary.
      I have heard from my teacher that the words “mother of Yaakov and Esau” are to show us that Rivkah deliberately sent Yaakov to a place where the biological relationship to Yaakov and Esau were of the same degree so that Lavan would not have a reason to favour Esau over Yaakov and allow Esau to harm Yaakov who had come to seek shelter under the roof of his uncle.
      An investigative/rational approach to our verse: The Torah reminds us that when twins are born there are two afterbirths seeing each twin grows within its own setting. In the case of Esau and Yaakov, however, something unnatural occurred. Although they grew up within a single afterbirth, nonetheless their characters were  so totally at variance. This was foreshadowed when Rivkah experienced that the fetuses were fighting with one another inside her (25,22). The Torah had to remind us that Rivkah had already endured much before these sons had been born.
  
  Verse 6
  
   בברכו  אותו ויצו עליו לאמור לא תקח אשה מבנות כנען,  "when he had blessed him and commanded him saying: ‘do not take a wife from amongst the daughters of Canaan.’”  The experience of the fathers was being repeated with the sons. This is why Yitzchak commanded his son not to take a wife from the people of Canaan but to go to his own family and members of his father’s family, just as his father had commanded concerning his own choice of a potential marriage partner at the time.
      Why did Yitzchak bless Yaakov again (28,1) and why did the Torah repeat this fact in our verse? Why was this matter referred to a third time with the words בברכו אותו? The Torah wanted to make it clear beyond any doubt that the fact that on the first occasion Yitzchak had not been aware whom he had really blessed had become totally irrelevant and that Yaakov‘s blessing was confirmed beyond dispute and that even Esau was fully aware of it. Bereshit Rabbah 67,17 writes that the second blessing was necessary as there had been a weakness concerning the validity of the original blessing. This “weakness” was now eliminated and it was clear to everyone that Yaakov’s blessing was legal beyond any doubt or dispute. The blessings received by Yaakov here were in the nature of a confirmation, a stamp, if you will, on the original blessing. It was similar to the practice of confirming a bill of divorce with such a stamp. In Jewish law, a bill of divorce is valid only if it bears such stamp. Without such confirmation there would still be people accusing Yaakov of having “snatched” the blessing away from Esau for whom it was intended. It also showed that if Yaakov had not agreed to become part of the short-lived charade to show his father how easily he could be tricked he would have obtained the blessing due him anyway.
      We observe in history that the blessing has a way of being transferred from generation to generation. We find the first basic blessing of mankind being given to Adam and Chavah in Genesis 1,27. When, due to the curse which rested on the world at the time of the deluge this blessing had to be renewed, we read in Genesis 9,1 that G’d bestowed this blessing again on Noach and his sons. When the generation of the Tower had become guilty of a collective sin, the blessing which had been in a state of suspended animation was given to Avraham in Genesis 12,2 and he was given the power to direct it as he saw fit. Avraham was entitled to pass on this blessing to Ishmael, his oldest son as was the custom in those days. However, Avraham refrained from doing so as G’d had told him that his principal heir was Yitzchak. At the same time, since he did not want to cause rivalry and feuding between his sons Ishmael and Yitzchak, he decided not to allocate this power to bless to either one of this sons and to leave it to G’d to decide when and to whom to grant this power. G’d intervened and gave this blessing to Yitzchak (25,11). Yitzchak was entitled to give the blessing to Esau, seeing he was the firstborn. This is why Yaakov agreed to trick his father as he had become the legal firstborn. As a result of Esau selling his birthright he had lost both it and the power to receive or bestow the blessing. When Yaakov founded a family of twelve sons each of whom became the head of one of the twelve tribes making up the Jewish nation, he would have been entitled to transfer this blessing and the powers associated with it to his own firstborn Reuven. He did not do so, however, seeing Reuven had been guilty of a serious trespass as a result of which his father transferred the birthright to Joseph (Chronicles I 5,1). When these  blessings were fulfilled for Yaakov the third of the patriarchs, this serves as an assurance to us in this our third exile that they will also be fulfilled at the time of the redemption from this exile.
   Seeing that the Torah tells us that even the spiritual representative of Esau at the celestial court agreed that Yaakov had deserved to be the recipient of these blessings and he himself conferred a blessing on Yaakov (Genesis 32,30), this was a forerunner of what the prophet Isaiah said concerning the redemption in the future: והיו מלכים אומניך ושרותיהם מיניקותיך אפים ארצה ישתחוו לך ועפר רגליך ילחכו וידעת כי אני ה’ אשר לא יבושו קווי, “Kings shall tend your children, their queens shall serve you as nurses; they shall bow before you, face to the ground and they lick the dust of your feet, and you shall know that I am the Lord; those who trust Me shall not be shamed.” (Isaiah 49,23).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
     בברכת ישרים תרום קרת ובפי רשעים תהרס, “by the blessings of the righteous the city is elevated; but it is torn down by the mouth of the wicked.” (Proverbs 11,11) 
  In the course of his Book, Solomon makes mention of all positive and negative virtues. In the course of his words he stipulates that the צדיק, the righteous person, personifies precisely the opposite virtues of the רשע, the wicked person. Similarly, the ישר, the upright person, is the reverse of the devious person, the traitor. Throughout the Book of Proverbs Solomon contrasts opposite virtues. In chapter 21,18 this is spelled out very clearly when we read כופר לצדיק רשע ותחת ישרים בוגד. “The wicked will be a ransom for the righteous; the traitor in place of the upright.” Solomon clearly contrasts the righteous with the wicked and the upright with the traitor, the deceiver. These two types of people are absolute opposites. Solomon makes another statement along these same lines when he writes in 11,6 צדקת ישרים  תצילם וסלף בוגדים ישדם. “The righteousness of the upright saves them; the treacherous will be trapped by their malice.”
   The ישר is the person who knows straightforward honesty, he treasures it, and he deliberately chooses to pactice it. He is prepared to endure all the various unpleasant effects of sticking to his mode of life. All of this he does because he is captive to the motto of being truthful. The בוגד, the treacherous person, on the other hand, is the reverse. First of all, in many instances he does not even recognise the truth when he sees it. Secondly, even when he does recognise the truth he does not admit it but endeavours with all the means at his disposal to pervert the truth.   In spite of all this we find that in some verses in this Book Solomon contrasted the virtue of uprightness with wickedness (instead of with treachery) and in the verse we quoted at the beginning of this paragraph he tells us that the upright man who dwells in a town causes the entire town to be morally and ethically uplifted on his account; in other words, Solomon defines the upright man as someone conferring benefits on his fellow citizens so that the whole town benefits from his conduct. Not only do the words of his mouth benefit his townspeople but he benefits them by means of the blessing which rests upon him. In other words, whatever G’d has endowed him with is transferred also to the community within which such an upright person resides. The very reverse is true of the wicked person, and this is why our verse continues with ובפי רשעים תהרס , “by the mouth of the wicked the town is destroyed.” The wicked person not only does not make a contribution to society, i.e. to the people with whom he associates, but he causes such a society to disintegrate due to his very presence. He does so merely by the words which come out of his mouth and by his haughty and overbearing manner. The righteous, on the other hand is not only a source of honour to the town he lives in but even his property is also a blessing for that town. This is the meaning of the words בברכת ישרים תרום קרת. The general principle which Solomon teaches is that the good deeds of the righteous as well as his words bear fruit. This  is the meaning of Kohelet 11,3: ואם יפול עץ בדרום ואם בצפון מקום שיפול העץ, שם יהוא “If a tree falls down in the south or the north, wherever it falls there it remains.” Solomon speaks of a righteous person. The “tree” in the parable is a symbol for the righteous. Wherever he makes his residence there he will produce fruit. When our portion commences with the words ויצא יעקב וגו’ “Yaakov departed, etc,” this implied that a worthwhile person left the Holy Land and the whole land experienced his absence. When a righteous person resides within a city this makes an impression on that town’s fortunes. This is why the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 68,6) used this wording to teach this lesson. The Midrash felt that surely Yaakov had not been the only person who had ever left Beer Sheva. Why then did the Torah make special mention of his departure? [Remember that we already read about his leaving in 28,8 when he is reported as וילך פדנה ארם, “he went in the direction of Padan Aram.” Ed.] We can understand then that his departure is mentioned as it may have been the first time that a righteous person left Beer Sheva permanently. Since it would have sufficed to tell us where Yaakov was headed, i.e. “he went towards Charan,” the words ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע tell us that with his departure the glory of that town departed also.
   ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע, “Yaakov left Beer Sheva, etc.”  Beer Sheva is part of the land of Israel as we have been told in 26,23 that Yitzchak moved from the land of the Philistines to Beer Sheva. Seeing that  that we know that Yitzchak never left the land of Israel, it is clear that Beer Sheva was part of this land. We had also read that Yitzchak had named the town (26,33). 
  Whereas the Torah had never mentioned that Yaakov moved to Beer Sheva, it is clear that when the Torah mentioned that he departed from there he must have first obtained permission from G’d to do so. He did so as otherwise he could not comply with the commandment of his father to go to his uncle Lavan and to marry one of his daughters. The words “he went to Charan” then may mean that he obtained permission for this specific journey and its purpose. [According to the Midrash we must assume that at the time Yaakov and Yitzchak lived in Kiryat Arba, and the reason Yaakov went there was to consult G’d who had previously communicated with his father there and given him assurances]. According to Bereshit Rabbah 68, Yaakov reasoned that just as G’d had appeared to his father at this spot so He might appear to him in response to his prayer. If He were to permit him to leave the land of Israel he would go, if not he would not leave this country. 
  If this were not the correct interpretation the Torah really should have written ויצא יעקב מחברון, “Yaakov departed from Chevron,” as this is where both he and his father lived at that time and that is where he received the blessings. You may now understand the proper sequence of what occurred. 1) Yaakov left, he encountered G’d; he spent the night there (verse 16) where he had that encounter. The word במקום with the vowel patach under the letter ב, alludes to a place he knew, i.e. Mount Moriah where he had previously had a vision of G’d. Permission to travel northwards was granted as G’d said to him He would be with him on the way he would travel, etc. (verses 13-15). After Yaakov had spent the night at Mount Moriah and G’d had given him permission to leave, i.e. had promised him to bring him back to this land, the reference of “to this land” was to Beer Sheva which is part of the land of Israel. Having had this assurance, Yaakov set out in an easterly direction. [according to this interpretation by our author Yaakov took a very round about route, first traveling north from Kiryat Arba (Chevron) to Mount Moriah (Jerusalem); from there he traveled south to Beer Sheva (passing his hometown Kiryat Arba on the way) and from Beer Sheva in a north-easterly direction heading for Charan. Another difficulty is that the Torah never reported Yaakov as returning to Beer Sheva. It only mentions his return to Kiryat Arba (35,27) Ed.] He set out directly for Charan only after having stopped over in Beer Sheva. Our entire portion then discusses only what he experienced at Mount Moriah and after he had spent at least one night at Beer Sheva. We need to understand the words וילך חרנה as a general statement, whereas the words וישא יעקב רגליו וילך ארצה בני קדם, “Yaakov lifted his feet and proceeded in the direction of the land of the easterners,” is the detailed description of his journey.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 68,8 Yaakov covered the distances reported here in a single day all the way from Beer Sheva to Charan. The basis for this is the similarity of the wording here with the description of Eliezer’s journey in 24,10-11. [I suppose the mention of the time of day when Eliezer arrived i.e. in the evening is the part of the narrative the Midrash focuses on. Ed.] According to the Talmud Sanhedrin 95 the people of whom Scripture wrote the words ויקם וילך in that order, all experienced that the earth telescoped beneath them and they completed a lengthy journey in a single day. They were: Eliezer, Yaakov, and Avishai. Eliezer had made mention of the fact that he arrived at the well the same day (24,42) when he said ואבא היום אל העין, “I arrived at the fountain this day,’”i.e. the day he had left Avraham.
      Another Midrash (Chulin 91) focusing on the words ויפגע במקום, “he encountered the place,” states that when Yaakov was already close to Charan it suddenly occurred to him that he might have passed by a place where his father and grandfather had offered a prayer to G’d and he had failed to do so. As he made ready to retrace his steps, the earth “folded” beneath his feet so that he encountered the spot in question without having to go back all that way. The place in question was Mount Moriah. The true message of that Midrash is that Yaakov expressed a longing for Mount Moriah and the chance to offer a prayer there. G’d obliged him by saving him the journey and he experienced a sensation equivalent to Mount Moriah being where he found himself. In order to reconcile the two Midrashim we must say that Yaakov experienced two such miraculous telescoping of the earth beneath him. The first time was when he went from Beer Sheva to Charan in a single day, a journey which he had undertaken willingly. The second time he experienced this phenomenon was in order to save him the trouble to retrace his steps.
      There is also a Midrash in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35, according to which Yaakov took 12 of the stones of the altar Avraham had built on Mount Moriah and on which his father had been bound. This was a hint that in the future twelve tribes would emerge from him and that they would all merge to become a single nation. The words: “He took the stone which he had put under his head” are an allusion to the unification of the Jewish people of whom David had said in Samuel II 7,23 (verse 18) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ, “and who is like Your nation Israel, a unique and unified nation on earth.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  . וישכב במקום ההוא, ”he lay down in that place.” All the Torah had to write was: “he lay down,” just as the Torah wrote וילן שם, “he spent the night there.” Why did the Torah add the words: “in that place?” The words במקום ההוא are restrictive. The Torah means that all he did in that place was to lie down. But in another place, i.e. at the academy of Ever he spent 14 years studying Torah before journeying on to Charan and to Lavan.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויחלום , “he had a dream.” This dream was not of the same order as are ordinary dreams people dream. However, at the same time it was not a true prophetic vision either. This is why the Torah wrote at the end: וייקץ יעקב משנתו והנה חלום, “and Yaakov awake from his sleep, and here it had been a dream.” A true prophetic vision would be described by the Torah not as שנה, sleep, but either as במראה אליו אתודע, or as בחלום אדבר בו, as we know from Numbers 12,7. Seeing that neither of these two expressions is in evidence here, this downgrades the visionary element.
     והנה סולם מוצב ארצה, “and here a ladder was standing on the ground, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yaakov observed that the feet of the ladder stood in Beer Sheva, where he was lying; this is the meaning of the words מוצב ארצה, whereas the meaning of the words: “its head reached heavenwards” refers to the Temple. This is the gateway from which the angels ascend to heaven or descend to earth. When G’d appeared to be standing on top of the ladder, Yaakov realised that the site he was lying on was the gateway to heaven, and that it was an appropriate place for prayer. The Holy Temple is the House of G’d. Yaakov realised that the Holy Temple was of crucial importance in channeling communication from man to G’d and vice versa. [When the author speaks of the plain meaning of the text, I believe he refers to Yaakov subsequently describing what he had seen and what it meant (verse 16-17) Ed.] Rashi too quotes Bereshit Rabbah 68, where Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra describes the bottom of the ladder as standing at Beer Sheva, the angle being such that the top was vertically above Mount Moriah. When the Midrash spoke about the שיפוע, the angle of the elevation, it meant that at its zenith the ladder was above Mount Moriah. In other words, the point at which it appeared to reach heaven was directly above where the Holy Temple would stand in the future.
      A Midrashic approach sees the dream as hyperbole of the revelation at Mount Sinai in the future. The word סלם, ladder, is equated with סיני, Mount Sinai. The numerical value of the letters in both words are the same, i.e. 130. The words מוצב ארצה, are a reference to the Jewish people who would stand at the bottom of the Mountain at the time of the revelation. ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר (Exodus 19,16). The words וראשו מגיע השמימה are akin to Deut. 4,11 וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים, “and the mountain was all aflame burning up unto the heart of the heaven.” The words ומלאכי אל-הים are a reference to Moses and Aaron who acted as G’d’s messengers, Moses ascending the mountain. Seeing that Moses was also reported as descending (Exodus 19,14), he symbolised both of the motions ascribed to the angels in the dream. When G’d addressed Yaakov, saying אני ה’ אלוקי אברהם אביך, this was equivalent to G’d saying to the Jewish people at Sinai אנכי ה’ אלוקיך, “I am the Lord your G’d, etc.”
      According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35 G’d showed Yaakov in his dream the four empires who would host Israel in its various exiles, showing them to him in their ascendancy as well as in their eventual decline. He showed him how the celestial representative of the Kingdom of Babylon would ascend seventy rungs on the ladder only to descend all of them again. He showed him the Medes ascending 52 of the rungs of this ladder and then descending again. Then He showed him that the spiritual representative of the Greek Empire ascended 180 rungs of this ladder only in order to have to descend all of them again. Finally, he showed Yaakov how the spiritual representative of the Roman Empire climbed the whole ladder without descending. While doing so that representative boasted that he would conquer heaven whereas Yaakov quoted  Isaiah 14,14 where the descent of the Roman Empire is predicted also by the words אך אל שאול תורד “but You will bring him down to She-ol.” G’d had told him “even if you rise like the eagle I will bring you down from there” (Ovadiah 4). 
  According to this Midrash Yaakov’s dream contained a prophetic message that at the end of all the various exiles the Jewish people would resume their leading role in the world, seeing that all the patriarchs had similar visions starting with the covenant between the pieces when Avraham was first told about the exile his descendants would experience before they would inherit the land of Israel as their homeland. We have already quoted these various Midrashim in connection with our commentary on Genesis 15,12. 
   Other Midrashim variously describe the angels Yaakov saw ascending and descending as the angels of Sodom which had been demoted as their charges had been destroyed, or that they were the angels who accompanied Yaakov while he was in Eretz Yisrael now taking their leave in order to be replaced by other angels who would guard him while he was in Charan, etc. Other Midrashim describe the angels Yaakov saw ascending and descending as inquisitive angels who wanted to get a close up look at the choicest of the patriarchs, Yaakov, whose likeness was engraved on G’d’s throne. None of these Midrashim are mutually exclusive as the ladder was not narrow and many angels were able to climb or descend at the same time, each one at his own speed.
      A rational approach to the dream. The ladder represents the various levels of this universe. The universe may be regarded like a pyramid with the terrestrial part, the part inhabited by man at the bottom of the pyramid. Above our world is that of the planetary system; still “higher” is the world inhabited by disembodied creatures. In other words: the ladder has three basic rungs. David also characterized the world in a similar manner when he said (Psalms 103,20): ברכו ה’ מלאכיו, “bless the Lord, His angels.” He followed this by saying: (verse 21) ברכו ה’ כל צבאיו, משרתיו, עשי רצונו, “bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants, who do His will; “ Finally, he said (verse 22) ברכו ה’ כל מעשיו וגו’, “bless the Lord all His creatures, etc.” Solomon also portrayed the world in a similar way in Song of Songs in three consecutive verses in Song of Songs 5,13-14-15). The verses are: לחיו כערוגות הבושם, מגדלות מרקחים. שפתותיו שושנים נוטפות מור עובר. ידיו גלילי זהב, ממולאים בתרשיש, מעיו עשת שן מעולפת ספירים. שוקיו עמודי שש, מיוסדים על אדני פז. מראהו כלבנון בחור כארזים. The conventional translation of these verses is as follows: ”His cheeks are like beds of spices, producing banks of perfume; His lips are like lilies, they drip flowing myrrh. His hands are rods of gold, studded with beryl; his legs are like marble pillars set in sockets of fine gold. He is majestic as Lebanon, stately as cedars” The author views Solomon as paraphrasing different parts of the universe and its functions. He uses the cheeks, hand and thighs, to describe these three levels of the universe. In those verses the spiritual concept of the Jewish people, known in Talmudic parlance as כנסת ישראל,  praises the Lord and His creation. The לחיו, “cheeks,” represent the world of the angels who tell the prophets what they should prophesy; the hands represent the world of the planetary systems  The word שפתותיו, “his lips,” are a reference to the prophets who relate what they have been told by the angels, the source of their information. The word נוטפות, is the actual prophetic message. The word is derived from והטף אל דרום, (Ezekiel 21,2) “let your words flow southwards.” Solomon also compares prophecy to מור, “myrrh”, as the soul derives similar pleasure from prophecy as it does from the spice by that name. “His hand,” is a reference to the planetary system, the word גלילים being essentially the same as גלגלים, “orbiting planets”. They are compared to “hands,” as all of man’s activities are influenced by these orbiting stars and planets. In fact everything that goes on in our terrestrial world depends on these planets. The words “filled with beryl,” is a reference to the stars which form the satellites of many of these planets. The word תרשיש represents something more precious than gold. Whereas the planets themselves are in outer space, the “stars” are perceived of filling some of the void between earth and the planets. The words מעיו עשת שן  are a reference to the 12 horoscopes; this is why Solomon mentioned מעולפת ספירים, adorned with sapphires, i.e. with 12 sapphires. The words שוקיו are a reference to our terrestrial world, the bottom rung of this material existence. Just as the legs of a human being are the “lower” part of his whole body, so the part of the universe we live in is the low end of the entire universe. The word שוקיו applies to the two elements fire and wind, whereas the word אדני פז are a reference to the other two elements water and earth. The entire universe is portrayed as if it were a ladder.
      G’d informed Yaakov in this dream/vision that He stands above this pyramid and oversees all that goes on within it. He mentioned the lower part of the universe first as it was the part which Yaakov was standing on and which was therefore closest to his thinking. The words וראשו מגיע השמימה, “and its head reached to heaven,” are a reference to the world of the planetary system, who appear to touch the outer fringes of the universe. When David describes them as proclaiming the honour of the Lord (Psalms 19,2), they are described as part of the celestial regions. Finally, when the dreams described the angels ascending and descending on that ladder, the reference is to that celestial region inhabited by disembodied intelligences. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12) used this division of the world into three parts (rungs) to state that the angels, (their habitat) represent one third of the universe. They base it on a verse in Daniel 10. We are not to understand this to mean that the “upper third” of the universe is reserved for the angels, but that angels “share” in all three parts of the world.” This is the way Nachmanides explains this in connection with his commentary on the cherubs on top of the Holy Ark. [Rabbi Chavell could not find this except in the writings of Maimonides in his “Moreh” section 2 near the end of chapter 10. Ed.] According to this view the words עולים ויורדים בו, “ascending or descending on it,” refer to the temporary nature of angels who have been created for specific tasks and who are destroyed when they have completed that task. The existence and usefulness of an angel is described as עליה, ascent, whereas the redundancy and subsequent destruction of the angel is described as ירידה, descent. Our sages in Eichah Rabbati 3,21 phrased it thus: “On every single day G’d creates a class of angels who proceed to praise him in song and are then going on their way.” These are the types of angels that came into existence on the fifth day of creation. A different group of angels whom G’d created on the second day of creation enjoy permanent life.  The word בו in our verse refers to the ladder which had served as the illustration for the composition of the universe as a three-tiered pyramid. G’d is described as towering above the ladder (universe) exerting His influence even on the angels. The angels in turn exert their influence on the tier of the planetary system, which in their turn exert their influence on the creatures in the terrestrial part of the universe. In other words, all the creatures in the terrestrial universe are subject to the direct influence of the planetary system. This was confirmation to Yaakov of the validity of astrology as a discipline worth studying. These planets, etc. however, were not independent powers but were presided over by the agents of G’d called “angels,” who in turn were under the direct supervision of G’d Himself. Solomon described this system when he wrote (Kohelet 5,7) אם עשק רש וגזל משפט וצדק תראה במדינה אל תתמה  על החפץ כי גבה מעל גבה שומר וגבהים עליהם. “If you see oppression of the poor, and the suppression of justice and right in the State, do not be astonished at the fact, for there is One higher than the high who watches and there are high ones above them.” The first part of the verse speaks of the injustice perpetrated in the terrestrial part of the universe. Solomon warns us not to jump to the conclusion that the world consists only of this part and that therefore the whole universe must be corrupt. Justice does exist, and there are forces at work which are superior to those which are active in our terrestrial part of the universe, and the considerations which guide these forces are of the kind that we human beings often cannot understand, because His reasoning is so much superior to our reasoning (Isaiah 55,8). This ultimate Supervisor of what is allowed to go on in the universe is none other than the Creator Himself. Solomon refers to G’d in the plural as גבהים, matching the plural ending in the word אל-הים. This is not the only occasion when G’d [who is primarily known as One, Unique, Ed.] is referred to in Scripture in the plural. Another example is Joshua 24,19  כי אל-הים קדושים הוא, “for G’d is holy (pl).” You will note that Joshua adds the word הוא, “He,” after the word קדושים (pl), to make certain that we do not misunderstand that the word אל-הים implies power-sharing by G’d. The reason that the word אל-הים is in the plural is because in the final analysis G’d combines within Himself all the various forces that are active within His universe.
      Maimonides’ approach to the dream involving the ladder (Moreh Nevuchim 1,15) is that the Torah included the planets in the part of the universe called here “ladder.” The words מוצב ארצה refers to this planetary system being based on earth its lower extremity, whereas the words וראשו מגיע השמימה refer to the upper extremity of that  part of the universe. The heaven is also known as ערבות, as we know from Deut. 33,26 רוכב שמים בערבות, “riding through a part of the heavens called ערבות.” It is a collective name for the entire system known as מרכבה, ”G’d’s entourage.” On this ladder anyone who wants to is free to ascend or to descend. The מלאכי אל-הים which the Torah speaks of are the prophets as per Numbers 20,16 וישלח מלאך ה’, the meaning obviously being “a prophet.” The same term is found in Chagai 1,13 where the word מלאך also refers to the prophet, a mortal human being. When the Torah describes such prophets as ascending the ladder it tells us that there is a limit to how high a prophet can ascend. Once he has reached his destination he receives the prophetic instruction G’d wants to grant him. When the prophets are also described as “descending the ladder,” this means that they are returning and preparing to deliver their respective messages. 
  On the other hand, in the tenth chapter of section two of this same work, Maimonides writes in a different vein concerning the same subject. He first introduces the subject by saying that the planetary system is composed of the four basic raw materials which also make up earth and all that is part of the terrestrial universe and that as a result they are exerting their influence on what goes on earth. For instance, the moon exerts a gravitational pull on the waters on earth causing tides. The sun on the other and, exerts a powerful pull on the terrestrial element fire. The five other fixed stars combined exert their influence on the terrestrial element earth, whereas the moving stars exert their combined influence on the fourth terrestrial element, the  wind. 
  Accordingly, we may assume that the various planets are made up of the same basic raw material, elements, as is the כדור הארץ, our globe. According to Maimonides we have to conclude that the ladder had four rungs, seeing that the planets each exerted influence on 4 separate elements on earth. [According to Rabbi Chavell Maimonides bases himself on a version of a Midrash Tanchuma saying the ladder had four rungs. This version is not extant today. Ed.] 
  According to what Maimonides writes in chapter 10 section 2 of the Moreh, Yaakov first achieved an understanding of the elements which exist and which extend as far heavenwards as the parts of the heaven known as ערבות. This is the meaning of מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה, “standing on earth its top extending up until heaven.” The “heaven” meant by the verse is that called ערבות. G’d presides, i.e. “was standing” above that part of heaven. The words מלאכי אל-הים appear to refer to the four basic elements two of which were observed by Yaakov as ascending the ladder whereas the other two were perceived by him as descending. The “light” elements he perceived as ascending, whereas the two “heavy” elements, water and earth, he perceived as descending by comparison. If the dream appears to describe the planets as first descending and then ascending, i.e. when G’d is described as immediately above the heaven, this may be parallel to a vision described by Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1,16. The prophet’s vision also included four phenomena... [I confess that I do not understand the meaning of that prophecy. Maimonides apparently seizes on the word אופנים as being equivalent to גלגלים, the planets. The author supports what he perceives as Maimonides’ understanding of this prophecy. Since I do not understand it myself, I will omit this passage. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 13
  
   והנה ה’ נצב עליו “and here the Lord was standing above it, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word עליו refers to the ladder. A kabbalistic approach: the word עליו refers to Yaakov, i.e. G’d appeared to Yaakov as if He were standing above him.” What the Kabbalists are trying to tell us is that Yaakov viewed himself in this dream as the carrier of the שכינה, the Divine Presence, and its entourage. The Torah would thereby have compared Yaakov to one of the cherubs of whom it has been said וירכב על כרוב ויעוף, (Samuel II 22,11) “He mounted a cherub and flew.” The patriarchs are the true מרכבה, the “chariots” supporting the שכינה, the benevolent Presence of G’d. They performed a task on earth which the angels perform in the celestial spheres. Kabbalists (True scholars, i.e. the sages of the Talmud) have expressed this thus when speaking about the כרובים, cherubs: The face of a human being is considered the major “face,” whereas the face of the cherub is considered as the “minor” face. (compare Rashi, Sukkah 5B where the cherubs on the lid of the Holy Ark are discussed). According to Kabbalists it was this idea David referred to in Psalms 104,25 where he referred to חיות קטנות עם גדולות, “small and large חיות.” Let me enlighten you on this subject. We already mentioned that Yaakov’s facial features are engraved on G’d’s throne (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12 and that the angels descended to compare Yaakov’s sleeping countenance with that engraved on G’d’s throne). This was the reason the Torah describes him as יושב אהלים, “dweller in tents,” (25,27) i.e. he was “at home” both in a celestial residence as well as in a terrestrial one. This idea is expressed even more forcefully in connection with the revelation at Mount Sinai where the “nobles” of Israel (Exodus 24,10) are described as having a vision of אל-הי ישראל ותחת רגליו, “of G’d, and Israel who is at His feet.” This is also what Yaakov had in mind when he said to Rachel who had demanded that he make children for her (30,2) התחת אל-הים אנכי. This statement was not a rhetorical question but he explained to Rachel that he was not G’d-like, but his image was inscribed below, i.e. beneath the throne of G’d who has the power to bestow children.
     אני ה’ אלוקי אברהם אביך ואלוקי יצחק, I am the Lord G’d of Avraham and the G’d of Yitzchak.” According to the plain meaning of these words G’d here assures Yaakov that He will give the land to Yaakov and his descendant, that he will be with him and will protect him in all his undertakings, similar to Psalms 91,11 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will command His angels to protect you on all your paths.” The reason that the pronoun אני is used is to show that the angel who appeared to Yaakov wanted him to understand that he was acting as G’d’s messenger, i.e. was part of the Divine establishment. It is as if G’d had said: אני חלקך ונחלתך, (Numbers 18 20) “I am your share and your heritage.” The Priests were informed that they are an integral part of the Divine. Similarly, we have a statement (Deut. 32,9) describing the whole Jewish nation in similar terms, i.e. כי חלק ה’ עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו, “For His people are part of G’d, Yaakov is a portion of His heritage,” and not merely a portion of the angels which had been mentioned.
      This paragraph contains both an assurance to Yaakov personally at this time that G’d will be with him on the journey he had undertaken and that He would bring him safely back to his father’s house, but G’d also gave him an assurance regarding his offspring.  G’d would be with them also wherever they would be even if at times they would be in exile just as Yaakov at this time. Our sages in Megillah 29 expressed it thus: Wherever the Jewish people will be exiled the שכינה  will be exiled with them. The שכינה would look after the Jewish people and protect them from many troubles they would otherwise experience while in captivity.
      A kabbalistic approach to our verse and passage: When G’d said “I am the G’d of your father Avraham and the G’d of Yitzchak,” He mentioned two attributes. The attribute of גדולה and the attribute of גבורה. Remember that the site upon which Yaakov was dreaming was Bet El, a site of which Yaakov was to say when he woke up “this must be a House of G’d, and hence the gateway to heaven.” The place was also known as Luz. it is not the same Bet El as the one which is located near the town of Ai which Joshua had trouble capturing and near which Jerobam placed one of his golden calves to prevent his subjects from making the pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem (Kings I 12,29). Yaakov named the site Bet El (verse 19) because this is where he had a vision of G’d. This verse does not mean to conceal something but to explain something. It explains such statements as אל-הים קדושים (Joshua 24,19), and אל-הים שופטים (Psalms 58,12), where it appears at first glance as if the plural ending applied to G’d as “Holy” or “Judge,” indicates that there is more than one G’d. This is also the reason that Onkelos translates the words מה נורא as מה דחילו (pl) and not as מה דחיל (sing.) as we could have expected. Concerning this revelation to Yaakov that G’d appeared to him as two attributes Isaiah said (Isaiah 6,2) שרפים עומדים ממעל לו, “seraphim are standing above him.” It was a reference to two attributes of G’d. 
  These two attributes of G’d are particularly manifest at Bet El. This was also the reason that the heretic King Jerobam was careful to erect not one golden calf but two golden calves. The Jewish people in the desert had made one golden calf for themselves when Moses did not return when they expected him. They had thought that he was dead and they felt they needed a new symbol to replace Moses and to serve as their visible inspiration. They were fully content with a single leader. Jerobam had a different motivation. He wanted to counteract the Divine attribute of גדולה and hoped that the presence of that golden calf, something G’d hated, would drag away spiritually positive influences and forces from Jerusalem, i.e. from the Temple. The second golden calf which Jerobam made was intended to counteract the Divine attribute of גבורה, as he wanted to be the stronger of the two kings ruling over Israel. This attribute is the specific attribute with which a king ought to be endowed. He hoped that by weakening the presence of this attribute in Jerusalem he would thereby strengthen his own hold on that attribute. The reason that he placed both golden calves outside of Jerusalem was that he wanted to undermine Jerusalem as the עיר דוד, “the city of David.” Jerusalem was also known as the עיר הצדק, “the city of righteousness (Isaiah 1,26)”. The power of the Kingdom of David was concentrated in that city as the attribute of righteousness is manifest in that city. צדק, righteousness was the outstanding attribute, the virtue of David. We know this from Isaiah 32,1 הן לצדק ימלך מלך, “a king shall reign in righteousness” (the king being the Messiah, a descendant of King David). Jerobam was intent on nullifying this monarchy. It had been made even stronger both symbolically and spiritually, seeing that the Temple in Jerusalem was “opposite” the celestial Temple. All these considerations prompted Jerobam to distance himself from the site of the Holy Temple and the holy city Jerusalem. The Talmud Sanhedrin 102 phrases it thus: וירבעם יצא מירושלים מפתקה של ירושלים, the words: “Jerobam left Jerusalem” mean much more than that he set foot outside the walls of Jerusalem. These words mean that he wanted to put all that Jerusalem stood for behind him, never to return to that city.” Actually, Jerusalem comprised  the  five lower emanations. He wanted to escape the restrictions inherent in one’s being on the level of the lower emanations only. His plan was fatally flawed as he meant to attain access to higher emanations only in order to dethrone David and what his dynasty stood for. This is why the sages applied to him the verse from Proverbs 28,24 “that if someone robs his own father or mother saying he did not commit any sin he thereby becomes a companion to the destroyer, i.e. איש משחית.” What he did was to rob the higher regions of G’d’s universe in order to make profane use of his plunder. Seeing that the regions he robbed were the emanations known as כבוד and תפארת, that Jerusalem comprised the lower 5 emanations beneath that of  תפארת, harmony, this is the mystical dimension of the verses in Kings I12, 26-27: “Jerobam said in his heart now: ‘there is a danger that the kingdom will return to the dynasty of David. If the people were to go up to Jerusalem to offer meat-offerings in the House of G’d in Jerusalem and the heart of the people will become friendly towards Rechavam their master the King of Yehudah, they will kill me and return to Rechavam the King of Yehudah’”. The King took counsel and constructed two golden calves saying to the people: “enough of your pilgrimages to Jerusalem; here are your symbols of the G’d of Israel, the ones who have led you out of Egypt.” The plural used when he said הנה אלוהיך ישראל, referred to the two emanations or attributes of G’d which we have mentioned. When the Book of Kings proceeds to describe where these two golden calves were placed, i.e. one at Bet El and one in Dan, he had clearly violated the commandment לא תעשון אתי אלוהי כסף, “do not make beside Me silver or golden deities (Exodus 20,23).” However, the worst part of his sin was that he portrayed what he had done as a shortcut to heaven, wanting to make his people believe that now that they had symbols of higher emanations than were to be found in Jerusalem there was no longer any point in making the trip to the Temple in Jerusalem. The Book of Kings testified to Jerobam’s real concern namely that when the people would make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem it would not take them long to find out that they had been fooled by their King, and they would then kill him. You are aware that the prophet (Amos 7,8) already predicted doom and retribution concerning Bet El and said that he saw  the attribute of Justice demanding the destruction of both Bet El and Dan. The wording there is: והנה  א-דני נצב על חומת אנך ובידו אנך....ויאמר א-דני הנני שם אנך בקרב עמי ישראל לא אוסיף עוד עבור לו וקמתי על בית ירבעם בחרב. “Lo, my Lord G’d was standing on a wall and He was holding a plumb line. And the Lord G’d declared: ‘I am going to apply a plumb line to My people Israel, I will pardon them no more. And I will turn upon the house of Jerobam with the sword.” The “plumb line” mentioned is a measuring rod used to determine the guilt level of the people. The numerical value of the Hebrew word אנך is 71, an allusion to the 71 elders in the Supreme court needed to pass judgment on a Jewish King. The words לא אוסיף לעבור, mean that G’d will not continue to appear to ignore the iniquities perpetrated by the King as well as his people. The unusual expression ונשמו במות ישחק, “the shrines of Yitzchak shall be laid  waste,” which is also part of the prophet’s prediction should really have been ונשמו במות ירבעם, “the shrines of Jerobam will be laid waste.” The reason for this unusual statement as well as the unusual spelling of the name Yitzchak with the letter ש instead of the customary צ, is due to Jerobam having seized on the attribute of Yitzchak, i.e. גבורה in his nefarious scheme. The letter ש is reminiscent of the element אש, fire, itself an allusion to the attribute גבורה. 
  We find this supported in the Sefer Yetzirah 3,8, the idea being that the shape of the letter ש suggests the upward draft of fire, of flames. In Amos 7,9 the prophet continues to describe what will happen to מקדשי ישראל, “the Sanctuaries of Israel which will be destroyed.” The plural form of this expression is a clear hint that the prophet refers to the two sites Dan and Bet El where the respective golden calves were positioned. Seeing that Amos prophesied this destruction as occurring at Bet El, it is not surprising that immediately afterwards (verse 10) the prophet reports the local High Priest Amatziah sending word to the King that a rebellion was occurring against Jerobam, that the prophet Amos was inciting against him telling the people to uproot any so-called sanctity in Bet El and to return to the true source of sanctity in Jerusalem. He advised Amos to flee to Jerusalem and to pursue his career as a prophet there. He ordered Amos to desist from prophesying in Bet El (verse 13), claiming that the Temple in Bet El and Jerobam were in fact one and the same (philosophically speaking). The words מקדש מלך  and בית ממלכה referred to in Amatziah’s threat against Amos, were references to the respective attributes or emanations גדולה and גבורה which we have spoken of.
  
  Verse 14
  
   והיה זרעך כעפר הארץ “and your descendants will be as the dust of the earth, etc.” From a purely textural point of view, G’d assures Yaakov in this verse that his descendants will be very numerous, comparable to the dust of the earth. He could have used another simile, namely that the descendants of Yaakov would be like the stars in the heavens, a simile which had been used in 26,4. The reason G’d did not choose that particular simile was that he wanted to allude to a second element here, something not connected to a numerical increase. The reference to dust always evokes feelings of something low, something that one steps on, in other words a reference to periods when the Jewish people would be in exile, treated by their host countries as if they were merely dust to be walked on. There is another aspect to dust, i.e. a positive, encouraging side. As a result of stepping on dust, the dust frequently rises and covers the person who has stepped on it, or at least his feet. Thus, in due course, after completion of their various exiles the Jewish people will experience that they rise above those who had previously trodden upon them. Isaiah 14,2 expressed it thus: והיו שובים לשוביהם ורדו בנוגשיהם, “they shall be captors of their captors and masters of their taskmasters.” This then explains why G’d compared the descendants of Yaakov to dust. We have another statement by Isaiah 26,5 in which the prophet makes a similar point: that initially “He leveled Israel to dust in order to eventually orchestrate its redemption.” (compare Rabbi Yochanan in Rosh Hashanah 31 where he explains Isaiah 52,2). We sing the words of that verse  weekly in the Lecha Dodi  hymn when we usher in the Sabbath [at the time of the author that song had not yet been composed, Ed.] by singing התנערי, מעפר קומי, “rouse yourself and rise from the dust.” 
  In Yaakov’s dream G’d immediately added the words “and you will spread out to the west, to the east, to the north and to the south, to make plain that the mention of “dust” was to be interpreted positively as the dust of the earth endures forever. Similarly, Yaakov’s descendants would endure forever.
  
  Verse 15
  
  . והנה אנכי עמך, “and here I am going to be with you, etc.” Onkelos translated these words as והא מימרי בסעדך, “and this word (promise) will assist you.” When the Torah writes in Exodus 3,12 ואהיה עמך, “and I shall be with you,” (G’d encouraging Moses to accept the role of leader) Onkelos translates this as ארי יהי מימרי עמך, “behold My promise will be with you” The (apparently minute) difference in the way Onkelos renders G’d’s promise to Moses reflects the difference between the spiritual level of these two men at the time G’d communicated with them. Seeing that in verse 13 the Torah wrote והנה י-ה-ו-ה  נצב עליו ויאמר אני י-ה-ו-ה, Onkelos was forced to use the description בסעדך similar to when the Talmud in Shabbat 89 quotes G’d as telling Moses he should have assisted Him when he saw G’d write the crowns on the Torah. Yaakov was on a level where G’d applied to him the attribute of שדי, G’d as Master of nature. Whatever assistance Yaakov would receive would not be by means of נסים גלוים, the kind of miracles which upset the laws of nature. Moses, on the other hand, was already being addressed by the Ineffable Name, by a higher attribute of G’d. Yaakov only dreamed; Moses was wide awake when he saw the burning bush. If you were to challenge my explanation by pointing out that in 46,4 Onkelos translates the words אנכי ארד עמך as אנא איחות עמך, indicating that Yaakov was on a level not inferior to that of Moses, the context of that verse forced Onkelos to translate  it in the way he did. The purpose of G’d’s message at that time was to reassure Yaakov that even in exile G’d’s  Presence would be with the people, i.e. the שכינה would descend to Egypt with the Israelites.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . וזה שער השמים, “and this must be the gate to heaven.” The expression זה occurs three times in this verse. Bereshit Rabbah 69,7 therefore claims that G’d showed Yaakov a Temple built and destroyed; when Yaakov saw the Temple built, he exclaimed: “how awesome is this place!” When he was shown the Temple ruined, he exclaimed אין זה, “this cannot be!” When he was finally shown the Temple rebuilt, he exclaimed “this must be the gateway to heaven.” According to this version of the Midrash G’d showed Yaakov only two Temples.
      It is possible to explain our verse in a manner which shows that it contains allusions to all three Temples. It is a well known fact that the word זה on occasion serves as an allusion to G’d, such as in Exodus 15,2 זה אלי ואנוהו, ”this is my G’d and I want to glorify Him.” When Yaakov said “מה נורה המקום הזה, “how awesome is this place,” he referred to the first Temple which was a home for G’d’s Presence, for the שכינה. When he exclaimed אין זה he referred to the second Temple which did not house G’d’s presence seeing that such symbols of G’d’s Presence as the Holy Ark, the cherubs, the Urim Vatumim in the High Priest’s breastplate, etc,  were all lacking. We have this information on the authority of the prophet Chagai who wrote in Chagai 1,8  וארצה בו ואכבדה, and the word ואכבדה is spelled defective, the last letter being missing. Since the last letter was the letter ה, this was an allusion to five important ingredients which were absent in the second Temple. Both the heavenly fire which consumed the sacrifices and the שכינה were also missing. When Yaakov was shown the third Temple he exclaimed וזה שער השמים, “and this finally is the gateway to heaven.” The reason he chose the word שמים when referring to the third Temple is that we have a tradition that the reason the first two Temples were destroyed is that they were built by mortal man. Seeing that the third Temple will be built by G’d Himself, there is no need to worry about it being destroyed, ever. This is the mystical dimension of the words ישכון לבטח עליו, “He will reside upon it in safety.” When Moses (Deut. 33,12) blessed the tribe of Binyamin in whose territory the Temple will be built, he alluded to all three Temples. The words ישכון לבטח עליו refer to the first Temple seeing that G‘d’s presence which is referred to as ידיד ה' will reside there. The words חופף עליו כל היום, ”He hovers over it all day long,” refer to the second Temple. Finally, the words ובין כתיפיו שכן, “and He will rest between its shoulders,” refer to the third Temple. You will find that in Nazir 32 the words היכל ה' היכל ה', היכל ה' המה (Jeremiah 7,4) are understood as referring to the three Temples. If there had to be three Temples, this is proof that the first two were going to be destroyed. [Jeremiah’s words in that chapter were spoken some time before the destruction of the first Temple. Ed.] You will note from the plural המה in that verse that the people who spoke these words, and whom the prophet quotes sarcastically, must have made a Freudian slip when they said this word, not being aware that they referred to two Temples that were going to be destroyed. 
      The word המה has been used to describe something permanent in Ezekiel 10,20 when the prophet describes ואדע כי ככרובים המה, “and I realised that they were cherubs.” Similarly, we find this expression used to describe something enduring in Psalms 25,6 כי מעולם המה, “for they are as old as time.” Our sages, commenting on Exodus 27,20 כתית למאור, ”pounded for illumination,” say that whereas the first Temple stood for 410 years and the second Temple stood for 420 years the combined  total being 830 years, this total is reflected in the numerical value of the letters in the word כתית. The expression כתית pounded, crushed, expressed the fate in store for the first two Temples. Concerning the third Temple, however, the verse in Exodus 27,20 continues with the word להעלות נר תמיד, “to provide eternal light.” 
  There is a Midrash in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 35 referring to the words: וזה שער השמים, “and this is the gateway to heaven.” According to this Midrash we learn from this verse that when one prays in Jerusalem one is as if praying opposite the gateway to the celestial Sanctuary, to the throne of G’d’s glory. The meaning of the Midrash is that from Jerusalem, the gateway to heaven, prayers ascend to their ultimate destination.
  
  Verse 18
  
  . וישם אותה מצבה, “he set it up as a pillar.” He did not erect this pillar at the site where he slept, i.e. Beer Sheva, but at Bet El which is Jerusalem, the site where the ladder’s top reached Heaven.
     ויצק שמן על ראשה, “he poured oil on its top.” The act of either pouring oil or wine on a pillar is equivalent to offering a sacrifice on the altar. Rabbi Saadyah Gaon writes that the reason for Yaakov pouring oil on this pillar was in order for him to be able to identify this particular stone pillar so that in the future he could separate it from other adjoining stones. Seeing that oil remains visible for a long time, he would in due course be able to make an altar of it.
      Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35 adds that when Yaakov returned to gather up the stones which had formed his “pillow,” he found that they had all merged into a single stone. Upon seeing this he poured oil on that stone, the oil being provided by heaven. The Midrash derives this from the words in our verse “he poured oil on its head” [instead of “on their heads”, seeing that the Torah had described Yaakov as taking “from the stones” pl). when he lay down to sleep. When G’d observed Yaakov doing what he did, He dipped the right leg of that stone into the deep recesses of the earth, תהום, linking it to the very core of the earth. He made a wedge of this stone much as a person who places a wedge in an arch. This is why the foundation of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was known as אבן שתיה, the stone the whole universe is supported by. It is part of the “navel” of the earth. From that place the earth “opened up” and the Sanctuary was erected on that site. This is precisely what Yaakov had in mind when he predicted that “this stone will become the House of the Lord.” Having anointed the stone with “miracle” oil, Yaakov proceeded to Charan and covered the distance instantly.
  
  Verse 19
  
  .  ואולם לוז שם העיר לראשונה, “however, the name of this town used to be Luz.” The place they called Bet El at that time is Jerusalem now. Why did the Torah bother to tell us that at a still earlier point in history the town had been known as Luz? What benefit do we derive from such information? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint that the name Luz had been the starting point of the earth rejuvenating itself. It was the site at which earth first started to develop into the globe as we know it. The words לוז השדרה, (Vayikra Rabbah 18,1) mean the place in the spine from which the tissue is able to regenerate itself at the time of the resurrection. Just as the coming into existence of the physical universe out of nothing was something miraculous, so the resurrection when it occurs will be a miracle of similar dimensions. King David had already alluded to this phenomenon when he described the creation of soul, body as well as the eventual resurrection as originating in the “centre” called Zion. He phrased it thus in Psalms 3, 1-3: אל אלוקים ה' דבר, ויקרא ארץ  ממזרח שמש עד מבואו. מציון מכלל יופי אלוקים הופיע. “G’d the Lord spoke and summoned the world from east to west.. From Zion, perfect in beauty, G’d appeared.”
  
  Verse 20
  
   וידר יעקב נדר לאמור, “Yaakov vowed a vow, saying, etc.” Bereshit Rabbah 70,1 concentrating on the apparently extraneous word לאמור, wants to know the need for this word. The answer given is that Yaakov wanted to teach his future offspring that the time to make vows is when one finds oneself in difficulties one does not know how to extricate himself from. Although, as a general rule, the Torah frowns on the making of vows, when a person vows due to finding himself in distress this is perfectly permissible. This why David said (Psalms 119, 106) “I have sworn an oath and I mean to keep it.” 
     ונתן לי לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש, “and He will give me bread to eat and clothes to wear, etc.” This is what the righteous ask of G’d. They are only allowed to pray for necessities, the definition being things which a human being cannot do without. We are all aware that man has a tendency to ask for things which he could do well without and these are the very things which are liable to cause him problems, confusion, aggravations. This is why it befits a truly G’d-fearing individual to practice the advice of our sages (Avot 4,1) that the truly wealthy person is he who enjoys the portion G’d has allotted to him. Solomon expressed the same sentiment when he said (Proverbs 15,16) “better a little with fear of the Lord, than a great treasure with trouble.” Solomon immediately provides an illustration of what he means when he said in verse 17 of the same chapter: “better a meal of vegetables where there is love, than a fattened ox where there is hate.” 
  [At this point the author sermonizes on this theme quoting various sources which all convey the same lesson. I have decided to omit this. — Ed.]
      The author claims that gemstones, etc. which are found only in a few places on earth are proof that one can do well without them. Had they been necesssary, G’d would have provided them in abundance. Similarly, the author distinguishes between one kind of necessity and another. Whereas a person can go for days without eating, he can only survive a relatively short time without water or other drinks. This makes water a more urgent necessity than food. Air, on the other hand, is even more critical to man’s survival than water, as one cannot even live for 10 minutes when one is deprived of air to breathe. Yaakov asked for the kind of necessities which are essential but not critical every minute of the day.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי, “and I shall return in peace to my father’s house, etc.” We notice that every detail which formed part of Yaakov’s vow and whatever he mentioned was fulfilled for him. When he asked G’d ושמרני בדרך, “and He will watch over me on the journey,” G’d most certainly watched over him and protected him. As to his request for לחם, bread or food, this was a reference to the women whom he married. The term לחם to describe someone’s wife is used by Joseph (Genesis 39,6) when he told the wife of his master Potiphar that the only thing in his household Potiphar had withheld from him was הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “the bread which he eats.” Another instance where לחם, bread, is used to describe someone’s wife, is found in Exodus 2,2 where Yitro tells his daughters to invite Moses so that “he may eat bread.” He did not mean to invite him merely to eat bread but to let him marry one of his seven unmarried daughters. As to Yaakov’s request for clothes to wear, this was part of his wealth when he had large flocks of sheep which provided him with wool. His request to return to his father’s home safely and in good health was answered when we read  in 33,18 ויבא יעקב שלם, “Yaakov arrived home safely.” As to Yaakov fulfilling his part of the bargain and making אלוקים his G’d [ to make the attribute of Justice the yardstick by which G’d would measure him; Ed.] this is  referred to in the Torah in 33,20 where we read: ויקרא לו קל אלוקי ישראל, “Yaakov called G’d the G’d of Israel.”
  
  Verse 22
  
   עשר אעשרנו לך, “I will give two tithes of it to You.” Yaakov kept his promise to give a tithe of everything that was his, including even his children. [This has been discussed in connection with 27,19. Ed.] Our verse forms the basis of a Talmudic statement in Ketuvot 50 that even someone who dispenses charity very generously should not disburse more that one fifth of his wealth so as not to risk becoming a charge on charity himself. Yaakov serves as the example seeing he tithed 20% of his wealth.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked, and behold here there was a well on a field.” Every single one of our patriarchs had an encounter with a well and in each case the well was an allusion to future happenings. In Yitzchak’s case the well he encountered was called באר מים חיים. (26,19) Bereshit Rabbah 70,8 explains that to the Jewish people Torah is equivalent to spring water.
     והנה שם שלשה עדרי צאן, “and here there were three flocks of sheep, etc.” The Torah could have written והנה שלשה עדרי צאן ושם היה באר, “here there were three flocks of sheep and there was a well, etc.” The reason the syntax was changed was to allude to a similar sequence in Ezekiel 3,23: והנה שם כבוד ה' עומד, “and here the glory of G’d was standing.” Israel is called צאנו של מקום, “the flock of G’d,” as we know from Ezekiel 34,31 ואתן צאני צאן מרעתי אדם אתם, “and you are My sheep, sheep of My pasture- you are Adam, etc.” We have another verse expressing the same thought in Psalms 79,13 ואנחנו עמך וצאן מרעיתך, “and we are Your people and the flock of Your pasture.” The reason the Torah mentioned three flocks is that the Jewish people consist of three flocks, i.e. the Priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. All of the Israelites used to make a pilgrimage to the Temple three times a year in order to be in the Presence of G’d.
     כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו העדרים. והאבן וגו', “for from that well the flocks would be watered; and the stone, etc.” There is an allusion here to the holy name of G’d which was engraved in the Holy Temple. [The first letters in the  words ישקו העדרים והאבן yield the basic letters contained in the Ineffable Name. The extra word גדולה after the word והאבן may hint at the fourth letter, i.e. the repetition of the letter ה in that Holy Name.] The line “for from that well the flocks would receive their water,” is a clear hint that the Temple would serve as the basic inspiration of the various sections of the Jewish people. The words והאבן גדולה is a reference to a “golden crown”, i.e. the letter ד in the line שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד. The last letter ד which is in larger script in the Torah is equivalent to the final letter in the Ineffable Name, which alludes to G’d’s attribute גדולה.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ונאספו שמה כל העדרים, “all the flocks would be assembled there (next to that well);” this is an allusion to all the tribes of Israel from the extreme north to the extreme south who would assemble at the Holy Temple. The word וגללו in the sequence וגללו משם את האבן may be understood as similar in meaning to Berachot 7 ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך, “they will roll over Your attribute of mercy to ‘exile’ Your other attribute.” The Talmud there discusses the effectiveness of prayer. The words והשקו את הצאן, “they watered the flock,” describe how the Holy Spirit was drawn down in order to provide the Israelites with blessing emanating from the Inner Sanctuary (in the Celestial Temple). The words והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקומה, “and they would replace the stone to its place,” mean that  seeing that they had previously elevated the stone (figure of speech) to lofty spiritual regions, once they had absorbed the proper spiritual input from that region they descended from such a spiritual “high.” We find a parallel comment in Sefer Yetzirah 1,4 העמד דבר על בוריו והשב יוצר על מכונו, “leave a matter in its proper state and restore the Creator to His realm.”
      A Midrashic approach: Rabbi Yochanan interpreted the words וירא והנה באר בשדה as an allusion to the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai. The words  באר בשדה are a reference to Mount Sinai. The words שלשה עדרי צאן refer to the Priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. The words כי מן הבאר ההוא ישקו עדרים, “for from that well the flocks would be watered,” refer to the Ten Commandments whereas the words והאבן גדולה are a reference to G’d. The words ונאספו שמה, “they were gathered there,” refer to the Jewish people whereas the words וגללו את האבן refer to the Torah being received and accepted. Finally, the words והשיבו את האבן על פי הבאר למקומה, “they put the stone back on the mouth of the well, its original place,” are a simile for Moses saying to the people at the end of the revelation (Exodus 20,22) אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם. “You have seen that I have spoken to you from the heaven.”
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . לבן בן נחור, “Lavan son of Nachor.” The Torah should have described him as “Lavan the son of Bethuel,” seeing Bethuel was his father. However, this is another instance where the Torah shows that grandchildren are equal to children (Yevamot 62). We have another such example in 20,12 where Avraham described Sarah as “my sister the daughter of my father,” although in effect Sarah was the daughter of Avraham’s brother Haran. He had meant “daughter of my father’s son (Haran).“ It is also possible that the Torah described  Lavan as the son of Nachor, seeing that Avraham’s brother Nachor was a well known personality, whereas Bethuel was relatively unknown. When people spoke of Lavan they never referred to him as the son of Bethuel but as the son of Nachor. The Torah simply described things as they were.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב, “it happened that as soon as Yaakov looked, etc.” We find that in this verse the Torah repeats the expression אחי אמו, “brother of his (Yaakov) mother” repeatedly. This is partly in order to explain why Yaakov was so concerned with helping to water the flocks as he had pity on Rachel, Lavan’s daughter. Whatever Yaakov did,  whatever feat of strength he performed, he did not perform for the sake of Lavan but for the sake of his mother Rivkah. This is why every time the Torah had to mention the name of wicked Lavan, it contrasts him with his sister, Yaakov’s mother. Yaakov remembered his mother who had advised him to go to Lavan.
      There is yet another reason for the repeated mention of the words אחי אמו, brother of his mother.” Whenever a person hears or sees an object he desires, he is suddenly capable of performing tasks which he cannot perform in order to secure something which his heart does not covet. The reader of this passage could be forgiven if he had thought that seeing Yaakov was taken with Rachel’s beauty he desired her physically and this is what gave him the strength to move the rock single-handedly. The Torah refers time and again to the fact that Lavan was the brother of Yaakov’s mother in order to make us aware that physical passion had nothing to do with Yaakov’s sudden burst of strength in moving the rock. The Torah was so concerned not to create the impression that Yaakov’s sudden burst of strength was inspired by passion that instead of writing: “as soon as Yaakov set eyes on Rachel he rolled the rock, etc.,” Ithe Torah wrote instead (in a somewhat clumsy style) ”it was when Yaakov saw Rachel the daughter of Lavan, the brother of his mother, and the flock of Lavan the brother of his mother, Yaakov approached and rolled the rock etc.”
     ויגש יעקב ויגל את האבן מעל פי הבאר, “Yaakov approached and rolled the rock from the top of the well.” Yaakov clearly displayed superior physical strength seeing that at least three shepherds had been unable to move that rock with their combined efforts. When you consider in addition that Yaakov must have been tired both from the long journey and from Torah study, which traditionally weakens a person physically, (compare Isaiah 28,29 where the word תושיה is applied to Torah seeing its study  weakens the body of a person, Sanhedrin 26) his feat was even more remarkable. Yaakov had spent the last 14 years studying in the academy of Ever (even though this detail has not been recorded in the written Torah). We find that when Yitzchak his father commanded Yaakov: “arise and go to Padan Aram and take for yourself from there a wife” (28,2), that he understood that the meaning of the word אשה  also included another element, something Yitzchak had not spelled out to him. The hidden meaning of the word אשה was that it referred to Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 31,10 already alluded to this meaning of the word אשה, when he headlined his last paragraph with the words אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who can find a woman of valour?” He described such a “woman” as עטרת בעלה “the crown of her husband” in Proverbs 12,4. Our sages, when commenting on Deut. 33,4 where Moses described the Torah as מורשה קהלת יעקב, “as an inalienable possession handed down from generation to generation,” that the word ought not merely be read as מורשה, but as מאורשה, something a Jew is betrothed to. In other words, Torah is to us what a wife is to a husband. Keeping this thought in mind, Yaakov decided to fulfill the implied command of his father first and instead of proceeding directly to Lavan he stayed at the Yeshivah for 14 years. The number of years he must have stayed there can be arrived at by comparing the age at which he met Pharaoh (130), [he lived in Egypt for 17 years and died at 147 years of age.] When you deduct 22 years during which he had not seen Joseph who had been 17 years of age at the time of his abduction, this made Yaakov 91 years old at the time Joseph had been born. Joseph was born after Yaakov had stayed at Lavan’s for 14 years. This means he was 77 years of age when he came to Charan. Yitzchak dispensed the blessing when he was 123 years of age, i.e. when Yaakov was 63 years old (compare Rashi  who said that when one approaches within 5 years of the age at which either parent died it is time to make arrangements concerning one’s own death. The Talmud Megillah 17 arrives at the same conclusion). All of this supports the view that the only way to account for an obvious discrepancy in dates supplied by the Torah is to conclude that Yaakov studied Torah for 14 years before arriving at Lavan’s house.
  
  Verse 11
  
  . וישק יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov kissed Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah referred to Rachel as קטנה, “small,” is that she was still a minor and Yaakov could not consummate marriage vows with her. This was the reason Lavan was not worried to hand his flocks to her instead of to his already adult daughter Leah who was liable to be molested by the male shepherds on account of her age. We should also note that Yaakov did not kiss Rachel on the mouth but on the head or the shoulder, suggesting that there was no sexual element in that kiss (Ibn Ezra).
     וישא את קולו ויבך, “he raised his voice and cried.” This was customary when family members met. According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 quoted by Rashi, Yaakov’s weeping was prompted by his having a vision of Rachel not being buried with him in the cave of Machpelah. 
  Another Midrash attributes this weeping to Yaakov’s reflecting on his arrival as a potential suitor empty-handed,  whereas Eliezer, his father’s servant at the time when he met Rivkah was loaded with precious gifts. According to that version, the reason that Yaakov was penniless was that Esau’s son Eliphaz whom his father had dispatched to kill him had settled for leaving him penniless, reasoning that a poor man is like a dead man. (Sefer Hayashar). 
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי אחי אביה הוא, “that he was her father’s brother.” Yaakov meant that he was related to Rachel’s father. We know that uncle and nephew describe themselves as brothers from 13,8 where Avraham told Lot “for we are brothers.” ...
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,12 Yaakov told Rachel that when it came to duplicity he was her father’s equal and knew how to take care of himself seeing he was biologically related to him.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   הכי אחי אתה, “because you are my brother, etc.” the word הכי which Lavan used here was not really a question in this instance. Rather, it was an affirmation. We have a similar use of that word when Esau exclaimed (27,36) הכי קרא שמו יעקב, “indeed his name is ‘the crooked one.’” Onkelos translates the word there as יאות, “it is fitting.”
     ועבדתני חנם, “and you have served me for free.” The meaning of the verse is that “you are most certainly my brother and so far you have served me without compensation for a whole month, as the Torah had testified in verse 14 “he stayed with him for a month.” Lavan implied that if Yaakov wanted to stay on for a longer period he should tell him what kind of compensation he expected to receive for his labour. Yaakov replied: “I will serve you for seven years.” 
  This is most amazing. What prompted Yaakov to mention right off that he would serve Lavan for seven years? If Lavan had suggested to him that he should serve seven years to secure Rachel’s hand in marriage, it would have been appropriate for Yaakov to try and make a better deal, suggesting a shorter period of service such as two or three years maximum. What could possibly have prompted him to volunteer such a lengthy period of service? Perhaps Rachel was only five years old at that time and Yaakov needed to wait for seven years until he could consummate marriage to her as she would not biologically be able to conceive children before that time. The reason that he said ברחל בתך הקטנה  “for Rachel your daughter who is a minor”, a fact which was well known, is that he implied “I cannot marry her now as she is too young. This is why I am willing to wait for seven years during which time I will remain in service with you.” He also implied that though Rachel was old enough to have intercourse with already at this time, he would not indulge his libido if he did not have a reasonable chance that such intercourse would result in his wife’s pregnancy. Marriage to him meant to fulfill the commandment to raise a family. 
      Rashi writes that the reason Yaakov was so specific in saying “Rachel your younger daughter,” was that as far as Yaakov was concerned his uncle Lavan was a confirmed swindler, and he was afraid that at the end of the period Lavan would present him with a girl from the street whose name was Rachel. This is why he had to say: “your daughter.” The reason he had to add the words “the younger one,” was to prevent Lavan from presenting him with Leah saying: “she is my daughter.” The Torah teaches us that all of Yaakov’s precautions notwithstanding, he was outwitted by Lavan and Lavan still gave him Leah without his being aware of it at the time. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ועיני לאה רכות, “and Leah’s eyes were soft.” Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] commented on this that someone called Ben Efrayim said that the word רכות really should have been spelled with the letter א, meaning ארוכות. I can only comment that his own name should have been spelled without the letter א. [In other words, his comment is without foundation.]
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  .טוב תתי אותה לך , “it is good that I give her to you.” Rabbeinu Chananel understands Lavan’s words as follows: “even though giving her to someone else would be preferable, seeing that a woman should not be without a man, nor a man without a wife,  [and a delay of seven years is very long, Ed.] I agree.” He bases his commentary on Talmud Jerusalem Berachot 9,1 and Genesis 2,18. Lavan expressed his agreement that Yaakov was the better of two good choices as son-in-law. We encounter the use of the word ...טוב מ also in a different context where it refers to the better one of two bad choices. In Kohelet 5,4  we read טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב, “the ones who were killed by the sword are better off than those killed by famine.” On a third occasion we find the expression ...טוב מ as comparing a good alternative with a bad alternative. We read in Kohelet 4,13 טוב ילד מסכן וחכם ממלך זקן וכסיל. “A poor and wise child is preferable to an old but foolish king.” The expression also occurs when it clearly contrasts two positives but gives preference to one of them. We read in Proverbs 15,17: “better a dish of vegetables served lovingly than a fatted ox served grudgingly.” [The author continues with more examples which I have decided to skip. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “they were in his eyes as if only a few days.” We would have expected these years as appearing  extremely long in Yaakov’s eyes. However, we must not look at the Torah’s description as referring to the waiting period Yaakov underwent; the Torah refers to the amount of labour Yaakov performed. Viewed from that angle Yaakov did not measure the time in months or years but in days. We find confirmation of this when at the end of the period he said to Lavan “give me my wife for my days have been completed (29,21). He was careful not to say: “my years.”
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואבא אליה, “so that I may sleep with her.” Nachmanides comments on this: This does not appear to be a respectful reference to one’s wife, especially when mouthed by righteous people. The true meaning of the verse is as if the Torah had written: ואבואה אליה, “let me join her.” He did not want to take Rachel as a wife and to leave Lavan at once but he wanted to marry her and complete whatever little time was left in his contract. He explained to Lavan that he had no reason to worry that Yaakov would leave him prematurely  and would abandon the herds. Thus far Nachmanides.
      Perhaps one may understand Yaakov’s words somewhat differently. The words the Torah quotes him as saying do not reflect Yaakov’s libido speaking. Yaakov spoke rationally. From an intellectual perspective [as was man’s perspective before he ate from the tree of knowledge, Ed.] there is no difference between the various organs of the human body; all serve a useful purpose. Yaakov did not view his genitals as different in any way from the way he viewed  his arms or his legs. Each organ had to perform specific functions. Seeing that the patriarchs were on such a high moral level we need not be surprised if words spoken by them had no erotic connotation as they would have had if spoken by ordinary individuals. The same applied to our four matriarchs Rachel and Leah. When we find them quarreling about who would enjoy Yaakov’s company on a certain night, this had nothing to do with the sexual act as an activity for its own sake. They had prophetic knowledge (Bereshit Rabbah 72,5) concerning the fact that Yaakov would father twelve tribes from four wives; they competed as to who would bear how many of these children for him. This was the reason that Leah said to her sister in 30,15: “is it not enough that you have taken my husband, etc.?” As a result Rachel told Leah that seeing that her concern was to bear more of the twelve tribes, she agreed that Yaakov should spend this particular night with her although it was not her turn. When Leah said to Yaakov: “come to me this night for I have hired you,” etc. (30,16), this did not reflect her desire for physical union with him as such, but it merely meant that she had made a special effort to bear more of his children. The patriarchs and the matriarchs were concerned primarily with Mitzvah performance. Therefore, when Yaakov said concerning Rachel ואבואה אליה, he practically prophesied, as all utterances by the patriarchs may be viewed as in that category. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 72,3 were so convinced of this that they attributed the fact that Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah with her husband Yaakov to her foregoing his company for even one night. By volunteering to miss that opportunity to conceive a child from Yaakov on the night she made the deal with Leah about Reuven’s dudaim (the aphrodisiac plant Reuven had found) she was punished. She should have treasured Yaakov’s company more. On the other hand, we are taught in that same Midrash  that Leah who did treasure the company of her husband bore two more sons for Yaakov as a result of the deal she made. Issachar was born to Leah as a reward for her giving Rachel the dudaim of her son Reuven in order to secure an extra opportunity  to conceive a child from her husband. This is also why the Torah (30,16) does not describe Yaakov as sleeping with Leah  בלילה ההוא, but בלילה הוא, the difference being that  the word הוא is a reference to G’d whereas the word ההוא simply means “that, “ i.e. “on that night.” Leah realised this when she said: “this is my reward from G’d” (30,18) when Issachar was born. When she used the word שכרי for “my reward,” this is the same word as the Torah used when she traded the dudaim for time spent with Yaakov. She meant that her reward was exactly in keeping with her purpose in trading the dudaim for an extra opportunity to conceive a child. A  similar use of that word occurs in Isaiah 40,10 הנה שכרו אתו ופעולתו לפניו, “his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The prophet speaks about the reward being appropriate to the good deed. Furthermore, the words “G’d listened to Leah” (verse 17) are evidence that she must have prayed for this child. There is a tremendous lesson in this apparently insignificant detail of Leah’s and Rachel’s lives. On the one hand, Rachel was punished for doing something perfectly normal, namely securing an aphrodisiac which would help her conceive seeing that she did not have any children yet and paying for it by giving up her husband’s company for one night. On the other hand, Leah, who already was blessed with four children, was so anxious to have more that she traded that very aphrodisiac for a night with Yaakov without artificial stimuli to help her conceive. Leah was rewarded  as opposed to her sister Rachel although both her and Rachel’s actions were designed to bring about the same result. In the final analysis, the Torah demonstrates that both women were bent on performing a מצוה.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . והנה היא לאה, “and lo and behold it was Leah.” Our sages (Megillah,13) ask the obvious question: “had she not been Leah up until now?” What did the Torah mean by writing “and here it was Leah?” They answer that Yaakov had supplied Rachel with a secret code to protect himself precisely against the duplicity practiced by Lavan under the wedding canopy when the girl’s face is veiled so the groom cannot see her. When Rachel became aware of what her father was doing, she realized that her sister was going to be publicly shamed. She therefore decided to spare Leah the embarrassment and told her of the secret code. Bereshit Rabbah 71,5 phrases it thus: “Rachel made silence her trademark (vocation); as a result all her sons were able to keep secrets, on the other hand, Leah made gratitude her trademark (vocation); as a result we find that all her sons are recorded as confessing errors and giving thanks to G’d. Binyamin, a son of Rachel knew that Joseph had been sold but he kept the secret. Saul, a descendant of Binyamin is reported in Samuel 10, 16 as ואת דבר המלוכה לא הגיד לו not telling even his uncle that Samuel had told him he would become king. [The uncle had been aware that Saul had had an interview with Samuel the Seer and titular head of the nation. The prophet had told him not to worry, that the asses had been located. Ed.] Another descendant of Rachel who was distinguished by keeping silent at crucial times was Queen Esther who obeyed Mordechai’s instructions not to reveal her identity even when such a refusal resulted in the King threatening to depose her.” (Esther 2,20). Leah’s son Yehudah confessed that he had been wrong in bringing Tamar his daughter-in-law to trial as a whore. Moreover, The Torah credits him with giving thanks to the Lord (49,8), and we find David, Yehudah’s most illustrious descendant composing innumerable hymns to G’d including Psalms 136,1 in which he asks the Jewish people to give thanks to the Lord. Another descendant of Yehudah, Daniel, was in the habit of praying to G’d as a way of giving thanks to Him (Daniel 6,11).
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  . גם את רחל מלאה, “also Rachel, better than Leah.” The Torah means that whereas Yaakov did love Leah, he loved Rachel more. This was something contrary to accepted psychology prevalent in those days which claimed that a man’s greatest love is his first wife. This is the reason the Torah commenced this verse with the word גם, “also.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  . כי שנואה לאה, “that Leah was hated.” This certainly does not mean that Yaakov hated Leah. [If he did, he would have had to divorce her. Ed.] The word שנואה is strictly relative and tells us that by comparison to Yaakov’s feelings for Rachel, Leah appeared as if she were hated.
  
  Verse 32
  
   ותהר לאה ותלד בן, “Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son.” In the case of all of the children born by the wives of Yaakov (except Zevulun) the Torah wrote the words ותהר ותלד, “she became pregnant and gave birth,” to show that pregnancy was followed shortly thereafter by giving birth. The Torah thereby hints that all these children were born after only seven months of pregnancy, the shortest period to make the fetus viable at birth. All of the twelve sons of Yaakov plus Dinah, with the exception of Binyamin were born during the second seven years of Yaakov working for Lavan.    Let me explain why babies born after seven months pregnancy are generally viable whereas babies born after eight months pregnancy are not. At first glance this seems baffling were it not known to be a fact. Every one of the seven fixed stars [the planets according to earlier astrological concepts. Ed.] dominates the sky for one month.  The order of their appearances in the sky is: שבתאי, צדק, מאדים, חמה, נגה, כוכב, לבנה, This contrasts with the order חל"ם כצנ"ש which prevailed at the time of creation during the first seven days of the universe. This is the order of the horoscopes governing the calendar months. Nissan is under the aegis of Saturn, followed by Iyar which is under the aegis of Jupiter, followed in Sivan by Venus, etc. Seeing that the cycle of these planetary rotations is completed after seven months it is natural that a baby born after seven months of pregnancy should be viable. The seventh month, dominated by the planet לבנה, moon, symbolizes life, i.e. it is the specific function of this planet to serve as key of Heaven and Earth. If however, the pregnant woman enters a month dominated by Saturn, a planet representing cold and dryness, the natural symbol of death,  it is understandable why babies born when the mother’s eight’s month of pregnancy is in a month when that planet “presides,” is not viable and will die. The biological process of death is that the original drop of semen which fertilized the ovum will dry up and as such be unable to develop into life. Once the pregnancy enters its ninth month and comes under the aegis of the planet Jupiter, a planet associated with “Life” and everything good, based on the fact that most births take place after nine months of pregnancy, viability of babies born after that time is practically assured. Some babies born after or during the tenth or eleventh month of pregnancy i.e. under the aegis of Venus or the Sun will be viable. We have it on the authority of Rava in Yevamot 80 that additional months of pregnancy up to and including 12 months produce viable babies. [Rava ruled that a woman whose husband had left her 12 months prior to her giving birth is believed when she claims that the baby is her husband’s. Ed.] There is an halachic principle, that evidence to the contrary excluded, most women sleep exclusively with their respective husbands and we do not ignore this principle when deciding if a baby is a bastard unless there is specific evidence or a natural impossibility for the baby to be the husband’s. 
  Of the seven planets mentioned, the planets Jupiter and Venus are considered as especially fortuitous influences whereas the planets Mars and Saturn are considered as especially harmful influences. Sun and Moon are considered as in charge of light and access to the portals of heaven respectively. This leaves the planet Mercury which is considered a neutral influence. When it functions in consonance with a planet which represents a good influence it reinforces that influence, whereas when it functions in consonance with a planet considered a harmful influence it reinforces that influence.
     ותקרא שמו ראובן, “she called his name Reuven.” All the names given to the children of Rachel and Leah were inspired by Holy Spirit  assisting their mothers in naming them. The names they gave the children all alluded to certain attributes of G’d. When Leah named her first four sons she alluded to the ten emanations from the bottom up. He called the first son Reuven alluding to the attribute of Justice which corresponds to the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 44,12) had said that until Avraham had that letter added to his name he was unable to have a son with Sarah. The word ראובן alludes to ראייה, “seeing, taking note of.” The faculty of seeing is derived from the attribute of Justice, and this is why the עין הרע, “the evil eye” is such a dangerous and powerful characteristic as it directs attention to the attribute of Justice, i.e. retribution. The name שמעון which is derived from שמועה, as Leah said: “for G’d has heard that I am hated,” corresponds to an attribute symbolized by the letter ו in the same four-lettered name of G’d, and the 6 directions in which it extends. When Yaakov blessed Ephrayim and Menashe, the two sons of Joseph, by saying: “they shall be to me just as Reuven and Shimon” (Genesis 48,5), he meant to protect them against this influence of the evil eye which is associated with the attribute hate. Similar considerations prevailed when naming all the rest of the twelve sons. I will go into details when we get to the relevant verses.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  .על כן קרא שמו לוי,  “this is why He called his name Levi.” The word “He” refers to G’d. This is why the Torah does not write קראה, “she called,” as it had done with the first two sons of Leah. Seeing that this son belonged to G’d as the “tithe” Yaakov had vowed to give of all G’d would give him, it was up to G’d to name what belonged to Him. We had mentioned that the matriarchs had a prophetic inspiration that Yaakov would have 12 sons from four wives. Having given birth to a third son, Leah had received her fair share of sons. When Leah said after giving birth to her third son על כן ילוה אישי אלי, she was not merely referring to the attachment between Yaakov and her; rather, she used the word איש as an acronym for א=כתר, י=חכמה ש,=בינה, as indicated in the Sefer Habahir. (compare the comment in that book on Exodus 15,3 ה' איש מלחמה). Leah meant that the three emanations represented by these letters in the word איש are really part and parcel of a larger concept. This is why the descendants of Levi became teachers of Torah and wisdom in Israel as we know from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב , “they will teach Your ordinances to Yaakov."  When she gave birth to her fourth son, Yehudah, she gave thanks to the emanation בינה, the emanation from which children originate. As a result of all this we find that all the important elements were represented in the first four sons of Leah. Reuven and Shimon were allusions to G’d (His attribute with the six extremities), Levi and Yehudah being allusions to the three topmost emanations
  
  Verse 35
  
   'הפעם אודה את ה, “this time I give thanks to the Lord, etc.” The word י-ה-ו-ה at this point is a reference to the first time this word appears in the list of G’d’s thirteen attributes revealed to Moses in Exodus 34,6. [Rabbi Chavell cites Torat Chayim as believing that there is an error here and that the author meant the second time this word appeared there. Ed] This was the attribute of repentance. The reason this attribute is part of Yehudah’s name is that  he was the first person to publicly retract and confess a mistake he had made when he accused Tamar of being a harlot. He was not ashamed to admit his error, which is the greatest impediment to repentance. According to the Talmud in Sotah 7 Yehudah’s repentance led to Reuven’s repentance. This is why King David became one of his descendants. David is reputed to have “been elevated,” i.e. by means of his repentance, in the matter of Bat Sheva (Samuel II 23,1). David was considered outstanding because he unabashedly repented. 
  As soon as Leah had given birth to four sons whereas Rachel had remained childless, she became progressively more jealous and she went to Yaakov asking him to give her children at least by means of his prayer since merely sleeping with her had not made her pregnant. Yaakov told her that the matter did not depend on him and that the obstacle to her becoming pregnant was G’d. Rachel then proceeded to give Yaakov her maid-servant Bilhah so that her own potential as a mother could be fulfilled vicariously through Bilhah bearing Yaakov’s child on her behalf. Rachel reasoned to herself that her name, unlike Leah or Zilpah, did not have the letter ה in it. On the other hand, Bilhah’s name had two letters ה in it. When Rachel said to her husband Yaakov: “sleep with Bilhah and she will give birth on my knees, so that I will be built up through her,” she meant that the power inherent in the first letter ה in Bilhah’s name would enable her to have a child, whereas her additional letter ה would ensure that she as her mistress would be built up through her vicariously. As a result of Yaakov sleeping with Bilhah she bore a son whom her mistress Rachel called Dan, again involving  G’d’s attribute of Justice.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . התחת אלוקים אנכי?, “am I in place of G’d?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov  challenged Rachel who had assumed that the power of granting children resided within Yaakov. This was one of three keys which G’d does not normally entrust to any of His messengers. Our sages in Taanit 2 state: “Three keys have not been entrusted (on a regular basis) to G’d’s messengers. They are: ‘the key to life, the key to rain, and the key to resurrection of the dead.’” Yaakov was correct therefore when he told Rachel that her request should not be addressed to him.
      A kabbalistic approach: I have already indicated in my commentary on 28,13, that the letter ה in the word התחת need not be understood as introducing a question, but that the whole word is definitive. It is similar to Samuel I 2,27 הנגלה נגליתי, “I have indeed revealed Myself, etc.” Yaakov indicated to Rachel that his likeness (אנכי)  was indeed engraved under the throne of G’d and it was this which enabled him to know that G’d Himself had prevented her from having a child. Upon hearing this Rachel overcame her natural reluctance and gave her maid-servant to Yaakov to sleep with in order to benefit from Bilhah’s potential to bear children. In the end she herself addressed G’d in prayer as we know from 30,22: “G’d remembered Rachel and G’d listened to her.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויאמר רחל דנני אלוקים  “Rachel said: ‘G’d has judged me, etc.’” When Bilhah, Rachel’s maid-servant, bore her first son Rachel said: “G’d has judged me.” It is most important for a person to be very circumspect in his words even his introductory words which could be subject to his correcting himself. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,20) said that four people commenced their words with the word אף and they all perished. They were: the serpent who had seduced Chavah, the chief of the bakers  (Genesis 46,16), the congregation which joined Korach in his rebellion (Numbers 16,14) and Haman (Esther 5,12). We know that Rachel died giving birth to Binyamin as the attribute of Justice had been arraigned against her. 
  We must understand why she called this child Dan. She alluded in that name to the same attribute which Leah had alluded to when she called her first son Reuven. Seeing that the attribute of Justice always contains at least a portion of the attribute of Mercy, she added “G’d also listened to my voice.” When she called Bilhah’s second son Naftali, referring to her having “wrestled,” with her sister, that name corresponded to the same emotion which had prompted Leah to call her second son Shimon, as we explained earlier. Here too her approach to G’d i.e. to His attributes as represented by the emanations, was in ascending order just as had been her sister’s. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ותאמר לאה בגד , “Leah said  ‘in my good fortune;’” Rashi says that this reflected the fact that Gad was born without a foreskin. If we follow the reasoning behind this we may be able to account for the missing letter א in the word בגד which should really have been spelled באגד. He would have been the tenth male Jew to have been circumcised as he was preceded by Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Dan and Naftali. He is counted as the tenth although he was born without a foreskin. Had his name been spelled with the letter א, its numerical value would have been 10. Seeing that actually he did not need to be circumcised, the Torah omitted the letter א of his name. If we nonetheless read the name as if it had been spelled wih the letter א included, this was to indicate that G’d guided Leah to make his name גד, meaning גדי, i.e. a fortunate person, a lucky person. Historically speaking, there is evidence that the tribe of Gad was very successful in war, something alluded to already in Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,19 גד גדוד ידודנו והוא יגד עקוב, “Gad will recruit a regiment and not one of its members will be missing (Rashi).” 
      From a more psychological point of view we may understand the name as reflecting a new insight of Leah who had previously stopped conceiving after bearing four sons in short order. The word גד is related to המשכה, “continuity.” When Leah realized what was happening she decided to draw once again upon the source which had previously enabled her to bear children and by means of her prayer גד גדי, i.e. that her good fortune be restored to her she waited for additional children. When Gad was born she named him thus as he represented a vicarious continuation of her former good fortune. A similar consideration prompted her to name Zilpah’s second son אשר, the meaning of which is similar to that of Gad and also contains an element of gratitude. She hoped that her gratitude for Asher would prompt G’d to allow her to have still more children. When she personally, bore Issachar, after the story with the Dudaim, she credited the emanation בינה with her success. We read in Chronicles I 11,32 that the members of the tribe of Issachar were extremely conversant with the requirements of whatever generation they lived in, i.e. they displayed more insight than any other tribe. [This is why a delegation of 200 men from that tribe was considered as equivalent in collective wisdom to many thousands of the other tribes. Ed.]  We have a verse in Proverbs 23,19 ואשר בדרך לבך, “make your heart take the proper path,” which alludes to something similar. [In modern Hebrew the verb אשר means to confirm, to acknowledge, something similar to giving thanks. Ed.] As a reward for such an attitude G’d gave her also Zevulun, a name which corresponds to the central emanation known either as קו האמצעי, or as שבט, i.e. the emanation תפארת. [According to more recent names the emanations are known as, this emanation is best translated as “harmony,” a fitting description of קו האמצעי, the “middle line.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . וימצא דודאים בשדה, “he found dudaim in the field.” According to Nachmanides the shape of the root of this plant resembles the shape of a human head and hands and is therefore especially likely to evoke feelings of desire to become pregnant in the person who looks at or eats this plant. [a common translation for dudaim is either “jasmine” or “mandrakes.”] The fruit of the plant supposedly looks like an apple and gives off a very pleasant fragrance The effect of such a plant as a fertility inducing agent is questioned by early commentators seeing it induces cold and dryness, the very opposite of the process of fertilisation. If, so, the plant was used in order to invoke G’d’s powers as opposed to the powers of nature. If Rachel used the dudaim being aware of this she would have demonstrated that she would attribute any pregancy to the effectiveness of her prayer rather than to natural causes. According to Nachmanides’ sources Reuven had brought his mother only the fruit, not the root of the plant. He (a young child of maybe 5 or 6 years of age) had meant for his mother to amuse herself with the fragrance of the plant. Leah herself had intended to provide her and Yaakov’s nuptial bed with the sweet fragrance of that flower. This practice has been described in Proverbs 7,17. Nachmanides adds that he has not found anything about the effectiveness of this plant in medical texts he has seen.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ותקרא את שמו זבולון, “she called his name Zevulun.” As we mentioned already, she attributed her good fortune to the emanation תפארת, “harmony,” [the sixth of the emanations counting from  the lowest מלכות upwards. Ed.] This is the reason that the terrestrial Holy Temple is sometimes referred to as זבול in the writings of our prophets. [We also have the expression זבול בית תפארתנו in a song sung on the Sabbath. Altogether, the emanation תפארת represents the highest rung of the spiritual ladders average Jews are capable of attaining during their lifetime. Ed.] When Leah commented about her accomplishment of having born six sons for Yaakov she may well have had such a thought in her mind.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואחר ילדה בת, “and after that she gave birth to a daughter.” After Leah had born six sons she bore a daughter. The meaning of the word ואחר is “finally, her last birth.” The word ואחר occurs in the same context in Genesis 33,7 ואחר נגש יוסף, and at the end, Joseph approached. The six sons Leah bore corresponded to the six emanations and “extremities,” in the celestial regions which are matched by parallel phenomena in the terrestrial regions bearing the seal of G’d’s name. She bore the daughter last as the שכינה is comprised of the six extremities, representing the attribute of Justice. Leah alluded to this when she called her daughter דינה, a clear reference to the attribute of Justice, מדת הדין. The name דינה contains the two middle letters of the name א-ד-נ-י, the “pronoun” of the attribute of Justice combined with two letters of the attribute of Mercy  י-ה   She was the product בת, of מי זהב a combination of water=חסד and זהב=גבורה. (Rabbi Chavell quotes a book called האזרח בישראל  as his source for this insight. Ed.) One may also reason that she did not have any special deep kabbalistic thoughts when she named her daughter. When she had given birth to Zevulun, her sixth son, she did not want to “descend” and bear a son belonging to a “lower” emanation as she was in no need to receive input from those emanations having already succeeded to receive input from the relatively highest emanation תפארת. According to Berachot 60 Leah had been pregnant with a male fetus. She prayed to G’d to let her have a daughter. Our  sages felt that Joseph would have been born as a son of Leah if not for Leah’s prayer. She did not now want to give birth to a child under a lower aegis than the one Zevulun had been born under. As a result of Leah’s attitude, her daughter Dinah eventually suffered rape at the hands of Shechem.
      According to a more direct approach, Leah prayed on behalf of Rachel her sister seeing that if she had born another male child only one single son would have remained for Rachel and this would have shamed Rachel in the eyes of the maid-servants each of whom had already given birth to two sons each. According to this approach Leah had to have prayed within the first forty days of her pregnancy as we have learned in Berachot 60 that after that amount of time such a prayer would attempt to change facts, something forbidden. When Leah called her daughter דינה, (her judgment), this reflected the fact that her prayer had been accepted, that G’d had judged Rachel fit to have a son or sons of her own.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   אסף אלוקים את חרפתי, “G’d has removed my disgrace.” Apparently people had goaded her for not having children of her own.  לאמור יוסף ה' לי בן אחר, saying: ”may the Lord grant me another son.” The name she gave her son reflected her prayer. When she said: “another son (sing),” instead of “more sons (pl),”  this shows that she was aware that there existed a prophecy that Yaakov would have twelve sons. Since Joseph was the eleventh son it would not have been appropriate to ask for more. 
  Rachel used two expressions in connection with the naming of her son. She spoke about תוספת, “an addition,” as well as about אסיפה, “the gathering in of something, removing something from a place it had been previously.” When she referred to the visible, the obvious, the revealed act of G’d,  she used the term “an addition.” When she referred to the more concealed elements of G’d’s hand in history she used the term אסיפה, saying: אסף אלוקים את חרפתי, “G’d has gathered in, i.e. made my shame “invisible.” This was an allusion to Joseph being symbolic of the קו האמצעי, the middle emanation תפארת, the emanation which draws to itself all the other “extremities,” the emanations which are more peripheral in G’d’s scheme of things. [In order to make this easier to visualise the reader is referred to a diagram of the emanations at the end of this book, based on page eight in the book of my late cousin Rabbi Elie Munk, “Ascent to Harmony.” Ed.] It is envisaged that the two emanations נצח, הוד are “below” the emanation תפארת, whereas the two emanations חסד, דין are above it. The emanation תפארת which also intersects between כתר and יסוד is the centre of intersecting lines between נצח-דין, and הוד-חסד respectively. The two sons of Joseph, Menashe and Ephrayim, symbolize נצח והוד, whereas Binyamin, Rachel’s other son whose name already reflects the emanation חסד, i.e. the attribute of Mercy  she called בן אוני, “emanation of my strength.” She referred to the higher emanation דין she had encountered most of her life. In short, Joseph represented the repository of the emanations below him whereas Binyamin was the repository of forces represented by emanations above him.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  . כי מעט אשר היה לך לפני ויפרוץ לרוב ויברך ה' אותך לרגלי, ”for the little that you owned before I came has expanded into a multitude as G’d has blessed you with my coming.” Yaakov simply told Lavan that from the moment he set foot in his house G’d had showered Lavan with His blessing. Even Lavan himself acknowledged this when he said: in verse 27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have been divinely inspired to realise that G’d has blessed me on your account.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 73,8, originally Lavan had handed Yaakov only 70 animals to tend and these had increased by that time to 600.000. Another opinion claims that Lavan’s flocks now amounted to 1,2 million sheep. The number 70 is arrived at by comparing the expression מעט “a few,” in this verse with Deut 26,5 where the meaning of the word is a reference to the 70 people who descended to Egypt with Yaakov at the time the Israelites had left the land of Canaan (Genesis 46,8).
     מתי אעשה גם אנכי לביתי, “when will I also do something for my own family?” Up until now all my efforts were concentrated on enriching you. The time has come to do something to enrich myself. This was the meaning of (verse 31) “I will guard your sheep against payment.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . אעבור בכל צאנך היום הסר משם כל שה נקוד וטלוא...והיה שכרי. “Let me pass through your whole flock today. Remove from there every spotted or speckled lamb, every brownish lamb,.....that will be my wage.” Any lambs which would be born amongst Lavan’s flocks from this day on which displayed these skin patterns although they did not have paternal or maternal animals with that skin pattern would be Yaakov’s. The other lambs would be Lavan’s. Yaakov added  that if Lavan would be able to find amongst the flocks Yaakov would segregate any with skin patterns other than agreed upon between them, he would be guilty as having stolen them. Lavan replied: “yes, let it be as you have said.” From the above we learn that Lavan kept the goats which were predominantly black. This is why he said in verse 35 ”everyone that contains some white.” He meant that as long as the predominant colour was black such goats were his. He applied a similar yardstick to sheep who had some brown in it. If the predominant colour of the sheep, כבשים, was black but they had some brown in it they would be Lavan’s. Seeing that Yaakov separated the spotted and the speckled amongst the he-goats not including the dotted ones, whereas amongst the she-goats he separated the dotted and speckled ones, it was necessary for the Torah to mention: “every animal with some white in its skin pattern.”
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  . מקל לבנה, “poplar rods;” fresh, moist rods from the cedars of Lebanon as explained by Rashi.
     ולוז וערמון, “and hazel and chestnut.” According to some commentators these were rods from almond trees and from chestnut trees.
     ויפצל בהן פצלות לבנות, “and he peeled white streaks in them.” He peeled them in such a way that part of the rods remained with a dark peel whereas he peeled off other parts so that the colour pattern that emerged on these rods resembled the spotted and speckled patterns which he wanted the young animals to have which would be his wages. He placed all these rods near the watering troughs  so that the animals had to look at them prior to drinking. When he wanted the sheep to bear young lambs with spotted skin patterns he placed the rods which were peeled in such patterns near the watering troughs. When he was desirous of the goats giving birth to speckled young he would place rods which had one pattern on the top and another pattern at the bottom in order to achieve the respective skin pattern he was interested in. When he wanted brown coloured sheep to be born he simply did not place any peeled rods at all near the watering trough but relied on the sheep responding to the natural brown colour of the bark on the rods in question.
      The entire procedure was comprised of a combination of Yaakov’s knowledge of how nature works, plus an element of divine interference, i.e. a miracle. If you were to argue that what happened was totally natural, consider for a moment how it was possible that amongst all these thousands of goats and sheep not a single one was born which had skin patterns reflecting that of its parent animal. This alone was proof that some supernatural force was at work here. Yaakov himself acknowledged this when he said (31,9) ”G’d took away your father’s livestock and gave them to me.” He attributed his success to miraculous assistance by G’d.
  
  Verse 38
  
  .ויחמנה...ויחמו , “the females, or males respectively would become stimulated.” What happened was that on the one hand the animals were drawn to the watering troughs, whereas on the other hand they were afraid of the unusual looking rods they had to encounter in order get to the water. These conflicting emotions animated them so that they backtracked. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 73,10 quoted by Rashi). The male would immediately mate with the retreating female and the sheep would give birth to young ones of the skin pattern they had seen at the troughs.
      The  words לנכח הצאן refer to the rods which had been placed facing the sheep at the time these were in heat. Sheep normally give birth to lambs twice a year as their pregnancy lasts for five months. Our sages in Rosh Hashana 8 state “small cattle become pregnant in Adar and give birth in Av.” The ones that were born first are referred to as מקושרות, reflecting that at the time they have young ones for the first time during that year they are strong and kick so that they need to be bound when birthing. During their second birthing in the same year they have become weakened so that they are called עטופים, “covered.” At that time of year they are not too aware of what goes on and they do not react to the phenomena of the rods.” The result was that those second birthings yielded normal skin patterns, the ones that would accrue to Lavan. [According to our author nothing would accrue to Lavan. I confess I have not understood why. Ed.]
      Know that when Yaakov resorted to the stratagem of peeling different kinds of rods to expose different kinds of colour patterns he did not do so on his own initiative but an angel had instructed him to do so. This is what he himself told his wives in 31,12, quoting what the angel had told him: “it once happened at the mating time that I raised my eyes and saw in a dream ‘and behold the he-goats mounting the flocks were ringed, speckled and checkered, and an angel of G’d said to me in a dream Yaakov! etc.’...for I have seen all that Lavan is doing to you.” Once Yaakov had seen that he enjoyed heavenly support, he proceeded with his own ingenuity knowing that G’d would assist him so as to neutralise Lavan’s constant attempts to swindle him and to do him out of what was rightfully his. Yaakov might have relied on G’d’s help exclusively; he did not do so and resorted to the stratagem with the rods for two reasons:
      One reason was in order to conceal the fact that he enjoyed heavenly assists. He did not want the evil eye to interfere with his success. You will find a similar consideration at work when Elisha told his disciple Gechazi (Kings II 4,29) on the mission to resurrect the son of the Shunamite that he should not speak unnecessarily with people whom he would encounter on the way. Gechazi ignored these instructions and even boasted about what he was about to do. The result was that he failed and the boy did not respond to his attempts to awaken him.
      Do not question how it is possible that the power of the evil eye is so great that it can even interfere with miracles! We find that the birth of Yaakov’s children was influenced by the power of the evil eye. Leah had made a single comment in that she thanked the Lord for allowing her to have born a fourth son, i.e. more than the three sons out of twelve which she could expect to bear by right, and as a result of this comment she became subject to the power of the evil eye. Immediately after she had made this comment we read ותעמוד מלדת “she stopped giving birth.” The mere fact that she had said herself that she had received more than she was entitled to exposed her to the envy of others. Furthermore, we find in connection with the tribe of Joseph who had been favoured by miraculous increases in numbers due to the special blessing of their patriarch Yaakov who had said בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין, that Joseph’s descendants would prove especially fruitful. When these people told Joshua (Joshua 17,14) that G’d had made them inordinately numerous and the land allocated to them was inadequate for their needs, Joshua answered them that they would be best of to move to a wooded region . Our sages in Sotah 36 comment on this that Joshua (who was also of the tribe of Ephrayim) meant that they should hide in the forests so as not to arouse other people’s evil eye, envy.    Furthermore, you will agree that there never was a greater miracle than occurred at the revelation at Mount Sinai, and we find that even on that occasion the evil eye was very much in evidence. In searching for a reason why the first set of Tablets were smashed, Tanchuma Ki Tissa 31 claims that it was because they were given to the Jewish people in public, [I am sure this refers to the text, and not the actual Tablets as the former was announced at the revelation. Ed.] an area where the evil eye is rampant. This is why the second set of Tablets was given in secret, i.e. Moses was told that (Exodus 34,3) ואיש לא יעלה עמך וגם איש אל ירא בכל ההר, “no one is to go up the mountain with you, nor is anyone to be seen at the mountain.” When the second Tablets were given the evil eye as not present, hence they were not smashed [even though the Jews repeatedly served idols after they had lived in the land of Israel for a while. Ed.] Yaakov therefore had good reason not to arouse the envy of Lavan and his sons.
      The second reason Yaakov let it appear as if his success was merely nature at work was in order to attract the miracle. This was not the only time in Jewish history that a clever ruse had to be used in order to encourage a miracle to occur on behalf of the very people who employed the ruse. Before the second onslaught on the town of Ai where the Jewish people had suffered an amazing defeat (due to the presence of Achan, etc.) G’d told Joshua to prepare an ambush against that town (Joshua  8,2). Seeing that all of the campaigns waged by Joshua to conquer the land of Canaan were actually fought by G’d Himself, why was there a need to set an ambush? G’d commanded this in order to have a reason to work a miracle on behalf of the people. [People who sit with their hands in their laps waiting for G’d to do their work for them do not rate miracles. Ed.] 
  The very words spoken to Yaakov by the angel in his dream where he encouraged him to raise his eyes and see how the males mounting the females all had rings in their skin patterns, alerted Yaakov to the need for him to do something similar in order to attract divine assistance. (We have a similar situation in Hoseah 1,2 where the prophet is commanded to take for a wife a known harlot.) This was very strange indeed as according to Torah law one must not even look at such activities! (Compare Avodah Zarah 20 where even looking at birds and animals is forbidden at the time such animals are mating.) How then could the angel ask Yaakov to watch these animals mate? Actually, it was because of this dream that Yaakov was encouraged to take measures which would ward off the evil eye. He did not mean to deceive Lavan but to protect himself against Lavan so that the latter would not swindle him. 
  We must all learn from the utilization Yaakov made of natural means of achieving certain desirable results, that when man and woman engage in marital relations, they too should imagine holy concepts in order for the children they hope to produce from their union to resemble the holy thoughts they entertained at that time. Our sages are on record (Shavuot 18) that at the time of marital intercourse a person should sanctify himself as a result of which he will have male children. What is the nature of this “sanctifying oneself?” He should have pure thoughts and most certainly not fantasize about another woman at the time he sleeps with his wife (Nedarim 20). This whole theory that imagination influences the quality and appearance of the child born if one has certain thoughts at the time one has marital relations is an incontrovertible theory. It is clear that if even animals which are not equipped with the brainpower and the ability to have holy thoughts influence the appearance of their offspring by such external stimuli as provided by Yaakov, then it is easily within the power of a human being to accomplish no less by concentrating on the right thoughts at such times.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . אנכי הא-ל בית אל, “I am the G’d of Bet El, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reference to Bet El is to G’d’s appearing to Yaakov in his dream of the ladder at that location.
      A kabbalistic approach: The angel who here calls himself “El” is a good angel, the one to whom G’d referred in Exodus 33,19 when He told Moses: ”I will let all ‘My goodness’ pass before you.” As to the word “Bet,” house, this is a reference to when G’d said to Miriam and Aaron concerning Moses in Numbers 12,6 בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is thoroughly trusted in all parts of My house.” Man considers his own house as “his goodness.” The best one can do for a person is to provide him with a house which contains all the appurtenances. The angel therefore said concerning himself, that he represented such  an agent of G’d. As a result, Yaakov later called the place where he had this vision Bet El, to commemorate this site and who had reiterated his promise that he would get home safely. (35,7)
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ותגנב רחל את התרפים “Rachel stole the Teraphim.” Nachmanides speculates that these Teraphim were some kinds of hour-glasses or similar instruments with which to measure time.  These vessels were employed to glean knowledge about future events. The word itself is derived from נרפים, (Compare Exodus 5,17, where Pharaoh accused the Israelites of pretending to be too weak to work hard) they called these vessels תרפים to hint that the power of foretelling events associated with these instruments was rather on the weak side. Predictions based on these instruments, while proving accurate in the majority of cases,  were frequently wide off the mark. Zechariah 10,2 refers to these instruments when he says that they disappointed those who relied on their predictions. The question which concerns us is why Rachel bothered to steal them if they were so unreliable? Apparently Rachel stole the Teraphim so that they could not reveal Yaakov’s whereabouts to her father seeing that Yaakov and family had fled from Padan Aram. The Teraphim were Lavan’s deities; he put a great deal of faith in their ability to reveal to him what he wanted to know. 
  Lavan was an expert magician. He himself had said נחשתי, “I have consulted oracles,” and these oracles had told him that his new-found wealth was due to Yaakov. The whole country Charan was well known for its preoccupation with oracles, snake-charmers, and all these methods to divine future events. This is already referred to in Isaiah 2,6 כי מלאו מקדם מעוננים כפלשתים, “for they are full of magic practices from the East and of soothsaying like the Philistines.” Also Bileam ben Be-Or was of the same ilk as he came from the same region; this is why when the Torah quotes his opening statements we find him saying: (Numbers 23,6) “From Aram has Balak brought me, Moav’s king from the hills of the East.” 
      Concerning the significance of the Teraphim, Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes: “I am fairly convinced that these Teraphim resembled a human shape in order to enable them to receive celestial powers’ input. However, I cannot explain this in further detail (as the Torah has forbidden this). We can conjecture that Ibn Ezra was correct when we consider that Michal, David’s wife and daughter of King Saul had placed Teraphim in David’s bed to mislead the King’s police into thinking that David himself occupied that bed (compare Samuel I 19,16). [Michal had claimed that her husband was sick and could not present himself at court.] This leaves us with the question of how to explain Hoseah 3,4 ואין אפוד ותרפים, “that the Israelites would go for a long time without either Ephod or Teraphim.” The meaning there seems to be that they would practice no religion, neither the Jewish religion symbolised by the Ephod which contained the means for the High Priest to receive communication from G’d, nor Teraphim which was a means to receive such communication from spiritually negative forces in the celestial spheres.
      Rabbeinu Chananel writes as follows concerning the subject of the Teraphim: Rachel stole the Teraphim in order to force her father to become a penitent seeing he would realise that a god which allows itself to be stolen surely could not be something of substance. How could a god who cannot take care of himself take care of others? We find the same argument spelled out in detail in Judges 6,31 where Yoash ridicules the people who want to avenge their idol and execute Jerubaal (Gideon) who had smashed its altar, saying to them: “let the Baal fight his own enemies if he is as powerful as you believe him to be!”  Ezekiel  28,9 phrases it thus: “Will you then say before your murderer: ”I am a god?’ But you are a man and no god in the hand of your desecrators.” [The subject of discussion was Chiram King of Tyre, a friend of David and Solomon who developed illusions of grandeur].
      A Midrashic approach: When Lavan accused Yaakov of having stolen the Teraphim למה גנבת אלהי, “why did you steal my gods (31,31)?” The reason he thought that they had been stolen was in order that they should not reveal to Lavan that Yaakov had fled. The Midrash asks: “were the Teraphim then able to speak?” Do we not have a specific verse in Psalms 115,7 לא יהגו בגרונם, “they cannot make a sound with their throats?” The answer given is that indeed the Teraphim could speak as we know on the authority of Zechariah 10,2 “for the Teraphim spoke delusion.” How do the Teraphim “speak?” One places in front of them a firstborn person, slaughters him and salts him adding a variety of spices. One then proceeds to write the name of a deity on a headband made of gold; one places this headband under the tongue of this dead person using the appropriate idolatrous incantations and places the carcass in the wall; one lights candles in front of this stuffed human being and prostrates oneself in front of him. This is the meaning of what is written in Zechariah: “for the Teraphim speak delusions.” Rachel’s whole purpose in stealing such Teraphim was to wean her father from the practice of idolatry. After all, G’d had promised to remove idolatry from the face of the earth as is written (Isaiah 2,18) והאלילים כליל יחלוף, “and as for idols, they shall vanish completely.” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ויוגד ללבן ביום השלישי, “Lavan was told on the third day.” There was a distance of three days’ journey between the area where Yaakov and Lavan grazed their flocks respectively. When the person who told Lavan that Yaakov had left told him about it on the third day, Lavan took his brothers with him and returned to Padan Aram, so that six days had elapsed until he could begin the pursuit. On the seventh day Lavan caught up with Yaakov. This is the meaning of the words וירדף אחריו שבעת ימים, “he pursued him for (a distance of) seven days.” This shows that during the six days Yaakov had managed to cover only a single day’s distance. It is possible that Yaakov left Padan Aram on a Sunday and that Lavan caught up with him on the Sabbath, seeing Yaakov would not travel on that day.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
    יש לאל ידי, “it is within my power, etc.” The wicked always boast of their wicked deeds; Lavan was no exception; he too boasted about his wickedness. When he coupled the statement יש לאל ידי with the words ואלוקי אביכם, he meant that for the last twenty years he had been able to inflict harm on Yaakov as the fact that G’d did not warn him not to harm Yaakov until the night before he caught up with him shows that prior to this G’d would not have prevented him from harming Yaakov. The fact that G’d did not appear to him until that night may also be taken as proof of Lavan’s goodwill towards Yaakov. Surely, if G’d was so solicitous of Yaakov’s welfare, He would have had to warn him off before now unless G’d was well aware that Lavan had not harboured any hostility against Yaakov. If Yaakov had only left because he was anxious to return to his family in Canaan why did he steal the Teraphim? He repeated mention of Yaakov having stolen something to lend emphasis to the fact that the very fact of Yaakov stealing from him bothered him the most.
     מטוב עד רע, “either good or evil, etc.” anything which was good for Lavan was bad for Yaakov. If Lavan decided not to kill Yaakov but to merely take away his possessions, this would prove to be bad for Yaakov; this is why G’d had to phrase His warning by saying טוב עד רע. We find a similar construction in Ezekiel 21,8 והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע, “I will cut off from you righteous and wicked alike.” [Ezekiel speaks about relative degrees of wickedness; he calls someone who only occasionally worships the Baal a צדיק, whereas he who does so on a regular basis is a רשע by comparison. The fact is, however, that both are wicked (Rabbi Saadyah Gaon)]. The proof that our interpretation is correct can be seen from Yaakov’s reply לולי אלוקי אבי...כי עתה ריקם שלחתני, “if my father’s G’d had not been at my side, you would now have sent me off empty-handed.” In other words: sending Yaakov off empty-handed was Lavan’s idea of treating him “good.”
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי נכסוף נכספת לבית אביך, “for you had a strong yearning for your father’s house.” When Lavan repeated the word נכסף  he hinted that Yaakov’s yearning was not only for his paternal home but also for the Holy Land. We find this term applied to yearning for the Holy Land in Psalms 84,3  נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות ה', “I long, I yearn for the courtyards of the Lord.”
      It is possible that the letter ה at the end of the word נכספתה is an allusion to glory, i.e. the glory of G’d, concerning Whom Isaiah 64,10 has said: בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, “the house of our sanctity and our glory.” Yaakov yearned for that house. The words בית קדשנו refer to G’d’s glory, whereas the word תפארתנו refers to Israel’s glory. We have the expression עוז ותפארת במקדשו, (Psalms 96,6) “strength and splendour are in His Temple,” which reflect similar sentiments. He who does not yearn for the Temple is the sinner. We find that the prophet rebukes Israel in words reflecting this feeling when he said (Tzefaniah 2,1), התקוששו, וקושו הגוי לא נכסוף, “gather together, gather, o nation without yearnings!” The prophet addressed a nation that lacked the feeling of yearning for G’d and His Temple. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . עם אשר תמצא את אלוהיך לא יחיה, “the person in whose possession you will find your idols shall not live!” This curse resulted in Rachel dying on route; from here we also learn that a person must be very careful not to cause a righteous person to curse him.
     נגד אחינו הכר לך מה עמדי וקח לך, “in the presence of our kinsmen ascertain for yourself what is with me and take it back.” This proves Yaakov’s integrity. It is typical of the righteous that they do not covet money which is not theirs, not even if it belongs to close relatives. Yaakov who had stayed at his father-in-law’s house for twenty years and whose father-in-law had experienced tremendous blessings due to Yaakov, as he himself admitted, allowed his father-in-law to examine every part of his household and search for any item not his. Lavan actually was not abashed to take advantage of that opportunity as we know from Yaakov saying at the end (verse 37) “for you have handled everything; what did you find?” 
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויבא לבן באהל יעקב ובאהל לאה, “Lavan entered the tent of Yaakov and the tent of Leah, etc.” After the Torah had already mentioned “the tent of Leah and that of the two maid-servants”, why did the Torah have to make special mention of “he left the tent of Leah?” All the Torah had to write was “he left the tent of the two maid-servants.” 
  It is possible, however, that Leah’s tent was the biggest of them all, so that it contained the private tents of the two maid-servants within it. If so, Lavan would still have been standing within the tent of Leah at the time he left the respective tents of the maid-servants. This is why the Torah had to be precise in saying “he left the tent of Leah.”
  According to Rashi there were a total of three tents, seeing that the tent of Rachel and the tent of Yaakov were one and the same. Add to that the tent of Leah and the tent of the two maid-servants and you have a total of three tents. According to the opinion of Nachmanides, on the other hand, there were a total of five tents; each of the matriarchs had a tent of her own; each of the maid-servants had a tent of her own; Yaakov also had a tent of his own. It would have been a prerequisite of Yaakov’s privacy that his wives each had her own tent. Etiquette demanded that none of his wives would be aware when her husband visited the tent of her companion. According to the author it would be a Biblical prohibition for them to know with whom Yaakov was sleeping at the time.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  . כי לא אוכל לקום מפניך, “for I am unable to rise before you.” This verse proves that the ancients already practiced the restrictions of ritual impurity when their women were menstruating. In fact, they treated such impurity as equivalent to the ritual impurity associated with a dead body. According to Niddah it was forbidden to enquire after the welfare of a menstruating woman. Rabbi Nechemyah there says that that even the words which come out of the mouth of a menstruating woman are ritually impure, and one is not to walk on the ground such a woman has walked on. One must also not make use of what such a woman has produced with her hands while in such an impure state. This is why Lavan kept quiet and left her tent. The high level of Yaakov’s chastity is attested to by the fact that each of his four wives had her own quarters.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  .רחליך ועזיך לא שכלו , “your ewes and she-goats never miscarried.” Yaakov attributed this to his merit. The Torah promises such a blessing to people observing its commandments (Exodus 23,26).
     ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, “and I did not eat rams of your flock.” Other shepherds do eat these rams and their owners know about it. Ezekiel 34,3 writes: את החלב תאכלו ואת הצמר תלבשו הבריאה תזבחו הצאן לא תראון, “should you eat the fat, should you don the wool, should you slaughter the choicest- but not tend the sheep!” Clearly that verse proves that provided the shepherd carries out his duties he is entitled to the fringe benefits mentioned by the prophet.
  
  Verse 39
  
  .טרפה לא הבאתי אליך , “that which was mangled I never brought to you.” Yaakov meant that while under his care no ferocious beast mangled any of Lavan’s animals. The expression טרפה is employed as in 37,33 חיה רעה אכלתהו, טרוף טורף יוסף, “a wild beast has devoured him, Joseph has been horribly mangled.” We have other verses in Scripture using the word in the same sense.
     אנכי אחטנה, “I myself would bear the loss.” The word is closely related to אל השערה ולא יחטיא, “accurate to a hair, without missing.” Yaakov assumed responsibility for such eventual loss in the event it would occur. He would consider it as his own fault. The author quotes Kings I 1,21 where Bat Sheva says to King David והייתי אני ובני שלמה חטאים, “and I and my son Solomon would be considered at fault,” as a similar meaning for the word אחטנה in our verse.
     מידי תבקשנה, “from me you would exact it.” Lavan would hold Yaakov responsible for any animal stolen from the flock under Yaakov’s control. He considered Yaakov a שומר שכר, a paid watchman who assumes such risks as thievery, robbery etc. We find a verse in Ezekiel 34,4 making a similar point where the prophet writes את האובדת לא בקשתם, “you have not sought out the lost one.” In that chapter the prophet scores the kings who are charged with tending their sheep, i.e. their human subjects, and who have been remiss in doing so, doing the reverse of what Yaakov considered himself charged with. 
     גנובתי יום וגנובתי לילה, “whether it had been stolen by day or by night.” “I was always considered liable to make restitution.” A  שומר שכר is responsible for these kinds of losses as we know from Exodus 23,11 ואם גנב יגנב מעמו שלם ישלם לבעליו, “if it be stolen, the keeper has to pay compensation to its owner.” Our sages (Baba Metzia 94) query “if the paid keeper is liable to compensate the owner for animals stolen, something akin to an accident, beyond the keeper’s control, why did Yaakov have to add that he was also liable for “lost” property, i.e. that negligence is also subject to restitution by the keeper? Yaakov simply stated here that whatever the cause of any loss, he personally assumed responsibility.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  . זה לי עשרים שנה בביתך, “this is my twenty years in your household;” The plain meaning of the text here is “seeing that I served you faithfully for twenty years you should have treated me with some respect; all the more so, seeing that I served for your two daughters for fourteen years and another six years for your flocks. However, you did not relate to me according to accepted standards You changed the type of remuneration I was to receive ten times, i.e. twice a year.”
      What Yaakov really alluded to was this: seeing that the sheep birth twice a year, you changed my wages twice a year, after every time the flock bore young ones. You received the benefit of ten throws in five years.
      A kabbalistic approach: The word זה is an allusion to זה אלי ואנוהו, ‘this is my G’d and I want to exalt Him,” There are other such verses; the point of the commentary is that we already know that Yaakov spent twenty years at Lavan. Why then did he make such a superfluous statement? The fact is that when Yaakov referred to the length of his stay at Lavan’s house earlier he spoke about himself. Here he alluded to the שכינה, the benevolent presence of G’d. He acknowledged that G’d had been with him during all these twenty years he had endured at Lavan and had worked for him. This is why he spelled it out even more forcefully in the next verse when he said: “if the G’d of my father had not been with me, you would now have sent me away empty-handed.”
  
  Verse 42
  
    ופחד יצחק היה לי, “and the Dread of Yitzchak had been with me, etc.” The plain meaning of these words is that “the same G’d whom Yitzchak reveres has been with me.” This, at least is what Onkelos had in mind. 
  There are commentators who believe that he referred to the merit Yitzchak had acquired when he lay bound on the altar on Mount Moriah, a merit which had now benefited his son Yaakov. He was lying bound on the altar on Mount Moriah expecting to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering for G’d. Alternatively, it was a reference to the dread Yitzchak experienced when he  saw the portals of Gehinom open before his eyes (Bereshit Rabbah 67,2), or it was the dread which resulted in Yaakov receiving confirmation of the blessing his father had given him (27,33).   When Yaakov said to Lavan: “you would now have sent me away empty-handed,” he meant: “if the dread which my father experienced on those occasions had not benefited me, this is what would have happened.”
      A kabbalistic approach: the words ופחד יצחק היה לי are a reference to Yitzchak’s overriding attribute. Yaakov told Lavan: “if I had not made this attribute also my own, you would now have sent me away empty-handed.” When we follow this approach we will note that Yaakov enumerated the three outstanding characteristics of the patriarchs in their chronological order. He would do so again when he would pray to be delivered from the threat of encountering Esau and his four hundred armed men (32,10). When he first mentioned לולי אלוקי אבי, this was a reference to the merits of his father. A person is obligated to mention the merit of his immediate father first before he mentions the merits of his grandfather (Bereshit Rabbah 94,5). Afterwards (as a mention of merit) he mentioned the merit of his grandfather Avraham when he said אלוקי אברהם, followed by the merits of his father, i.e. פחד יצחק. Finally, he referred to G’d observing his own distress and reacting to it :
      According to Nachmanides, the wording of the Torah is quite clear and does not require us to read between the lines. Yaakov first acknowledged the attribute of Justice in the heaven and that is why we find in Hoseah 3,5 אחר ישובו בני ישראל ובקשו את ה' אלוקיהם ואת דוד מלכם ופחדו אל ה' ואל טובו באחרית הימים. “Afterwards, the Israelites will turn back and seek the Lord their G’d and David their King, and they will thrill over the Lord and over His bounty in the days to come.” The prophet sketched the order in which national repentance would occur. He used the order Yaakov described here as his pattern, that they would beg for  the attribute of Mercy and Justice available on earth before qualifying to measure up even to the more stringent attribute of Justice which reigns in the celestial regions. Thus far Nachmanides
       את עניי ואת יגיע כפי ראה אלוקים ויוכח אמש, “G’d saw my wretchedness and the toil of my hands, so He admonished you last night.” He warned you last night not to kill me. If so, the merit of the toil of my hands has saved me from death whereas the merit of my fearing the Lord has saved my material wealth for me. This is what he meant when he connected the words “and the dread of Yitzchak worked on my behalf for else you would have sent me away empty-handed.” This teaches us that the way a person conducts himself in practice, i.e. “the toil of my hands,” is even more important than his philosophical and theological beliefs here described as פחד יצחק.
  
  Verse 43
  
  . הבנות בנותי והבנים בני, “the daughters are my daughters and the sons are my sons.” Rabbeinu Chananel comments on this that Lavan simply tried to deceive when he said that “the sons are my sons.” When the sages in Yevamot 62 said that “the grandsons are just like the sons,” they did not refer to grandsons who were the sons of daughters. Lavan similarly falsified the legal meaning of that statement of our sages when he described the flocks as “being my flocks.” He had given these flocks to Yaakov as wages for his hard toil and dedicated service. When Lavan continued: “and all that you see is mine,” he was equally wrong. Had not Yaakov already said to him: “here you have rummaged through all my things and you have not found a single thing of yours?” Lavan had not replied to this challenge. How could he now make a statement claiming everything Yaakov had was his?  Lavan’s claim reminds us of Kings I 20,3 when Ben Hadad the King of the Syrians said to King Achav of Israel: “your silver and your gold, your wives and your good children are all mine.” At that juncture the prophet reports Achav as telling his own elders (verse 7) [after having been very conciliatory and even debasing himself vis-a-vis Ben Haddad. Ed.] “see for yourselves how this man is bent on evil.”
      Concering Yaakov’s counter claim: “why did you pursue me?” Lavan answered: “because the daughters (you took away) are my daughters.” In other words, Lavan claimed that he merely came to see his daughters.
     ולבנותי, מה אעשה לאלה היום, “and as to my daughters, what could I do to these today?” He meant: “what favours could I do for them today or to the sons they have born?” Lavan hinted that there was something else he could do for his daughters which did not involve “today,” i.e. something immediate. He could conclude a covenant with Yaakov in which Yaakov undertook never to discriminate against these wives or to treat them unfairly. His main point was that Yaakov should not marry additional wives. 
  When Lavan said הבנות בנותי, both words in the plural, he referred to the four wives of Yaakov all of whom were Lavan’s daughters though not from the same wife, or that Bilhah and Zilpah had been raised in Lavan’s house.
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   ויאמר יעקב לאחיו  לקטו אבנים , “Yaakov said to Lavan’s brothers: gather stones.” The word לאחיו in Genesis 47,3 where the Torah writes: “Pharaoh said to his brothers:(לאחיו) what is your trade?” also refers to Joseph’s brothers not to Pharaoh’s.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 74,13 the word אחיו must be a reference to Yaakov’s sons; he called them “brothers” as they were all of an imposing physique as well as righteous just as he was.
   Another approach: Seeing that Yaakov himself had proven capable of lifting a stone which became a monument as we know from verse 45, he then called upon Lavan’s brothers to gather stones and make a monument also. However, Lavan’s brothers made a mound instead of a monument to the G’d in heaven. The word גל which is part of the word גלגל, planet, (in particular the sun) is an indication that the brothers of Lavan did not mean to make an undertaking vis-a-vis the G’d in heaven. They were sun-worshippers and the word גל is repeated in the paragraph to leave no doubt of its idolatrous connotation. The Torah could easily have written in our verse ויאכלו עליו, “they ate there,” instead of repeating the word גל once more. When Lavan said in verse 48 הגל הזה עד ביני וביניך, “this mound is a witness between me and between you,” the word גל was meant to link up with the first word גל in verse 46 and to form the name of the deity sun, i.e. גלגל. The five  words גלגל חמה אלוהו  שהזמינו לעד, “the sun-god which Lavan and his sons called upon as their witness” amount to the numerical value of the words יגר שהדותא, i.e. the official name Lavan gave to this stone-mound. When Lavan had proposed making the stone-mound he had said to Yaakov that it would serve as witness and he used the word והיה, i.e. letters which are the letters of the Ineffable Name. Had he not done so they would have had a difficult time agreeing on what belief they had in common which should be represented by the mound-monument. .
  By referring to the word והיה, Lavan had wittingly or unwittingly referred to the two attributes (י+ה) which between them were the attributes G’d used when He created the universe. This was what Rashi referred to in his commentary. He added  that the words יצף ה' ביני וביניך in verse 49 mean that the reason for calling the mound-monument מצפה was that each of the stones which formed part of it would remind one another of their function to be a witness to this mutual understanding Yaakov and Lavan had reached there. In reiterating the function of the tower or mound, Lavan first mentioned the attribute of Mercy when he referred to his part of the bargain. He said: “may the merciful G’d keep watch between me and you.” When it came to Yaakov’s part of the bargain however, Lavan invoked the attribute of Justice saying: ראה אלוקים עד ביני וביניך, “see here the attribute of Justice is witness between me and you.” Having referred to the G’d of Yaakov as well as to the deities he himself worshiped he was able to say afterwards: (verse 53) “may the G’d of Avraham or the god of Nachor judge between us.” When the Torah uses the word אלוהי in connection with Nachor, the word is not sacred and may be erased (according to Jewish law). 
      Phenomena which appear in the sky are referred to as גל or גלגל which is a reference to height. Seeing these phenomena appear high above us their common name is גלגל. This is why Zophar said to Job in Job 11,8 referring to the planets גבהי שמים מה תפעל, “higher than heaven, what can you do?” The reason the word גל  is repeated when we refer to planets, i.e. גלגל, is to describe the vast scope of the orbits of these planets.
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
   והמצפה אשר אמר, “as to the watchtower he spoke of;” this line is a continuation of the word קרא in verse 48. The Torah explains the reason for the tower being called מצפה, “lookout, or  watchtower.”
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
   עד הגל הזה ועדה המצבה, “both the mound and the monument are to serve as witness, etc.” After Lavan had already said in verse 50 that G’d is a witness, etc.,  why did Lavan have to repeat here “This mound or monument is a witness?” Lavan did so only in order to make both heaven and earth his witness. We find that the prophet Samuel did something similar when he made the Jewish people take an oath (Samuel I 12,5 and again in verse 6 of that chapter) when he said to them: “the Lord is witness  and His anointed is witness, etc.”
     אם אני לא אעבור אליך, “that I may not cross over in your direction,” he meant that just as his crossing this watchtower must not be motivated by any hostile intent, so your crossing must not be motivated by hostile intent either. The word “for hostile purposes,” is spelled out at the end of the verse, i.e. לרעה. This is not the only place where the expression העברה is used in the sense of crossing a demarcation line with hostile intentions.  We find In Leviticus 26,6 וחרב לא תעבור בארצכם, “and a sword will not traverse your land.” The covenant which Lavan and Yaakov concluded here was not to cross into each other’s territory. The land of Gilead is considered the boundary of the Holy Land as we know from Deut. 34,1 “and G’d showed Moses the whole country, the Gilead as far as Dan.” This is also why Lavan added at the end of our verse לרעה, “for a harmful purpose.” Our sages are at pains to emphasise the restrictive nature of the word לרעה, when they said (Bereshit Rabbah 74,15) “crossing was forbidden only for hostile purposes, not for the purpose of trade and commerce.” When the wicked prophet (Sanhedrin 105) Bileam who was a descendant or even reincarnate of Lavan commenced to violate this covenant as is recorded in Deut 23,5 “who hired Bileam son of Be-Or from Aram Naharayim to curse you,” his birthplace is mentioned to show that in coming to where the Israelites were encamped he had crossed the line with hostile intent. Another such violation of this covenant occurred when Cushan Rishatayim (Judges 3,8) invaded the land of Israel. He too came from Aram Naharayim. At that point the prophet had written: “and G’d had become angry at Israel.” Had the Israelites not first caused G’d to become angry at them, He would not have allowed Cushan Rishatayim to get away with such an invasion for eight years. On the other hand, we find that David established an Israelite garrison in Damascus (Aram Naharayim) in Samuel II 8,6  because the people of Aram Naharyim had come to the assistance of Haddadezer. This was in the nature of a punitive expedition. 
  The reason the town is called Aram Naharayim, “Aram of two rivers,” is because the city is located at the confluence of two rivers (Amana and Parpar) mentioned by Naaman the Syrian General cured by submerging himself in the Jordan and the blessing of Elisha (Kings II chapter 5). Eliyahu had also been told by G’d to go to Damascus and to crown Chazzael as King (Kings I 19,15) ostensibly to wage war against the Northern Kingdom of Israel at whom G’d was angry.
  
  Verse 53
  
  .  אלוהי אביהם, “the gods of their father.” The meaning of this verse may be: “the respective gods of Terach the father of both Avraham and Nachor.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוקים, “and angels of G’d met him.” These were the same angels who had been mentioned at the beginning of the portion who had been ascending and descending the ladder Yaakov had seen in his dream. This is what the Torah added כאשר ראם, “as he had seen them.” In other words, he was already familiar with these angels. We have a similar construction in Ezekiel 10,20 היא החיה אשר ראיתי , “this is the angel whom I had seen, etc.” Actually, the Torah could have written ויפגע במלאכי אלוקים, “he encountered angels of G’d.” The reason the Torah wrote that the angels met Yaakov instead of vice versa is a compliment to Yaakov. The purpose of the encounter was in order to protect Yaakov. It is similar to Psalms 91,15 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will command His angels to guard you (the righteous)  on all your paths.” There is a discussion in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 78,2 as to who is greater, the guardian or the person whom he guards? The Midrash concludes that the person being guarded is greater than the guardian. The Midrash came to this conclusion based on the verse (Psalms 91,12) “to guard you on all your paths to  carry you in their hands lest you hurt your foot on a stone.” The Midrash also asks: “who is greater the carrier or the one being carried?”  It concludes that the person being carried is the more important of the two. Finally, the Midrash asks: “who is more important the one being met or the one who goes out to meet someone?” The Midrash concludes that the person being met is the more important of the two. We find some support for this in connection with the prophet Elisha. We read in Kings II 6,15: “when the attendant of the man of G’d rose early and went outside, he saw a force, with horses and chariots, surrounding the town and he said to his master: ‘what shall we do?’” The verse goes on to say: “do not be afraid there are more on our side than on theirs.” A little later the verse continues: “G’d opened the eyes of the servant and he saw and here the mountain all around Elisha was covered with horses and chariots of fire.” [The paragraph started with the one who meets, only to conclude with the ones being met, the latter becoming the victors in the ensuing battle. Ed.]
  
  Verse 3
  
    ויקרא שם המקום ההוא מחנים, “he called the name of that place Machanayim,” i.e. “two camps, meaning the camp of Yaakov and the camp of the angels. The Torah compared, i.e. accorded similar stature, to both camps. This teaches that the righteous are as important on earth as are the angels in the celestial spheres, the function of both being to carry out the will of their Creator.
      Another meaning of the name מחנים may be that it is an allusion to the future when the Jewish people would receive the Torah. At that time the angels would descend to earth in their hundreds of thousands to witness that event in order to watch the 600,000 Israelites who were all descendants of Yaakov. This is the meaning of Tanchuma Tetzaveh 11 that the words מחנה אלוקים זה, “this is the camp of the Lord,” refer to the 600,000 Israelites encamped around Mount Sinai. Concerning this same phenomenon we read in Song of Songs 7,1 שובי שובי השולמית, שובי שובי ונחזה בך מה תחזו בשולמית כמחולת ה-מחנים. “Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem! Turn back, turn back, that we may gaze upon you. “Why will you gaze at the Shulamite in the dance of Machanayim? [the joy at the giving of the Torah]”.
  
  Verse 4
  
     מעין נרפש ומקור משחת צדיק מט לפני רשע אכול דבש הרבות לא-טוב וחקר כבודם כבוד “A righteous man who falters in front of the wicked, is like a murky well and a polluted fountain. It is no good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to seek personal glory.”(Proverbs 25, 26-27) 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,2, Solomon taught us something here about the true measure of a righteous person. When you observe such a person falter in the face of the superior might of a wicked person, such a weakness is only momentary; it does not represent a capitulation of the righteous in face of evil. He will recover from such weakness (with the help of G’d.) This is why Solomon already wrote in Proverbs 24, 16: “For the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times.” In the end he will regain his composure and his honour and dignity. The whole matter can be compared to a well of spring water which someone steps into and momentarily causes the waters in that well to become murky. After a short while of leaving those waters to themselves they will become clear again. Similarly, the righteous will regain his composure and hence his dignity. The wicked is unable to permanently suppress the superior qualities of the righteous. Why did Solomon, or the sages who interpreted these verses of Proverbs, choose this comparison between a murky well and a polluted fountain? It is a well known fact that a river is fed by a fountain whereas the fountain draws on an original source of water. Both are recipients of their respective waters. The reason why the fountain is called מעין, i.e. something derived from עין, and we have the expression עין המים, (Genesis 24,13 where Eliezer met Rivkah) is that the eye, i.e. עין receives its water from the דמעה, the tear. Tears originate in the brain. When someone indulges in too much weeping he causes his brain to dry out. The מקור, “the source,” does not rely on outside sources for its input. It is a “self-starter.” Its waters keep increasing and never stop flowing. This is why the name מקור is an apt name applied to G’d, seeing that He is the fountainhead of everything, and seeing that because of this there is no danger that this source will ever fail. This is reflected in Jeremiah 17,13 מקור מים חיים את ה', that “the source of (life-giving) spring water is G’d Himself.” We also have Psalms 36,10 where the psalmist describes the source of such water as being with G’d, i.e. כי עמך מקור חיים, “with You is the fountain of life.” These considerations prompted Solomon to describe a righteous person who falters in the presence of a wicked person as comparable to murky waters and a polluted fountain. Both of these defects are temporary in nature and the force of the clear water is bound to reassert itself in time.
      Having told us that it is impossible to permanently sully and debase the reputation of a righteous person, just as it is impossible to permanently pollute such waters as he had described,  Solomon goes on to say that one must investigate, i.e. seek out and praise the good qualities of the righteous. He describes the moral/ethical value of discovering these good qualities of the righteous by a conscious effort to find these qualities as something better than eating a lot of honey. Whereas the consumption of too much honey is not beneficial, spending a lot of effort in finding the good character qualities of the righteous is a very worthwhile discipline and trains a person to think along the right lines. 
  There can be no question that praising the character of a righteous person is the result of a good nature, one that seeks out the good in a person rather than the negative qualities he may have. This is why Solomon describes the time spent extolling the righteous, the virtuous, as better than the time spent eating honey. The reverse is true of someone who praises good qualities he has found in a wicked person. This reflects bad  characteristics of the person doing so and if persisted in will lead to the one who thought he had discovered “goodness” in the wicked person praising him altogether, not just a particular good characteristic he had discovered in such a person. It is a psychological truth that a person is apt to extol the virtues of people whose general characteristics he shares, i.e. when you hear who praises whom you know that they are “birds of a feather.” In chapter 28,45 of his Book Proverbs, Solomon is on record as עזבי תורה יהללו רשע, that “praising a wicked person is typical of someone who has abandoned the path of Torah.” The reason is simply that people have a habit of praising those with whom they have the most in common, or מין במינו, in the parlance of our sages. King David already made the same point in Psalms 15,4 when he said: ואת-יראי ה' יכבד, “but who honors those who fear the Lord;” [He had previously spoken about that same person saying that if he considers himself a הולך תמים, living without blame, he would have to display his disdain for the wicked. Ed.] 
  Our sages in Makkot 24 understood this verse to apply to Yehoshaphat, King of Yehudah, who used to rise from his chair when he saw a Torah scholar and who would embrace him and kiss him and call him “my teacher.”
      There is something puzzling in all this. Why did the sages of the Talmud describe this particular characteristic of King Yehoshapat as something remarkable, when it is something which is incumbent upon every single Jew? Why was Yehoshaphat so special that if he complied with a virtue practiced by many, his complying with it should deserve special mention? Did not our sages comment on Ezekiel 4,14 נבלה וטרפה לא אכלתי, “I have not eaten that which died by itself or that which was torn,” (the prophet speaking) that they could not see what news the prophet told us that we had not known before? Had we then expected the prophet to have been guilty of eating such things? The sages explained that the prophet spoke about that which was permitted to him legally but which he had refrained from as there was a question if such animal had been rendered unfit as a sacrifice due to some concealed defect which had come to light too late for the sacrifice to have qualified for consumption.  In the case of Yehoshaphat we could have assumed that the fact that he was King and as such not only not obligated but maybe even not allowed to waive his honour in favour of Torah scholars, he would have refrained from paying them such honour. If, nonetheless, he did honor them it was worth noting as it demonstrated an exceptional virtue.
      Coming back to our verse and the Midrash’s interpretation of it, we must remember that when Yaakov displayed a demeaning attitude when bowing repeatedly to Esau the wicked and addressing him as “my master,” as well as when sending gifts to him, this was all part of Yaakov’s momentary weakness though in the end he roused himself and assumed the posture fitting to a man of his stature.
  וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו אל עשו אחיו ארצה שעיר שדה אדום  “Yaakov sent messengers ahead of him to his brother Esau to the Mountain of Se-ir the land of Edom.” The word מלאכים includes both messengers dispatched by human beings and messengers dispatched by G’d. Seeing that at the time Yaakov had been forced to flee to Padan Aram due to his fear of his brother Esau, he now made an attempt to assuage Esau’s hurt feelings and to ask his goodwill by sending messengers, i.e. servants, members of his household. These messengers were accompanied by the messengers (angels) who had met him at Machanayim as we had read in the previous paragraph. In this matter he acted just as had his grandfather Avraham when he had sent Eliezer on an errand to secure a wife for Yitzchak when he had prayed to G’d and had assured Eliezer that a celestial messenger would assist him in his quest (compare Genesis 24,7 “He will send His angel ahead of you.”) I already explained in that connection that the angel preceded Eliezer at the well. Something similar happened here in that the angels G’d had sent to meet Yaakov and who went with the messengers whom Yaakov sent out with the gifts preceded the gifts and thus prevented Esau his brother from harming Yaakov. All of this is based on the fact that the word מלאכים can have either of the two meanings we mentioned earlier. If we need to look for proof that celestial messengers were involved here also, all we need to look at are the words: וישובו המלאכים אל יעקב לאמור, “the messengers returned to Yaakov saying, etc.” If these returning messengers had been human beings, the Torah should have reported: “the angels came to Esau and told him such and such; subsequently they returned to Yaakov reporting that they had carried out their instructions.” The Torah does not mention any of this. This proves that the messengers in question were celestial creatures and the words (verse 7) in which the Torah reports a reply by the messengers telling him that Esau approaches with 400 armed men indicate that they answered Yaakov (וישובו) without having bothered to first go there. They had been there and they knew that Esau approached with hostile intentions. When the Torah continues in that same verse with the words באנו אל אחיך, “we have come to your brother,” this refers to human messengers; this is why the Torah had to report things in a sequential manner, i.e. that the messengers returned and told Yaakov they had completed their mission.
      When analysing the more mystical aspect of the matter, it is possible to view these messengers as fulfilling a dual role, i.e. both as Yaakov’s messengers and as G’d’s messengers, similarly to Eliezer functioning both as a celestial messenger when the Torah described him as האיש, and as an ordinary human being, servant of Avraham, when the Torah referred to him as העבד, “the servant.” This would account for the fact that the Torah described the messengers as מלאכים, although they were creatures of flesh and blood. Both approaches correspond to the truth. It is simply a matter of emphasis, i.e. whether we concentrate on the external aspects of what occurred, i.e. that which was visible to the physical eye, or whether we concentrate on the more fundamental aspects of the matter, something not visible to the naked eye. 
  It appears that the opinion of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra is based on his commentary on Parshat Balak (Numbers 22,28), where he writes ”the correct interpretation is that the she-ass actually spoke,” [i.e. that this was one of the ten miracles mentioned in the Mishnah in Avot 5,6 and Pessachim 54, involving a radical departure from the laws of nature]. If one understands the mystical aspect of the mission of the angels who came to visit Avraham, one can  similarly understand the mystical aspect of the mission of the messengers described in our verse.” Thus far Ibn Ezra.
      It is well known (based on Nachmanides) that Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father, resided in the southern part of Eretz Yisrael at this time, so that Yaakov would have had to pass through the land of Edom on his return from Padan Aram in order to rejoin his father. This is why he was so scared of Esau, as he feared Esau would come out to block his way. This is why he sent the messengers to head off any hostile confrontation.
      The sages of the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 75,2 take a different view. They describe Yaakov as taking hold of the ears of a dog by getting involved in a struggle which was not his. The last we had heard of Esau was that he pursued his own interests and married another wife to mollify his parents (28,9). According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,5 Yaakov acted very precipitously by sending messengers to Esau and reminding him of his existence, almost provoking him into a confrontation. This is how they interpret the verse in Proverbs we started out with, i.e. that Yaakov unnecessarily muddied the waters. They ascribe an overly obsequious letter from Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi to the governor of Palestine Antoninus as reflecting this lack of backbone displayed here by his ancestor Yaakov. Antoninus reputedly replied to this letter by questioning Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi: “are you then my servant? I wish I would become your servant in the hereafter.” Rabbi Yehudah replied “I am not greater than my ancestor Yaakov; and  you are not smaller than your ancestor Esau.” After all, my ancestor Yaakov sent a message to your ancestor Esau in which he addressed him as ‘your servant Yaakov.’” According to an opinion in that Midrash, we learn from here that Royalty must be addressed deferentially.
  
  Verse 5
  
  . כה תאמרון לאדוני לעשו,  this what you are to say to my lord Esau, etc.” This does not mean that Yaakov addressed Esau as “my lord” even in his absence. It means that Yaakov instructed messengers that if they would be asked  they were to say that what they were guarding and guiding was destined as “a gift for my lord Esau”, just as the Torah describes in verse 19.
     עם לבן גרתי, “I have stayed with Lavan, etc.” He was anxious to at one and the same time describe the fact that he had not stayed away from home for 22 years out of fear of his brother’s vengeance, but had remained with Lavan as he had had to work very hard. We find the words  גרתי משך in that context in Psalms 120,5 where the psalmist bemoans the fact that he had to dwell for a long time with the Meshech and the clans of Kedar. Secondly, he informed Esau that he had become very wealthy though this was of secondary importance to him. G’d had granted him wealth in return for his hard labour. His wealth was the result of the sweat of his brow, he had not inherited it from his fathers. Had his wealth derived from an inheritance, Esau would have been entitled to his share of the inheritance. Thirdly, he wanted Esau to know that he came in peace and was interested in a brotherly relationship with Esau. He was sending the messengers and the gifts to prepare the way for a friendly reunion.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired oxen and donkeys, sheep and servants.” Yaakov mentioned his great wealth by understating it, i.e. as if he had only acquired a single ox and a single donkey, etc., as he did not want to appear boastful. He followed the dictates of Jeremiah 9,22 “let not the wealthy boast of his wealth.” It is customary for all righteous people to belittle themselves and their belongings. The wicked, by contrast, boast of their wealth as we see from Esau who claimed יש לי רב, “I own a great deal” (33,9). 
  Actually, if the Torah had followed its own rules, it should have mentioned the sheep first, i.e. צאן וחמור, שור  seeing that the category called צאן, i.e. sheep and goats, is the  most superior species amongst the animals. We find that the Torah does so in the case of Avraham (Genesis 12,16) “and he treated Avram well on her account so that he acquired (flocks of) sheep and (herds of) cattle, etc.” We find a similar sequence in the way the Torah describes Yitzchak’s wealth (Genesis 26,14) “he acquired flocks of sheep and herds of cattle.” We also find this order of Yaakov’s wealth when the Torah (as distinct from Yaakov) describes it in 30,43: ”he acquired many sheep and maid-servants and men-servants and camels and donkeys.” You will note that in all of these instances the sheep (and goats) are mentioned first. If Yaakov did not want to mention his sheep and goats first this was because Esau had “lost” his blessing on account of these goats. Rivkah had sent Yaakov to the צאן, instructing him to select two good goats to prepare a meal for Yitzchak which could compete with the venison Esau was expected to hunt.(27,9). Mentioning the צאן first would have sounded like rubbing salt in Esau’s  wound. It is interesting to note that after the angels had returned to Yaakov with their report of Esau approaching in a hostile manner, the Torah describes Yaakov as dividing his earthly possessions into two camps (32,8).  Again the Torah lists the צאן before any other livestock. Even after Yaakov and Esau had reconciled and Esau had accepted Yaakov’s gifts as a sign of the reconciliation, the Torah again lists the צאן first in 33,13
      A Midrashic  (Tanchuma Vayishlach 1) approach to our verse: “Why did Yaakov first mention the fact that he had acquired oxen? He hinted that Joseph, who was going to be known as שור, “ox”, had already been born. Joseph was to be the natural enemy of Esau and what Esau represented. When describing future events, the prophet Ovadiah, 18 uses Joseph as symbolic of the entire Jewish people when he predicts: “and the House of Joseph flame, and the house of Esau straw; they shall burn it and devour it, and no survivor will be left of the House of Esau, -for the Lord has spoken.” In Deuteronomy 33,17 when Moses blesses the Jewish people, he wrote of Joseph: בכור שורו הדר לו, “like the firstling bull in his majesty, he has horns like the horns of a wild-ox.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  . וגם הולך לקראתך, “and he is also coming towards you, etc.” It is possible to explain the word וגם as including the celestial representative of Esau. who was also on the way to engage Yaakov in battle as we know from verse 25 ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” This would reinforce what I have written earlier that if the מלאכים which the Torah describes Yaakov as having sent ahead as spies or messengers had been mere mortal human beings, how would these have known anything about  the celestial representative of Esau being on the way to engage Yaakov in mortal combat? The reason the Torah uses two expressions to describe Yaakov’s fear, i.e. ויירא ויצר לו, is that Yaakov worried both about the approaching physical ecounter with Esau and at the same time he worried about the spiritual confrontation which was apparently about to take place between his and Esau’s spirit.
     וארבע מאות איש עמו., “and four hundred (armed) men with him.” These men were all ready for combat. The reason the Torah did not describe these men as coming with Esau by the word אתו rather than עמו, is that the expression אתו is reserved for the righteous. We find it in connection with the righteous Joseph such as in Genesis 39,23 באשר ה' את, seeing that G’d was with him.” The reverse is true of the wicked when we read in Chronicles 2,32,8 עמו זרוע בשר, ועמנו ה' אלוקינו לעזרנו, “with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our G’d.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו , “Yaakov was  very fearful as well as distressed.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 76,2  comment on this that the word ויירא refers to Yaakov’s fear of being killed, whereas the word ויצר refers to his discomfort at the thought of having to kill Esau in self-defense. Seeing that twenty years earlier G’d had assured him in the dream of the ladder that He would be with him and would protect him, why did he have any reason to be afraid at all? Our sages answer that Yaakov never considered G’d’s promise as ironclad but as subject to his conducting himself as worthy of it. Yaakov worried that he might have committed sins during the last twenty years which had invalidated G’d’s promise to him. This, at any rate is the approach of the Talmud to this problem in Berachot 4. The sages of the Talmud there comment further: “why is there a dot in Psalms 27,13, on the word לולא? David said: לולא האמנתי לראות בטוב ה', “If I had not had the assurance  that I would enjoy the goodness of the Lord, etc.” He meant “O Lord, I am certain that You will repay the righteous in the hereafter for the good deeds they have performed on earth. However, I am not at all sure that I will have a share in the hereafter as I may have forfeited my share through sin.” Seeing that David referred to himself as חסיד, “pious,” (compare Psalms 86,20), how could he doubt that he would have a share in the hereafter? Again the sages answer that he was afraid that some sin he had committed would result in his forfeiting his claim to the hereafter. [The dot on the second letter ל in the word לולא is considered as restrictive, as if to say “if nothing contrary to the present condition will occur.” Ed.] 
      Another approach: Yaakov was altogether not concerned about anything happening to himself, personally. After all, he was a recipient of G’d’s promise and he considered this as perfectly adequate. He was concerned about his children, his wives, and the members of his household who had not received such an assurance from G’d. This is the meaning of (verse 8) “he divided up the children (between two camps).” As proof for this interpretation look at the words פן יבא והכני אם על בנים, “lest he come and smite  me by killing children with their mother.” He did not say the word והכני, “and strike me,” as an independent statement referring to him personally, as something that he was afraid of for himself. After all, Esau’s quarrel was with Yaakov, not with his wives or children. He was not concerned about himself per se. His only fear was of what might happen to his children and to his wives.
      You ought to appreciate that this paragraph contains an explanation of what exactly did happen to Yaakov as a result of his encounter with Esau. There is also a hint of what would be a correct form of relationship between the respective descendants of Esau and Yaakov during the long course of Jewish history. It is worth our while to consider Yaakov’s preparations for his fateful encounter with Esau as something to use as a model for ourselves in our dealings with the descendants of Esau. Basically, Yaakov used a three-pronged approach. 1) He prepared to wage war if it were forced upon him. 2) He prayed to G’d for deliverance. 3) He prepared gifts to soften the mood of his adversary. The first stage of his preparation, mobilising for war, is described in our paragraph in verse eight when the Torah writes that he divided the camp in two to give himself the maximum chance for at least one camp to escape unharmed. He then engaged in prayer when he appealed to G’d, saying (verse 12) “please save me from my brother, from Esau.” The third part of his preparation, i.e.. sending gifts (or bribes if you will), is found in verses 14-21. A great Jewish King, the King Chiskiyah learned from Yaakov when Jerusalem was under siege when he faced Sancheriv, [who during his time was the foremost conqueror of the world who had already liquidated the Northern Kingdom and exiled the Ten Tribes, Ed.]. We read in Kings II 18,15 that Chiskiyah gave all the silver that was in the treasury of the Temple and in his own vaults to Sancheriv in accordance with that King’s  demands. He also readied what few forces remained at his disposal for war (Chronicles II 32,6). Finally, he prayed  (Kings II 19,15) asking G’d to demonstrate His power to the world at large by saving the Kingdom of Yehudah. We have to act similarly whenever we find ourselves threatened by hostile Gentile forces.  However, nowadays when G’d’s displeasure with us has become manifest seeing we are still in exile, we must not provoke war against our enemies as is evident from Song of Songs 2,7 השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וגו', “I have made you take an oath o daughters of Jerusalem, etc.” One opinion in the Talmud Ketuvot 111 understands the oath as an undertaking by Jews in exile not to rebel against the local rulers and try and recapture the land of Israel by force of arms.
  
  Verse 9
  
   אם יבא עשו אל המחנה האחת והכהו, “if Esau comes to one of the camps and defeats it, etc.” The first camp Esau was to encounter was that which contained Zilpah and Bilhah and their respective children. If he were to kill the people in that camp — 
  והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה, “then the remaining camp would survive.” The second camp contained Rachel, Leah, and their respective children. In order to explain this verse completely, we have to understand it as follows: “Yaakov divided the children to Rachel and Leah respectively and to the two maid-servants and their children respectively in order for them to survive attempted murder by Esau.” The expression לפליטה occurs in that sense in Jeremiah 51,50 פליטים מחרב, “fugitives from the sword.” This verse is also the source which taught the prophet Ovadiah to divide the fledgling prophets whom he hid by separating them into two groups, each in a different cave. This is why Jeremiah wrote in Kings I 18,13  quoting Ovadiah: “I have hidden 100 of the Lord’s prophets, 50 each per cave; and I have fed them bread and provided them with water.” Our sages in Baba Metzia, basing themselves on our verse, made the rule that a person is well advised to diversify his wealth into three types of investments. 1) land. 2) commerce; 3) ready cash or easily convertible and immediately accessible assets. They also base this on Deut. 28,8 “G’d will command His blessing for you in your storehouses.” The “storehouses” are a reference to warehouses serving as the place where the merchant keeps his stock-in-trade. The next words in that verse ובכל משלח ידיך, “and your every undertaking,“ are understood as a reference to ready cash or otherwise easily cashable assets. The last expression in the above verse, i.e. וברכך בארץ, “and He will bless you on the land,” refers to G’d blessing one’s investment in land (for agriculture).
      The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 76,3 sees in the line “if he will come to he one camp and smite it,” a reference to our brethren in the South, meaning if the Jews who reside in the South [either of the land of Israel under foreign occupation, or the Jews in Yemen? Ed.] will be smitten, at least the ones in exile under various other host countries will be safe. What these sages had in mind was that Yaakov knew for certain that in the future one part of the Jewish people would be saved. No matter what efforts Esau or his descendants would make to annihilate all the descendants of Yaakov, one part of the nation would always survive. Yaakov wanted to facilitate the survival of part of the Jewish people by demonstrating already now that the best way to ensure this was not to have all of them in the same camp, i.e. the same location. In fact, there is an allusion here to the historical truth that whenever a Kingdom or Empire expelled all its Jews, there was some other country willing to grant these exiles refuge and opportunities to establish themselves anew.
  
  Verse 10
  
   אלוקי אבי אברהם, “the G’d of my father Avraham, etc.” It would have appeared more appropriate for Yaakov to first mention the Ineffable Name (as he did later in the same verse). He should have said ה' אלוקי אבי אברהם. This should have been followed by אלוקי אבי יצחק האומר אלי. 
  According to a kabbalistic approach, if Yaakov had done as we have just suggested, the Ineffable Name would have been perceived as an allusion to repentance, i.e. as if it represented the attribute of Justice. [Rabbi Chavell, quoting האזרח בישראל, as well as תורת חיים, explains that the emanations are perceived as proceeding from the highest to the lowest. In a descending order we have כתר, חכמה, בינה,, (the latter being symbolic of repentance). It is followed by חסד -גבורה- תפארת and their branches. Had Yaakov used the Ineffable Name in connection with Avraham, that name would have alluded to the emanation בינה. [Our sages want Avraham to be associated primarily with the attribute of חסד, akin to “Mercy,” and when we begin to pray we first mention the patriarch Avraham as a symbol of that attribute. Ed.] We also conclude the benediction with a reference to Avraham in order to stress that we rely primarily on the attribute of Mercy when addressing our prayers, i.e. our requests to G’d. Yaakov also used that attribute last and that is why the attribute appears next to Yitzchak, though Yitzchak  represents a higher attribute as we have pointed out elsewhere. You will note that when G’d spoke to Yaakov earlier when He told him to return to the land of birth (31,3), He also employed first the Ineffable Name. 
  You are aware that the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 82, have already stipulated that the patriarchs are the true מרכבה, “carriers of the Presence and glory of G’d.” You are also aware that based on Ezekiel’s vision in chapter one of Ezekiel, as interpreted in Berachot 16 that there were only three patriarchs, i.e. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Four such carriers are needed. But only three people have qualified as “patriarchs” (compare Berachot 16). We know this because G’d describes Himself only as אלוקי אברהם, אלוקי יצחק, ואלוקי יעקב (Exodus 3,15). We do not find that the prophets such as Moses or Jonah ever qualified for G’d calling Himself: “the G’d of Moses, or the G’d of Jonah.” Although we find that Moses is described as imploring his G’d in Exodus 32,11 (ויחל משה את פני ה' אלוקיו) and something similar in the case of Jonah, this does not mean that these prophets qualified as being part of the מרכבה, the Divine entourage, or “chariot.” There is not a single instance in which G’d associates His name in an exclusive manner with either of these two prophets. On the other hand, we do find G’d saying to Chiskiyah in Kings II 20,5  אלוקי דוד אביך, “the G’d of your father David.” 
  This verse caused the senior Kabbalist in Spain הרב יצחק בן הרב אברהם to say in his prayers אלוקי דוד ובונה ירושלים, "G’d of David and the builder of Jerusalem.” He did so in order that he should be able to mention a מרכבה of G’d consisting of the required minimum of four carriers and that these carriers should all be human beings. However, Elisha’s question in Kings II 2,14 איה ה' אלוקי אליהו, “where is the Lord, the G’d of Elijah?” is not of the same category. This was a prayer and the wording is to be considered as merely rhetorical. This leaves us with the question  why our sages never included David in the list of the patriarchs or as one of the pillars of the מרכבה at all. Our sages were concerned with the vision of Ezekiel in the first chapter of his Book. There we find the מרכבה consisting of four phenomena of which only three are assigned a specific location. The text reads: ודמות פניהם פני אדם, ופני אריה אל הימין לארבעתם ופני שור מהשמאל לארבעתם ופני נשר לארבעתם.  (Ezekiel 1,10) “Each of them had a human face (at the front). The meaning of the words that “each of them had a human face,” is this was the face facing the prophet. The face on the right was that of a lion, whereas the face on the left was that of an ox. The prophet did not describe the location of the face of the eagle, such as saying that it was facing the back, for instance. The reason is that this was an attribute of G’d which deserved to remain hidden. Keeping this in mind, the Kabbalists followed this approach and did not include David in the regular number of the pillars of the מרכבה. [There is an interesting Midrash in which David implored G’d to become one of the patriarchs, meaning that when we commence the daily עמידה prayer we should begin with the words “G’d of Avraham, G’d of Yitzchak, G’d of Yaakov and G’d of David.” G’d explained to David that the three patriarchs had attained their stature due to their having successfully passed tests G’d had subjected them to. When David heard this he begged to be tested also. Although G’d warned him not to take such a chance, David insisted and was subjected to the test with Bat Sheva. We all know that he failed this test and this is why he did not join the ranks of the patriarchs. I do not recall the source of this Midrash at the moment. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
   קטנתי מכל החסדים, “I am not worthy of all the kind acts You have performed for me.” This teaches us that when a person engages in prayer that he should emphasize his own inadequacies and extol the power of the One to whom he addresses his prayer. Yaakov made this point plain by describing his relationship with G’d as “your servant.” One must also mention the manifold and varied kind deeds which G’d had already performed for the supplicant. This is what King David did in Psalms 16,2 when he said אתה טובתי בל -עליך, “You are my Lord, my benefactor; there is none above You.” He meant that the experience he had had of G’d’s kind deeds had convinced him that there is no one equal to Him as a master. A master’s kindness vis-a-vis his servant is something entirely voluntary. Similarly, all the acts of kindness performed by G’d are not rooted in any claim man has upon G’d, but are totally spontaneous. Only after having expressed such sentiments as an introduction to one’s prayer does one proceed to ask for one’s specific needs. At this point Yaakov asked: “please save me!”  As to the meaning of the words ומכל האמת, “and of all the truth,” This suggests at first glance as if G’d acted out of a sense of obligation, i.e. attribute of Justice when performing these kind deeds. Onkelos, aware of our being apt to misconstrue the meaning of the word אמת in this instance, changed the meaning of the words when  he translated them as מכל טבוון instead of as קשוט.  The plain meaning of the word אמת in our verse is: “seeing giving the land of Canaan to Yaakov was fulfillment of a long-standing promise by G’d to both Avraham, Yitzchak and himself, the fulfillment of that promise was not so much an act of kindness as an act of truth.” This is also the plain meaning of the verse in Micha 7,20 תתן אמת ליעקב חסד לישראל, “You give as an act of truth to Yaakov something that You promised to Avraham as an act of pure kindness.” G’d had not been under any obligation to promise the land of Israel to Avraham; He was, however, under an obligation to fulfill His promise to Avraham in Yaakov’s time.
     כי במקלי, “for with my staff, etc.” this teaches that one must remember the days of starvation during the time one has prospered in order not to forget the fact that one is so much better off now than then. Solomon also taught us this in Kohelet 7,14: ביום טובה היה בטוב, וביום רעה ראה, “in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune reflect.” What Solomon meant was: “reflect on the time when you suffered misfortune now that you enjoy good fortune.”
  
  Verse 12
  
   הציליני נא מיד אחי מיד עשו, “save me please, from my brother, from Esau!”  (According to Rashi) the prayer was the result of Yaakov having been told that Esau does not come to meet him in order to welcome him back like a brother, but that he is coming to meet him as an adversary, as an Esau. This is why Yaakov prayed for Divine help.
      One may also explain the wording of this prayer in a different way. Yaakov prayed for what he needed immediately and for his needs during future generations. As far as his immediate needs were concerned, he needed to be saved from “my brother.” During future generations, throughout a good part of Jewish history, he or his descendants would need to be saved “from Esau.” Concerning such future times, David also formulated a prayer in Psalms 10,15 when he said: שבור זרוע רשע, “break the power (arm) of the wicked!”
     כי ירא אנכי אותו, “for I am afraid of him.” Yaakov’s fear stemmed from the fact that Esau knew no mercy. We have proof of this in the writings of our prophets (Amos 1,11) על רדפו בחרב אחיו ושחת רחמיו, “because he pursued his brother with the sword and repressed all pity.” פן יבא והכני, “lest he come and smite me,” and he would then also murder the "mothers and the children". 
      The Midrash  wonders how such a thing is possible in view of the Torah expressly forbidding the slaughter of both mother animal and her young on the same day (Leviticus 22,28)? We have a similar prohibition concerning fowl in Deut, 22,6 where the Torah words it thus: “do not take the mother bird together with her young ones.” Yaakov was fearful of Esau violating this commandment in the future as it is written in Hoseah 10,14 אם על בנים רוטשה, “when mothers and babies were clubbed to death together.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   מן הבא בידו, “from that which had come into his hand, etc.” The Torah means “from that which he had acquired rightfully, as opposed to things which are acquired by illegal means. We have a verse in Malachi 1,13 specifically targeting gifts (offerings to G’d) which the owner had not acquired honestly.  “and you bring (as a gift) the stolen or the lame. Would I accept it from you- said the Lord?”
      Another meaning of the words: מן הבא בידו could be that it referred to gemstones, i.e. literally: “valuables capable of being carried in one’s hand.”
      There is a commentator who understands that expression to mean that there is a certain bird called falcon which is an expert hunter. Seeing that Esau was a hunter, Yaakov thought that presenting him with such a bird which had been domesticated like a hunting dog would please Esau. We would then have to translate the whole verse something like this: ”he took a gift for Esau his brother from amongst these birds, i.e. from a species Esau used to carry in his hand .”
  
  Verse 15
  
  . עזים מאתים ותישים עשרים, “two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats.” Yaakov sent ahead the goats as is customary amongst the flocks. We have other examples in Scripture when the species of goats precedes a list of other animals, such as in Jeremiah 50,8 “and be like the goats which lead the flock.” Another piece of information contained in our verse is the fact that the males of the goats and the sheep were more numerous than those of the other herds of animals Yaakov sent Esau as a gift. We observe that the camels appear to have been monogamous, seeing that Yaakov sent identical numbers of males and females. When it came to mentioning the cows and donkeys, each of which were the same number, the Torah first lists the pure species, i.e. the cows. You will observe that in each instance the female of the species was mentioned before the male seeing the females outnumbered the males.
      Another way of looking at the sequence in which these animals are listed is that they are listed in order of the time it takes for the respective species to reproduce, i.e. the length of pregnancy of the mother animal. Sheep and goats reproduce after a pregnancy of five months, camels after six months, cows after nine months and donkeys after a pregnancy of twelve months.
      I have written earlier (verse 1) that Yaakov did not really want to commence with the goats seeing that the goats had been what had enabled him to snatch the blessing away from Esau and that this was the reason he listed oxen as the first in a list of the possessions he had acquired; why then did he send precisely these goats ahead of any other flock? 
  The answer is relatively simple. As long as he had not prayed for G’d’s help and it was a matter of how the angels (or human messengers) were to announce his impending arrival to Esau, Yaakov did not want to do anything which could be interpreted as provocative. Now that he had prayed and had prevailed over the celestial force representing Esau,  he had changed his stance and wanted to do something which would make Esau afraid of him rather than the reverse. He therefore deliberately placed the goats first to hint that he had no reason to feel  afraid of him. Had he not obtained the blessing through having presented his father with two goats and obviously G’d had approved the part in which his father had said “be an overlord over your brothers, etc.?” He wanted to remind his brother that their father had designated Esau as becoming a servant to Yaakov. By placing the asses and donkeys last, in that order, Yaakov hinted that in the distant future the descendants of Esau would become the victims of the Jewish messiah who would appear riding on a donkey. We find the following verse in Zechariah 9,9 concerning this future event: “Rejoice fair Zion; raise a shout fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you He is victorious, triumphant, yet humble, riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass.” When you look at things in that way you will find that Yaakov caused Esau to become afraid of him both by the first part of the gift he sent, i.e. by the goats, as well as by the last item, the donkeys.
      When looking at the immense wealth possessed by both Esau and Yaakov, the gift listed here did not represent a meaningful addition to the wealth of either brother. The meaning of the gift was therefore more in its symbolic significance. 
  Keeping this in mind, Rabbeinu Chananel points out that the total number of animals sent by Yaakov to Esau amounts to 550. This number corresponds to the number of years the descendants of Esau preceded Yaakov (Israel) as an organized state. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ורוח תשימו בין עדר ובין עדר, “and place a space between one herd and the next.” He wanted the eye of this wicked person Esau to satiate himself by these successive gifts. Yaakov hoped to impress him with the generous size of the gift.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 Yaakov said to G’d: “if the Jewish people will be beset by troubles in the future, please let these troubles befall them at intervals so that they have a chance to recover between successive waves of persecution.” He referred specifically to heavy taxation which would be imposed by rulers in the countries in which Jews were going to be exiled.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויעבר את מעבר היבוק , “he crossed the ford of the Yabok.” He wanted to test if the river bed would rise for him  (according to Nachmanides) and would enable him to cross on foot. Once he saw that the water level was shallow enough —  ויקחם ויעבירם את הנחל, “he took them and brought them across the river.”  He then retraced his steps and —ויעבר את אשר לו, “and he brought his belongings across.”  He commanded his servants to do this. As a result he himself was the last one left on the wrong side of the river.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
    ויותר יעקב לבדו, “when Yaakov had remained alone, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 77,3 state that  these words should be read as if Yaakov returned for his jug (read לכדו instead of לבדו). This teaches that Yaakov went back across the river to retrieve small vessels which had been overlooked. This teaches that the righteous are very meticulous even with relatively low-cost items seeing that when you acquire things by making certain none of them has been tainted by being stolen or otherwise illegally acquired, one does treasure what one has more than do other people who do not mind to acquire things less honestly. This is Rashi’s approach to our verse. Another approach: the vessels were used to drink out of and Yaakov was concerned that the younger children should have a chance to drink from them on the journey. [According to this interpretation, the correct translation of the words פכים קטנים, would be “vessels that the little ones drink from,” rather than “small vessels.”] He endangered himself in order to have convenient drinking vessels for his small children.
       ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.”  According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning of ויאבק is the same as ויחבק seeing that the letters אהע"ח are frequently interchangeable. Our sages in Sotah 21 use the word אבוקה and חבוקה interchangeably. An אבוקה, torch, is so called as it is composed of pieces of wood which “embrace” each other, i.e. חבוקה.
      A Midrashic approach. (Bereshit Rabbah 76,3 and 77, 2) The word ויאבק  is derived from אבק, “dust.” It means that Yaakov became enveloped by the dust of the person engaging him in a struggle. The “man” was the celestial representative of Esau.
   It is well known that had it not been for the original sin in Gan Eden there would not be a noticeable difference between man and angel. On the contrary, man would outrank the angel in every respect. We base this on Sanhedrin 93 “the righteous are greater than the angels.” Accordingly, the “angel” came to try and find a sin Yaakov was guilty of in order to use the sin as a weapon to overpower him. However, he did not succeed. The only “sin” he could find was that Yaakov had married two sisters during their lifetime, something which had not yet been forbidden The Torah alludes to this when writing: “he inflicted an injury on Yaakov’s hip joint.” This was a euphemism for his sexual organs and the seat of sexual desire. The “punishment,” such as it was, was administered near that organ so that Yaakov limped for a while.
      Another allusion included in the words ויגע בכף ירכו, “he struck the socket of his hip,”  is that the damage inflicted by the celestial representative of Esau would manifest itself in later generations, amongst descendants of Yaakov who would suffer under the Romans. When the Torah wrote that the “angel” was unable to harm Yaakov, i.e. כי לא יכול לו, the meaning is that he was unable to harm Yaakov personally. He did not have permission to do so as Yaakov was unblemished. Later generations who would not be so unblemished  would become victims of Esau, however. This happened in the generation of Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava and his colleagues when that Rabbi became a martyr in order to save his students during the period when the Romans tried to wipe out Jews and Judaism (Sanhedrin 13). The Talmud tells the following story. Rabbi Chiyah bar Abba said: “if someone were to tell me to offer my life for the holy name of G’d I would be prepared to do so on condition that they would kill me quickly. If I had been asked to do the same during the period of שמד, [the persecutions of Jews and Judaism under Emperor Hadrianus] I would not be able to do so as I am not able to undergo such tortures.” What did they do in that generation? They brought iron bars which had been made white-hot. They then placed these bars under the arm pits of the victims and this is the way these people died.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויאמר שלחוני, “he (the angel) said: ‘let me go!’” The angel was afraid that if he were to leave without having obtained Yaakov’s permission they would punish him in heaven with having to endure the פולסי דנורא [some physical punishment administered by a fiery rod and mentioned in Chagigah 15 and elsewhere as an instrument for disciplining wayward angels. Ed.] We have another reference to this incident in (Hoseah 12,5) “He strove with an angel and prevailed; the other had to weep and implore him.”
     כי עלה השחר, “for dawn as risen.” When the angel asked to leave before daybreak Yaakov asked him: “are you a thief that you need to fear daylight?”  He answered “I am an angel and ever since I have been created I have not yet had the opportunity to sing a song of praise to the Lord in the heavenly choir. Today is my opportunity.” There is a reference to this in Scripture (Job 38,7) ברן יחד  כוכבי בוקר ויריעו כל בני אלוקים. “When the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy.” The time of dawn is the time when the קדושה is recited as mentioned by Isaiah 6,3 “and one would call to he other: Holy, Holy, Holy.” Hearing this, Yaakov replied:  לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, “I will not let you go unless you first bless me.” He wanted Esau’s angel to acknowledge that the blessing he had received from Yitzchak was acknowledged by Esau as being rightfully his. Thereupon the angel said:  לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל, “your name will no longer be Yaakov but Israel.” He meant that from now on people will no longer say that you obtained the blessings by subterfuge, but they will admit that you are the rightful recipient of them. Alternatively, what the angel meant was that if anyone were to accuse Yaakov of having swindled Lavan they would be proven wrong as Yaakov had been accorded the attribute “Truth”, i.e. that he had acted truthfully in all his undertakings. This was confirmed in Michah 7,20 “You have given “truth” to Yaakov.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   כי שרית עם אלוקים, “for you have contended with Divine forces.” In this instance the word elohim refers to the angel representing Esau with whom Yaakov had wrestled. The words ועם אנשים in the same line, refer to Lavan and Esau. 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,3 the words כי שרית עם אלוקים mean that Yaakov’s countenance was engraved on the throne of G’d and the angel had realized this after looking at Yaakov.
  
  Verse 30
  
   למה זה תשאל לשמי, “why is this that you ask for my name?” He meant: “we do not have a fixed name; our names always change according to the mission we are sent on.” 
  Another meaning of these words: “why do you ask for a name seeing that we are not in the habit of revealing our names?” The reason an angel does not like to reveal his name is so as not to appear to crown himself with the success of any mission he has been sent on. He does not want a human being to go around saying: “this and this angel has performed such and such a miracle.” He is a servant, a mere extension of his Master in Heaven and he is careful not to to do something which would create the wrong impression. This was the reason that the angel who had announced to Manoach and his wife that they would have a son resented being asked for his name (Judges 13,18) saying that his name was פלאי, “something concealed. This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,7: כל הנקרא בשמי-לכבודי בראתיו, “everything which bears My name,- I have created it for the sake of My honour.” This is also the thrust of David saying in Psalms 29,1: “ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.”
      There are some commentators who have explained the words “why do you ask for my name” as “seeing that I have been defeated, what is the pointed in your knowing my name? Usually the victor wants his own name to become known. The loser does not want his name known so as to suffer the minimum of embarrassment.
     ויברך אותו שם, “he blessed him there.” He acknowledged that Yaakov was the rightful owner of the blessings his father had bestowed upon him. According to a Midrash the blessing the angel bestowed upon Yaakov at this time was identical with what would later on become the standard formula of the Priests blessing the Jewish people as recorded in Numbers 6,24-27.
      A logical/investigative approach: The words: “a man wrestled with him,” refer to Gavriel. [We have shown on other occasions that Gavriel is referred to as איש “man.” Ed.] According to the philosophers, Gavriel is symbolic of the active investigative intelligence. [According to Kabbalistic writings this disembodied intelligence supplies the outer form to human beings based on their endowments (genes), Ed.] This force is the tenth of the emanations (the lowest counting from the top) the one we call מלכות which is just one rung above the physical universe, the עולם העשיה. This is the reason that the term איש which is usually only associated with tangible creatures is applied to Gavriel. Yaakov wanted to know if it is possible that this “man’s” soul while still enclosed in a body could attain or represent a spiritual level equal to disembodied intelligences such as the force with whom he had done battle. [In other words, this category of angel might be perceived as the link between the highest intelligence found inside a body and the lowest intelligence able to exist as a disembodied entity. Ed.] The angel, i.e. Gavriel, answered him that this was possible only after dawn, i.e. until the various forces which darken the soul have disappeared with the light of morning. This physical light, though symbolic of spiritual light, is here described as עלות השחר. 
      Let me now explain the whole episode to you based on the premise we have just outlined. I am basing myself on a Jewish philosopher in Seville who wrote this commentary in the course of his discourse on Song of Songs. I have merely translated what he wrote into Hebrew:
   ויותר יעקב לבדו, “Yaakov remained alone deep in thought, divesting himself of the influences exerted upon him by his body so that his thinking was unimpaired by such influences.” He desired to know if his own intellect had attained the level which  when the Torah speaks of certain celestial forces (such as Gavriel) is described as איש.
  It is understood that what is described as התאבקות, “a wrestling match,” takes place between evenly matched opponents. The Torah informs us here that in that struggle Yaakov did not attain superiority, i.e. the ability to function just like a disembodied spirit free from bodily influences, until the break of dawn. The word שחר stands for the restrictive influence of the body on the mind. Until Yaakov was able to rid himself of that influence, i.e. עד עלות השחר, “until the departure of that שחר,” he was not able to fully assert his שכל הפועל, his free-roaming intellect.
     וירא כי לא יוכל לו, now that the disembodied intellect no longer held an advantage over Yaakov’s intellect, though the latter was imprisoned in a body, ויגע בכף ירך יעקב, and the forces of the body are identified by the expression כף ירך, the part of the physique which is essential in man, it became clear to Yaakov that his disadvantage vis-a-vis disembodied intellects  was due only to the fact that he was imprisoned in a body.
     ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר, at this point the disembodied intellect hints that the intellect embodied within Yaakov will become totally independent once the restrictive shackles of being imprisoned in a body, i.e. שחר  are removed. The נפש השכלית, the intellectual life-force within Yaakov is on a par with the intellects of such disembodied beings as the angels. He (the “angel”) mentioned this simile as something similar to someone who dismisses a servant or friend as he no longer needs him. It was a compliment the angel paid to Yaakov.
     ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, this teaches that the intellectual life-force within Yaakov’s body held on to the disembodied intellect represented by the “angel”. He (Yaakov) was not prepared to let go of the disembodied spirit he had embraced during this nocturnal encounter until this force had left an imprint on him which would not become dispelled as soon as he released the disembodied intelligence from his “embrace.” He insisted on attaining the intellectual level he had aspired to in an irreversible manner, not merely as a temporary spiritual-intellectual “high.” 
     ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך , remember that the name Yaakov has a connotation of “humiliation, degradation.” We encounter this when he was born when the Torah described him as holding on to his twin brother’s heel (Genesis 25,26). Such an  activity as holding on to someone else’s heel is certainly creating an image of someone servile, someone in a degrading condition. After all, the heel is the very lowest part of the body. The name ישראל by contrast evokes the image of something superior. This is why the “angel” said: “you are entitled to be known by a name which conveys something lofty.” He gave as the reason for this change of name the fact that כי שרית עם אלו-הים ועם אנשים, that Yaakov’s intellectual life-force had proven to be equal to the intellect of disembodied spiritual beings even though his own intellect was still imprisoned within a body, This is the meaning of the words ועם אנשים. Actually, there had been no need for this word; if someone holds his own in a contest with divine forces he is most certainly understood to be even to or superior to any human contestant. The use of the words עם אנשים therefore adds a new dimension to our verse. Yaakov was very anxious to have confirmation that his own נפש השכלית, was on a par with that of disembodied spiritual creatures though his own spirit was still connected to his body.
     הגידה נא שמך, he wanted confirmation of what the “angel” had said by being able to identify him by name. The name would give Yaakov a clue as to the essence of that spiritual force. But the angel did not fulfill his request. He responded למה זה תשאל לשמי — that Yaakov did not need this information as he had already achieved a great deal and had risen to the level of disembodied heavenly spirits.  The Torah goes on with a report of the consequences of this encounter by writing על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה אשר על כף הירך, “this is why the children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew of the hip-socket.” This means that seeing the נפש השכלית is meant to adjust to the norms of the disembodied intellect, the true Israelites are not to engage in activities which arouse the libido which is seated near the hip-socket. The meaning of the word “eat” here does not only mean the actual consumption of this part of animalistic tissue but also what it symbolizes, i.e. absorbing the philosophy it represents.
      From a purely physical point of view, this sinew is a very tough sinew and comparable to a tough cord. Cords become harder and tougher with use through pulling wagons, etc. Similarly, when one engages in such activities as arousing one’s libido, this leaves a progressively deeper imprint on one’s personality. The more frequently one engages in such activities the more they become part of one’s personality. Hence, the prohibition of “eating” that sinew has also deep psychological significance for the Jewish people. Preoccupation with such concerns gradually estranges one to G’d. 
  The act of “eating” if performed within reason, i.e. in quantities appropriate to the body’s need, actually promotes both good physical and spiritual health. Eating to excess results in corruption of the body and ultimately the soul. The same is true when one indulges any of the other תאוות הגוף, physical desires. אשר על כף הירך, the importance of this particular sinew is that the entire body relies heavily on it so that if it is damaged one cannot even move. It therefore represents all physical desire.   עד היום הזה, this does not refer to a specific date. The meaning of the words is that as long as the desires of the body assert themselves in man the restriction expressed in this prohibition remains in force. The arrival of the hereafter signifies a new יום, “Day,” as documented by many of our prophets. Hence, the Torah says that as long as man (Israel) is a mortal human being this prohibition will remain in force.  כי נגע בכף ירך יעקב, the reason the Torah deliberately reverts to naming Israel “Yaakov” at this juncture, is to stress that the influence of physical desire is what “separates the men from the boys,” i.e. what is the true impediment of every “Yaakov” developing into an “Israel.” It is within the power and scope of physical desires to drag down the נפש השכלית in man to the level represented by Yaakov at birth, i.e. a degraded person who hangs on to the heel of his totally physically oriented brother.   We find an interesting parallel of this concept in Kings I 18,31 ויקח אליהו שתים עשרה אבנים כמספר שבטי בני-יעקב אשר היה דבר ה' אליו לאמור ישראל יהיה שמך. “Eliyahu took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Yaakov, to whom G’d had said: ‘your name shall be Israel.’” What was the need for the Book of Kings to add the words: ‘to whom G’d had said: ”your name shall be Israel?’” Are we then fools that we did not know who Yaakov was? The answer is that at the time of the prophet Eliyahu the Israelite people were in a state of rebellion against G’d. They actively worshiped the Baal, misled by the prophets and priests who preached the religion of the Baal. Eliyahu reminded them in the verse quoted that they were guilty of devoting themselves to the physical, to the desires of the body, whereas their task in life had been to devote themselves to the meta-physical, to the Divine. The word יעקב in the verse above symbolized the physical whereas the word ישראל symbolized the spiritual, the meta-physical. Eliyahu reminded them that G’d had instructed them to become שכליים, intellectually oriented people, similar to the angels. We also find in Psalms 82,6 that at one time G’d had said of Man “you are divine,” only to find that due to their having committed a sin involving following their physical desires they became mortal, far from divine. In 35,9 when G’d says to Yaakov לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב כי-אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “you will no longer be called Yaakov but your name shall remain Israel,” the message is not so much a compliment but a moral/ethical imperative to live according to the yardsticks applied to individuals deserving of the distinctive title ישראל. This is why our sages in Berachot 13 stated that ישראל was henceforth Yaakov’s major name, the name Yaakov being used only in a secondary sense. This also explains G’d’s instructions to Moses in Exodus 19,3 prior to the giving of the Torah כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל , “thus you shall say (briefly) to the house of Yaakov, and tell (in detail) to the children of Israel.” The women were referred to as “Yaakov,” as they are adjuncts to the men (in terms of Torah study), the men as “Israel.” Thus far the words of the philosopher. If I perhaps have not translated his words verbatim, this was because I basically wanted only to convey the gist of his approach. 
  I would add, based on the approach of this philosopher, that the fact that the Torah calls the name of the  place where Yaakov had this encounter  once פניאל and another time פנואל, is a hint that the first name alludes to this angel representing the tenth emanation (meaning of the letter י)  the type of angel known as איש. Once Yaakov/Israel had passed that place and had properly assimilated this new concept of man’s נפש שכלית being capable of matching the spiritual level of the intellect of the disembodied angels, the place was called פנואל with the letter ו, as we now find that Yaakov was limping on his hip-socket. He had become aware of his body’s being an impediment to spiritual progress which needed to be overcome.
      A kabbalistic approach to this episode: The words ויאבק איש עמו are a reference to כבוד נברא במלאכים, a concept we encountered when the angels visited Avraham. [Briefly, if I understand it correctly: on the one hand we find the term מלאך applied to man, on the other hand, we find the term איש applied to angels. Whenever such “inverted” terms are used they are expressions of honor, compliments to the person or angel undergoing the respective experience. In this instance the מלאך assuming human form compliments the human being who is to experience his presence, whereas when a human being is described as מלאך this is a compliment to the angels into whose spheres he has been transplanted for the experience described. In more mundane terms “when in Rome do as the Romans do,” and vice versa. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וישתחו ארצה שבע פעמים “he bowed earthwards seven times.” The Torah could have written “three times,” as we find in connection with David and Yonathan (Samuel I 20,41) where we are told: ויפול לאפיו ארצה וישתחו שלש פעמים, that David bowed his face to the ground and prostrated himself three times before Yonathan (the crown prince). The reason the Torah here mentions the number seven is to remind us that when a righteous person falls down even seven times, he will rise again and regain his composure (compare Proverbs 24,16).
  
  Verse 4
  
  . וישקהו, “and he kissed him.” The word is written with dots on top of the letters. We know that whenever the sages of the massorah have seen fit to place these dots on top of a word or a letter they did so in order to attract our attention. Here the reason they placed these dots was to let us know that this kiss was not whole-hearted. It was a kiss which originated in anger. We find a similarly motivated kiss in Proverbs 27,6 ונעתרות נשיקות שונא, “the kisses of an enemy are profuse.” Amos 1,11 explains the matter when he writes: ויטרוף לעד אפו ועברתו שמרה נצח, “because his anger raged unavailing, and his fury stormed forever. “
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . יש לי רב, “I have a great deal.” Esau spoke very haughtily. If you take a close look at the verses you will note that Yaakov is rather long-winded whereas Esau is brief and succinct. This is proof of his arrogance. Moreover, you will note that Yaakov introduces the name of G’d into every aspect of his speech, such as when he says: “the children with whom G’d has graciously endowed me.” He refers to Esau’s accepting his gift being comparable to his being allowed to see  the “face of G’d;” (verse 10) or  to G’d as having granted him this wealth (verse 11). Esau, on the other hand, did not refer to G’d a single time.
     אחי יהי לך אשר לך    , “keep what is yours my brother.” Bereshit Rabbah 78,11 comments on these words of Esau that up until that moment Yaakov still entertained doubts whether the blessings were securely his. Now that he heard Esau acknowledge “keep what is yours,” he was visibly relieved concerning the validity of these blessings. He based this on the precise wording of Esau’s comment which contained ten letters. These ten words corresponded to the ten blessings which formed  the blessing commencing with the words ויתן לך (Genesis 27,28-29).
  
  Verse 10
  
   כי על כן ראיתי פניך, “inasmuch as I have seen your face.” I believe the correct interpretation of this verse is: “accept this gift from me in order to demonstrate your goodwill towards me, just as someone who offers a gift to his ruler feels reassured when the ruler condescends to accept his gift.” 
      Our sages (Sotah 41-42) understand the words כראות פני אלוהים as follows: Rabbi Yochanan said: “it is permissible to flatter the wicked people of this world as we know from the above verse where Yaakov flattered Esau.” He disagrees with Rabbi Pedot in this regard as the latter said that even if the motivation of such flattery is based on fear, it is not permissible. He bases his opinion on Psalms 101,7: “he who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes.” We also have a verse in Job 13,16: “for no flatterer can come into His presence.” As to how one can reconcile the message of these verses  with Yaakov’s behaviour in our verses, or rather, with Rabbi Yochanan’s view that what Yaakov did was in order, Rabbi Yochanan will reply  that the type of flattery attributed here to Yaakov is permissible as it was of a general nature and his wording allowed of more than one interpretation. His words were capable of a favourable interpretation or an unfavourable interpretation. The word ראיתי,  “I have seen,” could be interpreted as Yaakov being critical of Esau just as we find such a meaning in Psalms 22,18: “while they look on (יביטו יראו בי) and gloat.” A similar negative meaning can be attributed to Yaakov using the word אלוהים in describing Esau’s face. The word is meant as a description of an idol. If the wicked person to whom Yaakov’s words were addressed chose to interpret them as flattering him, then this is Esau’s problem, not Yaakov’s. Our sages in Chulin 94 are on record as saying: “if he wants to deceive himself, he cannot claim that I have deceived him.” We similarly find that the sages ( Nedarim 62) permitted the Torah scholar to say: “I am a servant of fire,” in order to secure exemption from head-tax.” The reason such apparently flagrantly idolatrous statements are admissible is that G’d Himself has been described in the Torah as אש אוכלה הוא, “a consuming fire’ (Deut. 4,24). The Torah scholar may have referred to that verse when describing himself as the “servant of fire.” Seeing that such double-entendres were motivated by fear they were permissible.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   נסעה ונלכה ואלכה , “travel on and let us go!” Seeing that Esau uses both the singular and the plural when he said “let us go,” and “I will proceed, etc.,” it is  possible to understand that Esau made two requests of Yaakov. He said: “if you want to we can travel together. Alternately, I will  keep my distance and proceed on a course parallel to yours”. The word נגדך would then have a similar meaning to Genesis 21,16 ותשב לה מנגד הרחק, “she sat down some distance away.” Yaakov replied that he could not travel together with Esau. This is why he said: “my lord knows that  the children are tender, etc.” However, Esau did travel a parallel route some distance away. This is what the Torah means  that he went to Seir, whereas Yaakov went to Sukkot. 
      According to the Midrash: There is a deeper meaning behind the mention of these names. When Esau said נסעה ונלכה, “let us travel on,” Esau had said to Yaakov: “let us divide the world”  i.e. both the present life as well as the hereafter between us. Yaakov replied: “the children are tender;” he meant that they are  still not trained to perform the commandments. If I choose to give them part of the attractions in the present life before they are able to handle such temptations, ומתו כל הצאן, “the whole  flock may die,” (figure of speech for forfeiting one’s afterlife) and they will not be ready to cope with judgment in Gehinom. Therefore, יעבר נא אדוני, “go ahead my lord (and take possession of the good life in this world) and I will take my time in exile, etc. i.e. אתנהלה לאטי “according to my own slow pace”. The word אט occurs as an expression signifying שפלות,  humiliation, in Kings I 21,27 “Achav walked in humiliation.” Yaakov implied that while in exile in this world he would not rebel against his humiliating conditions by provoking war against the host countries. This is implied by the words לרגל המלאכה. As to how long such a condition of the Jewish people in exile would continue, he said עד אשר אבא אל אדוני שעירה “until I come to my lord to Se-ir,” meaning until the time of the redemption arrives when ועלו מושיעים בהר שעיר, when they will conquer Mount Se-ir.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  .עד אשר אבא אל אדוני שעירה , until I come to my lord at Se-ir.” Actually Yaakov had no intention of traveling to Se-ir; on the contrary, he wanted to put as much distance as possible between himself and Esau. This is why he told Esau that he had a distant target although we find he stopped already at Sukkot, way short of that distance (compare Rashi). Basing themselves on what Yaakov said here, our sages in Avodah Zarah 25 advised “if a pagan asks you where you are headed, tell him a destination which is twice as far removed as your true destination just as did Yaakov at the time he met Esau.”
      A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 78,14. We cannot find a single reference in Scripture that Yaakov ever arrived in Se-ir. Was the truthful Yaakov then a liar? He was no liar. He referred to the time in the future of which Ovadiah 21 prophesied that the Jews, i.e. Yaakov’s descendants, would capture Mount Seir as part of the process of redemption of the Jewish people. This is why you find an allusion to this when you put together the last letters in the words אבא אל אדוני שעירה where you found that they combine to make the name אליה the harbinger of the redemption, the period when Israel will defeat Edom, Se-ir. This is a reference to Maleachi 3,23 “Here I am going to send you Eliyahu the prophet, etc.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  למה זה אמצא חן בעיני אדני, “why all this? Let me find favour in your eyes.” The words למה זה do not form part of the four words למה זה אמצא חן, but they are two separate statements.  The first two words refer to Esau’s offer (or threat) to provide Yaakov with an escort. The second part of the verse means: “you have already done enough for me by letting me find favour in your eyes.” Yaakov implied that this was more important to him than an escort of numerous people.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויבא יעקב שלם, “Yaakov arrived whole.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah tells us that Yaakov arrived at the border of the land of Canaan, a place called Salem.  According to Onkelos and Rashi the word שלם is not the name of a town but describes a condition in which Yaakov arrived at Shechem. They say that Yaakov was whole both in spirit and in body and with all his possessions intact when he arrived in the land of Canaan. This view is based on Shabbat 33. Dinah left her father’s house while they resided at (near) Shechem. This is where she was raped. When the Torah writes in verse 19 that Yaakov acquired a plot of land from the people of Chamor (the inhabitants of Shechem) upon which he pitched his tent, this showed that he was unwilling to be a mere tourist in the neighbourhood, but wanted to establish rights of citizenship in that area. Although Yaakov had not planned it, it so happened that in the future when the Jewish people conquered the land under the leadership of Joshua, this was the first part of the country they took possession of even before they dispossessed the local inhabitants. 
  Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra comments that the words: “he acquired a plot of land,” teach us that the land of Israel is so beloved that anyone who owns a piece of it is assured of his place in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויצב שם מזבח ויקרא לו אל אלוהי ישראל , “he set up an altar there and he called it G’d, G’d the Lord of Israel.” The plain meaning of these words is that Yaakov named the altar after the G’d who had performed a miracle for him at that site. Moses did something similar as the Torah reports in Exodus 17,16 after Israel had warded off the attack by Amalek “Moses built an altar and called it: ‘G’d is My banner.’”
      A kabbalistic approach: the G’d of Israel called Yaakov “EL.” This is also what our sages have said in Bereshit Rabbah 79,8. The wording there is that G’d said to Israel: “I am G’d in heaven whereas you are  “EL” on earth.” This would reflect what we have quoted repeatedly that Yaakov’s likeness is engraved on the throne of G’d. The meaning of these strange words in the Midrash is that the שכינה resides in the land of Israel. This would account for Bileam having said in Numbers 23,8 “how can I curse when “EL” has not cursed?” He referred to Yaakov when he said “EL.” [The wording in my edition is quite different, i.e. Israel speaking in those terms to G‘d. The Midrash adds that Yaakov spoke out of turn and that G’d criticised him and the rape of Dinah was a result of his overbearing statement. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותצא דינה בת לאה, “Dinah, Leah’s daughter went out, etc.” What happened to Dinah was a punishment for Yaakov for several misdemeanours. Firstly, he had said to Lavan (30,33) “let my integrity testify for me in the future.” Secondly, he was punished for denying Esau a glimpse of Dinah, for maybe she could have exercised a beneficial influence on him if he had married her. Thirdly, he was arrogant in assuming authority on earth as indicated by the name he gave the altar. According to Bereshit Rabbah, G’d told him: “never praise yourself with something that is in the future.” You have said: “let  my integrity testify for me in the future. Tomorrow your daughter will leave her house and she will be raped.” [The implication is that if he had seen to it that she was properly chaperoned this could not have happened. Ed.]  
  Furthermore,  the Torah had reported (32,23) “he took his two wives and his maid-servants and his eleven children and presented them to Esau.” Where was Dinah? The report in the Torah alerts us to the fact that Yaakov had hidden Dinah in a box so that Esau would not become aware of her. G’d said to Yaakov: “because you did not make an effort for her to be married to a circumcised male she will become married to an uncircumcised male. Not only that, but she will be raped first.” 
  Another criticism of Yaakov mentioned in the Midrash in the name of G’d is the fact that he had assigned G’d sovereignty in the heavens whereas arrogating to himself something parallel in the terrestrial spheres as we explained in connection with his naming the altar. G’d said to him: “even the reader in the synagogue does not arrogate to himself the right to act on behalf of the congregants. He waits for an invitation by the congregation to act on their behalf. Tomorrow your daughter will be raped.”
   The reason this punishment followed the misdemeanour so promptly was because Yaakov had spoken to G’d in a somewhat provocative manner.
      The reason the Torah describes Dinah as ”Dinah the daughter of Leah went out,” when we all know she was Leah’s daughter is because she was trying to attract attention to herself; she had bedecked herself  (Bereshit Rabbah 80,1). She proved to be a true daughter of her mother who had also attracted attention to herself by leaving her tent as we have been told in 30,16. Scripture is critical of women who leave the security and modest environment of their homes unnecessarily. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 7,11-12 “She is loud and rebellious, her feet would not stay home. Now outside, now in the streets, she lurks at every corner.” David had written about a woman who stays at home. that “the true measure of a princess is found in the fact that she remains indoors.” (Psalms 45,14) When the angels asked Avraham where Sarah was, he answered: “here she is in the tent (Genesis 18,9).”
   The Midrash explains in that connection that a woman who remains within the confines of her home confers forgiveness upon the members of her house by her very presence therein,  just as the altar in the Temple conferred forgiveness on the Jewish people. We have an allusion to this in Scripture when David wrote  (Psalms 128,3)  “your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house;” the inside of the house is called ירכתי ביתך in that verse. We also have a verse  concerning the function of the altar in which a similar point is made when the Torah wrote (Leviticus 1,11) ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח, “he is to slaughter it on the ירך, ‘the side’ of the altar. The word ירך also describes the function of the woman to bear children. The altar and woman have something vital in common. If woman fulfills here role of presiding first and foremost within the confines of her home, she will have the kind of children who will be anointed with the oil of anointing (the oil with which the High Priest was anointed) compare Psalms 128,3 “your sons will be like olive saplings.” 
  Our sages in Yuma 16 have also said  that there was a woman by the name of Kimchit who lived to see all her seven sons anointed as High Priest at one time or another. In response to the question how it was possible that she enjoyed such a singular distinction, she replied that the ceiling in her house had never seen the plaits of the hair on her head. The reason the psalmist chose to compare the fertility of a model wife to the vine (“your wife shall be like a fruitful vine“, Psalms 128,3) is that vines are planted inside the rear of the house. As they grow, its branches find the sun through holes in the walls. In other words, this is the only tree whose trunk grows inside whereas its branches develop outside. This tree is therefore an appropriate simile for the kind of woman we have discussed. Such a woman not only stays inside her house but she is not near the entrance of her house where she would be exposed to everyone’s view. This is what Solomon criticized about the foolish woman whom he described as sitting at the entrance to her house (Proverbs 9,14). Seeing the mother takes care of everything within the house, her sons go out to the field to do their various kinds of work. These sons are compared to olive saplings. The reason David chose this simile is that unlike other trees which are receptive to the practice of grafting, the olive tree rejects grafts (Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:7),[much like the human body has a tendency to reject even organs from another human being. Ed.] Similarly, the paternity of the sons of such a chaste woman will never be questioned. Another reason for comparing the children of such a woman to olive saplings is that the fruit of the olive tree matures after nine months similar to the fruit of woman. Such a woman does not experience miscarriages and all her children are born after a full pregnancy of nine months. We have been taught in Bechorot 8 that the pure domestic animals of the beef variety carry their young for nine months. You are no doubt aware that the Levites sang 15 psalms commencing with the words שיר למעלות, “song of the steps” on the Temple steps corresponding to the 15 steps which led up to the level of the Sanctuary from the antechamber. The song from which the above-mentioned verse is taken is the ninth in that series (compare Psalms 120-134). The words סביב לשלחנך “all around your table,” in the verse above mean that the sons are all assembled at the table to serve their mother at meal-time.
      Furthermore, it is a well known fact that all trees have a “heart” which becomes exposed when you cut down the trunk. The only exception to this rule is the olive tree. Perhaps this is the reason why eating olives led to the person who has consumed them forgetting the Torah he has studied, his heart becoming dull and unresponsive to learning. Our sages have distinguished between the effect of eating olives and consuming olive oil. The former has a negative effect even on matters one has studied for seventy years whereas the latter has a beneficial effect, restoring to one’s memory what one had forgotten for a long time. (Horiot 13)
      An additional explanation of the words אשתך כגפן פוריה, “your wife shall be as fruitful as a vine,” is a reference to the time when the woman menstruates and observes blood oozing from her insides. The additional words בירכתי ביתך, “in the innermost part of your house,” are a hint that during her period of menstruation her husband has to keep his distance from her. The psalmist assures such a woman that if she does observe this legislation meticulously, then “your sons will be like olive saplings.” The reason that the psalmist spelled the word אשתך with the vowel segol under the letter א instead of the vowel chirik which we would have expected, [making the word sound like “your fire”,  Ed.] is that during the period in question he is to stay away from from her as if from fire. When she conducts herself in accordance with Jewish norms her sons will not display any character blemishes.
     לראות בבנות הארץ, “to look around amongst the daughters of the land.” She wanted to watch the girls perform dances. We find a similar expression in Judges 21,21 וראיתם והנה אם-ילאו בנות שילה לחול במחולות, “as soon as you see the girls of Shiloh coming out to join the dances, etc.”
      A Midrashic approach: the word לראות, “to see,” means “to see and to be seen.” We read in verse six: ויצא חמור אבי שכם אל יעקב לדבר אתו, Chamor the father of Shechem went out to Yaakov to speak with him.” About this the Tanchuma 7 Vayishlach writes:  He said to him: ‘I know that your grandfather Avraham was a prince as the Hittites had acclaimed him as: “you are a prince in our midst” (23,6). I, however, am a prince in the land also. Give the daughter of a prince to a prince (my son) as a wife.” Upon hearing this Yaakov replied: “The title ‘prince’ is applicable only to a שור, ox” (not to a donkey, meaning of the name Chamor.) The Torah had written that Avraham ran to the cattle, (ox) (18,7) and it is written in Proverbs 14,4: ורב תבואות בכח שור, “a bountiful harvest is due to the strength of the ox.” An ox and a donkey cannot mate together. The Torah writes expressly: “you shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” In the Book of Prophets (Kings II 14,9) we find the following statement: “The thistle in Lebanon sent the following message to the cedar in Lebanon. ‘give your daughter to my son in marriage.’ But a wild beast in Lebanon went by and trampled down the thistle.” The wild beasts in that parable are the sons of Yaakov who have been compared to wild beasts. In the blessings bestowed on Yaakov’s sons by their father, Yehudah is compared to a lion (49,9); Dan is compared to a snake (49,17); Binyamin is compared to a wolf (49,27); Naftali to a gazelle (49,21). When the Book of Kings spoke about the wild beasts trampling the thistle, the reference was to the sons of Yaakov Shimon and Levi killing the male inhabitants of Shechem. The prophet Hoseah also complains about a similar occurrence in Hoseah 6,9 where he wrote about what would happen to the people of Shechem in his own time because they encouraged depravity. The people would be murdered because they had been guilty of sexual misconduct.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ותדבק נפשו בדינה, “His soul became attached to Dinah.” At that time Dinah was eight years and one month old. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 72,6) arrive at this conclusion by assuming that Leah’s prayer that her fetus should be a girl was offered when she was in a state of advanced pregnancy. Dinah was born before Joseph as the Torah mentions Rachel as becoming pregnant after her birth. Joseph was born 14 years  after Yaakov had arrived in Charan when Yaakov started serving Lavan an additional six years for his sheep. They stayed in Sukkot for 18 months before moving on to Shechem. This makes Joseph seven and a half years old at that time. Dinah was seven months older than he (Joseph was born at the end of a seven month pregnancy) so that made Dinah eight years and one month when she was raped.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . אל חמור אביו לאמור, “to his father Chamor, to say:” The word לאמור means that he wanted his father to speak to Yaakov on the subject. Alternately, the word is merely used to underline the urgency with which Shechem viewed the matter. He wanted his father to be insistent. We find a similar use of the word לאמור in connection with the wife of Potiphar in Genesis 39,14, where she wanted to underline that the fact that her husband had brought a Hebrew slave into the household resulted in her almost being  raped.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov answered Shechem and his father Chamor cleverly.” It would have been appropriate for their father Yaakov to conduct these negotiations. After all, they were in their father’s presence and they should have kept quiet. However, seeing that they felt that their honor had been besmirched and they therefore had a vested interest in the matter they did not want their father to take part in the conversation at all. When they spoke up in lieu of their father they meant to honor him.
      Nachmanides writes as follows: seeing that what the brothers answered was at the advice of their father and with his consent, why did Yaakov afterwards become angry at Shimon and Levi when he said “you have caused me anguish?” He had been aware that they had spoken cleverly, i.e. misleadingly, in order to succeed in obtaining Dinah’s release. Besides, Yaakov had known full well that there was no question of Dinah marrying the man who had raped her and defiled her! All the brothers had answered with the same מרמה, deceitfulness, not just Shimon and Levi. Whereas Shimon and Levi carried out the retribution by themselves their father cursed only the anger of these two brothers who had carried out the deed.  Actually, the deceit had consisted in the brothers leading Chamor and Shechem to believe that if they would all circumcise themselves they would be ready to intermarry. They had assumed that the people of Shechem would never allow their leader to go through with such a plan. If, by chance,  they would listen to their leaders and all circumcise themselves they would then attack the town on the third day when the inhabitants were defenseless. They would then take their sister and free her. This part of the plan enjoyed a consensus and the blessing of Yaakov. When Shimon and Levi decided to kill all the menfolk this was something which had not been part of the original plan and this aroused Yaakov’s displeasure.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  לתת את אחותינו, “to give our sister.” Afterwards they spoke of “we will take our daughter.” In the first instance they spoke on their own behalf,  whereas later on they spoke on behalf of their father. It is possible that the word “our daughter” is used here in a sense similar to “our sister,” as we find in Kings II 8,18 where Yoram the son of King Yehoshaphat of Yehudah is  reported to have taken a daughter of king Achav of Israel as a wife although Achav did not have a daughter. The word “daughter” there clearly refers to “sister.” This is also the way Targum Yonathan translates it.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, “it was on the third day, when they were in pain, etc.” It is an accepted fact in science that amongst all creatures the “third” is always relatively weak. It makes no difference whether it is the third day after a woman has given birth or whether it is the third day in the development of anything else. This is all due to the fact that the third day was under the aegis of the planet Mars. This is why the pain after a wound has been inflicted is always greater on the third day. This is why the pain of circumcision is greatest on the third day, weakening the person who has undergone this procedure. Our sages in Shabbat 86, have ruled that it is permissible to perform all kinds of procedures otherwise prohibited on the Sabbath for a person on the third day after he has been circumcised, as he is weak and even his life may be  in some danger. Experts of a science known as Techunah, (a form of astronomy) wrote that the third day is the day under the influence of the horoscope cancer which in turn is presided over by Samael. Samael’s personal servant is the planet Mars. This knowledge prompted our sages in Taanit 27 to decree that the אנשי מעמד, the Israelites representing the people every day in the Temple, were not to fast on Sundays (first day of the week) as this was the third day after Adam had been created on Friday, the 6th day of the week, so that in counting a completed universe this day was actually the third day. This is also the reason we take some fragrant plants at the conclusion of the Sabbath and pronounce a benediction over them as the third day is ushered in and we want to face it having performed an additional mitzvah. Our spiritual self is strengthened by means of the pleasant fragrance.
     ויקחו שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי, ”and Shimon and Levi, two of Yaakov’s sons, took, etc.” By reading the text carefully it is possible to deduce the ages of these two sons of Yaakov when they destroyed the city of Shechem. We know from the text that Yaakov stayed at his uncle Lavan for twenty years. During the first 14 years he worked for his two wives Rachel and Leah, whereas during the remaining six years he worked in order to establish an economic base for himself and his family. After the first seven years of his service Lavan cheated him by giving him Leah instead of Rachel as his wife. Leah bore Reuven for Yaakov after a pregnancy of seven months. Another seven months (or so) later Shimon was born. It follows that when Yaakov left Lavan and interrupted his journey at Sukkot, Shimon was 2 months shy of 12 years old. Yaakov stayed at Sukkot for 18 months before moving on to Shechem. This means that at that time Shimon was 13 years and four months. His younger brother Levi was only 12 years and nine months old at that time. The Torah called both of them by the name איש, meaning they had attained puberty. This is the meaning of the words איש חרבו, “each man his sword.”
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   עכרתם אותי, “you have caused me to become tainted.” Yaakov referred to their having spilled innocent blood. He used the term עכירה, similar to a person who introduces a  turbid appearance into wine by adding sediments. Yaakov’s previously clear image had now been tainted. The inhabitants of the land were now able to point at Yaakov saying that he had dealt evilly with peaceful people. 
  Bereshit Rabbah at the end of Genesis 80, describes this as a barrel of wine which had contained clear wine now having turned cloudy. Although it had been a tradition  that the Canaanites would become the victims of the Jews, Yaakov felt his sons should have waited until they were numerically strong enough to overcome the Canaanites without miracles. Once they had taken possession of the land of Israel they could have punished the people of Shechem with Yaakov’s blessing. This is why he added ואני מתי מספר, “and I am few in number.”
  
  Verse 31
  
   הכזונה יעשה את אחותנו, “is our sister to be treated like a whore?”  Rashi wrote כתרגומו ית אחתנא, but I have not been able to understand what he had in mind.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . ויאמר אלוקים אל יעקב קום עלה בית אל ושב שם, G’d said to Yaakov: “rise and move to Bet-El and settle down there.” The meaning of the word ושב, in this instance is “let your mind come to rest.” He was to erect an altar to G’d there when he had recovered from his disturbed frame of mind. The fact that G’d appeared to him would contribute to Yaakov’s recovering his peace of mind.
  
  Verse 2
  
   הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, “remove the alien deities!” These were the various images captured as part of the loot of the town of Shechem which the Torah mentioned as described already by Rashi.  In spite of the fact that such artifacts were permissible for use by people prior to the Torah having been given seeing that they had undergone a process of involuntary abandonment by their owners which disqualified them from further use as idols,  (Avodah Zarah 52), Yaakov commanded the members of his household to remove these former idols and to sanctify themselves in order for them to qualify to serve G’d. This is what is implied in the words: “let us arise and go to Bet-El.” He meant that he would offer a sacrifice there to G’d. Yaakov based himself on a concept found in Kohelet 4,17: שמור רגלך כאשר תלך אל בית אלוקים, “watch your step when you are on the way to the House of the Lord.”
     והטהרו, “and become ritually clean!” The verse teaches us that sin itself  is called ritual impurity. We have a similar verse in Ezekiel 20,7 where the prophet warns his compatriots  ובגלולי מצרים אל תטמאו, “and do not defile yourselves by committing the kind of sins committed by the Egyptians.” On the other hand, anyone who abandons sin is described as ritually pure, as we know from Leviticus 16,30 מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה’ תטהרו, “you will become cleansed (ritually pure) from all your sins against G’d.” Another verse expressing a similar sentiment is found in Joshua 22,17 המעט לנו את עון פעור אשר לא הטהרנו ממנו, “is it perhaps not enough to have committed the sin of Pe-or from which we have not yet been cleansed (completely)?” King David also mentioned such a thought when he said (Psalms 51,9) “Remove my sin by means of hyssop until I am pure.” In verse 4 of the same psalm he said: ”wash me thoroughly of my iniquity so that I may be purified from my sin.”
     והחליפו שמלותיכם, “and change your garments!” From this we learn that both they and their garments had become defiled through contact with idolatrous images, or through contact with the bodies of the people who had been slain in Shechem.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויטמון אותם יעקב, “Yaakov buried them, etc.” The Biblical requirement of disposing of idolatrous objects prescribes not burial but scattering to the winds or throwing such items into the sea. Moses did so when he scattered the dust of the golden calf as we know from Exodus 32,20 “he ground it until it was quite fine particles (of dust) and then he sprinkled it on the face of the water.” The fact that Yaakov contented himself with a lesser degree of destruction of these one time idols proves that actually they were no longer forbidden from a Biblical point of view. Another way of explaining this episode is that even assuming that these artifacts had still retained their status as idolatrous and therefore forbidden objects, the fact that he could not destroy them by throwing them into the Dead Sea, made Yaakov do the next best thing, i.e. to bury them. He was also unable to burn these artifacts so that he would not be unduly delayed giving the people around Shechem a chance to organize themselves against him. Under the circumstances, he did the best he could in order to dispose of them and buried them.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . הוא וכל העם אשר עמו, “he and all the people who were with him.” It is recorded in a Midrash called מלחמות השם, (and quoted by Nachmanides) that the neighbouring towns of Shechem did indeed gather together and fought three battles against he sons of Yaakov. Had it not been for their father Yaakov who personally girded himself with his sword and other weapons, they would indeed all have been in mortal danger. Our sages refer to this when they interpret the words of Yaakov on his deathbed when he described himself as personally having taken the town of Shechem from the Emorite with his sword and bow (Genesis 48,22). It is the custom of the Bible to furnish us with only the barest details of such encounters, seeing that the kind of miracle which G’d employed was a “hidden miracle,” i.e. not a miracle in which known laws of nature have been visibly changed. Another example of the Bible being sparse with information about such encounters is what happened to Avraham in Ur Casdim i.e. when Nimrod threw him into a furnace and he escaped unharmed. The wars fought by the sons of Esau against the people of Chorite (36,21) are similarly not mentioned here. The Torah contents itself by referring to the “hidden” miracle by simply writing that Yaakov and all those with him arrived at their next destination, i.e. that not a single casualty was sustained by Yaakov’s entourage during the attacks upon them by the Emorites.
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ויקרא למקום אל בית אל, “he called the name of that place ‘El Bet- El.’” According to the plain meaning of the text, the line means: “after G’d had appeared to him, he named the site: ‘the house of G’d.” I have already explained a kabbalistic approach to this verse when I discussed the meaning of Genesis 31,13.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ותמת דבורה מינקת רבקה, “Devorah, Rivkah’s nursemaid died.” This verse has been inserted between the report of two appearances by G’d which Yaakov enjoyed. This fact serves to prove the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 81,5 on this verse who see in it a hint to Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died. This justified the fact that Yaakov named the oak beneath which Devorah was buried “the oak of weeping.” This is the opinion of Nachmanides. He writes that it would not have been appropriate for the Torah to describe Yaakov as grieving thus merely about the death of his mother’s nursemaid, a woman who must have been very old, that the site would be called after her for all future time. Yaakov grieved over the fact that his mother who had promised to send him word when it was safe to return and face Esau was no longer able to do what she had intended to do and that therefore there would not be a reunion between him and Rivkah. According to Nachmanides, the Devorah mentioned here was one who had never accompanied Rivkah when she left her brother’s house to marry Yitzchak. Her death in Yaakov’s presence triggered his awareness that his mother must have died. G’d’s next appearance to Yaakov was intended to console him over this loss of his mother. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 82,4, explain that the words “G’d blessed him” in our verse represent the blessing given to mourners. We find a similar blessing being bestowed by G’d on Avraham in Genesis 25,11. The Talmud in Sotah 14 reports something similar concerning Genesis 25,11 where G’d is reported as blessing Yitzchak. This occurred immediately after the death of Avraham, Yitzchak’s father. G’d’s blessing is understood as a blessing bestowed on mourners. We find support for this interpretation of the words “G’d blessed Yaakov” in verse 27 in our chapter where the Torah reports Yaakov as returning “to his father Yitzchak in Mamre the city of Arba.” We all knew of the city of Arba and Mamre, so why tell us where Yitzchak lived at that time? The implication of the verse is that Rivkah had died. Had she been alive, surely the Torah would have described Yaakov as returning to both his parents, i.e. Yitzchak and Rivkah, especially so since it had been Rivkah who had promised to call Yaakov back to come home as soon as she thought it was safe for him to do so. Seeing she had died, the Torah did not consider it appropriate, i.e. as in her honor, to mention this fact outright. The Torah concealed the time of her death.
      Nachmanides quotes a Midrash (Tanchuma Ki Tetze 4) where the matter is explained. Although G’d promised Avraham that he would die of a ripe old age, he died at 175 years of age, 5 years younger than his son Yitzchak. The reason was in order to save him the mental anguish of seeing his grandson Esau become corrupt. In the case of Yitzchak, the latter was blind and could not see what his son Esau was up to. According to this Midrash, both Avraham, Yitzchak, and Rivkah ended their lives experiencing a degree of shame. Rivkah’s funeral lacked the presence of her loving son Yaakov, and presumably the presence of her son Esau who hated her. When she died, people cursed the passing of a woman whose breasts had nursed an evil person such as Esau. For these and other reasons G’d decided to console Yaakov by blessing him at this time. The plural form בכות, “weeping,” is accounted for because as soon as Yaakov was about to weep for the death of Devorah, he received word that his mother had died. His weeping was for the passing of both these women.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . שמך יעקב, “your name Yaakov, etc.” According to Nachmanides, although Esau’s guardian angel had already told Yaakov that his name would henceforth be Israel, (32,29) G’d told him that as of this moment his name was still Yaakov. However, from that time on his name would be Israel. This is the meaning of the words: ויקרא שמו ישראל. Thus far Nachmanides’ comment. This then is the meaning of Isaiah 48,12 וישראל מקוראי, ”and Israel whom I have called.”
      Rabbeinu Chananel explains  that the name Israel which G’d bestowed on Yaakov was in addition to the name Yaakov which Yaakov retained. The word עוד in our verse means “only, exclusively.” The correct translation of our verse is: “your name will no longer be Yaakov exclusively, but your name will (also) be Israel.” We find something analogous to this in Jeremiah 3,16  לא יאמרו עוד ארון ברית ה’, “they will no longer refer to the ark of G’d as the only location where G’d can be found, etc.” but the whole of Jerusalem will be so designated.” They will refer to the whole of Jerusalem as כסא ה’, “the throne of the Lord.” Similarly, here; the words כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “but Israel shall be your name, i.e. sometimes you will be referred to as “Yaakov,” other times as “Israel.” This is precisely what the prophet had in mind in Isaiah שמע אלי יעקב, ישראל מקוראי. We find something similar in Isaiah 46,28 אל תיראי עבדי יעקב, ואל תחת ישראל, “do not fear My servant Yaakov, do not be scared Israel.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . אתן את הארץ, “I will give the land.” The promise is repeated twice in the same verse. The Torah does not indulge in such repetitions unless there is a compelling reason. If we adopt a kabbalistic approach the word הארץ at the beginning of the verse is a reference to an attribute of G’d, i.e. the attribute with which all three patriarchs were blessed when the Torah categorised these blessings with the words בכל, מכל, כל, respectively. The meaning then would be “that which I have already granted to Avraham and Yitzchak I will grant to you also, i.e. I will give this land to you (in your own right). It would be similar to Kings I 5,26 “and G’d had granted wisdom to Solomon.” [Seeing that verse commences with an unaccounted for letter ו, our author understands the whole word as a reference to the gift of authority, מלכות (in this instance control of the land of Israel) which G’d had bestowed on David’s son Solomon.] The meaning of the repetition of the word ארץ is that Yaakov’s descendants too would receive the gift of that land in their own right at the appropriate time. We also find a repetition in verse 13  where the Torah writes ויעל מעליו אלוקים במקום אשר  דבר אתו, “G’d ascended from upon him in the place where He had spoken with him.” This “place” had already been mentioned earlier (verse 9). It is therefore likely that the word refers to an attribute of G’d such as we find in ברוך ה’ ממקומו, (Ezekiel 3,12) or ברוך המקום (Haggadah shel Pessach). Seeing that our sages have said that the patriarchs are the true carriers of the Shechinah, the Torah has to repeat itself on occasion in order for us to know when it refers to them in such a capacity and when not.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויצב יעקב מצבה במקום אשר דבר אתו אלוקים, "Yaakov erected a monument in the place where G’d had spoken with him."  The Torah repeats the words “where G’d had spoken with him,” with which the last verse had ended. The meaning is that G’d had spoken to Yaakov at that place already on a previous occasion at Bet El. At that time Yaakov had erected a monument. When the Torah makes reference to Yaakov erecting a monument at this point, it meant to tell us that this monument had already been erected by Yaakov many years ago; he did not now erect a second monument (compare Genesis 28,18). The difference between the meaning of the terms מזבח and מצבה respectively, is that the word מצבה refers to an altar consisting of a single stone, whereas מזבח is an altar consisting of a number of stones. Both structures serve the purpose of offering sacrifices. The מצבה serves the purpose of offering drink-offerings and the anointing with oil, whereas the מזבח is suitable for any kind of offering acceptable to G‘d. Seeing that G’d had just told Yaakov that he would no longer be called Yaakov but Israel, it is surprising that the Torah describes the person erecting the monument as Yaakov instead of as Israel. The fact that the Torah here refers to Yaakov by his original name is further proof that the name Israel was an additional name and not a substitute for the name Yaakov. We will find from now on that the Torah uses both these names on different occasions.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ויסעו מבית אל ויהי עוד כברת דרך לבא אפרתה, “they journeyed from Bet-El, and there still remained a tract of land before their arrival at Efrat, etc.” Efrat is another name for Bethlehem. The Torah spells this out in verse 19 where Rachel’s being buried is being described. Nachmanides explains that he personally had measured that the distance between the tomb of Rachel and Bethlehem is less than a mile. He concludes therefore that the commentators who want to derive the word כברת as stemming from כביר, “something major,” are in error. Yaakov could not have excused his burying Rachel there because the distance to Bethlehem was too great. The word כברת describes a certain land measure just as Rashi has said. The three letters ברת are root letters, the letter כ is not. The measure was one which was well known in those days.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ותמת רחל ותקבר בדרך אפרתה, “Rachel died and was buried on the way to Efrat.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah claim that the dignity of women requires that they be buried at the place they die. [not found in my edition of Bereshit Rabbah. Ed.] They use the example of Rachel being buried at the site she died as the precedent for their statement. We also find that Sarah was buried at the site she died as the Torah wrote: “Sarah died at Kiryat Arba which is presently called Hebron,” i.e. she died in Hebron and was buried in Hebron as the Torah reports in Genesis 23,19 “afterwards (after the purchase of the local burial ground) Avraham buried his wife Sarah.” We also find that Miriam was buried where she died (Numbers 20,1)
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ויט אהלו ההלאה למגדל עדר, “and he pitched his tent to beyond Migdal Eder.” The meaning of the word מהלאה is “close to.” The same word occurs in the same sense in Genesis 19,9 where it means “come closer.” We also find the word having this meaning when Jonathan told his lad in Samuel I 20,22 החצים ממך והלאה, “the arrows are closer to you.” So here too the meaning of the word is that Yaakov pitched his tent opposite the place called Migdal Eder. This was the place where the number of the twelve tribes had become complete with the birth of Binyamin. In commemoration of that event we read in Micah 4,8: “and you O Migdal-Eder, outpost of Fair Zion.”
  
  Verse 22
  
   וישכב את בלהה, “he slept with Bilhah.” Our sages in Shabbat 55, describe this act as  בלבל מצעו של אביו, “he disturbed the couch of his father.” When his father referred to the incident on his deathbed (Genesis 49,4), he too used the same expression, saying אז חללת יצועי עלה, “then you desecrated Him who mounted my couch.” Yaakov did not criticize Reuven for sleeping with Bilhah but for mounting the couch on which his father used to sleep with. her. You find something similar in Samuel I 2,22 where the sons of the High Priest Eli are accused of sleeping with the women (married women) who performed certain tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Eli reprimanded his sons after the rumors had come to his attention. The Talmud in Shabbat there also explains that this verse is not to be taken at face value but that what the sons of Eli did made them subject to such accusations being leveled against them. What is described there as the severe sin of the sons of Eli is the fact that they delayed offering the bird-offerings of women who had  either been ritually impure through having given birth or had suffered the disease known as זבה. By delaying these offerings, these women’s husbands were effectively prevented from sleeping with their wives until the matter of the offerings had been taken care of. The prophet Samuel accounts this for the sons of Eli as if they had prevented these husbands from sleeping with their wives because they themselves had slept with these wives.
      If you will count the words from  ויסע ישראל until שנים עשר, you will find that the number of words in this verse amounts to 26, the numerical value of the four-lettered name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה. Perhaps this is the way of the Torah hinting that Reuven did not in fact commit a culpable offense as otherwise G’d would not have associated His Holy Name with him by including him in the twelve sons of Yaakov, [a reference to their loyalty to their father’s religious principles, Ed.] We have mentioned elsewhere that  when he tribes were counted in Numbers 26,7  the ancestor of the tribe of Reuven is described as הראובני, a description which is the same as that of Shimon. In both of these instances the addition of the letters ה-י in the case of these two tribes was meant to stress that they (the tribal ancestors) were not considered morally or religiously inferior to their brothers of whom no negative deeds are recorded in the Torah.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah stated “the sons of Yaakov were twelve,” is meant to tell us that Yaakov did not later beget any other sons. Reuven disturbed the couch of his father precisely because he was afraid that his father wanted to sire more children with Bilhah as their mother. The Torah therefore saw fit to inform us that Yaakov did not beget any more children at all after this episode. An additional reason for the Torah making this statement at this point was to reassure us that all of his sons were equally worthy of being sons of their illustrious father. Just as the other sons were not guilty of culpable sins neither was Reuven.
  
  Verse 23
  
  . בכור יעקב ראובן, “Yaakov’s firstborn was Reuven.” The distinctive title “firstborn” is accorded to Reuven at the very place where his misdemeanour has been recorded. The Torah informs us that although as a result of this misdemeanour Reuven lost the distinction of being looked up to by his brothers as the firstborn, the Torah implies that what Reuven lost to Joseph as a result was only the double share in the father’s inheritance that the firstborn is entitled to and possibly the respect normally accorded to the firstborn by his younger siblings. The status of being a “firstborn” in matters of genealogy, etc. remained unchanged. This is why the Torah underlined: “Reuven was the firstborn of Yaakov.” We find this confirmed in Bereshit Rabbah 82,11. The Midrash uses the words ויהי בשכון ישראל in verse 22 to elaborate on this theme. Rabbi Simon is quoted as saying that it is difficult for G’d to uproot genealogical facts. The Torah proves this when describing Reuven as the firstborn immediately after having recorded his misdemeanour. Rabbi Yudon added that Reuven remained the firstborn in respect to officiating as the family’s priest (as was customary prior to the sin of the golden calf); he remained officially the oldest; and he remained the firstborn in respect of תשובה, (i.e. that his repentance was accepted assuring him his claim to his former title). Rabbi Azariah added that he also remained the firstborn in respect of prophecy as we read in Hoseah 1,2 that G’d communicated first with Hoseah (seeing he enjoyed the privilege of being senior to the other prophets who were his contemporaries).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ואת בשמת בת ישמעאל אחות נביות, “and Bosmat daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nevayot.” The Torah makes clear on this occasion that the basic name of Ishmael’s daughter was Bosmat, even though she was referred to as Machalat in Genesis 28,9. This lends support to the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 67,13 that Esau intended to convert Machalat, and that G’d forgave him all his sins. (this מחילה, pardon, was alluded to in the name מחלת). Three kinds of people qualify for total forgiveness for their past sins: A convert to Judaism; a person who is promoted to high public office; a person who marries a woman. The source for this statement is the verse describing Esau as marrying Machalat.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . וילך אל ארץ מפני יעקב אחיו, “he went to a (different) country on account of his brother Yaakov.”  The plain meaning of the verse is that Esau went to the land of Seir which was his real home at that time, just as the Torah had mentioned already in Genesis 33,16: “Esau returned on that day on his way to Seir.” We have independent support for the fact that Esau resided in Seir in 36,8: “Esau resided in the mountain of Seir.” Ibn Ezra comments on this that this mountain is adjacent to the land of Israel as the Torah reports in Deut. 2,8: “we by-passed our brothers the sons of Esau who reside in Seir.” We also have Deut. 1,2 where Moses speaks of “eleven days march from Mount Chorev by way of Mount Seir.” This mountain is not identical with the country in which the Edomites live in nowadays, i.e. the land of Greece.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ותמנע היתה פילגש, “and Timnah had been a concubine.” After the Torah has provided a list of the principal descendants of Esau, i.e. the ones born by either Adah or Oholivamah, Esau’s major wives, it goes on to mention that Amalek was also a descendant of Esau through his son Eliphaz and a concubine by the name of Timnah. The Torah uses this paragraph to tell us that Amalek, the son of a servant maid was not included in the list of Esau’s true offspring from his proper wives. We know already from Ishmael and Sarah that the son of a servant-woman has no share in the father’s inheritance seeing he is a slave and as such whatever he has belongs to his master. (compare Genesis 21,10). The reason that the Torah had to tell us these details is that the descendants of Seir HaChori intermarried with the descendants of Esau so that their respective families were completely integrated with one another. At a later time the Torah commanded the Jewish people not to harass the descendants of Esau nor to invade and conquer their land. In fact the Torah (Deut. 23,9) deliberately commands us לא תתעב אדומי, “do not despise or reject an Edomite (descendant of Esau)” while at the same time commanding us to wipe out Amalek completely (Deut. 25,19), something which appears contradictory in view of the fact that Amalek is a descendant of Esau/Edom. In order to know which people qualify for treatment according to the commandment in Deut. 23,9 and which are subject to the commandment to destroy Amalek and any memory of it, it was necessary to describe the makeup of the descendants of Esau and the respective mothers who bore his or his sons’ children. When the Israelites left Egypt and Amalek attacked them in no man’s land, these were the Amalekites who were descended from Timnah the concubine of Eliphaz. This Amalek was not considered as a direct descendant of Esau, neither was he the product of any major wife of Esau or his sons. Our sages (Tanchuma Vayeshev 1) claim that Esau slept with the wife of Seir HaChori and that as a result Timnah was born. This is why Timnah had not been included in the count of the sons of Seir, seeing that though she was the daughter of Seir’s wife she was not Seir’s daughter. The Torah teaches that Amalek was the product of an illegitimate union which his mother had indulged in. The Torah underlines this by describing her as a sister of Lotan instead of as a daughter of Seir, Lotan’s father (compare verse 22). Timnah was not only Eliphaz’s concubine but his sister from his father Esau. Eliphaz begat a son from Timnah who died at the birth of that son. They therefore called the son Timnah in order to keep her name alive. This is the reason that you find that name cropping up amongst the descendants of Esau. This is what is meant in verse 40 אלוף תמנע אלוף עלוה. The chieftain in question was a son of Eliphaz from his concubine Timnah. The following paragraph beginning with אלה בני שעיר החורי,  was written only in order to avoid us misunderstanding the words “Timnah was a sister of Lotan.” It teaches that this particular Timnah was the sister of chieftains and was interested in intermarrying with the family of Avraham even if it meant to become merely a concubine of one of Avraham’s descendants. This shows in what high regard Avraham’s family was held. 
  Consider the fact that the verse commencing with ותמנע contains eight words totaling forty letters. This is an allusion to the eight times Yaakov addressed Esau as “my lord,” and to the words ארבעים יכנו, in Deut. 25,3 “that the guilty, evil party is to have forty strikes administered against him.” 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה, “and these were the sons of Tzivon,  Aiah and Anah.” The letters ו in front of these names are merely prefixes and have nothing to do with the names of these two people. We find something parallel in Samuel Ii 15,34 עבד אביך ואני מאז which means “I have been a servant of your father from way before.” In this verse we are told that Anah was a son of Tzivon, whereas from verse 20 it is clear that both Anah and Tzivon were brothers, sons of Seir HaChori. In order to ensure that we would not think that the Anah mentioned was the uncle of the other Anah, the Torah added that the Anah mentioned here was the one who discovered the mules in the desert. Our sages in Pessachim 54 explained that we are dealing with the same Anah who had been mentioned previously and that he had been sired through his father having slept with his mother. The reason the Torah lists him here as one of the sons of Seir HaChori is because all the people of his generation thought that he was the son of Seir HaChori. The Torah, however, was concerned with relating his true ancestry. The Torah mentions him as either himself crossbreeding a donkey with a mare or discovering the products of such crossbreeding, to illustrate how illegitimate sexual relations between human beings result eventually in bastardy or association with animals which were the product of such crossbreeding. At the time it was considered very astute of Anah to have discovered or crossbred two such species of animals. According to the opinion of Onkelos who translated the verse as Anah having found גבריה, “men in the desert,” the word ימים must be understood as a variant of אימים, antediluvian giants. According to Onkelos the plain meaning of our verse is that Anah was met or attacked by members of that people who wanted to rob him of the donkeys belonging to Tzivon which he was minding. The Torah reports that although alone, Anah managed to save the donkeys from the hands of these אימים. Nachmanides interprets the verse in this fashion.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . ואלה בני דישן, “these are the sons of Dishan, etc.” This is the same Dishan mentioned earlier in verse 21, the fifth son of Seir HaChori. Sometimes the Torah spells his name דישון; other times it spells the name דישן. It is the same person each time. We find such differences in the spelling of the names of one and the same person elsewhere, such as in Kings where Chirom is sometimes spelled חירם other times חירום (compare Kings I 7,9). This principle applies only when these names appear in different verses. When both spellings appear in the same verse, however, it is clear that two different people of similar names are meant. The spelling is changed so that we become aware that the Torah refers two separate people. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום, “and these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text all of the kings listed here were descendants of Esau. There were a total of eight of them, namely: Bela ben Be-or, Yovav ben Zerach, Chusham, Haddad ben Bedad, Samlah, Saul of Rechovot, Baal Chanan ben Achbar, and Hadar. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 75,11 state that these eight kings corresponded to the eight times Yaakov called Esau אדוני, “my lord.” According to this Midrash G’d immediately told Yaakov that as a consequence of his demeaning himself in front of Esau, Esau would produce eight kings before Yaakov’s descendants would produce the first king. (compare the beginning of our portion to see the eight times Yaakov called Esau: “my lord”). An additional allusion to this is found in the eight words of the verse beginning with the word תמנע as I have already pointed out in my commentary on verse 12. The names of the places mentioned by our portion as belonging to Edom are: Bazra and Teyman; the former has been mentioned also in Isaiah 34, 6 ”for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bazrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” The name Teyman is mentioned in Ovadiah 9 “your warriors shall lose heart O Teyman and not a man of Esau’s mount shall survive the slaughter.” Interestingly, we find that not a single king mentioned in the list given by the Torah was the son of his predecessor. This is in sharp contrast to the kings who ruled over Israel, most of whom were succeeded by their sons. The reason the Torah reports all these seemingly irrelevant details is that it wanted to demonstrate that Yitzchak’s blessing that Esau would live by the sword came true.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   ושם אשתו מהיטבאל בת מטרד בת מי זהב, “the name of his wife was Mehetabel, daughter of Matred, daughter of Me-zahav.” The Torah provides these details to teach that the wife of Hadad was the daughter of a wealthy man whose entire pursuit in life was the amassing of material wealth. The gold was as plentiful in his house as water.
      A Midrashic approach to the verse commencing with the words “these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom.” These kings were direct descendants of Esau as appears from the reading of the text. According to Shemot Rabbah 15,4 [not exactly, Ed.] these were all descendants of Esau, idol worshippers, indulging in promiscuous sex, and possessing great material wealth. Bereshit Rabbah 83,4 states that the name Mehetabel is an allusion to the fact that they tried to please many deities. The name “daughter of Matred” is interpreted as an allusion that she who had first been prepared and beautified for her husband was subsequently a source of trouble for her husband as the people of his generation indulged in illicit sex with her. The word “daughter of golden waters,” is an allusion to the material wealth of these people.  They said of gold and silver: “so what?” (they had so much of it they did not treasure it). The whole paragraph teaches that the descendants of Esau were all wicked people. These verses contain further allusions to the characteristics of Esau’s descendants throughout the ages.   We are told, in the same Midrash for instance, that the name אלוף מגדיאל “chieftain of Magdiel,” is an allusion to Rome and its Empire. In Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 we are told that Esau received 100 provinces or countries during the period between then and the ascendancy of the Roman Empire as a reward for clearing out all of his belongings from the land of Israel at that time and leaving Yaakov free to live there unimpeded by his presence or the presence of any of his belongings. This is derived from the wording אלוף מגדיאל אלוף עירם, suggesting that the former name is that of a city, the latter that of a person.  Daniel prophesied  concerning the Roman Empire (Daniel 11,36) “The king will do as he pleases and he will exalt himself greater than any god, and about the G’d of the gods he will speak fantastic things.” This is why the term מגדיאל is applied to this king in the Torah, a reference to גדול, “great”. Actually, he was the tenth of these Alufim, ”chiefs.” This is what Daniel said (7,24) ”And the ten horns- from that kingdom ten horns will arise, and another will arise after them who will be different from the former.” What Daniel had in mind was that ten kings would arise of whom the tenth would rule over Rome, and that his Empire would spread from Rome outwards. encompassing most of the civilised part of the globe. Concerning that nation, the Torah did not provide us with its name. All our prophets also constantly mention the greatness of that Empire without revealing its name. Daniel, who compared various Empires to “the lion,” “the bear,” and to “the leopard,” did not reveal the name of the fourth beast to which the fourth Empire could be compared. All he said concerning this unnamed beast (7,7) was that “it is excessively terrifying, awesome and strong; with immense iron teeth, it was eating and crumbling and trampling the rest with its feet.” Isaiah (13,1) also speaks of messages to or concerning the Empire of Egypt, (19,1) the Empire of Babylon (15,1) and the Empire of Moav. When it comes to specifying to whom the fourth message is addressed, all he said was (21,11) “a call comes to me from Seir:” משא דומה אלי קורא משעיר, שמר מה מלילה, שמר מה מליל, “watchman, what of the night? Watchman what of the night?” Elsewhere (Isaiah 35,9) the  prophet speaks of ”no lion shall be there, no ferocious beast shall set foot on it, these shall not be found there but the redeemed shall walk it.” We also find that the prophet Jeremiah mentions all these various Empires without naming the last one. Compare Jeremiah 5,6: ”therefore the lion of the forest strikes them down, the wolf of the desert ravages them; a leopard lies in wait by their towns whoever leaves them will be torn to pieces.” In the whole Torah only Moses, and in Psalms only Assaph, mentions the name of the fourth beast. The name עירם is a reference to Rome and it is the subject of Psalms 80,14 in Assaph’s psalm where he wrote יכרסמנה חזיר מיער, “wild boars gnaw at it (Israel).” You will note that the letter ע in the word מיער has been suspended above the line. leaving the letters that remain as an allusion to Rome, i.e. רמי,  this is why here when the tenth chief is mentioned, the Torah amplifies by adding the word עירם in addition to the name אלוף מגדיאל, the  letters in the word עירם being the same as those in Assaph’s psalm where he speaks of מיער. In other words: “who is this אלוף מגדיאל? Answer: none other than the חזיר מיער, the wild boar mentioned in Psalms 80,14. The letters in the word עירם may be read as מעיר, an allusion to Numbers 24,19 והאביד שריד מעיר, “he (the redeemer of Israel) will destroy the remnant of the city (Rome).” Isaiah 25,2 may also be understood in the same vein כימת מעיר לגל קריה בצורה למפלה, “forYou have turned a city into a stone heap never to be rebuilt.” The letters in the word מעיר can also be rearranged to read ירעם. Concerning this word, David said in Psalms 18,14 וירעם בשמים ה’ ועליון יתן קולו ברד וגחלי אש, that in “the future the Lord will thunder from heaven, the Most High will give forth with His voice- hail and fiery coals.” He will destroy Rome.  Daniel prophesied  similarly concerning the end of the Roman Empire when he wrote in Daniel 7,11 “I was watching. Then because of the sound of the haughty words which the horn spoke, I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed and consigned to the fire’s burning” The prophet Ovadiah also prophesied concerning the destruction of Edom when he wrote (Ovadiah 1) that the Celestial Court had ordained the destruction of Edom and his entire prophecy concerns only this subject and the justification for the destruction of Edom.    The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni near the end of Isaiah) remarks that only two prophets described their prophesies as חזון, “a vision,” i.e. Isaiah and Ovadiah. The numerical value of the combined letters in that word totals 71. Isaiah cursed Edom in the Celestial Court, whereas Ovadiah judged Edom in that same Court. There is a book called פרקי היכלות, from which our author quotes on occasion in which the various afflictions that Rome will experience in the future are discussed, i.e. that the decline of that Empire will be so drastic that a person will offer it for sale for a small copper coin and he will not find anyone willing to buy it even at that price.     Included in these ten אלופים you also find one who is described here as אלוף עלוה, whereas in Chronicles I 1,51, he is described as אלוף עליה. In order to maintain the uniformity of the Torah and to counter accusations of inaccuracy, the name in Chronicles is read as אלוף עלוה just as in the Torah. The reason the spelling is different is that it is an illusion to the negative characteristic of the descendants of Esau who speak untruths and do not even write their names truthfully. Psalms 144,8 alludes to such practices and refers to people who speak lies in order to make G’d’s words appear not to be true.   Bereshit Rabbah 83,1 describes the fact that in the early stages, before Israel had kings of its own, the Edomite nation  was in a state of some turmoil, as evident from the fact that their leaders are referred to as merely אלופים, whereas subsequently, after the Israelites had elected a king, the Edomites were presided over by kings who possessed the authority which the word implies. Eventually they would suffer the fate predicted in Ovadiah 21 when “the liberators would march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be the Lord’s.”
      A kabbalistic approach to the above chapter: The words: “and these are the kings who reigned over the land of Edom,” are an allusion to the numerous worlds G’d had created (prior to our universe) and before He had manifested Himself as G’d in this universe. This is meant by the words לפני מלך מלך לבני ישראל, “before a king reigned for the Israelites.” During this period G’d “experimented” by creating worlds and then destroying them until eventually, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy and created the present universe. I am unable to explain all these things in detail as they are beyond me. 
  It is a cardinal principle of the kabbalistic approach that there is no qualitative difference between the various matters described in the written Torah, and that statements such as: “Hear O Israel the Lord your G’d is one,” and statements such as “the name of the wife of Hadar was Mehetabel.” Seeing that the entire written Torah is understood as an elongated name of G’d as we have learned from Nachmanides, how could there be one part of the written Torah which is more important than any other part? 
  We are entitled to wonder why the wife of King Hadar rated mention more than the wives of any of the other Kings of Edom. We would dearly love to know who this woman was who has not been mentioned elsewhere in the Torah. How do we profit by knowing the name of a woman when we have not been told anything about her virtues or otherwise?
      I will now proceed to enlighten you about this subject. The Torah first mentions that one of the kings was called Hadad  (verse 35) whereas in verse 39 we are told that a King by the name of Hadar followed the King Baal Chanan. Both these names are derived from the expression הוד והדר both of which expressions describe attributes, character traits. The meaning of the name (הדד (בן בדד whose letters comprise a numerical value of 13 is that that King possessed 13 character traits. These traits derive from the ten emanations (the numerical value of the word בדד, whereas בן means “derived from”). The 13 characteristics are the ones required to guide this terrestrial universe along the lines G’d desires. This world is also perceived as the world of בחינה, “perceptions”, i.e. in which we have to decide what is right and what is wrong and act accordingly. [I believe the term is borrowed from the writings of the author of Chovot Halevovot and means that by means of observing both the evidence of our eyes that there was a Creator, etc., as well as the evidence of history and how G’d revealed His attribute of Mercy as well as that of Justice, we can form a more or less accurate picture of both the wisdom and the Justice which are the foundations of this universe. Ed.] Hadad called the name of the city which was his capital עוית, “something corrupt,” to symbolise  the presence of the evil urge which is bent on corrupting man. It was a place from which onlookers perceived perverted justice as emanating. In verse 39 the Torah goes on to write וימלך הדר תחתיו, “Hadar ascended the throne in his place, and the name of his capital was פעו, (a reference to flying creatures)” as the souls would fly from there. The word “his city (capital)” i.e. עירו, is derived from the expression עיר וקדיש, in Daniel 4,10, i.e. “a wakeful flying angel.” The wife of this Hadar was called מהיטבאל, Mehetabel, a reference to the attribute of “goodness” which G’d promised Moses to let parade in front of him (compare Exodus 33,19). This attribute is also known as אל seeing that G’d had said of Moses [to Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12,8, Ed.] that  the latter was thoroughly at home and trusted in G’d’s entire “house,” i.e. in His universe. The house is the place where a human being feels “good,” at ease. When the Torah continued to describe Mehetabel as “the daughter of Matred,” this is a euphemism and does not refer to Matred being an actual mother of Mehetabel and her as being a biological daughter of someone called Matred. The expression בת מטרד means that Mehetabel in turn was a derivative of the major attribute Matred. We find the term בת as meaning a measure (attribute) in Kings I 7,26 where the size of the basin in which the priests washed their hands before proceeding to perform Temple service is described as containing 2000 such measures of water. This attribute was capable of misleading man’s thoughts as our sages said when they sought to explain how Rabbi Elisha ben Avuyah (known as אחר, “the other one, the heretic,” as he took the wrong theological-philosophical turn). The Talmud Chagigah 14 described this Elisha as becoming guilty of קצץ בנטיעות, becoming a heretic in his thinking.   The Torah here explains further that this attribute (Matred) was one which was composed of a combination of Mercy and Justice; the Torah alludes to this by calling it בת מי זהב, “a derivative of water and gold.” The Shechinah, which is also known as בת, is perceived as radiating in 6 directions all combining elements of the attribute of Mercy as well as elements of the attribute of Justice. We also know that the letter ד in the Holy Tongue is sometimes substituted for by the letter ת, so that the word מטרד could be understood as מטרת, the Aramaic translation of משמרת, “protective supervision.” In Psalm 121 we encounter this word  (שמר) no fewer than 6 times when the psalmist describes G’d as watching over him in every direction.    Up until now, the Torah spoke about what goes on in the celestial regions of the universe. From here on it addresses itself to what goes on in our terrestrial regions. These “lower” regions are presided over by “mere” אלופים, mortal chiefs, rather than מלכים, “kings, celestial attributes, forces.”   May the Lord grant us the wonderful insights which the prophet Hoseah  prayed for (Hoseah 6,3) when he described the heart as gaining knowledge of G’d comparing this new-found knowledge to a fountain of water gushing forth. After all, the Torah has been compared to a fountain of water as we know from Solomon who is on record in Song of Songs 4,15  מעין גנים באר מים חיים ונוזלים מן לבנון, “purified in a garden spring, a well of living waters flowing clean from the Lebanon.” We also have an assurance from the prophet Isaiah 12,3 concerning the future insights we shall be accorded when he wrote ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה, “and you will draw waters joyfully from the fountains of salvation.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער, כי ה’ יריב ריבם וקבע את קובעיהם נפש,  "Do not rob the poor for he is poor; do not oppress the poor in the gate, for the Lord will fight their battle, He will put in their place those who tried to put them in their place" (Proverbs 22,22-23)
   In the two verses quoted above Solomon informed us of the penalty for stealing from the poor. It is well known that there are four categories of people concerning whom the Torah has expressed especial concern, asking people to be merciful towards them and not to inflict any harm upon them. They are: the poor, the orphans, the widows and the proselytes. Indeed we find that the Torah expresses a warning against discrimination against the aforesaid in one and the same verse in Deuteronomy 16,14 where we read: ושמחת בחגיך, אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה אשר בשעריך. “You are to rejoice on your festival, you, your son, your daughter, your male servant and your maid servant, the proselyte, the orphan and the widow in your cities.”  Our sages as quoted by Rashi comment: “these four are Mine (G’d speaking). If you will give joy to those who are Mine, I will provide joy for those that are yours.” Mention of the Levites is equivalent to mentioning the poor as the Levites have no source of income other than the generosity of the Jewish farmer. G’d Himself is their portion as we read in Numbers 18,20 אני חלקך ונחלתך, “I am your share and your inheritance.” When the Torah legislated the treatment of the poor it did so both as a positive as well as a negative commandment. It is written (Deut. 15,10) נתון תתן, “you shall surely give (repeatedly),” (15,8) “and you shall repeatedly open your hand for him (the poor).” The negative counterpart of this commandment is found side by side (15,10), לא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, “your heart must not feel bad when you give him.” We also find another basic aspect of this commandment in Deut. 15,7 לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון, “do not harden your heart or close your hand against your destitute brother.”    Seeing that the Torah legislated against stealing altogether already in the Ten Commandments as well as in Leviticus 19, 19,13, there was no need to stress a prohibition against stealing from the poor. The instruction to give to the poor would have been sufficient to make it plain that it is forbidden to steal from the poor instead of giving to the poor. The fact that the Torah nonetheless writes words prohibiting this prompted Solomon to tell us that the penalty for stealing from the poor is far harsher than that for stealing from ordinary people. It was not Solomon’s habit to repeat commandments which have been spelled out in the Torah already and to simply repeat them in his volume משלי, Proverbs. Whenever he does so, he does so only in order to reveal an additional dimension to such a commandment. After all, who is so great that he could arrogate to himself to add to the Torah something Moses had not already thought of or been told by G’d to write down? Solomon, in common with later sages, only added “fences” to the Torah, i.e. warned against conduct which might lead to infringing Biblical commandments. This is why he said: “do not steal from the poor because he is poor,” i.e. stealing from him is  so commonplace seeing that the poor is defenseless, that we must be warned not to exploit his weakness. The poor does not have protagonists such as the rich have. Everybody hates the poor  and keeps his distance from him, even his relatives. This is why Solomon emphasises that the temptation to steal from the poor is great precisely “because he is poor.” Solomon therefore warns us not to think that because the poor do not have defenders of flesh and blood that they are without recourse. On the contrary, G’d Himself is their advocate and will see to it that they do not suffer because they are being exploited due to their poverty. He will go out of His way to administer punishment to anyone who steals from the poor. Contrary to the penalty for thieves who do not steal from the poor specifically, whose penalty the Torah expressed in terms of financial restitution and penal charges, someone who steals from the poor will endure chastisement of body and soul. This is the meaning of the words וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, “he will put in their places those who have tried to put the poor in their place.”   The Torah warns us in many places not to disadvantage orphans and widows, i.e. כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, ”do not oppress any orphan or widow” (Exodus 22,21). Our sages in the Mechilta comment on this verse: “even the widow of a king (presumably wealthy and influential) is included in this commandment.” The same applies to children of a king left orphaned. The reason is that in spite of their financial resources, the state of mind of such widows and orphans is one of melancholy and they are apt to cry at the slightest provocation. It is unfortunately a fact of life that people do take advantage of orphans and widows. The Torah goes on to say: אם ענה תענה אותם.....והרגתי אתכם בחרב והיו נשיכם אלמנות ובניכם יתומים, “if indeed you will persecute them..then I will kill you and your wives will become widows and your children orphans.” The Torah conditions this harsh punishment on the assumption that the victim cried out to G’d for vengeance. Generally speaking, people faced with unfair treatment put their faith in seeking recourse from a human tribunal. The orphan and widow  have no  other recourse than G’d Himself. This is why G’d listens specifically  to their outcries and fights their battles for them.   Solomon also addresses the plight of orphans and widows in this chapter, and this is why he said (Proverbs 23,10-11) אל תסג גבול עולם, ובשדי יתומים אל תבא. כי גואלם חזק. הוא יריב את ריבם אתך. “Do not remove ancient boundary marks; do not encroach upon the field of orphans. For they have a powerful redeemer; he will fight their battles against you.”    The Torah also takes up the plight of the proselytes (strangers, immigrants to the land of Israel) on many occasions For instance, we find in Exodus 22,20 וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים. “And do not taunt or oppress a stranger (convert) for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The Torah cites an additional reason for treating the proselyte fairly when it writes (Exodus 23,9) כי אתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, “for you are familiar with the mentality of the stranger.” Significantly, the Torah did not speak of your “knowing the stranger,” but of your being familiar with נפש הגר, the soul, the mentality of the stranger. You know that the mentality of strangers is one of feeling subdued, humbled, etc., so that his eyes are constantly turned towards G’d seeing he lacks in self-confidence. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 58) speaks of the prohibition of reminding a proselyte or even his son  of his former deeds or the deeds of his father. When such a proselyte comes to study Torah one is not to say to him: “ how can the mouth which used to enjoy all manner of forbidden foods presume to qualify to study the holy Torah.” The reminder of the Torah that when the Jewish people were still enslaved in Egypt their status was not superior to the recent proselyte is an example of the Rabbinic dictum מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך, “do not speak to your fellow man about a blemish as long as you yourself are afflicted with a similar blemish.” (Baba Metzia 59). In fact we find that the righteous themselves are referred to as גרים, strangers, the expression גר being derived from גרגיר, something that has been separated from its origin. The righteous is in the habit of viewing himself as distinctive, a loner, in the sense that he is different from the majority. For instance, he does not view his residence on this earth as something other than temporary. This is what King David had in mind when he said (Psalms 119,19)  “I am only a stranger on earth, do not hide Your commandments from me.” He viewed himself as a tourist who has already been invited  to commence a journey though he does not know the time of departure. Seeing that he does not know when he will depart, he must accumulate provisions for his journey to guard against a sudden and unprepared departure. What do these “provisions” consist of? The observance of G’d’s commandments. This is what David meant when he asked G’d not to hide His commandments from him. We also note that all of the patriarchs have been referred to as גרים on different occasions. Avraham said of himself (Genesis 23,4) “I am a stranger or a resident stranger amongst you” when he prepared to buy a burial ground for Sarah. Yitzchak was commanded by G’d to remain in the land of Canaan during the famine, albeit as a stranger. The wording is גור בארץ הזאת, “sojourn in this land on a temporary basis” (Genesis 26,3). Yaakov is referred to as a stranger in our verse (first verse of our portion וישב) as well as in Genesis 47,4 and when he described his long stay at Lavan’s as that of a stranger in Genesis 32,5.
   וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען,  "Yaakov settled in the land in which his fathers had lived as sojourners, in the land of Canaan." The Torah uses the term וישב, i.e. permanent residence, instead of ויגר, “he sojourned (as a stranger)“ in order to create a parallel with Esau who had been described as securely settled in the mountains of Seir in 36,8. Esau was so described as we were told about the kings, etc., which he established in his country starting at that time. His descendants remained on the same soil never to migrate again. The Torah had to contrast this with the fact that Yaakov took undisputed possession of a part of the (subsequent) land of Israel for the first time. Such possession is here described by the words וישב. His tenure is contrasted with that of either Avraham or Yitzchak, who a) lived there as nomads, b) as individuals, not having produced a clan of 70 people plus their in-laws as had Yaakov. At the same time the Torah also refers to the temporary status of the patriarchs in the land of Canaan by saying ארץ מגוריהם אשר גרו שם, (Exodus 6,4) where all of the patriarchs were referred to as only sojourning in that land. The fact is that whereas Avraham had been a first generation immigrant, both Yitzchak’s mother and Yaakov’s mother as well as the mothers of all of his children had been born outside the Holy Land thus making also their children  “strangers,” at least technically.
      According to Midrash Tanchuma 1 on our portion, examination of the occurrence of the word וישב throughout the Torah will reveal that this term is always used when some unhappy event was associated with such “settlement.” The following examples illustrate the point. Exodus 32,6 speaks of וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people settled down to eat and to drink and they arose to make sport (worship the golden calf).” On that day three thousand of the people were slain on account of this sin). Genesis 37,25 reports that after throwing Joseph into the pit, וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עיניהם והנה אורחת ישמעלים באה.....וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “when the brothers had settled down to eat their meal they raised their eyes and here a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived,......and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.”  In Kings I 5,5 we read וישב יהודה וישראל בטח,...ויקם ה' שטן לישראל, “when Yehudah and Israel had settled safely,...G’d made an adversary against Solomon” (11,14) [as a punishment for transgressing certain commands in the Torah, Ed.] In Numbers 25,1 we read וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “when the Israelites settled down at a place called Shittim, the people started debasing themselves by whoring” (with the Moabite women which resulted in G’d killing 24,000 of them). In our instance too Yaakov’s “settling” in the land of Canaan had in its wake his traumatic experience of the loss of Joseph. G’d had said (according to the Midrash) “is Yaakov not satisfied with inheriting the world to come that he must now also inherit this terrestrial world. It is not appropriate for the righteous to enjoy the best of both worlds.” According to Tanchuma when Yaakov became aware of the extent of the kings and chiefs listed in the Torah as descendents of from Esau he became worried about not having anything to counter such physical prowess of the Edomites. The matter may be explained in the form of a parable. A caravan of camels was heavily laden with straw. The onlookers could not imagine that there were storage facilities large enough to accommodate all this straw and they were worried that the owners would demand their own (the onlookers’) facilities to accommodate all that excess straw. An old man amongst the onlookers told his compatriots not to worry seeing that it would require only a single match to set fire to the entire mass of straw carried by the camels. Similarly, G’d put Yaakov’s mind at rest telling him that Esau would go up in flames just as straw would go up in flames. This is what the prophet Ovadiah 18 described when he compared the fate of the house of Esau and the fate of the house of Joseph in the future. The “match” in our instance would be Joseph, whose descendants would vanquish the descendants of Esau. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, “These are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” It would have seemed appropriate to list all of Yaakov’s sons. and daughters. According to the plain meaning of the text they are all subsumed under the name of Joseph seeing he combined all the good characteristics possessed by his brothers in his own person. He possessed the birthright which normally should have been Reuven’s as we know from Chronicles I 5,1 “when he desecrated the couch of his father, his birthright was given to (the tribe of) Joseph.” He possessed the prophetic qualities of Levi as mentioned by the Torah when he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41,13). He also combined within himself the Royal Powers of Yehudah as the Torah testifies in Genesis 42,6 “Joseph was the one who ruled the land (earth?).” He possessed the intelligence for which Issachar is famed, as we know from Genesis 41,40 “there is none as wise and full of insight such as you.”
       According to a Midrashic approach as found both in Tanchuma and Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph was selected as Yaakov’s prime issue as he was so like his father. This is what the Torah meant when writing  כי בן זקונים הוא לו, that his features resembled those of his father. He also resembled his father in that many experiences which Yaakov endured were more or less duplicated in the life of Joseph. Whereas Yaakov had been pursued by his brother Esau, Joseph was persecuted by his brothers. Just as Yaakov’s mother had been barren for many years, so Joseph’s mother had been barren for many years. Just as Yaakov was born without a foreskin, so Joseph was born without a foreskin. We derive this from the fact that Yaakov was described by the Torah as איש תם, a perfectly formed human being, i.e. one that did not need to be circumcised in order to make him whole. The term תם is only used in connection with circumcised people as G’d told Avraham that in order to become תמים, perfect, whole, he had to circumcise himself (Genesis 17,1). The reason the sages believe that Joseph too was born without a foreskin is because the Torah equates Yaakov and Joseph in writing יעקב יוסף, as if to say that what applied to Yaakov applied to Joseph also. These similarities also showed up in that just as Yaakov’s mother experienced a difficult pregnancy and birth, so did Joseph’s mother experience difficulty when giving birth to Binyamin. Just as Yaakov’s mother gave birth to only two sons so did Joseph’s mother give birth to only two sons. Yaakov and Joseph both married while outside the land of Canaan. The children of both Yaakov and Joseph were born outside the land of Canaan. Both Yaakov and Joseph experienced the company of angels protecting them. Rabbi Yannai (compare Bereshit Rabbah 84,14) claims that Joseph was met by three angels while he searched for his brothers. He bases himself on the word איש, “man,” appearing three separate times in verses 15-16 in our chapter. Just as Yaakov emerged from a dream containing a vision spiritually uplifted, so Joseph emerged similarly uplifted after having certain dreams. Just as the environment of Yaakov (the house of Lavan, and, according to some sources the entire region) experienced G’d’s blessing, as well as the famine coming to an end when he descended to Egypt, so Joseph’s presence both in the house of Potiphar and in Egypt generally proved a blessing for all those around him. Just as Yaakov died in Egypt and his remains were embalmed there only to be buried in the land of Israel eventually, so Joseph died in Egypt, was embalmed there and eventually was reburied in the land of Israel.
      A kabbalistic approach to  the sequence יעקב יוסף in our verse adds that   Yaakov was the “cherub” (part of G’d’s entourage on earth) and so was Joseph. This is the mystical meaning of Sukkah 5, אפי רברבי ואפי זוטרי, that Yaakov was “the wing of a larger bird and Joseph the wing of a smaller bird, respectively.”  Both Yaakov and Joseph have been referred to as נער, “lad” on different occasions. We read of Israel: כי נער ישראל ואהבו, for Israel was a “lad,” and He (G’d) loved him (Hoseah 11,1). Of Joseph we read in our verse that he was a נער.
     ויבא יוסף, “Joseph conveyed, etc.” Whenever we encounter the expression מביא דבה, “conveying information reflecting negatively on someone,” the Bible speaks about factual information not about slander. It means that he who conveyed the information backed it up with proof. When the Bible uses the expression הוציא דבה, however, this indicates that the information conveyed was slanderous, was untrue. A classic example of this is found when the Torah speaks of the information conveyed by the spies whom Moses had sent to the land of Canaan (Numbers 13,32. The Torah writes ויוציאו דבת הארץ. “They brought forth an (evil) report of the land.” We have a similar example in Proverbs 10,18 מוציא דבה הוא כסיל, “if someone spreads slander he is a fool.” It is clear that  Solomon means untruths. We also have  a verse in Job 8,10 ומלבם יוציאו מילים, “and they invent words (of a character-assassinating nature) which originate only in their hearts.”
     את דבתם רעה, “evil reports of them.”  Although we know that the expression דבה by itself refers to something of a negative nature, the Torah added the word רעה, “evil,” to underline the exaggerated nature of such evil. Rashi understands the word to teach that Joseph reported every single misdemeanour which he saw the sons of Leah commit. He reported that they were eating flesh from live animals, that they related to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah with disdain as inferiors, and suspected them of possibly engaging in illicit sexual relations. As a result, he was punished in three ways.  Nachmanides writes that if indeed Joseph had stood up for the rights of his half-brothers the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah we would have expected these four brothers to have tried to rescue Joseph from his attackers. Should you argue that they might have been afraid of the sons of Leah, this is hardly likely considering there were  four of them and that Reuven would most likely side with them in any quarrel, and, so of course, would Joseph himself. So there would be six against six. Nachmanides therefore concludes that Joseph badmouthed the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah and that explains why they were hostile towards him. The hostility of the sons of Leah is described in the Torah as the result of the sons of Leah (“the brothers” in verse four) observing that their father loved Joseph the most. As a result of these two factors Joseph was thoroughly hated by all his brothers except Binyamin.  The sequence of the first four verses then is best understood as follows: “These are the descendants of Yaakov; Joseph was seventeen years of age at the time these events occurred and he was engaged in tending the sheep with his half-brothers, the  sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, wives of his father. He badmouthed them to their father. When the brothers (sons of Leah) noted that their father loved Joseph best, they hated him and could not speak peacefully about him.” This explains why all the brothers present at the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites were in full agreement.
  
  Verse 3
  
    וישראל אהב את יוסף, “and Israel loved Joseph, etc.”  You will observe that the Torah uses the names Yaakov and Israel interchangeably. In the first verse it calls him Yaakov; in the verse at the end of this passage where Yaakov rends his garments having concluded that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, it again calls him Yaakov, whereas in our verse here he is called Israel. This proves that the name Israel which G’d had bestowed upon him was not meant to supplant the name he had been given at birth but was to serve as an alternate name for him.
     ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “he made for him a striped coat.” This was a superior garment.. It may have resembled the כתונת תשבץ worn by the High Priest (Exodus 28,4). The brothers were envious of Joseph on account of this garment. This envy aroused by Yaakov making this garment for Joseph caused our sages (Shabbat 10) to go on record that a father should be careful not to discriminate between his children. This coat was the first of the various causes which produced the tragedy described by the Torah and whose ramifications ultimately resulted in the enslavement of the bodies of the Jewish people in Egypt. It had still later ramifications in the time of the Romans after the destruction of the second Temple when ten of the most illustrious scholars of that time died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans whose Emperor justified himself quoting the penalty of kidnapping provided in the Torah. He argued that the brothers had never been punished for selling their brother. The body is perceived as the outer garment of the soul. The kind of garment one wears is somehow related to the body underneath it just as the body is related to the soul within it. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 the expression פסים (plural) is used because these stripes were as wide as two פסות ידיו, two handbreadths. Another interpretation of the word פסים:  the word is derived from פייס, lot; the brothers drew lots amongst themselves to decide which of the four methods of death the Torah provides to administer to Joseph. This is based on the wording of ויתנכלו להמיתו, “they planned (how) to kill him” (verse 37,18). Alternately, they drew lots who was to bring the news about the torn coat to their father Yaakov. The lot fell on Yehudah and this is why Yehudah said to Yaakov הכר נא ”please identify if this is the coat of your son.”  The expression הכר נא is found again with  Tamar, Yehudah’s daughter-in-law, who said to Yehudah concerning the pawn he had given her הכר נא למי החותמת וגו',  “please identify to whom this signet ring belongs, etc.” (38,25) When Yehudah said to Yaakov: “identify if this is the coat of your son,” Yaakov’s life ended suddenly, and the lives of Yehudah’s sons Er and Onan came to an end at that same moment. [I believe that this Midrash considers the “revival” of Yaakov as having taken place when he heard that Joseph was alive, 45,24, and that the lives of Er and Onan were vicariously revived in the twin sons which Tamar bore for Yehudah 38,28. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 32,18 ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק בניהם אחריהם, “but You visit the guilt of the fathers to their children after them.”   Still another possible meaning of the word פסים. The word is reminiscent of the four kinds of troubles which befell Joseph as a result of this coat. The letters in the word are an acrostic for the words פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים.. All the above owned Joseph at one time or another from the moment the brothers sold him. A more mystical meaning of the word פסים: Yaakov revealed the mystical connections between the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet to Joseph. In other words, Yaakov “enrobed” his son Joseph with the wisdom contained in the twenty-two letters of the alphabet which he himself had learned at the time he had studied in the academies of Shem and Ever.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ולא יכלו דברו לשלום,  “and they could not speak about him peacefully.” This was actually a positive aspect of their characters. Instead of hiding their hostility and flattering Joseph, they were straightforward in revealing their feelings toward him (Bereshit Rabbah. 84,9). We find this characteristic praised by Solomon in Proverbs 29,5 where he said: גבר מחליק על רעהו רשת פורש על פעמיו, “a man who flatters his neighbour actually spreads a net for his feet.” The prophet actually compliments Avshalom  when he said (Samuel II 13,22)  ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון. “and Avshalom did not speak to Amnon either friendly or unfriendly words for Avshalom hated Amnon (who had raped his sister).”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   'והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים וגו, “and here we were binding sheaves, etc.” They realised in their wisdom that the meaning of the dream was that the sheaves bowing to Joseph’s sheaf meant that he viewed himself as enjoying Royal authority. over them. This feeling of theirs was reinforced by his use of the words נצבה, an expression which is associated with Royalty such as in Kings I 22,48 נצב המלך, ”he acted as king.” It was because they were aware of this interpretation of his dream that they said to Joseph sarcastically: “are you planning to rule over us as a king?” What the brothers were not aware of was the fact that Joseph’s eventual appointment as king would be triggered by the subject of corn harvests (i.e. his prediction of abundance of such harvests and subsequent failure of such harvests). Seeing that they hated Joseph already it is quite understandable that they interpreted his nocturnal dreams as boding no good for them instead of seeing the positive element that might be presaged by such dreams. Actually, even their interpretation of Joseph’s dreams was inspired by G’d who caused them to verbalise such thoughts. This is reminiscent of something we read in connection with Gideon (Judges 7,10)  to whom G’d had said that in preparation for his battle against the Midianites and in order to reassure him, he should go down amongst the camp of the Midianites and listen to what they had to say. Gideon did so and overheard a Midianite soldier tell his companion that he had dreamt that there was a commotion; a loaf of barley bread was whirling through the Midianite camp. It came to a tent, struck it, and the tent collapsed and turned upside down and collapsed. To this his companion responded: “this can only mean the sword of the Israelite Gideon son of Yoash. G’d is delivering Midian and the entire camp into his hands.” When Gideon heard the dream told and interpreted, he bowed low. (to G’d in gratitude) This was another instance when G’d inspired someone to interpret and verbalise a dream which subsequently came true. This may be the source of the Talmud saying in Berachot 58 that “all dreams are influenced by the interpretation which is being “given by the mouth,” [i.e. which has been verbalised. Ed.] Here too G’d placed the words in the mouths of the brothers so that eventually Joseph’s dreams would become true. 
  You will note that the expression והנה occurs three times in this paragraph. This is reminiscent of the three journeys the brothers were to make to Egypt on account of Joseph’s sheaf of corn. Each time the journey meant that they would humble themselves before Joseph. The first time they went to Egypt because of the famine which prevailed in the land of Canaan. The second time they went to Egypt at the insistence of their father, ostensibly in order to buy some grain (43,2) but perhaps even more so in order to secure the release of their brother Shimon. On that occasion Joseph revealed himself to them. The third time they traveled to Egypt with their father as immigrants; by that time all three dreams of Joseph had been fulfilled. 
     ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and they bowed down to my sheaf.” The sun, moon and stars which bowed down to Joseph  in his next dream were Yaakov, Bilhah, and his brothers. The expression וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel bowed down (to Joseph) at the head of the bed,” in Genesis 47,31 is the fulfillment of this part of Joseph’s dream. The brothers are reported as prostrating themselves before Joseph already in Genesis 42,6.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אותו על חלומותיו ועל דבריו. “They continued to hate him still more on account of his words and his dreams.” The verse explains that their hatred was fanned by two separate causes. First they hated him for having dreamt the kind of dream that he did dream. In addition they hated him for telling them of his dream and bragging about it. It was like a sinful nation who is reprimanded but believes itself righteous expecting favours from G’d instead (Isaiah 58,2).
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” Yaakov wanted to nullify the meaning of the dream in the presence of Joseph’s brothers; this is why he demonstrated anger in order to divert their anger from him and said:
     הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך, “do you really expect me and your brothers to come and bow down before you?” Seeing that Joseph’s mother was already dead, Yaakov wanted to demonstrate that the other parts of the dream could also not be taken seriously. Nonetheless, Yaakov took the dream far more seriously than he let on and that is why the Torah added: “his father kept careful track of the matter.” He knew that the dream was very significant and awaited its realisation at a future date. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,12 the Holy Spirit told Yaakov  to remember the matter, i.e. as if the Torah had written שמור את הדבר, “remember the matter well!”
  
  Verse 11
  
  . ויקנאו בו אחיו, “his brothers were jealous of him.”  It is well known that in most instances hatred is the result of jealousy; the hatred which the Torah had spoken of earlier in verse four had been due to the brothers’ awareness that their father Yaakov loved Joseph more than he loved them, as the Torah has spelled out there. Why then did the Torah have to repeat here that the brothers were jealous of Joseph? It is possible that the correct explanation of the original hatred of the brothers towards Joseph was not due to the preferred status Joseph enjoyed in the eyes of their father due to his excelling in virtues, but was due merely to their father showing him more love. There was actually no reason to be envious of a young boy of seventeen years of age who had not demonstrated any qualities superior to those of his brothers. One usually envies one’s peers or one’s superiors. One is not given to envy inferiors. Now, after having heard repeatedly the kind of dreams their brother had experienced, his older brothers realised that there might be more to Joseph than they had thought before. Therefore they now envied him his dreams and hated him because of them. The Torah therefore told us of this additional dimension of the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph. This idea is best illustrated by the change of preposition the Torah chose to describe their new  jealousy. In our verse the Torah chose the preposition בו as distinct from the preposition את or אותו which was used to describe their hatred of him, or the verse in Genesis 26,14 where the Philistines’ jealousy of Yitzchak is described as ויקנאו אותו פלשתים.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ויבא שכמה, “he came to Shechem.” a place destined for a variety of unhappy events (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2). In Shechem Dinah had been raped; In Shechem they sold Joseph. In Shechem the kingdom of David was divided and the ten tribes elected Jerobam as their king. (Kings I 12,1). After Jerobam had been elected king he built up that city (Kings I 12,25).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כי שמעתי אומרים, “for I have heard (them) say, etc.” The word אותם is missing in the text. נלכה דותינה , “let us go to Dotan.” Our sages (Rashi) suggested that this wording  was meant to alert Joseph to danger. The words: “they moved away from here” were something that Joseph did not need to be told because he already had found out. These words were the clue to the angel’s warning. In other words, when Joseph indicated that he sought a brotherly relationship with them, the angel cautioned him that they were no longer open to such advances. [Joseph did not understand this oblique warning. Ed.] The sages speak of נכלי דתות, “contriving legislation,” instead of נלכה דותינה. If we take this at face value Dotan was not the name of a location. At any rate, Joseph did not “read between the lines” and understood the meaning of his words to be simply that they had moved to a place called Dotan and went in search of that location. He found the brothers in Dotan, something which the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 describes as the natural conclusion of the angel’s piece of warning “they have moved from here,” i.e. they have changed their attitude. When the Torah continues that the brothers plotted to kill him by using the word ויתנכלו, this is confirmation of the expression found in the Midrash that they contrived to find a legal opening for disposing of Joseph. Some of our sages claim that as soon as Joseph approached close enough to be identified, his brother set dogs upon him. [In this fashion they would not have become guilty of laying a hand on him. Ed.] The dogs, however did not harm Joseph (Nachmanides). As a last resort, when Joseph insisted on going to them instead of realising that the brothers themselves had set the dogs on him, they decided that they had to kill him directly, with their own hands. This is the meaning of verses 19-20, “let us go and kill him.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . לא נכנו נפש, “let us not commit murder. Reuven found it impossible to agree with the advice, i.e. the solution proposed by his brothers. He intended to save Joseph. Had he said immediately: “we will not kill him,” he would have given away his intention to save Joseph and the fact that he had pity on him. He therefore added the word נפש to convince his brothers that his strategy was not aimed at saving Joseph’s fate but at saving his brothers from committing an unpardonable sin  The prohibition of murdering someone in cold blood is absolute and knows of no exceptions. This is why he added אל תשפכו דם, “do not spill blood.” Had he been concerned only with Joseph’s blood not being spilled he would have said אל תשפכו דמו, “do not spill his blood.” He implied that he shared the brothers’ evaluation of Joseph’s guilt and hated him just as they hated him, but that he was concerned with the basic prohibition of shedding the blood of a human being, נפש.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויקחהו, “they took, etc.”  Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,15  use the absence of the letter ו behind the letter ח  in ויקחהו, i.e. only one person actually seized Joseph to surmise that the person in question was Shimon. This is why later on (Genesis 42,24) Joseph chose to imprison only Shimon.
     והבור ריק, אין בו מים, “and the pit was empty, it did not contain any water.” Even if it did contain some water it would still qualify for the description “empty;” this is why the additional words “there was no water in it,” mean that there was absolutely no water in it. 
  Our sages in Shabbat 22, however, use these words to deduce that whereas here was no water in the pit, i.e. that Joseph could not drown in it, to mean that there were other dangerous inhabitants in that pit such as vipers, etc.  The reason the sages in the Talmud interpreted the verse in this way is that the verse actually contains two limitations. The first such limitation are the words “and the pit was empty; the second  limitation are the words: “there was no water in it.” Whenever we find two limitations the rule is that there was something compensating for these limitations, i.e. deadly dangers other than water.
      Rabbeinu Tam, one of the Tossaphists, explained that the reason the sages picked examples such as deadly snakes as the inhabitants of that pit Joseph was thrown in may have been derived from the Torah  saying in Deut. 8,15  במדבר הגדול והנורא נחש שרף ועקרב וצמאון אשר אין מים בו, “through the great and awesome wilderness  of snakes, fiery serpent, and scorpion; and thirst where there was no water.” The absence of water in the desert is contrasted there with the presence of deadly snakes. Nachmanides writes:  the snakes in the pit were concealed in holes which were not visible to people looking into it. Had the brothers noted these snakes and observed that they did not harm Joseph they would have realized that Joseph enjoyed the special protection of G’d  and that He had performed a miracle on his account. They would not have dared lay a hand on the person whom G’d had so obviously selected for a special role. We observe the presence of such considerations elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Daniel 6,23  where the miraculous escape of Daniel from the den of lions told the king that “G’d had sent an angel and shut the lions’ mouth so that they did not even wound him because merit was found for me before Him.” 
      Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 understands the wording as allegorical. The word “empty” was a simile for Yaakov’s reservoir of spiritual powers being drained through his favorite son being dumped into the pit, whereas the words “there was no water in it,” refer to the absence of the words of Torah which have often been compared to the life-giving properties of water. They base themselves on Isaiah 58,4 “come O thirsty one, go to the source of water!” The brothers were unaware of what would later on be written in the Torah (Deut. 24,7) “If someone be discovered who has sold (kidnapped) a member of his brethren the Children of Israel, and he enslaves him...that kidnapper shall die.” The brothers had thus made themselves guilty of a potentially capital offence.
  
  Verse 25
  
  . וישבו לאכול לחם,  “they sat down to eat their meal.”  These words are a reflection of some degree of stoppage, permanence. They arrested their previous activities and emotional turmoil by sitting down to eat. 
  Midrash Tehillim chapter 10 states that G’d’s reaction to the brothers “calmly” sitting down to eat as if nothing had happened was: “Your children will be sold as a result of a meal to be consumed at Shushan,” as we know from Esther 1,3 :”in the third year of the king’s reign, etc.” Haman came and took the Israelites who had felt emancipated away from the feast the king had prepared and at which the Jews had participated. The decree to wipe out the Jews was followed by the King and Haman sitting down to drink. (Esther 3,15)
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” He thought in his dreams that he would rule over us and that we would become his slaves; let us sell him into slavery instead.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, וימשכו, “Midianite men, merchants, passed by and pulled Joseph (out of the pit).” According to the plain meaning of the text the passing Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him, not the brothers. According to this interpretation, Joseph saying to the brothers in Genesis 45,4 “I am Joseph  whom you have sold to Egypt,” has  to refer to the fact that the brothers dumped him in the pit as a result of which he was eventually sold to Egypt. This would be supported by the fact that at that time he said מצרימה, i.e. in the direction of Egypt, as opposed to למצרים, which would have meant: “to Egypt.” He referred to a process which eventually brought him to Egypt after he had been traded from master to master. In that event the sin attributed to the brothers by the Romans (who punished Jewish scholars over 1200 years later) would have been an indirect sin at best. They were punished for being the cause which triggered Joseph’s eventually winding up in Egypt as a slave. The Romans felt that leading citizens of the Jewish people should pay for this indirect sale of Joseph by the brothers. They considered it murder seeing that if the Ishmaelites or Midianites had not come along Joseph would have died in that pit. The principle of prominent people being considered guilty of murder even if it was not by laying an actual hand of the victim is reflected in the Bible by the case of David who ordered his commander-in-chief Yoav to place Bat Sheva’s husband Uriah in such an exposed position at the front against the Bney Ammon   that he was almost certain to be killed. He instructed Yoav to ensure that Uriah would be killed by withdrawing the support of his comrades-in-arms from Uriah. As a result, Uriah was  killed. by the Ammonites, and the Bible (the prophet Natan in Samuel II 12,9) accused David outright of having murdered Uriah though he had not laid a hand on him. The only difference between murdering someone with one’s own hands and between contriving his certain death in another fashion is the culpability before a human tribunal. The sin vis-a-vis G’d is the same (compare Kidushin 43)
     בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” We have been commanded by the Torah (Numbers 18,16) that the redemption of a firstborn son, an Israelite, (as distinct from a Kohen or a Levite) is to be performed in exchange for 5 selaim. The sela is a coin worth 4 “kesseph,” pieces of silver, such as mentioned in our verse here. This is the reason that Onkelos does not translate “twenty selaim of silver” but leaves the wording of the Torah unchanged and writes: עשרים כסף. One of the underlying reasons for the whole procedure of redeeming the firstborn is the need to atone for that sale of Joseph who was Rachel’s firstborn son and who had been wrongly sold for this amount (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2,3).
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . וישלחו את כתונת הפסים אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat to their father.” According to the plain meaning of the text the messengers presented the coat to Yaakov. This is why the Torah phrases the handing over as accompanied by such an impersonal sounding statement as: “this is what we have found, please identify if this is the coat of your son?” If the brothers had brought the coat to Yaakov themselves they would have said: “is this Joseph’s coat?” The implication in all this was that if some robbers had killed Joseph, surely they would have retained such a precious garment as the striped coat. Other commentators understand the wording of the Torah here as applying to the brothers themselves. In support of their view they cite the words ויביאו אל אביהם, “they brought (it) to their father.” According to this view, the Torah highlighted the cruelty of the brothers’ conduct vis-a-vis their father.
  
  Verse 33
  
   כתונת בני, “the coat of my son!” He meant: “this is the coat of my son.” חיה רעה אכלתהו,“a wild beast has devoured him.”  According to the plain meaning of the text he meant: “had robbers slain him they would have taken the coat. Therefore it must have been a beast.” 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah (84,10) Yaakov had a flash of insight seeing in his mind’s eye that Joseph would become provoked by the wife of  Potiphar. We may be permitted the question that if G’d granted him such a flash of insight, why did He not reveal to him that Joseph was alive? Our sages answered this by saying that the brothers had all made a solemn agreement that whosoever would reveal what happened to Yaakov would be ostracised. They had included G’d in that agreement, i.e. they did specifically impose silence even on G’d (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 38). In order to make such a weird sounding statement more plausible, let us consider the following. There were nine brothers present at the time the sale took place (Binyamin and Reuven were absent. Joseph, as the victim was not part of this agreement). In order to make such a solemn oath or agreement legally valid a quorum of ten adult males was required. They had decided to make G’d the tenth member of that quorum (not that they “forbade” G’d to reveal to Yaakov what He saw fit to reveal). If you find this concept difficult to accept, consider, if you will that when Avraham prayed for the cities of Sodom, etc. to be saved if they contained a certain number of righteous individuals, he asked if G’d would spare them if He could find there forty-five such people. Why did he mention the number  45, and not 35, 25, or 15? He began with he number 50 to say that if there could be found a quorum of ten good people in each of the five towns under threat of extinction G’d should spare the town on account of them. In mentioning the number 45, he assumed that if each of these towns would have only nine righteous men G’d would be willing to make up the missing tenth and thus He would complement the required number (Genesis 18,28 according to Rashi). If you were to reject this comparison saying that whereas Avraham wanted to make G’d a partner in order to save a town, in this instance the brothers made G’d their partner in a destructive scheme, remember that their objective was not a nefarious one. Their objective all along had been to preserve the people of Israel and the honour of G’d as they considered how Yaakov would curse all of them if he became aware of what they had done to his favourite son. If the sons and family of Yaakov would perish, who would proclaim the name and glory of G’d in the world? The situation which would then come about is similar to the one mentioned in Joshua 7,9 when Joshua felt that the Israelites were threatened by the defeat they had suffered at the hands of the little town of Ai, and he implored G’d to reverse this defeat. He said: והכיתו את שמנו מן הארץ ומה תעשה לשמך הגדול, “and they will wipe out our name from the land and then what will You do to promote Your great name?” On account of these considerations the brothers had felt justified in including G’d Himself in their scheme. Incidentally, we find that Moses also included G’d and his heavenly tribunal at the time he received the Torah. You might ask that seeing the sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) have told us that Yitzchak knew that Joseph was alive but decided not to reveal this to his son Yaakov as he felt that G’d must have had a good reason if He Himself had not revealed it to him, whence did Yitzchak have his information? We must obviously conclude that G’d had told Yitzchak. He also told Binyamin that Joseph was alive. We know this (compare Bereshit Rabbah 71,8) because the gem on Aaron’s breastplate which represented the tribe of Binyamin was the ישפה, which may be read as יש פה, “there is a mouth”. The Midrash implies that though Binyamin was not included in that solemn undertaking of the nine brothers and he could have told his father that Joseph was alive without violating that pact, he decided to keep his mouth shut as he appreciated the motivations which had guided his brothers when making such a pact, and he too did not want to take the chance that his father would curse the brothers.
  
  Verse 34
  
   ימים רבים, “for many days.” The word “many” means the seven days which are prescribed for mourning next of kin who have died. The fact that the Torah refers to seven days as “many” is no cause for surprise as we find that the Torah calls even three days רבים, “many,” from the halachic interpretation of that word by Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 15,25.
      Bereshit Rabbah 84,20 quoted by Rashi writes that the words “many days” mean “many years,” i.e. for the full twenty-two years that Yaakov and Joseph were apart. Rashi explains how these twenty-two years are arrived at. Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold and he was 39 years old when Yaakov and family moved to Egypt. He was described as 30 years of age when he stood before Pharaoh and interpreted the dreams. This was followed by 7 years of plenty. The brothers traveled to Egypt in the first as well as in the second year of the famine before returning with their families during that same year. These twenty-two years of separation between Yaakov and Joseph corresponded to the twenty-two years Yaakov had been absent from his home when he had to flee from Esau. [The 14 years he spent at the academy of Shem and Ever studying Torah are not counted as that was not the result of his having cheated Esau. Ed.]
  
  Verse 35
  
   כל בניו, “all his sons, etc.” These are his actual sons. וכל בנותיו refers to Dinah and Serach, the daughter of Asher. וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” This was because it is impossible to accept such comfort when the person being mourned is still alive. It is a decree by G’d which enables the survivor to gradually “forget” someone who has died and thus be comforted over his loss (compare Rashi). כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, “but I will join my son in She-ol still mourning for him.” He meant that he would be buried while still in mourning for his son as he would never get over this loss. 
  According to Tanchuma Vayigash 9, the word שאולה is a reference to Gehinom, purgatory. Yaakov thought so as he had been certain that not one his children would die during his lifetime. Now that Joseph had died, he felt that this could only have occurred if he himself was destined for purgatory.
     ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him.” This is a reference to Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father. Yitzchak wept when he observed the anguish of his son Yaakov and was unable to tell him that actually Joseph was alive. The expression “Yitzchak wept for him,” is to tell us that whereas he “wept,” he did not mourn Joseph as you do not mourn the living.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, “it was at about that time that Yehudah descended.” Actually, the passage about Joseph being brought down to Egypt (39,1) should have been the natural continuation at this point.
   The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 85:2 explains that the reason the Torah inserted this chapter about Yehudah and his marriage was to draw our attention to the fact that Yehudah’s having counseled selling Joseph had become the cause for his “descent,” i.e. for his losing the role of leadership amongst his brothers. When the brothers observed the inconsolable state of mind of their father they blamed Yehudah for being the cause of it telling him that if only he had stopped them and had suggested that they return Joseph to his father they would have listened to him.”
  A kabbalistic approach: the paragraph describing a levirate marriage was appended to the paragraph describing the sale of Joseph as both paragraphs deal with the subject of גלגול, a form of reincarnation, complete transformation of one’s fate. It is a fact that the sin committed by the brothers was of the type that could be atoned for by nothing less than reincarnation of their souls in different bodies. This is also the mystical dimension of the levirate marriage (widow of a brother who died without having sired children to one of the surviving brothers, compare Deut. 25:5-10). The mystical dimension of the levirate marriage is the same as the mystical dimension of reincarnation of the souls in a new body. The ten martyrs whom the Romans chose to expiate for the sin of the brothers having sold Joseph were none other than reincarnations of the brothers’ souls in different bodies. By dying a martyr’s death the millennia-old sin overhanging them was finally expiated. Er and Onan, the sons of Yehudah who died prematurely for committing a sin, were similarly reincarnated in the bodies of the twin sons Peretz and Zerach whom Tamar bore for Yehudah (verse 29). This is the deeper meaning of the sequence (Numbers 26:19-20) “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and the sons of Yehudah were , etc.” All this is alluded to here through the sequence in which the Torah relates these events, something which the intelligent reader will comprehend. As to the problem that there were ten such martyrs at the hands of the Romans whereas only nine of the brothers were actively involved in the sale of Joseph, seeing that Reuven had been absent at the time of the sale and had previously expressed disapproval of the brothers’ treatment of Joseph, we would have to say that the tenth person was Joseph himself who was guilty of providing the brothers with cause to hate him to such a degree that they committed this crime against him. Seeing Joseph had been an inseparable part of the sin he also became part of the method of expiation. Another way of answering the problem of why the Romans chose ten martyrs [and why G’d allowed this, Ed.] is that certainly Joseph was not held responsible in such a fashion but that Reuven was. Reuven was punished in that way not because of his share in the sale of Joseph, something he had had no share in, but he had not been punished yet for his misdemeanour involving the couch of his stepmother Bilhah. We even have an allusion to this in Moses’ blessing for Reuven at the end of his life (Deut. 33:6) ויהי מתיו מספר, “may his population be included in the count,” the count being the ten martyrs who would absolve the ten brothers from their sin in the future.
  
  Verse 2
  
  בת איש כנעני , “the daughter of a Canaanite man of distinction.” According to Onkelos the word כנעני in this instance refers to a merchant, a trader. Yehudah was certainly true to the tradition of his fathers not to marry girls of Canaanite descent. The respective wives of all the brothers may be presumed to have been of Egyptian descent or of Moabite and Ammonite descent respectively, neighboring peoples who were not from Canaanitic stock. The brothers may also have married descendants of Ishmael or Keturah, Avraham’s second wife who had born him six sons. This is the reason that we are told in 46,10 amongst the list of sons of Shimon that there was someone who is described as שאול בן הכנענית, “Saul the son of a Canaanite woman.” Even when the Torah was so explicit, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) still explained that that woman was not a true Canaanite, claiming that the “Canaanite woman” was none other than Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite and that Shimon had married her and had adopted the son she bore as a result of this rape.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והיה בכזיב בלדתה אותו, “he was at Keziv when she gave birth to him.” Why did the Torah have to tell us that Yehudah was at a certain place at the time his wife gave birth? According to Rashi this place was called כזיב because Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife, stopped having any more children after this. According to Nachmanides, Yehudah called his son Shelah, a word connected to שגגה, error, as the place he was born at brought home to Yehudah that he had committed an error. 
  There is a mystical dimension to this verse and the word כזיב alludes to the third of the emanations, the emanation called בינה. This emanation has a great deal to do with the ability of a woman (or man) to have children. In fact this is alluded to already when G’d is described as ויבן, i.e. He provided בינה for the first woman who was formed from part of Adam. Our sages there commented that a woman has an extra portion of such בינה, i.e. she has been providentially endowed with the ability to have children. Yehudah had a prophetic insight which told him that his principal issue would not be any one of these three sons and he therefore prayed invoking the great attribute of G’d known as כוזו [which appears on the back of the parchments of our Mezzuzot, — Ed.], an attribute involved in matters pertaining to fertility and other genetic influences not subject to a person’s merit, the same attribute Hannah prayed to when she asked G’d to grant her זרע אנשים, not just a child but a child who would become worthy, i.e. an איש in the full sense of the word. (compare Samuel I 1,11) Yehudah’s prayer was accepted as he had twin sons by Tamar (verse 18) one of whom, Peretz, became the ancestor of King David. According to Rashi, the words ותהר לו, “she became pregnant for him,” in the above-mentioned verse are significant in this respect. We do not find this pronoun לו in connection with Bat Shua’s pregnancies or births. This entitles us to assume that Yehudah’s descendants would be known through Peretz and Zerach rather than through his other surviving son Shelah. The word בכזיב may also be read as an acrostic for the words ב-כח כ-וזו,ז-כה י-הודה ב--תאומים, “through the merit of invoking G’d’ attribute כוזו Yehudah merited having the twins born for him by Tamar.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וימת גם אותו, “He killed him also.” The word  גם is proof that Er and Onan died for the same sin. Our sages in Yevamot 34 say that it is easy to understand why Onan should have died for this sin seeing he had violated his father’s instructions to marry Tamar and to have children by her (verse 8). He thought that these children would not be accounted as his own but as his deceased brother’s Er, hence he deliberately wasted his semen. The question is why did Er act in such a fashion? Why did he not want children? The Talmud answers that he did not want Tamar to become disfigured through a pregnancy. He wanted to preserve her beauty, i.e. to treat her as a sex object rather than as the mother of his children. This explains why Yehudah had stressed to Onan  (verse 8) “and maintain seed for your brother.” Seeing that Yehudah did not add the word המת, “the deceased,” when instructing Onan to have children with Tamar, Onan realised that when Tamar would have children these would not even be considered as his children but as his late brother’s. In other words, he would not even be compensated for Tamar losing her youthful beauty.  The meaning of the letter ל in the word לאחיך in verse 8 may be understood as similar to אמרי לי אחי הוא, “say concerning me he is my brother” (Genesis 20,13). The verse teaches us the lesson that if someone deliberately wastes his semen, i.e.  שחת ארצה, this was the sin of the generation which perished during the deluge. We find the word כי השחית כל בשר על הארץ in connection with that generation, i.e. the same word as we find describing Onan’s sin (Nidah 12). The reason the Torah calls the firstborn of Yehudah ער  was because these letters are the same as רע, “evil” in G’d’s eyes [same letters in a different sequence. Ed.] Seeing the Torah mentions the word רע in connection with both Er, Onan, and the people of Sodom (Genesis 13,13), it stands to reason that all of these people were guilty of the sin of letting their semen go to waste deliberately.
  
  Verse 11
  
   עד יגדל שלה בני, “until my son Shelah becomes of age.” Seeing there was no brother older than Shelah for Tamar to marry, she would have to wait until Shelah was old enough. Had Shelah been of marriageable age already, Yehudah would not have asked Tamar to wait. This verse [the problems caused by Yehudah delaying the levirate marriage of Shelah, Ed.] prompted our sages in Yevamot 39 to say that if a brother evaded performing the levirate union until a younger, under-aged brother had come of age and would perform it in his stead, or if an older brother was overseas and a brother who was present wanted to wait until his older brother returns from overseas and marries this widow, that one does not accept such arguments. The brother who is present and of age must either perform the levirate marriage or release the widow by performing the rite of חליצה, the act of releasing her to marry an outsider, so hat she can get on with her life. In Ruth 1,11  Naomi says to her daughters-in-law: “turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me? I am too old to be married. Even if I were to be married tonight and I also bore sons, should you wait for them till they grow up?” This suggests that there might be a point in waiting under less extreme circumstances. There are those who hold that Naomi meant that if she had been pregnant at the time she uttered these words she would have encouraged her daughters-in-law to wait till such sons had been old enough to marry. However, people who think along those lines are quite wrong. The Torah in Deut. 25,1 introduces the whole subject of the levirate marriage with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו, which the Talmud in Yevamot 17 interprets to mean ”when the brothers concerned are alive at the same time.” In other words, no unborn brother can qualify for observing this legislation for a brother who had died before he was born.
     כי אמר  פן ימות גם הוא, “for he had said: ‘lest he die too.’”  He felt that Tamar had demonstrated a tendency to cause the death of her husbands. There is an opinion in the Talmud according to which when something occurs successively even only twice we already consider this as an established pattern, i.e. חזקה. This is the way Rashi interprets our verse. Nachmanides questions this, writing that if indeed Yehudah’s fears were based on this consideration why would he not tell Tamar his reason and deceive her by making her think that he would give Shelah to her in due course? According to Rashi, Shelah would be forbidden to marry Tamar as she was a potential killer. This is why Nachmanides explains that actually Shelah would have been a suitable third husband for her under the levirate marriage legislation. Yehudah simply did not want Shelah to marry until he had matured more as otherwise he might become guilty of the same sin which had caused the death of his brothers. When Tamar noticed that although Shelah had matured in the interval her father-in-law had still not given him to her in marriage, she  decided to take a different route to secure issue from the family of Yaakov/Yehudah.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yehudah considered the woman as a harlot because she had had covered her face, not wanting to be identified This would enable harlots to have sexual relations even with close relatives as the latter would not shy away from having contact with them.
  	A Midrashic approach from Sotah 10: the words refer to the fact that while living under her father-in-law’s roof Tamar had kept her face covered so that he did not know what her face looked like.This is also the reason why Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 writes that a person should make a habit to know his relatives well enough to be able to identify them when looking at them so as to protect himself against what happened to Yehudah with Tamar.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . הבה נא אבא אליך, “if you please, I wish to have relations with you.” If the Torah had applied the rules of grammar here, it should have quoted Yehudah as saying הבי instead of הבה. However, seeing that Yehudah considered the woman a harlot, a woman who demands sexual relations outright in the manner males do, he changed his mode of address and treated her as if she were a male. The Torah preferred to quote Yehudah verbatim instead of observing the rules of grammar. We find a parallel to this in Genesis 19,32 when the daughters of Lot initiate sexual intercourse with their father by first making him drunk. They too acted in a manner which is usually a male prerogative, and this is why the Torah wrote לכה נשקה  instead of לכי נשקה. I have explained the matter there.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . חותמך ופתילך ומטך אשר בידך, “your signet, your wrap, and your staff which is in your hand.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חותמך refers to a ring used to seal documents. Possibly, Yehudah’s signet ring bore the image of a lion seeing that his father  described him as גור אריה, “a lion cub” in Genesis 49,19. Rashi explains that the word ופתילך means “your wrap,” a garment with which he covered himself. Concerning this Nachmanides disagrees, saying that it is not logical that Yehudah would give a harlot a garment of his without which he would remain naked. Moreover, how is it possible that the Torah would describe a שמלה as a פתיל? Besides, why would this garment be described by Tamar as הפתילים i.e. as garments in the plural in verse 25? If one were to say that the word פתיל refers to the ציצית, the fringes, how can we assume that Yehudah would treat the  fringes in such a desultory manner, i.e. giving the part of the garment which lends it some sanctity to a harlot? Nachmanides therefore concludes that פתיל is a small cloth such as a kerchief used to wear around the neck or part of the head. It is still a common practice in the Orient that distinguished people wear such a piece of attire. It is called פתיל  as it is short like a שושיפא, short cloak. (Compare Onkelos on Deut. 22,17 where שמלה, bed-sheet, is translated as שושיפא.) 
     ומטך, “and your staff.” She referred to the staff that princes and dignitaries are in the habit of carrying. It is similar to the word שבט, which is mentioned by Yaakov as a hallmark of the authority of the dynasty of Yehudah when Yaakov blessed him before his death (Genesis 49,10). 
      Some commentators view the three items which Tamar demanded as a pledge from Yehudah as allusions to the three financial obligations a husband assumes vis-a-vis his wife as outlined in Exodus 21,10. They are named  there as שאר, כסות עונה, the entitlement to food, clothing, and marital rights. The signet ring was symbolic of her marital rights, her claim on Yehudah. She alluded to the stamp of the sacred covenant which every male Jew wears on his sexual organ ever since he has been circumcised. The staff is symbolic of food, sustenance, as we know from Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” פתילך, of course, is symbolic of the wife’s right to be provided with clothing by her husband.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,9, (slightly different wording) by returning these three pledges to Yehudah, Tamar’s offspring did indeed merit to secure for itself (at different times in history) all these three items. Concerning Zerubavel, the leader of the Jews returning from exile in Babylon, we read in Chagai 2,23: ”I will take you, My servant Zerubavel son of Shaltiel- declares the Lord,- and make you as a signet for I have chosen you.” As to the פתיל, Tamar, as the mother of  Peretz, became the ancestor of Betzalel, architect of the Tabernacle of whom it is written in Exodus 39,3 וקצץ פתילים, “he cut threads.” The word מטך was an allusion to King David of whom Samuel I 17,40 recorded that ויקח מקלו בידו, “he took his staff in his hand.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  . הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.”  All the onlookers accepted Yehudah’s verdict without argument. This teaches that Yehudah was the local judge of that community. It was the custom in that place that any woman found committing adultery would be burned. Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 quoted by Rashi  38,24 claims that Tamar was the daughter of Shem (the son of Noach whom we know as a Priest for the Supreme G’d from the time of Avraham). Seeing that the Torah provides the death penalty by burning for the daughters of Priests, (Leviticus 21,1) she was sentenced to be burned.
  
  Verse 25
  
   היא מוצאת, “when she was taken out,” to be burned. We learn from this verse that a person should rather allow himself to be burned than to cause a fellow man to blanch from public embarrassment. Tamar reasoned to herself: “if he will admit his part in my pregnancy, all well and good; If not, I will rather allow myself to be burned in the furnace than to shame him in public.” Although the word מוצאת, has been spelled with the letter א, (whereas if it meant “being burned,” it should have been spelled without that letter) one may interpret it homiletically as being derived from הצתה, subjecting something to fire. Incidentally, the first letters in the words of the verse ו-יאמר י-הודה ה-וציאוה - ו-תשרף when read backwards yield the acrostic י-ה-ו-ה, the Ineffable Name of G’d. This suggests that at the time Tamar was concerned with saving Yehudah’s “face,” G’d was busy saving her life by invoking the attribute of Mercy.
     שלחה אל חמיה לאמור, “she sent to her father-in-law to convey, etc.” She meant for her messengers to tell Yehudah in her name: “for the man to whom these items belong I am pregnant, etc.,” the messengers themselves did not know what she had in her hand. She did this in order to protect Yehudah’s reputation in the event he chose to ignore her. When she realised that this indirect message was ineffective, she thought that possibly Yehudah had forgotten the encounter with her. At that point she confronted Yehudah face to face (in private) adding the words הכר נא, “please identify.” This is why the Torah mentions the items in question individually at this point. She was still determined not to reveal him as the father of her unborn child if he chose to deny his involvement in her pregnancy.
      The Jerusalem Targum on the words היא מוצאת, claims that Samael had hidden the three items which she could have used to clear her name. The author mentions a prayer of Tamar in which she expressed the hope that in return for having preferred a fiery death in order to protect Yehudah’s public image, G’d would  arrange for these items to be found so that three persons’ lives would be saved thereby, (hers and that of her two unborn sons). G’d gave the angel Gavriel a hint and he returned these items to Tamar and she threw them at the feet of the judges. This is the meaning of the words הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify the owner of the signet ring, etc.”
  
  Verse 26
  
   צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I.” When the messengers presented Yehudah with the signet ring, etc., he immediately owned up and said: צדקה, “she is righteous in what she says;” ממני, “she is pregnant from me.” This is also the way Onkelos translates these words.
      Nachmanides understands the word ממנו as a comparative, meaning “she is more righteous than I.” He meant “whereas when I had sexual intercourse with her I had unworthy motives, she had had worthy motives wanting me to perform the rite of the levirate marriage with her.” This is what he had in mind when he added “because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Shelah, after all, was the person who was next in line to perform that rite. Yehudah was the next closest relative to perform this rite of the levirate marriage and to keep alive the names of his late departed sons Er and Onan, in the event Shelah would refuse to marry Tamar.
      According to a Midrashic approach found in Makkot 23  after Yehudah had said צדקה, “she is righteous,” a heavenly voice was heard adding the word ממני, “from Me;” i.e. G’d informed the judges and Tamar that He had guided matters in such a way that Tamar would become pregnant by Yehudah. In that connection the Talmud goes on to say that we know of only three instances where the Holy spirit took an active part in judicial proceedings of a terrestrial court to assure a certain outcome. One was the court founded by Shem; the second was the court presided over by the prophet Samuel; the third was the court presided over by King Solomon. In the case of the court founded by Shem and known as “his court” hundreds of years later, the Holy Spirit intervened clearing Tamar of all guilt. The Holy Spirit again intervened in the court of Samuel as we know from Samuel I 12,5 “G’d is witness, and His anointed is witness, to your admission this day that you found nothing in my possession.” [Samuel had challenged the people to list any wrong he had committed against anyone of them or whose property he had made use of by citing his authority as ruling judge. Ed.] In that paragraph the answer should have been in the plural, i.e. the people should have been quoted as saying: “we are witness.” The fact that the author of the Book of Samuel refers to the singular is proof that it was G’d answering on behalf of the people. The third time the Holy Spirit interfered in the deliberations by a terrestrial court was when Solomon heard the case of two women each of whom claimed the surviving baby as her own (Kings I 3,26). At that time the Book of Kings has the mother of one of the babies call out: “give the surviving baby to her, do not kill it, for she is its mother.” The words “she is its mother,“ were added by the Heavenly Voice, whereas the baby’s true mother only said the words “give the surviving baby to her and do not kill it.”
     ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not have further sexual intercourse with her.” Having fulfilled the commandment of ensuring that the souls of Er and Onan would be reincarnated in Tamar’s children, Yehudah refrained from treating her as his wife, even though technically, i.e. from a halachic point of view he could have had marital relations with her. The reasoning of the commentator (Samuel the elder in Sotah 10) who understood the words ולא יסף to mean “he did not stop,” is that seeing Yehudah’s union with Tamar had been approved by heaven there was no point in discontinuing his marital relations with her.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויקרא שמו זרח, “he called his name Zerach.” The name Zerach (shines) symbolised the sun, whereas the name Peretz (interruption) symbolised the moon. (the sun shines uninterruptedly, daily, whereas the moon is ineffective towards the end of the month and at its beginning). The kingdom of David stemmed from Peretz whose dynasty symbolised the moon and its ups and downs. We know that the moon’s orbit is completed every 29 days. This is why you will find that there were 29 righteous people (descended from him) listed in the Bible from the time of Peretz until the last King of the Davidic dynasty, Tzidkiyahu. They are: Peretz, Chetzron, Ram, Aminadav, Nachshon, Salmon, Boaz, Oved, Yishai and David. They were followed by Shlomoh, Rechavam, Aviyah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Achazyah, Yoash, Amatzyah, Uzziah, Yotam, Achaz,  Chiskiyah, Menashe, Ammon, Yoshiyahu, Yehoachaz, Yehoyakim, Yehoyachim, Tzidkiyah. These comprise a total of 29 men corresponding to the days in the lunar orbit; the lunar “sun” sets after such a period of time. The dynasty of David underwent a similar decline after Tzidkiyah and this is why the Temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Tzidkiyah who was the twenty-ninth scion counting from Peretz. [The reason we do not count from Yehudah who was promised Royalty by his father may be that Peretz was Royalty already, his mother having been the daughter of King Malki Tzedek, identical with Shem. If you find it strange that our author lists Menashe as a righteous king when the Book of Kings described him as the worst heretic ever, the reason may be that he became a penitent and G’d restored him to his  throne as reported in Chronicles, II chapter 33 something not mentioned in the Book of Kings II chapter 21.  See my book “The Just lives by his faith” for a possible reason for this omission Ed.]
      However, in Shemot Rabbah 15,26 this calculation is described differently, and the month is given as having thirty days during the first half of which the moon is progressively becoming more powerful, whereas after that it declines visibly. According to the author of that list the first 15 days of the month are characterised by the leaders of the Jewish people from Avraham to Solomon, whereas the last 15 days symbolise the decline of the Kingdom of Yehudah after the division of the country between Rechavam and Jerobam. This is based on Exodus 12,1. G’d is supposed to have told the Jewish people already prior to their departure from Egypt that the kingdom would not last for more than thirty generations, hence the words: החודש הזה לכם, ”this month (moon) is for you, etc.” The Midrash lists verses in the Bible to back up the contention that the early ancestors of the Jewish people such as Avraham and Yitzchak are already part of these 30 generations. It quotes a verse in which Avraham is described as “shining,” such as Isaiah 41, 2. It similarly is at  pains to prove the same for Yitzchak and Yaakov. Starting with Yehudah, there is no need for such proofs anymore. The author of the Midrash, aware that most of the Kings of Yehudah actually worshipped idols, does not describe them as an unending string of righteous people but lumps them together as part of the decline of the Davidic dynasty, in spite of the exceptions such as Chiskiyah and Yoshiyah to name but two. According to this Midrash, the prayers of the patriarchs on behalf of their errant children helped to persuade G’d to continue to let that Kingdom exist beyond  the time it had a legal right to exist. 
  [This Midrash continues for several pages  and I have decided to condense it in the interest of brevity. One of the more important points of the comparison between the orbit of the moon and the thirty generations of ascending and descending Jewish political power is the fact that King Tzidkiyah had his eyes gouged out by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. His subsequent blindness is taken by the Midrash as symbolic of the light of the Jewish “moon” having been extinguished.]
      A kabbalistic approach: Our verse speaks of two births, two new human beings. There is a profound mystical dimension in this, something of great impact on the dynasty of the house of David. I will reveal to you a small part of that mystical dimension and I ask you to concentrate on what I am about to reveal. 
  We know that the name אלו-הים, with which the Torah describes G’d during the report of the creation of the universe describes Him as the king of the universe. This name is identified with the concept  תשובה, another name for the emanation בינה. [In plain English, the attribute with which G’d created the universe is that which is active in the emanation בינה, the third emanation counting from the highest emanation, i.e. כתר, down. Ed.] We acknowledge this attribute especially on Rosh Hashanah, the “birthday” of the universe, (creation of man) and the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we conclude the third of the blessings in the עמידה prayer by saying המלך הקדוש, “the Holy King,” or המלך המשפט, “the King who dispenses justice,” instead of הא-ל הקדוש, “the Holy G’d,” or מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט, “the King who loves righteousness and justice.” There is no King without a people or man that He can be King over.   When the Torah reports G’d’s directive (Genesis 1,3) as יהי אור ויהי אור, “let there be light and there was light,” this light came into existence by means of the power of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth which is also known as אלו-הים. The repetition of the word אור in that  directive and the report that it had been carried out, suggests that there were two kinds of light. You do not find the subject of the directive repeated when the Torah reports what G’d created on the other days. In the Torah’s report of the directives G’d issued concerning the other days you only find the expression ויהי כן to indicate that the universe had responded to G’d’s directive.    You should realise that though the Torah appears to speak of two kinds of light, the meaning is not that there were actually two entirely different kinds of light. What is meant is that this light embodied two sources of power, of energy. One of these forces is essentially male, the other essentially female. The creation of the original light, however, was the product of a single source of energy, one which combines within it both male and female elements. This original light later on enabled the sun, the moon, and the stars to be derived from it and to be concretised. [The original light was independent of any physical matter, sunlight is not. It requires the sun, i.e. a physical body, in order  to dispense it. Ed.]. I have explained this in my commentary on Genesis 1,14. The sun was endowed with the male properties of the original light, whereas the moon was endowed with the female properties of the original light.
      Having absorbed this knowledge, you will understand what occurred in the case of Yehudah, Tamar, and these two children born to Tamar and Yehudah respectively. By means of these two individuals, Peretz and Zerach, we can gain a better understanding of the whole process of creation. This is what the sages had in mind in Berachot 55 when they said: מלכותא דארע כעין מלכותא דרקיע, “the kingdom on earth is essentially similar to the kingdom in the celestial regions.” Yehudah’s name יהודה, gratitude, as we know from Leah’s feelings of gratitude to G’d meant  that by having born more children for Yaakov than any of his wives would he would be appreciative of this. [compare  Genesis 29,35. Ed.] Seeing that Yehudah was the fourth of the twelve sons who were to make up the tribes of Israel, G’d’s Holy Name is part of his name. His tribe became the leading tribe in Israel and the Kingdom of Israel was ruled over by a king from his tribe, i.e. David and his descendants. It was therefore appropriate that Tamar, herself descended from Royalty, should be married to him. The name Tamar reflects the fact that the original light contained both male and female properties, seeing that תמר, a date or date-palm, contains both male and female elements, or rather that the name for both a female palm and a male palm is the same. The לולב, palm branch, is indicative of the male element in the palm, whereas the fruit, the product of the female palm tree goes by the same name, i.e. תמר. It is male on the outside whereas its גרעין, its pit, is female. [It is split, similar in appearance to a vagina, as explained by Naftali Wessely.] This is something unique, not found in any other kind of tree. It was therefore appropriate that Peretz and Zerach be mothered by Tamar. Zerach corresponded to the element sun, the male element, the sun which shines without interruption, whereas Peretz corresponded to the element  moon, the female element, a light which is uneven, sometimes stronger sometimes waning completely such as the light of the moon. It was therefore almost a historical must that the dynasty of King David be the product of Peretz rather than Zerach, seeing that he, Peretz — as indicated by his name already — represented the type of light we get from the moon, i.e. light which fluctuates constantly in intensity as does the light of the moon.
      When you will examine the verse intelligently you will find that just as the sun is always aligned with the moon just like twins, so Zerach and Peretz were aligned in the womb of their mother, i.e. they were twins. This concept of their being twins was carried so far that even at birth each of them could be taken for the firstborn depending on whether you consider the emergence of the hand or the emergence of the head as determining which one is the firstborn of the two. The Torah describes Zerach as the firstborn seeing that his hand emerged first from Tamar’s womb. It says “for he emerged first.” On the other hand, the Torah continues with ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it was as he was about to pull back his hand (inside the womb).” You will note that the Torah did not say that he had actually completed the act of pulling back his hand, i.e. וישב ידו. Peretz became the firstborn by reason of forcing his way out of the birth-canal of his mother past his twin brother Zerach.  This is why the Torah writes in our verse ואחר יצא אחיו אשר על ידו השני, “after that, his brother, the one who had the red string tied to his hand, emerged.” In other words, when we consider the emergence from the womb of the entire baby, פטר רחם, as the dominant criterion, Peretz was the firstborn even though Zerach had first put his hand out of his mother’s womb. The Torah determined that for halachic purposes emergence of a whole baby from the mother’s birth canal first determines who is the true firstborn  (Bechorot 46). This is why when the Torah revealed the names of these two twins it first gives us the name of Peretz. You will find an interesting verse in Psalms 89,28 אף אני בכור אתנהו עליון למלכי ארץ, “I will also appoint him firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth.” G’d is on record that He considers David, who biologically was the youngest of his brothers, as a firstborn. Seeing that the kingdom of the house of David is derived from Peretz, and Peretz in turn has been likened to the moon, the sages formulated the words דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים, “David King of Israel is alive and endures,” when we recite the monthly benedictions welcoming the arrival of the renewal of the light of the moon.  When we look at the plain meaning of that statement it means simply that the moon is equated with David, (in name), seeing David is descended from Peretz who has been compared to the moon. Furthermore, seeing that the moon has been described in the Torah as the “small luminary” (Genesis 1,16), we find that the adjective “the small one” has also been applied to David (compare Samuel I 17,14).  When we say the words חי וקיים, in the recital of קידוש לבנה, the sanctification of the new moon, the thought we entertain is that the moon has become visible again this month. 
      On a more mystical level, these words are a reference to the latent power of the moon which is also known as דוד מלך ישראל, in that the word ישראל is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the mystical entity called Israel in the celestial regions. This is why this entity is described as חי וקיים, alive and well, enduring forever. Daniel 7,9 alludes to this when he said עד די כרסון רמיו, “until the thrones were set up.” There were two such thrones. In Chagigah 14 the sages have revealed to us how they understood this verse in Daniel. “Some hold that one of these thrones was reserved for G’d and the other for David. A second opinion holds that one of these thrones would be used by G’d when He employed the attribute of Justice, whereas he would use the other throne when employing the attribute of Charity. A third opinion, that of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah, contends that one of the ‘thrones’ was for sitting on, whereas the other served as a footrest.” It appears in that folio as if the sages of the first view disagreed with the view expressed by those who hold that one throne was reserved for David. Actually, the sages do not disagree with the basic concepts underlying all this. We know this as they derive their opinion from the verse ובקשו את ה' אלו-היהם ואת דוד מלכם, “and they will seek the Lord their G’d and David their king.” The words “and David their King” are a reference to this concept of כנסת ישראל. Concerning the moral/spiritual power represented by כנסת ישראל, our sages expounded (Zohar Terumah 175) that legally speaking the Israelites were not slated for exile from their land ever. The decree to exile them was not decided until they had rejected both the Kingdom of Heaven (G’d) and the Kingdom of David. We base this on Samuel II 20,1 “we have no portion in David nor in any inheritance of the son of Yishai. Every man to their tents!” [ — a proclamation by Sheva ben Bichri, a dissident and heretic, arousing the people to oppose David.]   It is important to realize that  the words “David” and the words “the son of Yishai” are not a repetition referring to one and the same person as those commentators who concentrate on the plain meaning of the text would have us believe. The meaning of the verse is that Sheva ben Bichri and his supporters declared their severance of allegiance to both the kingdom of heaven and the celestial aspect of the kingdom on earth as represented  by David in his capacity as the son of Yishai. These people served idols instead. This is why he said “each one to his god!” [The sages inverted the letters in the word לאהליו, “to their tents,” to read “to their gods,” i.e. לאלהיו]. 
  The verses reporting the birth of Zerach mention the word יד, hand, four times, i.e. ויתן יד, ותקשור על ידו שני, ויהי כמשיב ידו, אשר על ידו השני. These four expressions parallel the four times  עכן בן זרח, [identical with Achan ben Karmi in Joshua chapter 7. Ed.] stretched out his hand, i.e. committed a trespass against loot captured by the Jewish people in their wars  since their departure from Egypt. He hid and retained such loot from the battle against Amalek, against Sichon and Og, from the battle against the Canaanites and from the capture of Jericho [which was not preceded by a battle in the usual sense of the word. Ed.] (compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,14).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    ויוסף הורד מצרים, “meanwhile Joseph had been brought down to Egypt.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 86,4 comment on this that “the son of a maid-servant (Midianites descendad from Hagar) sells a free man whereas the slave (Potiphar) buys him,” i.e. a reversal of the norm. Our verse confirms the truth of what Solomon said in Kohelet 10,7: “I have observed  slaves riding on horses.” The person described as שר הטבחים was the man who was appointed to execute all those prisoners who had received a death sentence. He was a physically strong specimen and a cruel person such as Nebuzaradan who occupied that position in the army of Nebuchadnezzar as we know from Jeremiah 39,13: “he (Nebuchadnezzar) dispatched Nebuzaradan the chief executioner, etc.” We also find  that it was he who is credited with exiling the remnant of the Jewish people (Kings II 25,11). We find in Daniel 2,14 that “Aryoch the chief executioner had set out to put to death the wise men of Babylon.”
      Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 3 on the words “and Joseph had been brought down to Egypt,” relates a story involving Antoninus, governor of Palestine under the Romans around 200 A.D. When said governor arrived in Caesaria he summoned Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. The latter took with him his son Rabbi Shimon as well as the great Rabbi Chiya (his nephew). When they arrived there Rabbi Shimon saw an exceptionally tall and handsome Roman soldier and he commented to Rabbi Chiyah on the remarkable physical prowess of the descendants of Esau (referring to them as “the fatted calves”). Thereupon Rabbi Chiyah took Rabbi Shimon to the market-place and showed him gorgeous figs and grapes all of which were infested with flies, etc. Rabbi Chiyah asked Rabbi Shimon to tell him whether he considered these flies as superior to the Roman soldiers who were so impressive in their outward appearance. When Rabbi Shimon returned to his father, he related to him his conversation with Rabbi Chiyah concerning the relative importance of the Roman legionnaires and the flies. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi said to his son: “the Babylonian (Rabbi Chiyah) said something of substance when he compared the legionnaires to the flies. The legionnaires of the Roman Emperor are worth nothing whereas the flies are creatures of the Lord, are like soldiers of the Lord performing tasks assigned to them by their Creator.” This is the meaning of Isaiah 7,18: “On that day the Lord shall whistle to the flies at the end of the water channels of Egypt and to the bees in the land of Assyria; and they shall all come and alight in the rugged wadis.” It is also written in Exodus 23,28: “and I shall dispatch the hornet ahead of you.” During the plagues of insects and frogs these creatures were also commanded by G’d to carry out His directives. You should remember that at the time when G’d wanted to enact the decree of Genesis 15,13 where He told Avram: “you shall surely know that your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not theirs,” that He used the most insignificant little creatures to do His bidding. When Joseph was sold and brought down to Egypt to be followed by his brothers and his father, the IOU described in Genesis 15,13 began to be paid. This is why Joseph’s descent is described in such terms as “he was brought down.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . כי ה' אתו, “for G’d was with him.” Actually, the Torah should have written כי אלוקים אתו, “for G’d (in His capacity as the Force who established an orderly universe) was with him.” However, seeing that Joseph’s master was an Egyptian and did not know of a G’d in heaven known as Hashem, his master would have attributed the extraordinary success of Joseph to a superior form of sorcery and magic. After all, Egypt was the epitome of these magic arts, the Egyptians had written the textbook for them. Potiphar eventually became aware that Joseph’s success could not be due to such magic so that he came to realise a new dimension of the G’d in heaven, one that overrides the attribute Elohim. This is why the Torah described G’d’s assistance to Joseph in terms of the supernatural rather than in terms of the natural. According to Bereshit Rabbah 86,5 G’d even let Potiphar have a dream in which he confirmed His assistance. Some say that a pillar of cloud hovered over Joseph to show that he was under G’d’s direct guidance. Examples cited by the Midrash of Joseph’s extraordinary abilities are: when Potiphar demanded that he boil water, the water came to a boil immediately. When he commanded the water to be cooled so that it would be lukewarm, it would become lukewarm immediately. Had G’d not demonstrated His dimension as Hashem to Potiphar, he would have said: “big deal! do you Joseph want to teach us additional magic? It is like carrying coal to Newcastle.” For these reasons the Torah had to testify: וירא אדוניו כי ה' אתו, “his master realised that a special dimension of G’d was active on Joseph’s behalf.”
  
  Verse 4
  
  . וישרת אותו, “he became his personal valet.” He performed such tasks promptly and with extreme regard for cleanliness. 
     ויפקידהו על ביתו, “he appointed him to be in charge of his household.” He was the supervisor of the entire household. We find such a position in Kings I 18,3 when Achav appointed such a supervisor.
     וכל אשר יש לו נתן בידו, “and he entrusted all his belongings to the care of Joseph.” He appointed him as manager of the household budget. We find something similar in Isaiah 22,15: “go in to see that steward, that Shevna, in charge of the palace.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויברך ה' את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף, “G’d blessed the household of the Egyptian on account of Joseph. Here the Torah draws a comparison with the house of Oved Edom HaGitti whose house was host to the Holy Ark and whom G’d blessed for the sake of the Holy Ark (Samuel II 6,11). The blessing extended both to money and other objects.
     בבית, “in the house.” Both his money and his various utensils increased. ובשדה, “and in the field.” Potiphar’s crops, etc., all prospered unnaturally. Up until this point Joseph, though in charge, was required to present the accounts to Potiphar. From that point on he did not even have to give an accounting of his activities. It says ויעזוב את כל אשר לו  ביד יוסף, “he left everything he had in the hand (under the care) of Joseph.
  The Midrash Seder Olam understands the words בבית ובשדה, as meaning that during the six winter months Potiphar’s affairs prospered enormously indoors, whereas during the six summer months they prospered in the field. This tells you that the length of time Joseph spent in Potiphar’s employ was one year. Subsequently he spent twelve years in jail. He had been away from his father for thirteen years when he was called in to Pharaoh. Actually, he had been meant to spend eleven years in the service of Potiphar, corresponding to the number of eleven sheaves he had dreamt about in his first dream. Some say that these eleven years corresponded to the eleven stars in Joseph’s second dream. At any rate, he had two years added to that sentence on account of the two words והזכרתני, והוצאתני (40,14) which he said to the Chief of the butlers, asking him to intercede on his behalf. These two words were counted against Joseph just as the fact that he boasted about the dream he had dreamt.
  
  Verse 6
  
  . ולא ידע אתו מאומה, “and he did not share any knowledge with him,” the only matters concerning which Joseph bothered to consult his master Potiphar was the menu to be served at meal-time, as the Torah said: “except for the bread he would eat.” The word לחם also included his wife; we know that wives are sometimes referred to as לחם, from Exodus 2,2 קראן לו ויאכל לחם, “call him so that he can take a wife.” We also find the word אכל, “ate,” in that sense in Proverbs 30,2 אכלה ומחתה פיה, “she ate and wiped her mouth.” The verse speaks about the harlot indulging in her trade and acting as if she had done no wrong. We encounter the same meaning of that word again in verse nine: “except for you inasmuch as you are his wife.”
     ויהי יוסף יפה תואר ויפה מראה, “Joseph was of  handsome form and handsome appearance.” The Torah revealed the reason Potiphar’s wife was so attracted to him. (Tanchuma)
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, etc.”  The Torah told us of the virtuous nature of Joseph who in spite of experiencing one promotion after another within a short space of town rejected the advances made by his master’s wife, advances which must have appeared very flattering to him. Unlike others in a similar position, Joseph did not exploit the trust of his employer by deceiving him. 
  According to Tanchuma Vayeshev 8 as soon as Joseph had been promoted to his present high position he began to indulge in food and drink and in paying excessive attention to his outward appearance, carefully coiffing his hair, etc. He went as far as saying “thank the Lord who has made me forget my father’s house.” Upon hearing this, G’d said: “your father is in mourning for you and you live it up! Your mistress will try and seduce you and cause you distress.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   וימאן, ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו הן אדוני, “he refused, and he said to the wife of his master: ‘here my master, etc.”  At the beginning of their conversation, Joseph said to Mrs Potiphar: הן אדוני, “my master is present;” he meant: “what  do you want with me, seeing you already have a husband?” The reason that Tanchuma interprets Joseph’s words in that fashion is that the tone-sign shalshelet over the word וימאן suggests that Joseph’s refusal contained an element of something forbidden. It is not unusual for the tone-signs on the words to reveal matters not spelled out but which nevertheless we are to read between the lines. This is not unlike to what is called in English “body-language.” The manner in which a person walks, for instance, indicates whether he looks forward to his destination or whether he drags his feet because he dreads what is expected of him at the end of his walk. The Midrash felt that the tone-sign revealed that Joseph’s refusal was hesitant.
      Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 8 also claims that the words הן אדוני, are a reference to his father Yaakov’s features which sudddenly appeared before Joseph’s mind’s eye, reminding him what moral obligations he owed to the wishes of G’d, his “Master.” His father  phrased his admonition thus: “your brothers’ names will be engraved on the gemstones of the High Priest’s Ephod (shoulder epaulettes). Do you want to risk that your name will be omitted from that list? Do you prefer to tend to whores for the rest of your life?” 
     ותאמר שכבה עמי, “she said: lie with me!” She spoke vulgarly as do the whores, similar to what has been described in Proverbs 7,10: “and here a woman came toward him dressed in harlot’s attire and of determined heart.” Words such as reported here by the Torah are typical of an adulterous woman. When a chaste woman desires to express similar sentiments she uses refined language as did Ruth when she said to Boaz: “spread your robe over your handmaid;” (Ruth 3,9).
     ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו, “he said to the wife of his master, etc.” The Torah could have simply written: “he said to her.” However, the Torah wanted to let us know that Joseph explained to Mrs. Potiphar that seeing she was his master’s wife he was duty bound to accept instructions from her; however, in this instance his duty towards G’d took precedence over his duty to obey her commands.
  
  Verse 9
  
  איך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלוקים , “and how could I commit such a great wrong and sin against the Lord?”  He explained that indulging in sex with his master’s wife would be wrong on two counts. Not only would it be an act of betrayal against his employer but it would also be a grievous offense against G’d. This is similar to the wording used by the High Priest Eli when he rebuked his sons in Samuel I 2,25: “If a man sins against a man, the Lord may pardon him [after he has served the penalty decreed by a human tribunal, Ed.]; but if a man sins against G’d who can obtain pardon for him?“
  
  Verse 10
  
   ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה, “and he did not listen to her request even to (merely) lie beside her.” The plain meaning of the text is that Joseph refused to have any bodily contact with Mrs. Potiphar even if it did not involve intercourse itself.  להיות עמה, “to be intimate with her.” To have sexual intercourse. We have found elsewhere in the Bible that the word להיות may mean sexual intercourse, such as in Ruth 1,12 where Naomi speaks about “being in the company of a man,” i.e. to have intimate relations with him which would result in her becoming pregnant.” The Hebrew word used there for having sexual relations is גם הייתי הלילה לאיש.
      A Midrashic approach to this verse is found in Tanchuma Vayeshev 8. She said to him: “why do you not listen to me? No one is going to see us.” He replied to her: “we have been forbidden to have sexual relations with you people even when you are not married, how much more so are we forbidden to have such relations with you once you are married to someone?” The best way to illustrate this argument is by means of a parable. A Gentile approached a Jew telling him that he had some delectable dish which he wanted him to taste. When the Jew inquired what precisely this dish consisted of, the Gentile told him that it was the meat from a pig. The Jew replied: “you must really be very foolish. You know that if one of you slaughters an animal we are only not allowed to eat it because it has not been slaughtered by a Jew, how could you imagine that I would eat meat from an animal which I may not eat even if a Jew had slaughtered it?”
      The words ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה, להיות עמה, which appear repetitive, are viewed by the Midrash as referring to life in the present world, and as a result of committing the former sin, life in the hereafter, i.e. in Gehinom, (hell). We are told in that same Midrash that there are three categories of people who may be trusted implicitly: 1) A private householder who sets aside his tithes conscientiously. Such a person is not suspected of shortchanging the Priest by withholding his Terumah (a form of tithe given to the Priests). There is no greater demonstration of a person’s trustworthiness than that we believe him  in other matters based on his observing commandments whose performance cannot be checked. Such people enjoy the greatest trust by their peers. 2) Next lower on the rungs of the ladder of trustworthiness is a bachelor who resides in a quarter inhabited by harlots and does not succumb to the temptation which surrounds him. 3) A poor man who has been entrusted with the safekeeping of valuables for others and has demonstrated that he has kept faith with those who gave him the objects to be kept for them.     Joseph excelled them all while he was in Egypt, a country of which the prophet (Ezekiel 23,20) writes that “the flesh of the people there could be compared to the flesh of donkeys.” Seeing that Joseph  was seventeen years old at the time he was sold to Egypt, and was subjected daily to sexual temptation by his master’s wife without yielding to such alluring prospects, this meant that henceforth he could never be suspected of any sexual misdemeanour.  We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 39 that there were three prominent people who demonstrated control over their sexual urges when faced with temptation which was hard to resist. They are Joseph, Boaz, and Palti ben Layish. Our sages in Sanhedrin 19 contrast the active libido of Joseph, a teenager, with the relatively dormant one of Boaz, an aged man. They say that whereas Joseph’s feat was indeed major, by comparison to Boaz’s constraint, it was still only a modest accomplishment. Whereas the temptation Joseph faced was by day, the temptation Boaz faced when Ruth came to him in the barn was at night. Joseph might have been afraid of being observed, a possible consideration enabling him to withstand the urgings of Mrs. Potiphar. Similarly what was  considered an act of great restraint by Boaz paled into insignificance when compared to the restraint Palti ben Layish imposed upon himself. He had been given Michal (David’s wife) as a legal wife (Samuel I 25,44) by King Saul, and could have claimed her, but did not ever touch her or even share the same house with her. Palti had been aware that a marriage ceremony is invalid when the woman in question is still the wife of another man, David, who had not divorced Michal. King Saul had forced his daughter into marrying Palti. Seeing Palti was afraid of King Saul, he pretended to accept Michal as his wife although he had no intention of sleeping with her. In fact, after Saul’s death (Samuel II 3,14) David sent word to Ish Boshet, Saul’s son, demanding that his wife Michal be restored to him. Ish Boshet agreed, and a weeping Palti accompanied her up to a place called Bachurim. He wept because he was afraid David would not believe that he had not touched Michal. [At any rate, the thrust of the story in the Talmud is that every feat of sexual restraint must be evaluated on its own. There are features in each of these stories which made the deed especially great; on the other hand each of these situations also contained features which helped the person subject to the temptation to successfully resist it. Ed]
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ויעזוב בגדו אצלה, “he left his garment with her.”  This is another example of Joseph’s chastity; he did not want to struggle for his garment with her and thereby involve himself in physical contact with her. He respected her dignity in not demonstrating his superior male power.
     וינס החוצה, “he fled outside.” He left the house in order that she should give up hope to entrap him, so that she would cease her efforts in this regard. Or, he fled outside in order to regain his emotional equilibrium. He had been aroused by the encounter with Mrs. Potiphar.
      According to a Midrash the meaning of the words וינס, ויצא החוצה, is G’d said to him: ”today you fled, there will come a day when the sea will flee before your coffin.” This is the meaning of Exodus Psalms 114,3 “the sea saw (it) and fled.” What did the sea see? It saw the coffin containing the body of Joseph.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ראו! הביא לנו איש עברי,  “see here! he has brought to us a Hebrew man to make sport with us.” Mrs. Potiphar did not name the subject of “he brought,” i.e. her husband. The reason she did not mention her husband by name is related to a feminine tactic not to directly embarrass their husbands. The reason she described Joseph as איש עברי, “a Hebrew man,” was because both Joseph and his forefathers were considered as “newcomers,” even in the land of Canaan seeing they had immigrated from beyond the river Euphrates. לצחק בנו, “to make sport with us.” The term is one used for sexual license such as in Proverbs 10,23: “just as to a fool carnality is like a sport, etc.”   בא אלי לשכב עמי, “he came to me in order to have sexual intercourse with me.” She inflated her ego, claiming that Joseph had initiated the request to have sex with her, whereas she had initiated the request to be intimate with Joseph.
  According to Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 6, the above words are an illustration of why Solomon warned in Kohelet 7,26: “and I have discovered that a woman whose heart is snares and nets is worse than death.” Rabbi Yehudah son of Shalom added: “there is no worse cause of sin than woman; whereas we find that three thousand Jewish males were slain for having worshipped the golden calf, (Exodus 32,28), twenty-four thousand Jewish males were killed due to the seduction by the Mobaite and Midianite women reported in Numbers 28,9”. What is the meaning of the words אסורים ידיה  “her hands are tied?” If G’d had not tied woman’s hands she would accost man in the marketplace demanding that he have carnal relations with her. Kohelet continues by saying that “he who is pleasing to G’d will escape the machinations of such a woman whereas the sinner will be trapped by her.” The “man pleasing to G’d” is a reference to Joseph who escaped the wife of Potiphar, where the “sinner” is a reference to Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, who slept with Cosbi the Midianite during the encounter described in Numbers.   When G’d created Chavah, (first woman) He had said to Himself: “which part of Adam shall I use to make into woman? If I use the head she will be of haughty  spirit. If I use Adam’s eyes as raw material she will possess insatiable curiosity. If I create her from part of Adam’s mouth she will babble interminably. If I construct her out of part of Adam’s ear, she will turn out to be extremely inquisitive. If I create her out of Adam’s hands, she may turn out to be a thief, whereas if I construct her from part of Adam’s legs, she will constantly roam outside her house. What did G’d do? He formed Chavah from  the rib, a place well hidden from Adam’s exterior so that she would be chaste and remain primarily indoors. In spite of the fact that G’d took care not to construct Chavah from one of the organs which would made her prone to the afore-mentioned character weaknesses, we find that she possessed these weaknesses after all. She is described as haughty in Isaiah 3 16, “because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, etc.” Although G’d did not use part of Adam’s eyes as raw material from which to form Chavah we still find that she was insatiably curious as the prophet records her as possessing “roving eyes.” We also find that the Torah writes (Genesis 3,6) “the woman saw that the tree was good to eat  and alluring for the eyes.” Even though G’d did not utilise any  of Adam’s hands to create woman she still became a thief as the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Rachel stole the teraphim.” Even though G’d did not use any part of Adam’s ears in order to make Chavah, she became unduly curious as we know from Sarah who is reported as listening to the conversation between Avraham and the angels “at the entrance to the tent” in Genesis 18,10. Even though G’d also did not use any part of Adam’s legs or feet to make Chavah, she still developed the tendency to roam outside her home as we know from Dinah, the daughter of Yaakov and Leah of whom the Torah reports that “she went out to look around amongst the girls of the country”’ (Genesis 34,1). Dinah’s mother Leah has also been described as leaving her home needlessly when the Torah  writes (Genesis 30,15) “Leah went out, etc.” We know that Leah was babbling when the Torah describes her as accusing her sister Rachel of taking her husband away from her  (Genesis 30,15), an accusation which was quite unwarranted. All this happened although G’d had not made Chavah from any part of Adam’s mouth.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר, “and he put him in jail.” This is a kind of underground prison, a dungeon, a place where the mentally ill are kept nowadays (author’s time). These prisons have a small hole on top through which the prisoners are brought in and a little daylight is seen. The expression  סוהר is similar to the word צוהר, which is used in Genesis 6,15 to describe the source of light in Noah’s ark. The exchange of the letters ס and צ respectively is not unique. The Torah next mentions that this was an extraordinary dungeon, reserved for the King’s highly placed servants if they had incurred his displeasure. This is why the Torah writes: “the place where the king’s prisoners would be kept locked up.” There were two jails within the same compound, the one reserved for the king’s prisoners being the “deluxe” accommodation. The main distinction between the two appears to have been the amount of daylight the prisoners enjoyed. The reason the Torah adds: “he (Joseph) remained there in the jail,” is in order to place these words next to the words ויהי ה' את יוסף, “G’d remained at Joseph’s side.” This teaches that even within the prison G’d’s שכינה, benevolent presence, remained with Joseph.(based on Mechilta Bo, 14).
      It is quite possible that these words were meant to allude to happenings in the future, and that the oppression which Joseph underwent in that dungeon foreshadowed the exile of the Jewish people which has also been compared to a בור, a pit, a dungeon. This may have been the origin of the prayer in which we ask יעלה ויבא, “may He arise and arrive,” a request voiced in our prayers on days when we are especially conscious of the absence of the Temple service and the benefits it had conferred upon the Jewish people. It is a reference to the ascent of the Shechinah. Anyone who finds himself imprisoned in a dungeon needs to literally “arise” in order to get out of there. Just as the Shechinah did not forsake Joseph when he was in jail, so the Shechinah will not forsake the Jewish people just because they are in exile. Just as the Torah wrote concerning Joseph (Psalms 105,18)  ברזל באה נפשו, “an iron collar was placed around his neck,” it is also written concerning Israel in exile (Psalms 107,10) יושבי חשך וצלמות אסירי עני וברזל, “some lived in deepest darkness, bound in cruel irons.” Just as we read concerning Joseph ויט אליו חסד, “He endowed him with  kindness,” (verse 21) so we find concerning Israel in exile that the prophet says (Isaiah 54,10) וחסדי מאתך לא ימוש, “but My kindness will not depart from you.” Concerning Joseph the Torah writes (21)  ויתן חנו בעיני שר בית הסוהר, “He put his favour in the eyes of the prison warden.” We find a corresponding statement in connection with Israel in exile when the psalmist writes (Psalms 106,46) ויתן אותם לרחמים לפני כל שוביהם, “He made all their captors kindly disposed toward them.” Just as Joseph eventually was released from prison and rose to unprecedented power and prominence, so the Jewish  people will be redeemed from their exile as is written in Daniel 12,4 “as for you Daniel, obscure the matters and close the book and seal it until the time of the end; let many muse and let knowledge increase.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, (words), etc.” After the cursed woman had caused the subject of Joseph and his supposed misdemeanors to become the talk of the town, G’d wanted that subject to take a back seat. He therefore contrived to have the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers put in jail so that their fate would become the talk of the town, and in order that both these prisoners would have to turn to Joseph whose esteem in the eyes of his contemporaries would rise as a result of his ability to interpret the dreams  of these two prisoners correctly.
     חטאו שר המשקה  מלך מצרים והאופה, “The chief butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned.” The Torah does not specify their sins, but our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 88,2 state that the Chief butler was guilty of allowing a fly to fall into the cup of Pharaoh, whereas the baker was guilty of a pebble which was found inside one of the rolls served to Pharaoh This is why Pharaoh was angry at both of them. The pebble in the roll was a clear case of negligence on the part of the baker, and this is why he was hanged. The fly which fell into the cup could not be accounted as negligence on the part of the butler as it fell into the cup after the butler had mixed the wine. It was an accident.
     לאדוניהם למלך מצרים, “against their master, the King of Egypt.” Actually, the Torah should have added the word לפרעה, before the words למלך מצרים. In the next verse the Torah mentions Pharaoh as being angry without saying that “Pharaoh” and the “King of Egypt” were one and the same person. We may explain this apparent inconsistency in the syntax of the Torah  as the Torah giving us a hint of what would be in store for the King of Egypt at the hands of the Israelites at a future time. This is why the Torah made a distinction between the Kingdom of Egypt as such and between the person of Pharaoh as an individual in his own right. You will find that the Torah makes a similar distinction at the time the Israelites were engaged in crossing the sea of reeds with Pharaoh in hot pursuit. In Exodus 14,5 the Torah writes ויגד למלך מצרים כי ברח העם ויהפך לבב פרעה, “the King of Egypt was told that the people had fled, and Pharaoh’s heart was completely changed, etc.,” whereas the Torah should  have  written ויגד לפרעה מלך מצרים, “Pharaoh the King of Egypt was told, etc.”  The reason the Torah separated these two “titles,” was to hint that the individual Pharaoh would be deprived of his title “King of Egypt” at a future time. On the other hand, when the Torah describes Pharaoh’s obstinacy such as in Exodus 14,8 we read ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה מלך מצרים, “G’d strengthened the heart of Pharaoh the King of Egypt.” At that point in time, the Torah was intent on demonstrating that Pharaoh, though himself a powerful man as well as in charge of a powerful country, Egypt, was no match for G’d who proved that He was many times more powerful than the combined might of both Pharaoh and the Egyptian Empire. Solomon alluded to this in Proverbs 21,1 פלגי-מים לב מלך ביד ה', “the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hands like channels of water.” [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich, kings do not enjoy the freedom of choice enjoyed by private citizens as they are G’d’s representatives on earth, not unlike angels who do not enjoy any freedom of choice for that very reason. Hence the words פלגי מים are a reference to “channels” within which water run; the waters must not leave the channels assigned to them. Ed.]
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויקצוף פרעה על שני סריסיו, “Pharaoh was angry at his two courtiers.” G’d contrived to make Pharaoh angry at his servants in order to rescue the righteous Joseph from the dungeon. We see that history repeated itself in Shushan when G’d contrived to make Achashverosh angry at Haman in order to save Mordechai and the Jewish people (Bereshit Rabbah 88,2). [I suppose the point of the Midrash is the superfluous word שני, “two,” before the word סריסיו. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 3
  
   מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם, “the place where Joseph was kept imprisoned.” All of these “coincidences” were designed to bring about the descent to Egypt by Yaakov and his family in accordance with the prediction in Genesis 15,13 “for your descendant will be a stranger, etc.” [without overt interference with the free choice of either party. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ויהיו ימים במשמר, ”they remained in custody for a year.” The word ימים meaning “year” appears in Leviticus 25,29 “its period of redemption is a full year.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר בית אדוניו לאמר, He asked the courtiers of Pharaoh who were with him in the custody of the house of  his master to tell, etc.” What was the need for the Torah to write this cumbersome introduction?  Did we not know that these courtiers were in jail together with Joseph? All the Torah had to write was that Joseph asked the courtiers why they were so glum. It is possible to understand the wording of the Torah here in light of what had been written before in verse four that Joseph was with these courtiers in the same jail and that he who was in jail with them performed personal valet service for them; these services were rendered to these prisoners only because they were of such an elevated stature. Now that the boot was on the other foot, the Torah wanted to mention that they were with him, i.e. that they depended upon him to enlighten them. The Torah wrote: “the courtiers of Pharaoh who were with him,” to draw our attention to the fact that they were now secondary to Joseph instead of Joseph being secondary to them.  Furthermore, the Torah wanted to explain why Joseph had the audacity to mix into the private affairs of such highly placed personages as the Chief of the butlers, etc. The Torah illustrates the point that when lowly prisoners, slaves, foreigners such as Joseph and highly placed personages such as these two courtiers find themselves in similar circumstances, i.e. in a dungeon, considerations such as their former status vanish and there is established a form of equality based on a common fate. This is what gave Joseph the courage to comment on the glum expressions of the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers. Joseph was concerned with their well-being although they were wicked people serving a wicked King.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . הלא לאלו-הים פתרונים, ”are not the interpretations a matter for G’d?”  Joseph meant that future events foreshadowed by dreams are something known only to G’d who is the One who sends the dream to the person whom He wants to warn through a dream. He is the only One who can reveal the future, make peace and initiate evil (Isaiah 45,7). Joseph wanted to reassure the two courtiers that they would neither profit nor suffer any harm by revealing their dreams to him, seeing it was G’d who would determine their future.
  
  Verse 9
  
    בחלומי, והנה גפן לפני , “in my dream- behold there was a grapevine in front of me.” It behooves a person to be extremely careful when he begins to relate a dream he has dreamt. You note that the Chief of the butlers prefaced telling his dream with the words: “in my dream.” The word בחלומי is an expression of “recovering from a sickness and an expression denoting good health.” The expression is related to Isaiah 38,16  ותחלימני והחייני, “You have restored me to health and You have revived me.” Following the opening remark of the butler it is not surprising that he was saved from the dungeon and restored to his position. The Chief of the bakers made the mistake of  saying אף, before commencing to relate his dream. The word אף, of course, refers to anger. As a result  he was sentenced to death and was hanged. 
  Bereshit Rabbah 88,5 writes that “four people began their comments with the word אף, and all of them perished. They were: the original serpent, the Chief of the bakers, the congregation of Korach, and Haman.” We have mentioned this already in connection with our commentary on Genesis 3,1 on the words אף כי אמר אלו-הים. 
  
  Verse 10
  
   ובגפן שלשה שריגים, “and there were three tendrils on the grapevine.” The expression שריגים is equivalent to the word זמורות. We find it again in Joel 1,7 הלבינו שריגיה, “their tendrils turned white.” והיא כפורחת, “and it appeared as if it was blossoming.” The meaning is that as soon as it budded its blossoms opened up. This is equivalent to the expression סמדר, compare Song of Songs 7,13. He noticed that the clusters had immediately ripened into grapes. The thrust of the images in the dream was that G’d would hasten to bring about whatever the dream presaged. He pressed the juice of the grapes, extracted the wine and placed it in the cup of Pharaoh. Seeing that the butler had observed in his dream a whole sequence of natural developments condensed into a very small time frame, Joseph was astute enough to realise that the number three referred to three days within which the fate of the butler would change. This is why he did not suggest that it referred to three weeks or three months or even three years.  The word שריגים is also one which occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew  meaning שרגא,”light.” Similarly, the words שלשה סלי חורי, “three wicker baskets” mentioned as a feature in the baker’s dream   also refer to a time frame of three days even though according to  the plain meaning of the text the word חורי is similar to חררה, a large griddle cake, something which might have prompted Joseph to think in terms of a longer time frame such as three months or three years. The word חורי, also means “whitish,” i.e. that the baker saw in his dream three large white breads in the baskets.  We have a verse in Exodus 33,23 וראית את אחורי, normally translated as G’d saying to Moses: “you will see My rear,’” which (according to the Zohar?) may mean that G’d would appear to Moses in a very bright light, almost white. The word חורי then is related to אור. We find it in this sense in Nechemyah 5,7 את החורים ואת הסגנים. Nechemyah appears  to compare prominent, important people, to light. The insignificant people who have nothing distinguished about them are compared to darkness. Moreover, the numerical value of the words שלשת הסלים is equivalent to שלשת ימים הם, “they represent three days.” (1175 each).  
  Another reason that may account for Joseph interpreting both the three tendrils and the three baskets of white bread as signifying three days rather than three months or three years, is  that he considered that the three  grapevines and tendrils were equal to one another as were the three baskets. Three months or three years are never of identical length each. Only three days may be described as three units of time which are practically identical one to another. Hence Joseph concluded that the time frame to which the dream referred had to be days.
      A Midrashic approach based on Chulin 92. The word גפן, grapevine is a reference to the people of Israel, Psalms 80,9  mentions גפן ממצרים תסיע, “You (G’d) have picked up a vine from Egypt,” an obvious reference to the Jewish people. The שלשת שריגים are a reference to the three festivals a year during which the Jewish people make their pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. The words והיא כפורחת, refer to the time when  it is the turn to the Jewish people to blossom and spread out in all directions as do the buds which break out in blossoms. We find references to such development by the Jewish people in Exodus 1,6: “and the children of Israel were fruitful and there were swarms of them.” This means that the nation budded, broke out in blossoms. Isaiah, speaking about the time of redemption, says (Isaiah 63,3) “their life-blood (נצחם=wine) bespattered My garments.”  This is a prologue to G’d redeeming Israel. The words הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים, “its clusters of grapes were ripe,” mean that the time is ripe for Israel’s redemption, i.e. for Egypt to drink the cup of retribution. The word כוס, cup, occurs four times in this brief passage and refers to the four exiles Israel would experience. The fact that our enemies will have to drink four cups of retribution is alluded to in four separate verses in the Books of the Prophets and in the Hagiography. Compare: Jeremiah 25,15; Jeremiah 51,7; Psalms 75,9; Psalms 11,6.
   The Talmud in Chulin 92 also explains the verse ובגפן שלשה שריגים, saying that גפן refers to the Torah, שלשה שריגים to the three miracles the Israelites experienced in the desert — the traveling well of water, the manna, and the protective shield (cloud) of G’d which enveloped the whole camp of the Israelites. The words והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה are understood by the Talmud there as a reference to the first ripe fruit offered to G’d by the Israelites, whereas the words הבשילו אשכלותיה are understood as an allusion to the drink-offerings (of wine) presented on the altar with most sacrifices.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי אם זכרתני אתך , “if only you would remember me with you, etc.” Joseph made two requests of the Chief of the butlers. 1) That he personally should remember who had foretold him his good fortune. 2) He should bring Joseph’s plight to the attention of Pharaoh. It is because of these two separate requests that the Torah reported at the very end of our Parshah that 1) the Chief of the butlers did “not remember Joseph”, and 2) that “he forgot him (mentioning him to Pharaoh).” We must not commit the error of believing that Joseph placed his faith in the Chief of the butlers. He most certainly placed his faith exclusively in G’d. He only thought that G’d might employ the Chief of the butlers as a tool to bring about his release from the dungeon. He had some reason to believe this seeing that the dream the Chief of the butler had dreamt in jail in which Joseph was imprisoned appeared to him as part of a miraculous chain of circumstances. How do we reconcile this with the comment of Bereshit Rabbah 89,3 that Joseph had two years added to the time he had to stay in jail because he said the above-cited two words to the Chief of the butlers (as we pointed out in our commentary on 39,5) that he was punished for pleading with the Chief of the butlers to become the instrument of orchestrating his release? It was not fitting for someone of Joseph’s caliber to be on the lookout for  an instrument that G’d should appoint  to bring about  changes in his fate. He should have been content to trust that G’d would be able to find such opportunities when He deemed the time right for this. G’d does not need Joseph or anyone else to prompt Him in such matters. Joseph’s conduct was accounted a sin only because he was on such a high moral level, and G’d is especially strict in His dealings with people who have attained such a level (Baba Kama 50). To illustrate how someone else behaved in similar circumstances, compare the situation of the prophet Elijah in Kings I 17,6. The prophet was hiding in an inhospitable part of the country and had no access to food. He was told by G’d to drink from the waters of the river Krit (there could not have been much water due to the drought) and G’d told him that He would summon the raven to bring him food. He followed G’d’s instructions. The instrument of keeping him alive, i.e. providing him with food, was the raven. It is also possible that the food the ravens brought Elijah came from the palace of Yehoshaphat, King of Yehudah (compare Vayikra Rabbah 19). In either event the provision G’d made for Elijah was of a miraculous nature. Elijah did not involve himself in bringing about means of sustaining himself in a natural way. At any rate, Joseph did not think of the butler as the source of his release from jail but as an instrument to be used by G’d to that end. He should not even have done this and this is why he was punished.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   יום הולדת את פרעה, “Pharaoh’s’ birthday.” On that day a son was born for the king who was also named Pharaoh. It was a custom to make a feast on the anniversary of one’s birth.
     וישא את ראש שר המשקים ואת ראש שר האופים בתוך עבדיו, “and he counted the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers amongst his servants.” The Torah enumerates the names of these two courtiers as amongst the servants of the King. The expression וישא is related to the expression כי תשא in Exodus 30,12 where it means “you will count.” Seeing that the Torah mentions these courtiers as included in the courtiers of Pharaoh, the Torah wanted to inform us about their respective fates  telling us that Pharaoh took the opportunity of that feast to publicise the final disposition of the cases which had been pending against both the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers. The former was acquitted and restored to his position whereas the latter was found guilty and hung. 
  This apparently historically insignificant event contains an important lesson for all of us. It teaches that man must constantly be alert to the fact that all his activities are apt to be judged in light of the system of reward and punishment which the fate of mankind both collectively and individually is based on, and that everyone will have to render an account of his activities as well as of the omissions he has been guilty of before the One Who created this universe
  The thrust of this paragraph is to tell us that it is proper to seek out the goodwill of the ruler and to be careful not to incur his wrath. This is also why Solomon warns in Proverbs 16,14 חמת מלך מלאכי מות,  “the king’s wrath is a messenger of death,” and in 19,12 he says נהם ככפיר זעף מלך וכטל על עשב רצונו, “the rage of a king is like the roaring of a lion; but his favour like dew on the grass.” We also find a verse in Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים ורצונו כעב מלקוש, “in the light of the king’s face there is life; his favour is like a cloud in the spring rain.” Solomon compared the king’s goodwill to the dew which is so essential in making things grow, whereas anger and wrath are harbingers of destruction. In all his comments Solomon wants us to apply the logic that if falling out of favor of a terrestrial king is a disaster of no small dimensions, how much more must we be on our guard so that we will not fall out of favor in the eyes of the Lord our G’d. This is why good sense alone should suffice to cause us to conduct ourselves in a manner which is bound to please the Lord. The prophet Amos ( 3,8) phrases it thus: “when the lion roars, who will not become afraid?” On the other hand, Hoseah 14,6 assures us that “ I will be like dew for Israel, it will blossom forth like a lily and strike roots like (the poplar in) Lebanon.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     בטח אל ה' בכל לבך ואל בינתך אל תשען, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insights” (Proverbs 3,5).
   In this verse King Solomon warns regarding the importance of displaying faith in the Lord. The reason Solomon does so is because faith in the Lord is such a central pillar of Torah and the observance of G’d’s commandments. Solomon means that if a person has been endowed by G’d with intelligence, wealth, physical strength and all the other attributes which are observed amongst successful people, he should not put his trust in any of these attributes. He should put his trust exclusively in G’d. This is what the prophet taught us in Isaiah 44,25 when he said: משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל, “who turns sages back, and makes nonsense of their knowledge.” All of man’s machinations, his planning, even his deeds amount to nothing unless G’d decrees that they should succeed. If man amassed a great deal of wealth he has no reason to be smug about it and to attribute it to his sagacity. This is precisely what Solomon said in Kohelet 9,11: “the race is not won by the swift, nor the battle by the strong, nor does bread come to the wise, riches to the intelligent, nor favour to the learned; but time and death will happen to them all.” He also said  in Proverbs 16,1: “A man may plan with his heart; but the answer of the tongue comes from the Lord.” If even his speech is not (entirely) under his control, how much less can he be in control of matters involving external factors? He therefore has no reason to place his trust in his own insights and other attributes. He must not rely on the efficacy of his diligence, etc., but only on G’d. This is what David meant when he said in Psalms 62,6: “Truly my soul waits quietly for G’d; my deliverance comes from Him.” David contrasted G’d’s input in whatever success he experienced with that of his own effort.
      It is a well known fact (based on the wording in Chovat Halevavot by Bachyah ibn Joseph Pekudah) that man’s confidence is subject to eight stages of developments: At birth, he places all his trust into the breast of his mother who supplies his nourishment. This corresponds to Psalms 22,10 “You have made me secure at my mother’s breast.”  As he grows a little older he still relies on his mother to feed him only food which is wholesome, tasty,  and nutritious. Concerning this stage in man’s development  the psalmist says (Psalms 131,2) “but I have taught myself to be contented like a weaned child with its mother.” What David meant was that his trust in G’d could now be compared to the trust he displayed in his mother during the early years of his childhood. A third stage in man developing reliance on an outside force occurs when he learns to trust his father.The fourth stage is reached when he begins to become self-reliant, trusting his body and his mind, learning how to fend for himself and to earn his livelihood. At that stage in his development he relies less and less on his father and he relies instead on his own machinations. At a fifth stage in his developing maturity he begins to rely on G’d and to and put his faith in Him. He develops this faith in G’d as a result of having experienced that his own machinations are not as reliable as he had thought. By that time in his life he has learned the shortcomings inherent in all creatures and the fact that they cannot be relied on. At that point in his life he learns that trusting in himself is a form of vanity. He will realize that, to quote only one single example, all his efforts as a farmer are doomed unless rain materializes at the proper time, a factor which is controlled exclusively by G’d. This teaches him dependence on G’d’s goodwill. If he is a mariner, he learns that he who controls the winds controls his fate. The sixth stage in man’s developing maturity is reached when he realizes that he is dependent on G’d even in matters not involving external forces such as rain or wind, etc., i.e. when man learns that he overestimated the assessment of his capabilities. He may realize that whereas his own faculties enabled him to wrest a meager livelihood from the earth thanks to backbreaking labor, he is in need of G’d’s help in order to secure a better and less physically exhausting kind of livelihood. The seventh stage of his progressively better appreciation of G’d’s role in his survival and success is reached when he realizes that G’d has a part to play in all his activities. The eighth and final stage in his development is reached when he realizes that only G’d’s input determines his success or failure. He must learn to be happy with whatever G’d has decided should be his fate. He must give G’d credit for his health — or otherwise; he must give G’d all the credit for his wealth — or otherwise. He must appreciate that if G’d saw fit to subject him to trials and tribulations in his life on earth, that G’d had a benevolent purpose in all this, that He has his best interests at heart. G’d is equally active in protecting someone’s freedom or keeping him in jail. Seeing that G’d’s superior wisdom decrees if man is to undergo afflictions of one sort or another, it behooves man to accept such afflictions willingly. He is not to look for “natural” ways to escape such predicaments. If he does so, this demonstrates that his faith in G’d is not absolute but that part of his being is still convinced that he can escape what is decreed for him.
      It appears to me that when we keep in mind these comments of the author of חובת הלבבות, we can better appreciate why Solomon wrote in Proverbs 3,5: בטח אל ה' בכל לבך, “trust towards G’d with all your heart,” instead of writing בטח בה' בכל לבך, “trust in G’d with all your heart.” He wanted to alert us that a person who truly puts his faith in G’d is someone whose thoughts are oriented only towards G’d. Another example of such a construction is found in Psalms 25,15 עיני תמיד אל ה', “my eyes are ever toward G’d.” We have already mentioned that Elijah was a prime example of someone who did not try and survive by looking for logical means to do so, but that he took refuge in a place where there was no possible chance to find food and that he relied on G’d to provide it for him in His own way. This is the highest level of trust in G’d.  
  By asking the Chief of the butlers to intercede on his behalf, righteous Joseph demonstrated that he had not attained the level of trust in G’d which an Elijah demonstrated in his life. As a result Joseph was punished by having to stay in jail two years longer than had been decreed originally.
   ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים פרעה חולם והנה עומד על היאור, “It was at the end of two years and Pharaoh was dreaming that he was standing above the river (Nile).” The words שנתים ימים mean two years (not two days). These years were counted from the time Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s two courtiers who were imprisoned with him. On this occasion Pharaoh had a dream. Our sages said that Joseph’s stay in jail had been extended as we mentioned in our commentary on 39,5. This was due to the two words והזכרתני והוצאתני which Joseph permitted himself to say to the Chief of the butlers. We pointed out that these words did not mean that he did not trust in G’d but that he wanted to exploit his relationship to the Chief of the butlers to make him the instrument of G’d for his freedom.   Seeing that the Torah speaks of שנתים, “two years,” what was the need to add the words ימים, “days?” When the Torah wanted to tell us that there had been two years of famine it wrote כי זה שנתים הרעב, “for these last two years which have been famine,” (Genesis 45,6), it did not bother to add the words ימים. The point the Torah wanted us to know here by adding the word ימים is that it was precisely two years to the day after Joseph had interpreted the dreams in jail that Pharaoh dreamt his dream of the cows and the ears of corn.
      According to a Midrashic approach in Tanchuma Miketz 1 the wording of the Torah here may teach us the following: The words מקץ שנתים ימים are a reminder of Job 28,3: “He sets bounds for darkness, to every limit man probes, to rocks in deepest darkness.” Everything G’d decrees is finite, has a limit. Even the rains emerge after a time-frame has been assigned for them. G’d determines the time frame and the quantity for rain on earth at the beginning of the year. If the Jewish people keep G’d’s laws these rains descend to make the plantings of the Jewish farmer grow by descending upon these fields and orchards in the appropriate quantities at the appropriate time of year. If the Jewish people fail to observe G’d’s commandments, He does not withhold such rains; rather such rains will descend in areas and at times when they do not fulfill the purpose of making the Jewish farmer bring in a good harvest. This is what was implied in the verse in Job 28,3  which we have quoted., i.e. that G’d had set a time limit to the “darkness” the Jewish people experienced when enslaved in Egypt. This is why the Torah in Exodus 12,41 spoke of  a קץ, “an end” when it reported ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, ויהי בעצם היום הזה יצאו כל צבאות ה' מארץ מצרים, “it was at the end of 430 years, on exactly that day that all the hosts of G’d departed from Egypt.” Just as the day of the departure of the Jewish people had been predetermined by G’d, so Joseph’s release from prison had been predetermined by G’d.
      The Torah writes ופרעה חולם, “and Pharaoh was dreaming,” instead of writing ופרעה מלך מצרים חולם, “and Pharaoh the King of Egypt was dreaming.” This was an allusion to the future, i.e. that  the King of Egypt would be brought down by water, that his fate would be linked to the river Nile. This river was to be the beginning of the ultimate demise of the Egyptian Empire as the foremost Empire of its period at the time of the Exodus of the Israelites. This is the reason why throughout this Parshah Pharaoh is never accorded his title as “the King of Egypt.” The failure of the Torah to mention the name “Pharaoh King of Egypt,” is a compliment to Joseph. The only time Pharaoh’s title is mentioned is when Joseph is described as standing in front of this ruler in 41,26 as in that verse mention of Pharaoh’s title further enhances the phenomenal rise to power by Joseph. It underscores that Joseph’s extraordinary attributes were responsible for Pharaoh retaining his position of power. Had it not been for Joseph and the part he played in strengthening the political power of Pharaoh during the years of famine, his decline would have set in much sooner.    The entire land of Egypt, nay even the whole earth, would have been a loser had it not been for the advice proffered by Joseph how to cope with the impending seven years of drought. 
  You should appreciate that dreams are caused by one or several of three factors. 1) because of the food a person consumed prior to going to sleep. 2) because of certain thoughts which he entertained before dropping off to sleep. 3) in order to reinforce and provide encouragement to a person’s emotional balance.   The food a person consumed produces a sense of haughtiness and results in some kind of vapour rising to a person’s brain. Dreams which are engendered through this phenomenon are to be totally disregarded; they do not contain any message to the person who dreams them. When a dream is the continuation, albeit in his subconscious, of thoughts he had entertained on an ongoing basis prior to dropping off to sleep, such dreams are the type which were dreamt by Nebuchadnezzar as mentioned by Daniel 2,29 when he said to the King that his thoughts came to him while he was contemplating the future. Seeing he had done so, G’d used this as the appropriate time to reveal some of the future to the King in his dream. Finally, the third cause of a dream, the cause we have termed חזוק הנפש. This is the kind of dream to which it always pays to pay attention as it is a reflection of the dreamer’s personality. Dreams which are the result of a person’s imagination draw images for him during his sleep of matters which had already been the subject of his thinking and planning during his waking hours, matters which had already coalesced in his planning and thinking. During sleep, when a person’s emotions are not interfering with his thought-processes, the factors which prompted him to pursue a certain course of action while he was fully awake are reinforced and engraved in his imagination. Such dreams are not the result of wishful thinking, but are in the nature of a minor prophetic vision. This is what the sages had in mind when they said (Berachot 57) that a dream is 1/60th prophecy. These kinds of prophecies are granted to young children and feeble minded persons (Baba Batra 12) precisely because their minds have not yet been filled with all kinds of images during their waking hours which would have left an impression on their minds even while they were asleep and as a result of which it would be impossible to tell whether such dreams are inspirational or a continuation of what they thought while awake. Dreams of such a nature are granted both to the righteous and to the wicked; they are not due to the dreamer having been immersed in thoughts of such a nature previously; they  are not self-induced. G’d wanted to let Pharaoh have such a dream in order to frustrate his advisers and professional dream-interpreters in order to elevate Joseph to the position of viceroy of Egypt, i.e. King, except in name.
    והנה עומד על היאור, “and here he was standing above the river Nile.” The expression נהר and יאור may be used interchangeably as they mean the same thing. We find this confirmed by Onkelos who translates the word נהרא. The common denominator between both words is אורה, “light.” We find that even the word גשמים “rains” is referred to in terms of אור, “light,” as for instance in Job 36,32 על כפים כסה אור, “Lightning fills His hands,” and Job 37,11 יפיץ ענן אורו, “He also loads the clouds with moisture.” The reason for this interchangeability is the fact that the rivers are composed of rain water and rain water in turn is due to the influence of the luminaries. It is perfectly in order to call the effect by a name similar to its cause just as children are named after the fathers, their causes.
     The river in question was called נילוס, Nile, as it rose and provided irrigation for the land which is not being irrigated by rains as Egypt does not enjoy rainfall on a regular basis. What is the reason Pharaoh is described as dreaming that he was standing על היאור, “above the river,” whereas the Torah could have been expected to describe him as standing “on the banks of the river,” as indeed the cows themselves are described as standing on the banks of the river in verse three? In fact, when Pharaoh repeats his dream to Joseph in verse sixteen, he describes himself as standing on the banks of the river not above it. We may deduce from the objective report of the dream in the Torah, that the Torah wanted to portray to us the haughty character of Pharaoh who viewed himself as master of the river, as “standing above it.” When relating his dream to Joseph, he was discreet enough not to make his arrogance so obvious. This is why he changed both this and some other detail of what he had actually dreamt and what he claimed to have dreamt. The Torah was at pains to inform us that the claim that Pharaoh considered the Nile in terms of לי יאורי ואני עשיתיני, “the river Nile is mine and I have made it,” (Ezekiel 29,3) was not a figment of the prophet’s imagination but was reflected even in the dream of a benevolent Pharaoh such as the one with whom we are confronted here. Thus Pharaoh’s  confusion at the premonition that the dream portended some disaster may have also been the reason why he soft-pedalled the matter of his standing above the river in his dream.
  
  Verse 2
  
  .והנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות , “and here seven cows were climbing out of the river.” Egypt’s economic base was the river Nile; it provided the key to its food supply. Isaiah 19,7 already commented on this when he said: “bed-rock will be exposed by the river Nile (as a result of drought and its failure to overflow), everything sown by the Nile will wither and blow away, etc.” Isaiah continues: “the fishermen shall lament and all who cast lines shall mourn. The flax workers too shall be dismayed. Her foundation (Egypt’s) shall be crushed, etc.”
    ותרעינה באחו, “they grazed on a meadow.” The letter ב in the word באחו, is a prefix and not part of the noun. It is analogous to Proverbs 9,5  לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי, “come and eat my bread, drink the wine which I have mixed.” There too the letter ב in both the words בלחמי and ביין are prefixes, the respective nouns being לחם, יין. Here too the noun is אחו, a type of grass (rushes). The meaning of the line then is: “they (the cows) were feeding on a certain type of grass known as “אחו.” Job 8,11 speaks of ישגא אחו בלי מים, “can rushes grow without water?” It is quite plausible that rushes grow along the banks of the river Nile; we know this from Yocheved hiding Moses in such rushes.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום, “Pharaoh awoke, and here it had been a dream.” Actually, the Torah should have written והנה חלומות, “and here it had been dreams,” seeing that Pharaoh  had awoken twice, each time after a different dream. The reason that the Torah wrote חלום, “dream” (sing.) was because Pharaoh himself felt that the two phenomena he had dreamt about were part of one and the same dream. However, he did not understand the message.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ותפעם רוחו, “his spirit was agitated.” The use of the word פעם, “bell,” suggests that in his mind alarm bells were ringing. When we encounter a similar reaction to a dream by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2,1 the text there describes the King’s reaction as ותתפעם רוחו, as if two bells rang in his mind.” The reason is that there it was clear that the king had had two separate dreams, each one of which had alarmed him. In that story the king’s agitation was caused also by his failure to recall precisely what it was he had been dreaming (Daniel 2,5) This too reinforced his agitation, hence ותתפעם רוחו instead of ותפעם רוחו. According to the story in Daniel as understood by Tanchuma Miketz 2, the Kings’s agitation was severe as he had forgotten both the dream and its interpretation. The King threatened to execute his interpreters if they failed to give him satisfactory interpretations and helped him recall the substance of the dream, whereas he promised to reward them generously if they came up with an acceptable explanation (Daniel 2,4-9). Naturally, his interpreters could not do so, but they made the mistake of saying that “no man on earth can do so.”
     According to our sages in above mentioned Tanchuma, these Chaldaens told the King that as long as the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed) had been standing, a person could go to a prophet or to a Priest and enquire from G’d by means of the Urim Vetumim, the breastplate on the breast of the High Priest, that a mystery be revealed to him. This was no longer so, however. The Midrash finds an allusion to the Chaldaens having said this to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2,10-11 when they said: לא איתי אנש, “no man has ever come” (to enquire such a thing). These unnecessary words indicated that at one time one could come to some place to make such enquiries. There is a play on words in the text of Daniel according to which the word ואחרן may be read as ואהרן, seeing that the letters אחה'ע are interchangeable. According to this  the word אחרן in Daniel 2,11 is an allusion to Aaron the first High Priest who wore the breastplate with the Urim Vetumim. As already stated the king was very angry at being thwarted in his efforts to have the dream and its meaning recalled, until he was told that there was a Jewish exile who was able to comply with his request. When Daniel told the king what he had dreamt and what it meant, (Daniel 2,29-45) according to the version in Tanchuma, (not mentioned in the Book of Daniel), the king wanted to know when the predictions of his dream would materialise and Daniel told him after having consulted with Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. They prayed to G’d so as not to be executed, and they too counted amongst the wise men of the Kingdom.
    ואין פותר אותם לפרעה, “there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh.” According to a Midrash,  Pharaoh had dreamt both the dream and the interpretation but had forgotten the interpretation. The professional dream interpreters in his kingdom suggested that the seven cows and seven ears of corn referred to seven daughters Pharaoh would sire and subsequently bury. We have reason to wonder why these great wise men of Egypt were unable to come up with a better or even the true interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream. An unprejudiced layman would be able to see at a glance that the subject matter of the dream(s) was seven years of abundance followed by seven years of starvation. Clearly, the cows symbolised the ploughing, seeing that the Egyptians used the cows to pull the ploughs, whereas the ears of corn clearly symbolised the harvest that would materialise as a result of the ploughing. We have a verse in Proverbs 14,4 that  “a bountiful harvest is due to the strength of the ox.” The failure of Pharaoh’s advisors was all part of G’d’s plan to arrange for Joseph to be elevated to high status. This is why G’d used this opportunity to “turn sages back and make nonsense of their wisdom” (Isaiah 44,25). In Isaiah 19,11 the same prophet recalled this event when he said: “utter fools are the nobles of Tanis; the sagest of Pharaoh’s advisers have made absurd predictions.” The prophet made the point that only through G’d’s intervention could these normally sagacious individuals fail so utterly in recognising what was before their eyes. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 89,7 used this incident to explain the meaning of Proverbs 14,6: “a scoffer seeks wisdom in vain; but knowledge comes easily to him who is understanding.” The scoffer referred to by Solomon is Pharaoh, whereas the easily acquired knowledge is a reference to Joseph.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . וירצהו מן הבור, “and they rushed him from the dungeon.” Tanchuma Miketz 3 applies to this the words of  Rabbi Joshua ben Levi “out of a narrowly confined space into a spacious  area; from darkness into bright light; from the  disgrace suffered by the righteous to princedom.” All of this has been described by Solomon in Proverbs 30,32: with the words “if you have suffered disgrace you will be elevated.” We find that Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were similarly elevated after first having suffered disgrace (compare Daniel 3,21-30 where these men are described as being thrown into a fiery furnace only to be saved from the fire miraculously. Subsequently they were elevated to high office). We find that Mordechai, after he had worn sackcloth and ashes to get the Jewish people to become penitents and to head off the evil decree of Haman  (Esther 4,1 and 8,15), was subsequently elevated to be the Persian king’s first minister. Even Daniel, who was out of favour with King Darius, was thrown into a den of lions (Daniel 6,18) before being saved and subsequently raised to great influence at the court of said King. He had revealed the impending downfall of the Babylonian Empire to the Persians when he was able to decipher the meaning of the famous “writing on the wall” to King Belshazzar (Daniel 5,16). Joseph’s sudden elevation was similar and is described in Kohelet 4,14 as “from the prison house he emerged to reign,” and in the words of our sages in Shemot Rabbah 1,9, the words ועלה מן הארץ, which Pharaoh said worrying about a sudden rise to power by the Israelites (Exodus 1,10) were also inspired by the recollection of how a Jewish slave had suddenly risen to power in Egypt.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  . ואני שמעתי עליך לאמור תשמע חלום לפתור אותו, “I have heard it said about you that you only have to hear a dream and you already are able to interpret it.” The word שמע, normally translated as “hear,” really means “to hear and understand.” Already in Deut. 6,6 where Moses said “Hear O Israel the Lord our G’d  the Lord is One,” the true meaning of the word שמע is not just “hear!,” but “hear and understand!” Pharaoh meant that Joseph had the intelligence and wisdom to interpret a dream. We find the same expression when Belshazzar said in Daniel 5,16 ואנה שמעת עליך די תוכל, “but  I have heard about you that you are able to provide interpretation known to me.”
  
  Verse 16
  
   בלעדי, “this is beyond me!” Joseph replied that the powers of wisdom and understanding were outside of him, personally. The meaning of בלעדי is: “not part of me.” אלו-הים יענה את שלום פרעה, “the Lord will put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” Joseph attributed all intelligence and wisdom to G’d. He possessed those powers. He would help Pharaoh to emerge serene from what troubled him at that moment. He mentioned the attribute אלו-הים, as it is this attribute which is active when revealing the meaning of dream. The  attribute אלוקים is represented by the final letter ה in the tetragram i.e. י-ה-ו-ה.  Daniel (2,36) made a similar statement when he said ופשרה נאמר קדם מלכא. He too alluded to the letter ה at the end of the tetragram. He meant that the knowledge to reveal the meaning of dreams reposes in the last two letters of that Holy Name. This is the reason that Daniel added (Daniel 2,22) הוא גלא עמיקתא ומסתרחא, ”for He reveals the deep and the mysterious.” By needlessly repeating the word  הוא in that verse he referred to the two letters ה and ו in the tetragram which referred to the One and Only, i.e. א=אחד, which are the source of these mysteries. Just as Joseph had said בלעדי to indicate that though he might verbalise such interpretations the source of that knowledge did not reside within him, so Daniel similarly made this clear when he said to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2,30) ואנה לא בחכמה די איתי בי מכל חייא וגו'. “As for me (this secret was revealed to me) not because I possess more wisdom than any living being, etc.”
     Personally, I believe that the essence of Pharaoh’s dream was centered in the number seven which recurs so many times. It is a fact that both Pharaoh and all his wicked contemporaries believed in the existence of the universe having preceded G’d. They denied such a thing as G’d supervising the fate of the universe and the fate of man or anything that occurred in the terrestrial part of the universe. They attribute all abnormal occurrences in the terrestrial part of the universe to mere chance, at best dictated by a combination of horoscopic influences presided over by the seven fixed stars (planets), which themselves are not subject to influence by man’s deeds. Pharaoh and the likes of him were thoroughly attached to the forces of nature as even his name already suggests. [The name פרעה consists primarily of the letters עפר, i.e. the raw material man is made of. (Rabbi Chavell)]  Seeing that Pharaoh was so closely involved in the raw materials our terrestrial universe is made of G’d showed him two of the major elements of that combination of four elements which make up the raw material of our universe. They are water and dust, (earth). Seven cows emerged from the element water, whereas the seven ears of corn grew out of the element dust, earth. These two elements hold the key to satiety or hunger as the case maybe, subject to G’d’s benevolent supervision of what goes on in our world. Our Rosh Hashanah (Mussaph) prayers concentrate on the fact that on that day G’d determines which country is to suffer famine and which will have plentiful food. This subject, i.e. that decisions pertaining to the earth’s food supply are made in heaven was something revolutionary for Pharaoh. The man who had thought that the seven fixed stars determine what happens in our territorial world was taught in  a dream that there is a Power which supervises and directs these seven planets at will if need be. (we have discussed this in greater detail in our commentary on Genesis 1,2) He was taught that G’d may increase or decrease the apparent power of these planets relative to the system of reward and punishment which forms the basis of G’d exercising His supervision of the universe.   The reason that Pharaoh had to be taught all this was that up until that point he had thought of the river Nile as his personal property, as we quoted from Ezekiel 29, 3 “the river is mine and I have made it.” The fact that the events in his dream originated in the river are an example of what our sages term מגיד מראשית אחרית, “that G’d allows us a preview of things to come.” In this instance the preview granted to us in this dream of Pharaoh was the eventual collapse of Egypt as a world power after Pharaoh and his army were drowned in the sea a week after having suffered the death of all their firstborn. The Egyptians had been give ample warning to change their concept of the terrestrial universe and the place therein of its Creator. The ten plagues had been designed to wean the Pharaoh of his time of his pagan beliefs. His failure to do so resulted in his downfall.  The fact that his downfall was caused by water, the element which he thought was under his control, was a clarion call for other nations to recognise the attribute of G’d we call י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. the attribute which G’d uses to demonstrate that He is totally free, not bound by so-called “laws of nature.” The Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus, while acknowledging the אלו-הים attribute of G’d, had exclaimed:  מי ה' אשר אשמע בקולו, “who is this new attribute of G’d that I should have to listen to His voice?” (Exodus 5,2).   Joseph,  well aware of Pharaoh’s faulty pagan beliefs, first told him that the power to reveal the meanings of dreams did not reside within him but was reserved for the superior power of G’d. By that he meant that there was a power which superseded that of the seven planets whom Pharaoh had thought of as independent forces each supreme in governing different parts of the universe. By saying בלעדי אלוקים, he drew attention to the discriminatory nature in which G’d supervises His universe. By saying that this Power אלוקים was going to put Pharaoh’s mind at ease, he introduced him to G’d the benevolent who deals with people on an individual basis. Pharaoh’s relief would come from G’d not via any of the seven planets. It therefore behooves man not to turn to  the stars, the horoscopes, etc., in order to divine his destiny but to turn to his Creator. This is what he meant when he said: “G’d will set Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” This approach to matters concealed from us is illustrated by Job 5,8 when Eliphaz said: ואל אלו-הים אשית דברתי, “and I will direct what I have to say to the Lord.” This is also what prompted Hoseah, quoting G’d, to say (Hoseah 2,23-24) “on that day I will respond; I will respond to the sky, and it shall respond to the earth; and the earth shall respond with new grain and wine and oil.” This verse teaches that just as it is not up to the earth to initiate any response to man’s request and efforts unless it had first been so instructed by G’d, so it would be foolish to direct one’s prayers and efforts to intermediaries. The reason Joseph always uses G’d’s attribute אלו-הים when referring to G’d is that he wanted to underline that what purports to be “natural,” i.e. laws of nature which man thinks he can depend on, is so only as long as the Lord who has created these forces, i.e. אלו-הים continues to direct these forces to operate normally. Seeing that the dream of Pharaoh forecast interference by G’d in these “natural” forces of the earth to produce crops, Joseph added את האלוקים עושה הראה לפרעה, “what G’d is about to do, (i.e. changes in established patterns of nature) He has revealed to Pharaoh.” Afterwards Joseph added that not only had G’d given Pharaoh advance warning of what was about to occur, but He had even provided him with a time frame of when to expect these changes, i.e. beginning immediately. [I believe the author went out of his way to justify the use of the word אלוקים when in reality anything denoting G’d’s interference in the laws of nature is usually credited to His attribute י-ה-ו-ה; in this instance, the fact that Pharaoh did not even acknowledge the existence of  Creator who had preceded the creation of this universe had to be acquainted with that fact before he could absorb any lesson about the attribute Hashem. Ed.]     When Joseph added כי נכון הדבר מעם האלוקים לעשותו, “for the matter is already ready before G’d and He will proceed forthwith to carry it out,” (verse 32) he again attributed anything that would occur to G’d and not to anything man could do. At the same time he wanted to convince Pharaoh that man is not a robot and acts under compulsion, that everything in his life has not been decreed from above. The words בלעדי אלוקים, contain within them an allusion to the limit of G’d’s power, i.e. the freedom of choice He as accorded to man, something over which G’d has no control. If you will examine Joseph’s word carefully you will find that they parallel the Torah’s report of the story of creation. That report began with the words בראשית ברא אלוקים, ”at the beginning, G’d created, etc.” and ended with the words (Genesis 2,3) אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had created as an ongoing process.” Joseph commenced with telling Pharaoh that first and foremost there would be an activity by G’d, i.e. את האלוקים עושה, and he concluded with the words האלוקים לעשות exactly like in Genesis 2,3.
      You will find that the number seven appears three times each in connection with both the cows and the ears of corn. Once it appears in the Torah’s report of Pharaoh’s dream, once in the dream as related by Pharaoh, and the third time when Joseph refers to this number when he interprets the dream. When you multiply the number 14 (seven cows plus seven ears of corn) you get the number 14. When you multiply this number by three you get 42,  [an allusion to the numerical value of one of the names of G’d, the first 42 letters in the Book of Genesis until the letter ב in ובוהו — Ed.] None of the numbers “seven” mentioned in our passage went to waste, every one of them became historically relevant as pointed out by Ezekiel 29, 10-11: “Assuredly I will deal with you and your channels, and I will reduce the land of Egypt to utter ruin and  desolation; from Migdol to Syene all the way to the border with Nubia. No foot of man shall traverse it; it shall remain uninhabited for forty years.” The first two of these forty years occurred during the time of Joseph before Yaakov came to Egypt. The remaining forty years of the prophecy Pharaoh dreamt  occurred later on in Egyptian history.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   בריאת בשר ויפות מראה, “of healthy flesh and handsome appearance.” When these cows were mentioned in verse two they were described as יפות מראה ובריאות בשר. This is only one of the minor changes in language that we encounter between the objective report of the dream by the Torah and by the more subjective manner in which Pharaoh tells Joseph of the impressions he formed while dreaming. We have already drawn attention to the fact that the Torah described Pharaoh as dreaming that he stood above the river Nile, whereas when he relates his dream he described himself as standing on the banks of the river. This is why according to Tanchuma Miketz 3 Joseph actually corrected Pharaoh saying to him: “you did not see בריאות בשר ויפות תואר, but you saw יפות מראה ובריאות בשר. According to the Midrash, Joseph similarly corrected Pharaoh’s account of what the ears of corn had looked like in his dream. Upon hearing Joseph’s version of his dream, Pharaoh was dumbfounded and was forced to admit that אחרי הודיע אלו-הים  אותך את כל זאת, “after G’d has informed you of all this, etc.” (verse 39). He meant that Joseph himself must have been in his dream how else could he have had such detailed knowledge of it. When Yaakov blessed Joseph on his deathbed (Genesis 49,22), he referred to this incident when he said; בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין, (freely translated) “Joseph had ample knowledge of the cows, he set his eye on it.” [He meant that Joseph’s rise to power had been occasioned through his intimate knowledge of the meaning of the cows in Pharaoh’s dream. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . ועל השנות החלום אל פרעה פעמים, “as for the repetition of the dream to Pharaoh twice,” etc. The unusual fact that two dreams were repeated twice in a single night, although they were only one dream.
     כי נכון הדבר מעם האלוקים וממהר אלוקים לעשותו, “(it means) that the matter is ready and prepared from G’d’s part and that He will carry it out promptly.” Ibn Ezra interprets the meaning of the word השנות as the repeating of two symbols in the dream, i.e. both cows and ears of corn as a sign that the events foreshadowed would occur soon. Rabbeinu Chananel, focusing on the word פעמים, “twice,” wrote that the meaning of that word is that the message of the dream of the cows and the message of the dream of the ears of corn is the same; however the reason the message has been repeated is that the word נכון is a reference to the period of plenty, whereas the words וממהר האלוקים לעשותו “and G’d will hasten to do it,” refer to the famine that is to follow the years of plenty immediately.
  
  Verse 33
  
  . ועתה ירא פרעה איש נבון וחכם, “and now, let Pharaoh seek out a discerning and wise man.” Joseph meant that there was now a need for a discerning and wise man to be appointed as being in charge of the land of Egypt, i.e. וישיתהו על ארץ מצרים, “who would have authority over all the people in Egypt.” He employed the term נבון as an attribute of someone who is discerning enough to establish a fair rationing system, a system which allowed for the sizes of the different families. Such a man, after having provided for the needs of the local population first, could export the surplus to other paying customers. He added the word חכם, “wise,” as an additional attribute of such an economic  czar to describe someone who knew how to prevent the stored surpluses of the next seven years from rotting or otherwise becoming unfit to eat. Joseph’s suggestions were designed to promote his own appointment to this position. According to Nachmanides, Joseph displayed the truism of Solomon’s statement (Kohelet 2,14) that החכם עיניו בראשו, “the wise man has eyes in his head.”
  
  Verse 34
  
  . יעשה פרעה, “let Pharaoh proceed, etc.” to appoint a single ruler over these various civil servants,” i.e. the officials whom Pharaoh would appoint. Clearly, the שליט, would have to appoint officials as he could not possibly perform all this work by himself. 
     וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “let him set aside one fifth of all (the grain) growing during the seven years of plenty.” The economic czar was to confiscate 20% of every farmer’s harvest. An alternate meaning of the word וחמש could be “let this economic czar urge the people to gather, etc.” The word then would resemble the word חמושים עלו בני ישראל, in Exodus 13,18 meaning: “in a pioneering spirit.”
  
  Verse 35
  
  . ויקבצו את כל אוכל, “and let them gather in all the food, etc.” the words “all the food,” refer to the 20% of the crops to be taxed by Pharaoh. The  words “all the food,” mean that 20% of each type of harvest such  as wheat, rye, corn and barley  were to be taxed and collected to be stored.
     ויצברו בר, “and they will amass grain.” The expression צבר used here by the Torah refers to underground storage. We find a comparison between עפר, earth, dust, in Job 27,16 אם יצבר כעפר כסף, “if  he were to pile up silver like dust.” Joseph suggested to Pharaoh to  store grain both above ground in grain elevators as well as  below ground. The expression צבירה includes both kinds of storage. We find the expression occurring when the Egyptians piled up the frogs into great heaps in Exodus 8,10.
     תחת יד פרעה “under Pharaoh’s control.” under Pharaoh’s control and in storage-houses owned by him.  אוכל בערים, “food in the cities.” Produce grown near certain cities should be stored within these cities.   ושמרו, “and they are to guard and protect” the grain is to be brought into these storage houses in a condition which makes it fit to store for an extended period.
  
  Verse 36
  
  . והיה האוכל לפקדון, “the food shall serve as a reserve.” The word פקדון is used here in the same sense as elsewhere when someone is given something to guard on behalf of a third party. The food stored was to be stored on behalf of the farmers who grew it. The objective was to forestall that the land would perish as had the seven undernourished cows in Pharaoh’s dream.
  
  Verse 37
  
  .  ובעיני כל עבדיו וייטב הדבר בעיני פרעה, “the matter (advice) was viewed favourably by Pharaoh and by all his servants.” Pharaoh’s servants realised that Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh was sound and that the Royal Palace, the wealthy classes as well as the poor in Egypt  stood to gain from following Joseph’s advice. This is why they concurred and expressed their approval of the plan Joseph had outlined.
  
  Verse 38
  
  . הנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלו-הים בו, “can we find a man so filled with the spirit of G’d?”  We find something very similar in Daniel 4,6 after Daniel had interpreted the dream of Nebuchadnezzar.
  
  Verse 39
  
  . אחרי הודיע אלו-הים אותך את כל זאת, “after the Lord has informed you of all this.” Pharaoh referred to Joseph’s wisdom rather than to his knowledge as a prophet in predicting the onset of the seven good years, etc. He added: “seeing that you advised me to appoint a discerning and wise man it stands to reason that seeing that —
  אין נבון וחכם כמוך "there is none more discerning and wise than yourself,  etc." — you will be this person.” Pharaoh and his advisors were so impressed that they acted as if Joseph’s prediction had already come true. This explains the word הודיע in the past tense. [After all, until it had come true how did they know that Joseph’s information had been divinely inspired? Ed.]
  
  Verse 40
  
  . ועל פיך ישק כל עמי, “and by your command my whole nation will be sustained.”  
       רק הכסא, “only by the throne, etc.” Pharaoh meant by this that he would be the titular head of state, i.e. that the people would call him “King.” We find in  Kings I 1,37 ויגדל את כסאו, “may he make his (Solomon’s) ‘throne’ greater than that of his father.” This too is a reference to Solomon’s reputation as a great king being established.
  
  Verse 41
  
  . ראה נתתי אותך על כל ארץ מצרים, “here I have appointed you over the whole of the land of Egypt.”  We find a parallel expression also in Daniel 2,48 אדין מלכא לדניאל רבי ומתנן רברבן שגיאן יהב ליה והשליטה על כל מדינת בבל. “The king then elevated Daniel and gave him many gifts, and made him the governor of the whole province of Babylon.”
  
  Verse 42
  
  . ויסר פרעה את טבעתו, “Pharaoh removed his ring, etc.” He handed Joseph his signet ring with which he appointed ministers or relieved them of their authority. The בגדי שש, “linen garments,” of which the verse tells us were worn by kings in Egypt. The רביד הזהב, the “golden chain” mentioned in this verse is called מניכא דדהבה  by Onkelos, i.e. a golden badge of office.
  
  Verse 43
  
  . ויקראו לפניו "אברך". They called out before him Avrech!” The meaning of the word אברך is the same as הברך, “the knee.” The letters א and ה are part of the group אחה'ע letters which are interchangeable. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 90,3 claim that the word is a composite of the two words אב ורך, “a father-figure though young in years.” There are other examples of the word רך meaning young in years, such as Samuel II 3,39 ואנכי היום רך ומשוח מלך, “and although young in years I have today been anointed king.”  Other words which are composites of two words are: פרחה, which is composed of פרי חח; the word עבטיט is a composite of עב טיט.
      Some commentators understand the word אברך as being composed of the two words אב ואדון, (a translation from the Aramaic) This is based on Baba Batra 4 in which King Herod is described  as לא ריכא ולא בר ריכא, “neither a king nor the son of a king.” This was because Herod was born a slave rising to the position of king. The translation of Genesis 25,27 יודע ציד by Onkelos as “a shrewd man,” נחשירכן, i.e. נחש רכן is an example of two words being combined into one. Most hunters are relying on shrewdness to lure their prey. While the more accurate versions of the Targum have the word נחשידכן, based on Baba Batra 139  (compare ערוך), in this instance we are dealing with גברא שדכא, a person who is inactive, without regular occupation. We encounter the word having such a meaning in Joshua 11,23 והארץ שקטה ממלחמה, “the land had rest from war,” which is rendered as וארעא שדוכת מלמעבד קרבא by the Targum.
  
  Verse 44
  
  . אני פרעה, “I am Pharaoh.”  He meant: “I alone am not subject to your authority.” Basically, this was a repetition of the previous statement רק הכסא אגדל ממך, “I will be greater than you only by reason of my occupying the throne.” According to Onkelos Joseph’s authority embraced all aspects of people’s lives in Egypt, so that no one was even allowed to bear arms unless he had Joseph’s approval.
  
  Verse 45
  
   צפנת פענח, “the one who reveals secrets.” This word does not appear a second time in Scripture. We do, however, encounter this word in the נשמת prayer recited on Sabbath mornings where the expression is המפענח נעלמים, [the subject being G’d, not man. Ed.] This gives us reason to believe that the King (Pharaoh) was familiar with the language spoken in nearby Canaan. When Batya, a daughter of a later Pharaoh, named Moses  משה, paraphrasing the Hebrew words כי מן המים משיתיהו “for I have pulled him from the water,” (Exodus 2,10) this also indicates that she was familiar with the language spoken by the Hebrews.
     בת פוטי פרע כהן און, “a daughter of Poti-Phera, the Priest of On.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 86,3 this man was identical with Joseph’s former master Potiphar. The reason he was called פוטיפר was that he was פטם פרים ועגלים לעבודה זרה, “fattening oxen and calves in order that they be offered as sacrificial animals in pagan rites (מפטם פר).” In addition, he was called פוטי-פרע because he had become castrated (without surgical incision) as a penalty for wanting to use Joseph for homosexual practices. 
  The Midrash may have had in mind that although originally Potiphar was a powerful minister at Pharaoh’s court, he was embarrassed after becoming sexually impotent and decided to join a fraternity of the Priesthood. At that time his name was changed to פוטי פרע (two words). The word און describes the deity which this fraternity of Priests worshipped. We find something analogous in connection with יתרו, Yethro,  whom the Torah refers to as כהן מדין “a Priest of Midian.” (Exodus 3,1) There too the word כהן means “clergy,” seeing he too (at that time) was fattening calves in preparation for slaughtering them to pagan deities (Sanhedrin 82).  We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 that Ossnat, Joseph’s wife, was the daughter of Dinah who had been raped by Shechem the son of Chamor. Yaakov had expelled her from his home and had arranged for her to live amongst some bushes. This is why she was called אסנת, from the word סנה, “bush”. When arranging for her to live near that bush Yaakov attached a note around her neck on which was written: “anyone who attaches himself to you thereby will become part of Yaakov’s family.” When Joseph saw this note he went and hid it. This is why when his father asked him who the lads were whom he had brought with him to be blessed, (Genesis 48,9) he said: “they are my sons whom the Lord gave me in this place.” He showed his father the note and what had been written thereon. 
     בת פוטי פרע, she was described as “daughter of Potiphar”  because she had been raised in Potiphar’s house. She was so named in accordance with Sanhedrin 19 that anyone who raises an orphan in his home is deemed to have given birth to that person.”
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   ותעש הארץ. “the earth produced.” This is a reference to the crops the earth produced during the seven years of plenty The root עשה is often associated with crops as we find in Leviticus 25,21 וצויתי את ברכתי לכם ...ועשת את התבואה, “and I will direct My blessing toward you and it (the earth) will produce the crop sufficient for three years.”
     לקמצים, “by the handfuls.”  The word‘s meaning is similar to לגמצים, i.e. ”digging a pit.” The letter ק is interchangeable with the letter ג. when the letters גיכ'ק are involved. Another example is ויציקו את ארון האלו-הים, “and they set down the Ark of G’d.” the word ויציקו is equivalent to ויציגו. as we know it from Genesis 43,9  והצגתיו לפניך ”I will make him stand upright in your presence (bring him back safely).”
  
  
  Verse 48
  
     ויתן אכל בערים, “he placed food supplies in the cities.”  The fact that previously the Torah had spoken of כל אכל, and here it speaks merely of אכל, shows that in the previous verse the word כל  did not refer to quantity but to variety, i.e. “all types of food, not only grain.” אכל שדה העיר אשר סביבותיה נתן בתוכה, “the food of the field around each city he placed within it.” Joseph’s procedure as reported here caused our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 90,5) to state that when local food supplies are stored locally, such food supply will keep as the earth of that neighbourhood acts as a preservative for what it has produced.
  
  Verse 49
  
  . עד כי חדל לספור, “until he stopped counting.” There came a point when instead of measuring the grain by the usual methods, i.e. employing the standard measure eypha, they simply counted the locations where grain had been stored.
  
  Verse 50
  
  . בטרם תבא שנת הרעב, “before the year of famine had set in.” This verse prompted our sages (Taanit 11) to decree that it is forbidden for man and wife to engage in marital relations during a year of famine. The only exception to this rule are couples who have not yet been able to produce any children. Joseph named his sons by commemorating events in his life.
  
  Verse 51
  
  . כי נשני אלו-הים את כל עמלי ואת כל בית אבי, “for G’d has enabled me to forget all my problems including those which I have suffered in my father’s house.” This verse prompted our sages (Baba Batra 12) to conclude that the house in which a woman grew up is called בי נשא, “a house inducing forgetfulness.” The origin of this psychological fact is the verse in Genesis 2,24 “for that purpose (to get married) man leaves the house of his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife.” [As long as Joseph had not founded a family he was still deeply attached to his father’s house. Ed.] What holds true for the emotional reaction of a man when he gets married is equally true of the wife once she is married.
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  . ויהי רעב בכל הארצות, “there was a famine in all the countries.” This verse contrasts the conditions in the countries surrounding Egypt with those in Egypt itself where, thanks to Joseph’s foresight, the famine was not felt by the inhabitants of the country. This is why the verse concludes with the words: “but in all of the land of Egypt there was bread (food).”
  
  Verse 55
  
   ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים, “The whole land of Egypt was famished, etc.” This verse speaks of the second year of the famine. It teaches that G’d had proclaimed that Egypt should suffer the pangs of hunger. We have a similar incidence in Kings II 8,1 כי קרא ה'  לרעב, “for G’d has decreed famine.” Another verse in which the expression קרא is used in connection with famine is found in Psalms 105,16 קרא רעב על הארץ כל מטה לחם שבר, “He called down a famine on the land; destroyed every staff of bread.”  As a result the  famine was being felt by the people, ויקרא העם אל פרעה ללחם, “the people called out to Pharaoh for food.” It is in the nature of people to cry out to those in whose power it is to satisfy their needs. We find a verse in Psalms 107,5 רעבים גם צמאים נפשם בהם תתעטף, “the hungry and thirsty, their spirit failed”. On the other hand: ויצעקו אל ה' בצר להם, “they cried out to G’d (after) they were in distress, etc.”
     לכו אל יוסף, “go to Joseph.” Pharaoh told his clamoring people that Joseph had assumed all the functions of government in Pharaoh’s place. Pharaoh portrayed himself as only the titular head of government. He used this to support his instructions that they must follow Joseph’s instructions.
      Tanchuma Miketz 7 describes what happened in the following words: when Pharaoh sent his petitioners to Joseph and they pleaded with him for bread, Joseph told them to come back after they had circumcised themselves. Thereupon the people returned to Pharaoh and cried in front of him telling him that Joseph had refused to supply them with food until they had circumcised themselves.  Pharaoh said to them: “why were you foolish enough not to have stored food for yourselves during the last seven years?” Thereupon the people told him that everything they had stored had rotted away. Pharaoh asked them if not some of yesterday’s bread was left over? They told Pharaoh that even bread they put in their bread baskets on the previous day had turned bad. Thereupon Pharaoh told them to go back to Joseph and to carry out all his instructions. This is the meaning of the verse (Proverbs 11,26) מונע בר יקבוהו לאום וברכה לראש משביר, “he who withholds grain they will curse (Pharaoh), whereas he who sells it will enjoy a blessing.” The reference is to Joseph who was the seller of grain in Egypt. This is what Yaakov had in mind when he said to his son Joseph (Genesis 49,26) “the blessings of your father surpassed the blessings of my parents.“ Moses alluded to this in Deut. 33,15  תבואתה לראש יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחיו, “may this blessing come to rest on the head of Joseph, etc.,” i.e. that the reason Joseph enjoys these additional blessings is that he was the supplier of grain to a whole people.
  
  Verse 56
  
   והרעב היה על פני כל הארץ, “and the famine embraced the entire land.” This is a reference to the wealthy people who were struck by the famine no less than the poor. The reason the wealthy people are referred to as פני הארץ, is because all the people turn to the wealthy in time of need. We have proof from here that the first people who felt the famine were the wealthy (the spoiled ones).
     את כל אשר בהם, “all that was in them.” This is a reference to all the kinds of stored grain contained. Onkelos also translates the verse to mean  אוצריה רי בהון עיבורא, “the storage chambers which contained grain.”
     וישבור למצרים, “he sold grain to Egypt.” He sold to them (the people).
     ויחזק הרעב בארץ מצרים, “the famine remained strong in the land of Egypt.” The people, though eating, were not feeling sated. We read of a similar phenomenon in Kings I 18,2 “the famine remained strong in Shomron.”
  
  Verse 57
  
   כי חזק הרעב בכל הארץ, “for the famine was severe all over the earth.” The Torah refers to the part of the earth under Pharaoh’s control.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וירא יעקב, “Yaakov saw.” This is not something that Yaakov saw with his eyes but something he saw in his heart; proof that this this the meaning of the word וירא in this instance is  that he described what he had “seen” as הנה שמעתי, “here I have heard,” instead of saying: הנה ראיתי, “here I have seen.”
     כי יש שבר במצרים, “that there is grain for sale in Egypt.” The word שבר usually refers to something for sale as we know from Deut. 2,6 אוכל תשברו מאתם, “purchase food provisions from  them.” It is noteworthy that Yaakov neither mentioned the word “food,” nor the word “grain,” The reason he referred to grain by saying שבר is because that word includes both “trading or selling” as well as “‘grain.” He continued using this word when he told his sons in Genesis 43,2: שובו שברו לנו מעט אוכל, “go back and secure for us some food (by buying grain).” In our verse (2) he said: שברו לנו משם, without the word אוכל. When Yaakov described the journey to Egypt he asked his sons to undertake as רדו שמה, “descend there,” instead of לכו שמה, “go there,” he also foreshadowed that any journey to Egypt would be but a prelude to the family’s eventual exile in Egypt. The number of years the Jewish people would be enslaved in Egypt corresponded to the numerical value of the letters in the word רדו, i.e. 210 years. When he used the expression ושברו משם, he meant that he foresaw both food supply as well as enslavement or exile as emanating from Egypt.
     ונחיה ולא נמות, “so we may live and not die.”  He meant that even if in the more distant future his descendants would face great problems in Egypt, they would not succumb to them and die. They would survive thanks to the very grain they were going to purchase now. Our sages (Sotah 9) referred to this phenomenon when they said concerning Deut. 32,23 חצי אכלה בם “My arrows I will use up against them.” They said that half the Jews in exile may be exterminated by their Gentile enemies while the other half will survive. The meaning of the verse is that whereas G’d’s arrows will become exhausted the Jews will not all perish. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 91,6 had still another interpretation for the word שבר. They saw it as if it had been spelled with the dot on the left side of the letter ש, so that we would read it as סבר, “hope.” If we accept this interpretation we could read the verse as: “Yaakov saw in his mind’s eye that there was hope in Egypt for his descendants.” Although the ”hope” referred to the exalted position of Joseph in Egypt, Yaakov had lost the power to have clear visions ever since he had been parted from Joseph, so that this was only a very nebulous kind of vision.
     למה תתראו, “why do you make yourselves conspicuous?”  The meaning may be: ”why do you want to risk weakening yourselves by hunger? If this is the correct meaning the word is related to Proverbs 11,25 גם הוא יורה, “he will also be irrigated. This is the way Rashi understands the word תתראו. Rabbeinu Chananel understand the word as an admonition by Yaakov to his sons “why are you confrontational with each other?” He quotes support from Kings II 14,8 לכה נתראה פנים, “let us confront each other!”  Verse 11 in the same chapter of Kings also confirms the meaning of this word as being to confront each other when we read ויתראו פנים הוא ואמציה מלך יהודה, ”he and King Amatziah of Yehudah confronted each other.” Nachmanides  understands the word as: “why are you looking at each other in this place instead of journeying to Egypt and getting supplies?” They should have traveled as soon as they were in danger of exhausting their food supplies as soon as they heard that there were supplies to be bought in Egypt. 
  Midrash Tanchuma Miketz 8 suggests that Yaakov challenged the brothers’ physical strength and their courage suggesting they had nothing to fear by traveling to Egypt. This is why he added the words “we will live and not die.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . וירדו אחי יוסף עשרה, “ten of Joseph’s brothers descended.” The Torah should have written: “ten sons of Yaakov descended.” The reason that the Torah refers to them as “Joseph’s brothers” indicates that they had repented the fact that they had sold him and had meanwhile resolved to relate to him as their brother and to buy his freedom at whatever cost. (Tanchuma Miketz 8).
      An alternative reason why the Torah describes the ten sons of Yaakov as ten brothers of Joseph may be that the Torah wanted to inform us of their good intention to pray for Joseph’s welfare by forming a quorum of 10 worshipers. We know that the minimum number of adult males required to form a holy congregation is 10. This is why the Torah  refers to ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “I will be sanctified amongst the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22,32).
      Nachmanides writes that the brothers are described as such to alert us to the fact that at this point Joseph’s first dream, which involved 10 people binding sheaves was in the process of becoming true. In that dream Binyamin (only 11 years old) was not included as binding sheaves. As soon as the brothers paid their respects to the ruler of Egypt this dream  had been fulfilled. (verse 6). The second dream in which eleven stars bowed down to Joseph could not be fulfilled until Binyamin too came to Egypt with his brothers as well as his father Yaakov.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,6 the wording of the Torah in which the ten brothers of Joseph are described as traveling to Egypt  is based on the fact that Joseph had issued instructions to his officials that the names of the persons coming to Egypt to buy grain as well as the names of such person’s father as well as his home town be recorded  in a central register. He would scan the list of names every evening. As soon as the names of his brothers appeared on one of these lists, Joseph closed all the grain distributing points bar one to force his brothers to make their purchases at that point. He supplied his officials with the names of  his brothers and waited for them to arrive at that distribution point in order to arrest them upon arrival. When three days passed and none of Joseph’s brothers was reported as having made any purchases, Joseph  took men from Pharaoh’s palace guard to search for his brothers in the market-place. They were located in the red light district. When questioned by the palace guards why they had spent so much time in that location  they told the guards that a handsome brother of theirs who had been missing for a long time might have been sold into prostitution and that they had come to buy his freedom.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ויתנכר אליהם, “and he pretended to be a stranger who did not know them.” Joseph recognised his brothers as soon as he set eyes upon them. He was afraid that they might recognise him also. This is why he pretended to not to know who they were. We find something parallel when the wife of King Jerobam who sought help from the prophet Achyah Hashiloni (who was blind to boot) for her sick son pretended to be someone else at the instruction of her husband (Kings I 14,2-6). Achiyah challenged her, calling her by her true name the moment she entered his room. The expression used by the prophet Jeremiah to describe this charade was also the same as here, i.e. מתנכר.  It is possible that Joseph did not change his features in order to deceive his brothers but merely spoke to them in a tone and language which made it unlikely that they would associate his person with being remotely similar to their brother. Once the brothers had told him where they came from, Joseph became convinced they were indeed his brothers. This accounts for the Torah writing once more: ויכר יוסף את אחיו (verse 8). (Compare commentary by Nachmanides.)
      According to Tanchuma Miketz 8 the words ויתנכר להם mean that as far as the brothers were concerned he was a pagan seeing that he used his goblet to consult it as if it possessed magic powers. He said to them that the goblet had informed him that they were spies. They replied that they were upright people, had never been spies, but that they had merely complied with their father’s instructions not to enter Egypt by the same gate. Thereupon Joseph demanded to know what business they had had in the red light district? They answered that they had lost something precious and had hoped to locate the lost object in that area during the last three days. Thereupon Joseph told them that his goblet told him that two of their number had once destroyed an entire city by the name of Shechem. When they heard this they became frightened and told Joseph that they were actually twelve brothers. Thereupon Joseph demanded to know the whereabouts of the other two brothers. They told him that one of their number had disappeared and that the youngest one was at home with his father. Upon hearing this, Joseph told them that if they would bring the youngest brother to see him he would accept their claim that they were not spies.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . שנים עשר עבדיך אחים אנחנו, “we, your servants, are actually twelve brothers.” Originally they had said that they were twelve men all the sons of a single father (verse 11). They had done so in order to explain why they were traveling together and keeping company all the time. They also explained that their traveling together reduced the chance of their being robbed of their food purchases.
     כנים אנחנו, “we are upright (honest).” The term is applied to righteous men who are descendants of righteous men. They invited Joseph to confirm this through independent inquiries he could make about them and their father. Joseph said to them: “you entered by twelve different gates only to be all together now. This suggests to me that you must be spies and have now come together to report to each other what you have found out.” Joseph indicated that their behaviour was typical of spies. Thereupon they enlarged on their family background in order to convince this ruler of Egypt that they had nothing to hide. Thereupon Joseph took them at their word saying that bringing down Binyamin to Egypt would provide proof to him if indeed they had spoken truthfully. The brothers had no response to this.
     חי פרעה, “by the life of Pharaoh!”  We must not assume that Joseph invoked Pharaoh’s name to swear a vain oath, one that he would not honour. We will demonstrate that when Joseph used the language of an oath he always kept it. In this instance, he wanted to know what the brothers would have done if they had found the brother of whom they had said that he had disappeared. They answered that they would have bought his freedom using all the money at their disposal if need be. When Joseph countered that this was all well and good if the owner of their missing brother were willing to sell him. However, supposing that the owner would not be prepared to do that, what would they do then? They answered that their purpose in coming to Egypt was to settle the matter either one way or another. Either they would be killed in the process or they would have to kill to release their long lost brother. Upon hearing this Joseph exclaimed: “by the life of Pharaoh I was right! You are spies!” The words “by the life of Pharaoh” meant “I will certainly not release you now that you have admitted that you are prepared to kill in order to gain your objective.” Joseph kept his word by not allowing Shimon to return to Canaan at this stage. When the brothers said: “we are twelve, all the sons of one man,” they meant that all twelve of them including their father were alive. The Torah only shows that they were not aware of the truth of their statement that all twelve brothers were alive.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ביום השלישי זאת עשו “on the third day ‘do this!’” According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,9 the verse in Hoseah 6,2  יחיינו מיומים ביום השלישי יקימנו ונחיה לפניו, “In two days He will make us whole again; on the third day He will raise us up and we shall live in His presence,” are a reference to what happened to the brothers during the three days described in our verse. G’d does not subject the righteous to trials lasting more than three days. The merit of the fathers Yaakov, Yitzchak, and Avraham was instrumental in Joseph changing his mind. The third day was significant already ever since the day Avraham espied the mountain on which he prepared Yitzchak as a sacrifice (Genesis 22,4), and it became important again in Exodus 19,16 as the day G’d revealed Himself to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. This implies that the merit of their Torah learning also assisted the brothers when they confronted Joseph.
  
  Verse 19
  
  . שבר רעבון בתיכם, “the provisions to still the hunger of your families.” This verse contains the veiled lesson that man must not use food and drink in order to indulge himself and his palate but merely in order to maintain the health of his body. Solomon phrases this principle thus in Proverbs 13,25: “the righteous eats to sustain his life-force.” This is the reason that Joseph used the term שבר רעבון when speaking of the provisions he let them purchase. The limitation (rationing) was particularly appropriate at a time of famine when there is not enough food available to gorge oneself. The principal manifestation of a person’s יראת ה', fear of the Lord, is the manner in which he makes minimal use of the creature comforts available to him in this world. This is the reason that Joseph commenced this sentence with the words את האלו-הים אני ירא, “I am a G’d-fearing person.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ויעשו כן, “they did so.” This teaches that all the brothers willingly submitted to Joseph’s decision and said to him: “we are all at your disposal; take the one from amongst us whom you choose.”
  
  Verse 21
  
   אבל אשמים אנחנו על אחינו, “but we are guilty concerning our brother, etc.” It is the customary thing for righteous people to acknowledge mistakes they have made and to acknowledge G’d’s justice when they feel they are being punished for some sin. This is the meaning of Leviticus 5,19  אשם הוא, אשום אשם לה', “it is a guilt offering; he has become guilty before the Lord.” [The Torah discusses a guilt-offering brought by a person who became aware of his error but had not been accused by man to have committed such an error. Ed.] By contrast, it is the norm for wicked people to deny that they committed any sins at all. This is the meaning of Zecharyah 11,5: “whose buyers will slaughter them with impunity.” They will not admit having committed a sin.
     אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו, ”when we saw his soul in distress and he pleaded with us.” This verse seems to support the opinion of those who hold that it was not the brothers who actually sold Joseph. For if the brothers had been guilty of that crime they should have expressed their remorse for having sold him rather than for having remained deaf to his pleas. Their guilt had been to have thrown him into a pit and to have abandoned him to his fate. No doubt Joseph had pleaded with them not to throw him into the pit.
     על כן באה עלינו הצרה הזאת, “this is why this anguish has come upon us.” They meant: “we deserved this anguish as retribution for the anguish we caused Joseph.” The expression כן, describing the correctness of something also occurs in Numbers 27,7 when G’d told Moses that the daughters of Tzelofchod had been correct in their claim to share in the land of Canaan as the heirs of their father.
  
  Verse 22
  
   הלא אמרתי לכם לאמור אל תחטאו בילד! ולא שמעתם, “did I not tell you saying: “do not incur a sin in the way you treat the child! But you did not listen.”  Reuven meant that he had told the brothers at the time not to do anything to him seeing he was still a child, and his mistakes etc., were due to his youthful immaturity.  
     וגם דמו, “and also his blood.” The cruelty you displayed at the time when you threw him into the pit is now being requited. Although you did not kill him with your own hands you are now being punished as if you had done so. G’d considers your deed as if you had spilled your brother’s blood. Perhaps he died before attaining maturity and due to his spoiled upbringing he was not able to cope with the physical demands of serfdom (based on Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויקח מאתם את שמעון,  “he took from amongst them Shimon.” He kept Shimon in jail longer than the other brothers in order to keep him apart from Levi. He remembered that when it came to killing the males of the town of Shechem, Shimon and Levi had acted as a team. Yaakov referred to the matter on his deathbed when he said (Genesis 49,5-6) “Shimon and Levi are brothers (comrades), violence is their stock-in trade.”   When the Torah writes in 42, 27: “The one opened his sack,” the words “the one” are a reference to Levi the other half of that team of brothers. Seeing the brothers had not been prepared to select one of their number who should remain behind as a hostage that they would return with Binyamin, Joseph had to make the selection himself. From this incident our sages derived an important ruling, i.e. that when Gentiles demand from Israelites that they hand over one of their number without specifying which person they are to hand over, that the Israelites must not make such a selection but must rather all face death than to condemn someone in their midst. (If however, the Gentiles selected a particular individual from amongst the Israelites and they threaten to kill all the Israelites unless that individual is handed over, the Israelites (in order to save their lives) must hand over the individual demanded from them) (Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5,4).    There is a well known example in Samuel II 20, 1-22  when Sheva ben Bichri, a rebel against the regime of King David, happened to be trapped amongst other Jews and David had given orders to liquidate this Sheva ben Bichri as a dangerous rebel. His commander-in-chief Yoav and his brother Avishai had surrounded the town in which Sheva ben Bichri found himself. A woman in that town saved the other townsfolk by persuading them to hand over the rebel and thus to save the inhabitants of the town from becoming victims of Yoav’s army. [This was during the period of Avshalom’s uprising against his father. Ed.]
  
  Verse 25
  
   וימלאו את כליהם בר, “they filled their containers with grain.” They did not measure the quantity.  ולהשיב את כספיהם איש אל שקו, “and to put back each man’s money into his sack.” so that the brothers would be unaware of this. This is why when one of them discovered his money in verse 28 they all became frightened. By contrast, when their money was replaced after their second trip to Egypt, Joseph informed them of that fact. As to the צידה, which the Torah says Joseph gave the brothers  to be eaten on the journey, this was an act of kindness. He wanted to convince the brothers that he had no hostile intentions towards them provided they could prove that they had spoken the truth. He gave them these extra provisions in order to enable them to bring their youngest brother to Egypt.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  . מה זאת עשה אלו-הים לנו, “What is this that G’d had done to us?” They felt that G’d had repaid them for their deception of their father by now making them the victim of deception.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  . את שני בני תמית, “you may kill two of my sons, etc.”  Reuven had four sons. According to the plain meaning of the text he meant to say that his father could kill two of his sons for one of Yaakov’s sons whom he would fail to bring back safely. 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,9 Yaakov told him that he was a foolish firstborn seeing that he assumed that his sons were only his sons and not also the sons of their grandfather.
  
  Verse 38
  
  . לא ירד בני עמכם, “my son will not go down (there) with you.” Yaakov did not say a word in response to Reuven’s offer of his sons as a guarantee. He had no confidence in Reuven seeing that he had previously sinned against his father in the matter with Bilhah’s couch. He did, however, have confidence in Yehudah, seeing Yehudah was the strongest  and had displayed mastery over the other brothers (Chronicles I 5,2). Yehudah’s argument presented Yaakov with two choices. According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,10 Yehudah told his brothers not to argue with their aged father but to wait until their shortage of food would make a trip to Egypt an absolute necessity. When that point was reached he told his father that whereas it was not certain Binyamin would not be arrested in Egypt, it was certain that if they did not travel to Egypt they would all perish from the famine. It was better therefore to have at least a chance of all of them surviving by fulfilling Joseph’s conditions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אנכי אערבנו מידי תבקשנו...וחטאתי לך כל הימים, “I will guarantee him, from me you can demand him;....or I will have sinned against you for all the days.” He meant that as long as he would live on earth he would consider himself as having sinned against his father. Solomon describes someone who steals from his parents as being a thief (although he stands to inherit his parents’ property) — compare Proverbs 25,24. Such a person is described there as a sinner against his parents.
  
  Verse 10
  
  . כי לולא התמהמהנו, “for if we had not delayed, etc.”  According to Rabbeinu Chananel the brothers made do with eating as little as possible until their father would raise the subject of a return trip to Egypt. The sons of Yaakov were very sensitive in their respect for the feelings of their  father and did not brow beat him with their arguments, preferring to wait until Yaakov made the first move. Once Yaakov had shown willingness to let Binyamin travel, he also suggested five ways to help that trip become successful. First, he prepared a gift for the ruler of such a mighty country. Secondly, he told his sons to return the money which they had found in their sacks. It could have been an oversight on the part of a manager in Joseph’s household. Thirdly, he insisted that the money be returned for reasons of establishing their integrity as G’d-fearing people even if Joseph had never missed that money. Fourth,  he authorised the brothers to take Binyamin with them. Fifth and last, he prayed that the Almighty would grant the brothers mercy when they would face the ruler of Egypt.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושלח לכם את אחיכם אחר ואת בנימין, “and so that he may release to you your other brother as well as Binyamin.”  The reason that Yaakov did not mention Shimon by name may have been that he was out of favour with his father ever since the killing of the males in Shechem. Otherwise he would have said “so that he will release your brother Shimon.”Bereshit Rabbah 92,3 understands the word אחיכם, “your brother” as a reference to Joseph, whereas the word אחר, is understood as a reference to Shimon. When Yaakov offered the prayer he also had in mind Joseph in case the latter was still alive.
     וא-ל שדי יתן לכם רחמים לפני האיש, “and may the Almighty grant you mercy before the man.” We have learned in Sanhedrin 44 that one should make a practice of praying before one finds oneself in distress. We know this from the fact that Yaakov prayed for the safety of Binyamin before the latter had faced any difficulty. 
  According to Tanchuma Miketz 10 the reason Yaakov invoked the attribute of Shaddai when he blessed his sons here was that Yaakov reminded himself of the many afflictions he had already experienced, commencing even before he was born when his twin brother quarreled with him inside his mother’s womb. Subsequently he had had to flee for his life on account of Esau; then he had experienced 20 years of frustrations at his uncle Lavan, etc. When he had finally left Lavan, Esau set out to kill him. Later on his daughter Dinah had been raped. Shortly thereafter his beloved wife Rachel died as a young woman and he was not even able to give her the funeral which befitted her status. Thereafter he suffered the disappearance of Joseph, to be followed by Shimon’s internment in Egypt. Now he was faced with the potential loss of Binyamin. One could truly apply to him the verse in Job 3,26: “I had no repose, no quiet, no rest, and trouble came.” He therefore hinted in his prayer שדי, “that it was enough” already. He meant that the One who had said די,”enough” to the evolutionary activities of the universe during the six days of creation, should now similarly proclaim די, “enough!” to his own problems. Our sages in Berachot 64 interpret Psalms 20,2: “May the Lord answer you in time of trouble, the name of Yaakov’s G’d  keep you safe;” as a reference to this attribute Shaddai. This was the reason that David mentioned only the G’d of Yaakov in that hymn and not that of Avraham and Yitzchak. We learn from here that one should always get hold of the thickest part of a beam when trying to move it.  Rabbi Joshua son of Levi interpreted the use of the attribute Shaddai here as an allusion to future exile, comparing it to Psalms 106,46  ויתן אותם לרחמים לפני כל שוביהם, “He made all their captors kindly disposed toward them.” [In both verses the attribute רחמים, mercy, is also mentioned. Ed.]  The words לפני האיש, are a veiled reference to G’d who is described in Exodus 15,3 as איש מלחמה, “a man (Master) of war.” He interprets the words: “and may He release to you your other brother,” as a reference to the ten tribes who were exiled before the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin. When Yaakov completed his prayer with the words וכאשר שכלתי שכלתי, “if I am to be bereaved, so I have been bereaved,” he referred to the respective destruction of both the first and the second Temple. At the same time he implied that after the destruction of the second Temple there would not occur another destruction of a Temple.    In Bereshit Rabbah 92,3 we read as follows: “Another approach to the words  “may the man grant his mercy, etc.” “The man” is G’d; Yaakov meant that this attribute of Mercy, one of G’d’s attributes, should stand by his sons in the forthcoming encounter. A prophet, even when praying for relief in a current crisis never fails to also address future crises the Jewish people may be faced with, and he orients himself so that his words cover both situations. In this instance Yaakov prayed that the benevolent Presence of G’d, שכינה, accompany the Jewish people also when they would be in exile. The word רחמים, refers to G’d’s attribute of Mercy. It is possible that the proof that the word האיש was also a reference to G’d is the fact that grammatically speaking it could not apply to Joseph. Yaakov had already said: שובו אל האיש, “return to the man”. Why would Yaakov use the same word twice to describe Joseph? All he had to say here was ויתן לך רחמים לפניו, referring to Joseph with the pronoun ending ו. Seeing that the words of a prophet are based on a careful evaluation of the meaning of the words he employs, it was necessary to interpret that the word האיש in our verse is not a mindless repetition of something Yaakov had already said. If Yaakov did not choose to refer to the attribute Shaddai he had mentioned previously as לפניו using the suffix ו, this is because he wanted to allude to the additional attribute of G’d  האישin the sense it has been used in Exodus when G’d was the Master warrior against the Egyptians. In Midrash Shir Hashirim we are taught in the name of ben Nezira that when G’d is referred to there as אשכל, that this is a combination of איש כל, “someone who combines within himself every quality, every attribute,” i.e. G’d. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  . ויקחו האנשים את המנחה הזאת, “the men took this gift.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the description of the brothers here as “men” rather than as “the brothers,” is to indicate the eagerness and determination with which they set out on their journey. Moreover, the term אנשים here as opposed to אחים reflected their great anxiety and their making sure that they would not be taken for brothers when they would arrive in Egypt. They even disguised themselves to forestall such an impression by those whom they would encounter.
      A kabbalistic approach: The expression אנשים here is an allusion to the ten sages who died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans in expiation for the sin of Joseph’s ten brothers who had sold him. This allusion commences with this verse and it is the reason why the term אנשים as applying to the brothers occurs ten times throughout the course of this story. I shall come back to this aspect of the story.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . וטבוח טבח, “and have meat slaughtered.” Joseph commanded Menashe his eldest son to do the slaughtering seeing that the sons of Yaakov were careful not to eat meat which had not been slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law.
     והכן, and prepare it.” This is either a reference to the removal of forbidden fat parts of the animal (חלב), or that he invited the brothers on the Sabbath eve to be his guests on the Sabbath. The word הכן is used in such a context in Exodus 16,5 where the Israelites are instructed to make preparation on Sabbath eve for consuming the manna which fell on that day on the Sabbath. Bereshit Rabbah 92,4 also states that the word הכן is invariably used with preparations for the Sabbath. The use of the word הכן here would prove that Joseph observed the Sabbath prior to it having been legislated for the Jewish people.
     בצהרים, “at noon.” This is the time when ministers and highly placed officials eat their principal meal. They waited until that hour as they were preoccupied with various aspects of their service to the public. Solomon referred to people who eat early in the morning when he wrote in Kohelet 10,16: "Woe to you, O land, whose king acts as an adolescent, and whose ministers dine in the morning.” At the same time, Solomon praises the ones who eat their meal at noon — (compare verse 17 in the above chapter of Kohelet).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . על דבר הכסף השב באמתחותינו, “on account of the money he had put back into our feeding bags.” They reasoned that it certainly was not the norm that the people who came to Egypt to buy grain would all be entertained overnight at the palace of the ruler. They would find their lodgings in different parts of the city, at various inns, etc. They assumed therefore that Joseph’s gesture in inviting them served only as an excuse to attack  them. They were afraid of a trumped up charge, and this is also the way Onkelos translates the words ולהתנפל עלינו not as a physical assault but as עלילת דברים, “false accusations.” 
     ולקחת אותנו לעבדים ואת חמורינו, “and to keep us as slaves as well as our donkeys.” At first glance the brothers’ concern about their donkeys appears disproportionate to their fear of becoming slaves. In this instance, not only did they worry about being deprived of their donkeys, animals which represented a lifeline, but they were even more concerned about these animals not carrying grain back to their families in Canaan. Their concern over their donkeys then was only a veiled form of their real worry about their families starving to death if they did not return. We find something similar in Exodus 17,3 when the Jewish people accused Moses of having taken them into the desert להמית אותי ואת בני ואת מקני בצמא, ”to kill me, my children and my cattle by thirst.” Normal people would not worry about their cattle in such a context seeing their own and their children’s lives were in jeopardy. But the Israelites mentioned the cattle (beasts of burden) as in their trek through the desert these animals were a lifeline for them. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   אלו-הים יחנך בני, “may G’d be gracious to you my son.” The expression is similar to the one used by Yaakov when he referred to his children as the ones whom חנן אלו-הים “G’d was gracious enough to grant him.” (Genesis 33,5). Binyamin had not yet been born at the time so Joseph used the expression here to include him in that blessing.
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי נכמרו רחמיו, “for his compassion had been stirred.” This is a common feeling between people who share the same father and mother. [Seeing Binyamin was the only one of the brothers who was a full brother to Joseph, his feelings were more tender towards him. Ed.]  According to Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the words כי נכמרו רחמיו אל אחיו allude to the following conversation between Joseph and Binyamin. Joseph asked: “do you have a full brother, one that has both the same father and mother as you?” Binyamin answered that he used to have such a brother but that he did not know what had become of him. When Joseph probed further, asking him if he had any children, Binyamin replied that indeed he had ten sons. To Joseph’s inquiry after the names of his sons, Binyamin told him the names. Joseph wanted to know the meaning of these names. Binyamin explained that they all represented his grief over his missing brother. The name Bela, for instance, represented the fact that apparently his missing brother had been “swallowed” up amongst the other nations so that his identity no longer could be determined. (The Midrash continues to elaborate on similar meanings of all of Binyamin’s sons.) Having heard all this, Joseph was so close to weeping that he had to leave the room in order not to give himself away.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   הבכור כבכורתו, “the firstborn in accordance with his birthright.” Joseph would strike his goblet and pronounce: ”Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Issachar and Zevulun are all sons of one mother.” He proceeded to seat them in the order of their birth. He repeated the same procedure with the other sons also. When he came to Binyamin, he said: “this one does not have a mother; I do not have a mother either.” He therefore placed Binyamin next to himself. This caused ויתמהו האנשים איש אל רעהו, “the men were looking at each other in astonishment.”
   The previous passage was taken from Bereshit Rabbah 92,5. At this point, the brothers began to wonder about the hidden properties of Joseph’s goblet. The problem with this interpretation of the words: “they were astonished,” is that if indeed the goblet possessed magic properties, Egypt was the country in which the magic arts had been perfected and the brothers should not have had any special reason to wonder about this. It appears that there was an element of vocal communication involved here, something other than the known varieties of Egyptian magic. Whereas normally, the people practicing the art of sorcery, magic, could hear only by means of living creatures which themselves possess a mouth, i.e. an organ by means of which they emit sounds which may be interpreted as words, in this instance an inert object such as Joseph’s goblet appeared to communicate such words to its owner. Our sages who are on record as saying that even the ears of corn proclaim their song of praise to G’d, have described the times the ears of corn as doing  this as being when the wind blows, i.e. when there are sound vibrations, some of which the ears of corn exploit in order to communicate their feeling to G’d. (compare Rashi on Rosh Hashanah 8 where these ears of corn are described as singing their song during the month of Nissan). At any rate, experts are able to discern more than just sounds when the wind blows through the corn fields. Joseph’s brothers (mistakenly) believed that the sound of Joseph striking the goblet translated to him into words, into an intelligent message. It was something they had never heard of.
  
  Verse 34
  
   חמש ידות, “five times as great,” How did Joseph arrive at this amount? He gave Binyamin his share, plus the share of his wife Ossnat and his two sons making a total of five shares. 
     וישתו וישכרו עמו, “they drank and became drunk together with him.” This was the first time the brothers had drunk intoxicating drinks since the day they had sold Joseph some twenty years previously. Joseph too had not touched intoxicating drink since that day. This is alluded to in Genesis 49,26 where Yaakov described Joseph as נזיר אחיו, “a Nazirite with his brothers.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    כאשר יוכלון שאת, “as much as they were able to carry.” According to Nachmanides this means that Joseph provided them with far more grain that they were entitled to for the amount of money they had brought with them.
     ושים כסף איש בפי אמתחתו, “and place each one’s money at the top of his feeding bag.” This time their money was replaced with their knowledge, as opposed to the first time. Had Joseph not advised the brothers that he was returning their money (at least the money they brought as substitution) they would have a valid excuse once the goblet would be discovered in Binyamin’s sack. Now that Joseph had proven that he dealt with the brothers in an above-board manner, they would not be able to claim that he had once before deceived them by planting something in their luggage. They were also aware that Joseph had loaded their beasts to the utmost capacity. Joseph might have argued that even this time the money which he put in their sacks was a gift from G’d, an argument that could not be used as applying to his goblet.   If we were to assume that now too the money the brothers found in their sacks had been placed there without their knowledge, he might have argued that whereas the money was again a treasure their G’d had granted them, the same could not apply to his personal goblet. They would not be able to argue (successfully) with someone stronger than they. 
  Remember that Egypt was a country in which there occurred many disturbances (compare Amos 3,9). In order to avoid becoming victims of muggers etc., the travelers who came to Egypt to buy grain entrusted their beasts, their sacks as well as their money, to the officials who would measure out the grain for their rations. The official would measure out grain for them in accordance with the amount of money they had deposited with him. The buyers would accept what was given to them without double-checking and thereby displaying distrust in the Egyptian government (based on Kohelet 8,4). The brothers therefore had good reason not to appear suspicious and to double-check what Joseph’s officials had done when filling their sacks.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  4 והאנשים שולחו, המה וחמוריהם. הם יצאו את העיר. “The men had been discharged, they and their donkeys. They had left the city.” In this verse you also find a number of allusions to how  G’d’s principle of retribution corresponds to the nature of the sin committed. In this instance, the brothers’ sin was the sale of Joseph. The retribution is linked to the sale of grain to the brothers. I have already explained in connection with Genesis 11,9 that every time the Holy Name of G’d (י-ה-ו-ה) appears in the Torah in a reverse order of the letters of that name, it is a reference to the attribute of Justice at work. In this instance the first letters of the words המה וחמוריהם הם יצאו comprise that name spelled backwards. As a result of this the brothers had to retrace their steps.
     לא הרחיקו, “they had not traveled far.” Joseph intercepted them promptly so that they would not lose too much time in retracing their steps.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . הלא זה אשר ישתה אדוני בו, “is this not what my master drinks out of?” He meant: “is not this goblet which you have stolen the one from which my master is in the habit of drinking?” The reason Joseph had used his goblet as the item he accused Binyamin of having stolen was that by stealing such an item from the palace of the ruler the crime is viewed as also a direct insult aimed at that ruler. The penalty would unquestionably be death.
     והוא נחש ינחש בו “and it is this he uses to divine things!” You should have considered that Joseph will ask other diviners to tell him what happened to his goblet. Joseph’s servant said this in order to explain why of all possible thieves who had come to Egypt from afar he had decided to pursue just the brothers. He claimed to have received this information from other people who practiced the art of divining.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
      למה ידבר אדוני כדברים האלה? וגו'...הן כסף אשר מצאנו בפי אמתחותנו השיבונו אליך ואיך נגנוב, “why does my lord speak such words? ..Here the money we found in the mouth of our feeding bags we returned; how is it possible to think we would steal, etc.” Our sages used this argument as one of ten classic pieces of logic (קל וחומר) which are spelled out in the Torah. The argument is: “if we returned even what we found, how could we be suspected of stealing outright?” (Bereshit Rabbah 92,7)
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא, “also now I accept your words.” He meant that according to Egyptian law all of the brothers were considered guilty if one of them had stolen. However, he would not apply the full severity of the law and would be content with punishing only the person in whose sack the goblet would be found.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   בגדול החל, “he began by searching the sack of the oldest.” He did this in order that they should not realize the goblet had been a plant.
     וימצא הגביע באמתחת בנימין, “the goblet was discovered in the feeding bag of Binyamin.” His other brothers began to shame him by calling him “thief,” and other disparaging names, referring to his mother who had stolen the teraphim of her father Lavan (Genesis 31,19). They also struck him on his shoulders. Seeing that Binyamin had been unjustly suspected by his brothers of being a thief he was compensated by G’d in that the Holy Temple was erected on his tribal territory. This is what Moses meant in his blessing of Binyamin (Deut. 33,12) when he said ובין כתיפיו ישכון that G’d’s Presence would reside between “the shoulders of Binyamin.” He also became the ancestor of Mordechai, who had torn his garments in lament for the fate that threatened the Jewish people at the hands of Haman (Esther 4,1). The brothers deserved to have to rend their garments (verse 13) seeing they had caused their father to rend his garments (Genesis 37,34) when he mourned the presumed death of Joseph. Everything that befell the brothers was in the nature of the punishment fitting the crime.  Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn, acted as his father’s emissary in all these matters as the Torah describes him as “in charge of Joseph’s palace” (verse 1) and Targum Yonatan writes that Menashe was the individual the Torah referred to. Seeing that Menashe allowed himself to become part of this deception and caused the brothers to rend their clothing in frustration, his tribal territory was rent, i.e. was divided, part of it being on the East Bank of the river Jordan.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ויפלו לפניו ארצה, “they fell to the ground before him (Joseph).” All ten brothers fell to the ground plus Binyamin. This was the realisation of Joseph’s dream in which eleven stars bowed down to him (37,9).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  .מה נאמר לאדוני  “what can we say to my lord?” this was a reference to the first sums of money which had been returned to them. מה נדבר; “how can we speak?” this was a reference to the goblet. ומה נצטדק “and how can we justify ourselves?” What argument can we possibly use? האלו-הים מצא את עון עבדיך, “G’d has found out the guilt of your servants.” They said: “we know that we are innocent of this charge; but, we are guilty of a different crime and the accuser has now leveled his accusations against us before the throne of G’d.” (based on Bereshit Rabbah 92,9). As a result of these considerations: הננו עבדים לאדוני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “we are prepared to be slaves of my lord, both we and the one in whose hand the goblet has been found.”
  
  Verse 17
  
   חלילה לי מעשות זאת, “far be it from me to do such a thing!” “Seeing that I am the judge of the whole country I could not possibly act in such an illegal (violent) manner against  you.” Apparently, Joseph interpreted the Egyptian statute which decreed collective guilt when a member of a group was found guilty of stealing as applying only when all the members of that group had been aware of and had approved such a theft. When the stolen object was found in the possession of one person and there was no evidence that he had acted as part of the group, only he would be held responsible and would be executed. This is why the brothers said: “we will all be slaves.” This was equivalent to their saying: “we punish ourselves to be slaves to my lord.” The words גם אנחנו, “we also,” mean: “also we who are innocent of the charge.” To this statement Joseph replied that it was out of the question that he should accept their offer. האיש אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “the man in whose hand the goblet has been found,” he is guilty of the death penalty; this is the meaning of the extra word הוא in this part of the verse. However, “I do not want  to kill him; “   הוא יהיה לי עבד, ואתם “he will become my slave; as for you” who are innocent, עלו לשלום אל אביכם,” go on home to your father.”
      A kabbalistic approach to this dialogue: The fact that this Parshah concludes with the words עלו לשלום אל אביכם, “go on up to your father in peace,” is a reference to the ten martyrs (of whom we have spoken repeatedly) who were tortured to death by the Romans supposedly because the brothers had never paid the penalty prescribed by Jewish law for kidnapping. The words “in peace to your father” refer to “your father in heaven.” Joseph meant that once the brothers had been cleansed of their sin against Joseph they could once more face the G’d in heaven upon their deaths and take their place in the hereafter.
   You are acquainted with the fact that the entire Joseph tragedy began when his father Yaakov made a coloured coat for him which Joseph wore as a sign of distinction. The fact that the brothers dipped the coloured coat of Joseph in the blood of a male goat which they specially slaughtered for that purpose telling their father: “this is what we have found,” was considered an act of great cruelty on their part. This is why their punishment which involved their bodies commenced immediately after Joseph’s death. Eventually, during the time of the Romans and after the destruction of the second Temple [which was destroyed due to an excess of groundless hatred between Jew and Jew. Ed.] the ten martyrs paid the last installment of that penalty with their deaths. As a reminder of all this, our Parshah mentions the word אנשים or האנשים a total of ten times when describing the brothers. Had it not been for this consideration, the Torah would have called them אחי יוסף, “Joseph’s brothers” or “the sons of Yaakov” each time. [The author lists the ten instances. I leave this to the reader. Ed.]  It is important to realise that contrary to a perception that all the ten martyrs listed in our prayers commemorating their death as martyrs occurred at one and the same time, this is simply not so. 
  We find the following text in Pirke Heychalot: “Rabbi Yishmael said that the decree to torture these sages to death came out on a Thursday. News came from the capital in Rome that Emperor Lupinos had ordered the execution of four of the outstanding Jewish scholars. They were Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba. Many thousands of other scholars in Jerusalem offered to take the place of those condemned. When Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah realised that this decree was irrevocable he inquired about it from Suriel the Sar Hapanim (one of the angels close to the attribute of Justice). He was told that actually, in the books of G’d (attribute of Justice), there was a list of ten scholars whose lives had been handed over to Samael, (the angel of death) the guardian angel of Esau. The instructions which this guardian angel of Esau had received at the time were to destroy amongst the leaders of Israel every “good cut of meat” and throw it into the cauldron.” The purpose of this decree was to complete the expiation needed for the sin of the brothers who had sold Joseph at the time, and who had violated the prohibition in Exodus 21,16 “if someone steals and sells a person and the party concerned is found in his hands, he is to be executed.” This decree, i.e. application of this penalty, could be delayed all the time until “In that day, the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth” (Isaiah 24,21). This expiation could occur by means of the goats and sheep on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yishmael said that Samael had heard all these threats and conditions and that he had said that he accepted them. As a result he chose 10 of the outstanding scholars of Israel to be that unexpired expiation, “scape-goat,” for what had been done to Joseph. When G’d heard about these resolutions of Samael, i.e. the Romans to kill ten outstanding Jewish scholars, He was so angry that He imediately wrote down decrees which would afflict the entire Roman Empire, each one for six months at a time. As a result of all the afflictions that will strike the Romans at that time, one individual will say to another that if he were offered the entire Roman Empire in exchange for a minor copper coin he would decline to make such a purchase. Thus far the quote from Pirke Heychalot [with minor changes. Ed.]
      One of the amazing statements in that passage concerns Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyan who supposedly was exchanged for Emperor Lupinos who was burned in his stead. Similar statements appear concerning the other martyrs on that famous list. Concerning such far-out statements, I have heard that they must be understood as analogous to the binding of Yitzchak. Once Avraham was irrevocably committed to slaughtering Yitzchak, and the latter had accepted the decree, he was replaced by the ram Avraham found which had been caught in the thicket (Genesis 22,13). According to that view something similar occurred with all of the ten martyrs. Seeing that they had submitted to G’d’s decree it became possible to exchange them for Romans or others. The point is that once the lives of these scholars were spared they were in effect reborn. It is therefore no contradiction to say that they had indeed died a martyr’s death. These scholars had all “tasted” death so that the sin for which their lives were meant to expiate had been wiped out  once and for all.  When the Torah wrote: “and place each man’s money at the mouth of his feeding bag,” this was an allusion that the Torah treats the life-force, נפש, of a person as equivalent to minted silver whereas his body is compared to a feeding bag seeing it contains the soul (silver). I believe we can carry this allusion a little further when we look at 43,10 when Yehudah said: “we could have returned already twice.” He may have hinted at something we find in Job 34,36 and 33,29[based on the concept of a soul’s repeated return to life on earth in order to cleanse itself of sins committed in a former life. Ed.] where the point is made that in order to deal finally with some sin, retribution may have to be spread over several installments. [Rabbi Moshe Alshich makes this point more clearly when explaining why G’d did not wipe out Pharaoh with a single plague. His sins were such that a single act of retribution would not have sufficed to punish him. He had to have relief between one affliction and the next in order to absorb and suffer the next installment. Ed.]   The verse in Job 33,29 פעמים שלוש עם גבר, “two or three times with a man,” may be a reference to the need for someone to be reincarnated repeatedly in order to expiate for sins committed in a previous incarnation. The words וישובו העירה describing the return of the brothers to the capital of Egypt may be an allusion to Yehudah’s feeling on the matter. All the Torah had needed to write was וישובו מצרימה, “they returned to Egypt.” The use of the word העירה suggests a meta-physical aspect of the matter. (Compare the use of the word עיר as a hyperbole in Kohelet 9,14). This is the reason that the Parshah concludes with the words:
     ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם, “and you return and make your peace with your father (in heaven).” Menashe could simply have said: ”go on your way in peace.” Seeing that the Torah focuses on the ten brothers and the grievous wrong they had done to their brother Joseph, it is not surprising that the Torah also uses this opportunity to hint at the historical consequences of the brothers’ behavior at the time. Our sages in Pesachim 50 go so far as to say that the acceptance of G’d’s decree by the ten martyrs who died a cruel death at the hands of the Romans for a crime committed over fifteen hundred years earlier put these people into a class by themselves, one that could not be matched in piety/faith by anyone else previously. We can apply to them the verse in Isaiah 64,3: “Such things have never been heard or seen. No eye has seen them O G’d, but You, who acts for those who trust in Him.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  מענה רך ישיב חמה, ודבר עצב יעלה כעס, “A gentle response turns away wrath; a harsh word causes anger.” (Proverbs 15,1) 
  Solomon warns us in this verse to train ourselves to become mature enough to respond in measured tones even to extreme provocations.  A softly worded reply is apt to reduce the wrath of someone who had expressed himself very angrily. On the other hand, provocative responses are apt to incite the party to whom they are addressed.
       It is a well known fact that the spoken word possesses the power to achieve either positive or negative results. Speech is to man what fruit is to a tree. If we were not able to verbalize our thoughts we would not be human anymore than a tree which does not bear fruit  does truly  perform the function for which trees have been created. [Compare Rashi on the earth failing to fully respond to G’d’s command to produce trees which had both edible trunks and edible fruit Genesis 1,12. Ed.] When the Torah wrote (Genesis 2,1) “man became a living creature,” it meant to inform us that the essential part of man was its נפש חיה, its life-force, i.e. its ability to communicate its thoughts by means of speech. This is why Onkelos translates this expression as לרוח ממללא, “a talking spirit.” We have examples of speech being considered as “a fruit, i.e. as a product “ in Isaiah 57,19: בורא ניב שפתים “who creates  the fruit of the lips.” Speech is the product of one’s lips. If Isaiah attributed the fruit of the lips to something G’d had “created,” this is due to the fact that speech is derived, distilled, from the abstract power of the human brain. Man’s נפש life-force, is different from that of the animals which do not possess this power of speech. This advantage man possesses over the animals is expressed in Job 35,11 in these words: “who gives us more knowledge than the beasts of the earth, makes us wiser than the birds of the sky.”
   We also have a verse in Proverbs 18,21 making this point even more strongly. Solomon writes “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” This is a warning to those people who indulge in free use of their tongue to be very careful with each word they utter as their words may hold an awesome power which must not be abused. Such power is to be used to spread the knowledge of Torah, to further the performance of G’d’s commandments, etc.. It must not be used for anything contrary as then it becomes an instrument leading to someone’s death. Solomon tells us that if one uses most of one’s words  in the right way this leads to man qualifying for Leviticus 19,24 “all its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the Lord.” People who are circumspect in the use of their tongue will qualify for a great deal of reward. If, perchance, they abuse this power of speech on a regular basis, they will be severely punished. It is precisely because the power of speech is so crucial to man that Solomon felt impelled to teach us something about the prudent use of this power. He taught us that a gentle response is apt to influence even the decisions of powerful kings and to assuage their feelings if they had been bruised, as we find in Proverbs 16,14 “the king’s wrath is a messenger of death.” 
  Yehudah, who was very well aware of the potential of any words he might say, couched what he had to say in words which were apt to touch the heart of even the most obstinate ruler. 
  Joseph’s relenting and revealing himself to the brothers was the direct result of the diplomatic use of his tongue by Yehudah. Had he accused Joseph of planting the goblet in Binyamin’s bag, something which was the truth, after all, he would not have achieved the desired result, i.e. to make Joseph reconsider his decree to keep Binyamin as a slave. Yehudah had three major objectives  i.e. to assuage Joseph’s anger with words. 2) to demand his rights on a legal basis. 3) (as a last resort) to take Binyamin back by force. This is the meaning of the following verse:
  ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדוני, ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדוני ואל יחר אפך בעבדך כי כמוכך כפרעה, “Yehudah approached him and said: “if you please my lord, may your servant speak a word in my lord’s ears and let not your anger flare up at your servant  for you are equal to Pharaoh.” The expression הגשה, “approach” is found as having one of three meanings. דין, פיוס, מלחמה “judgment, reconciliation, or war.” (based on Bereshit Rabbah 93,4) “and they approach the court and they shall judge them.” It occurs as meaning reconciliation in Joshua 14,6: “the members of the tribe of Yehudah approached Joshua, etc.” Finally, it occurs as a prelude to war in Samuel II 10,13: “Yoav and the people with him marched into  battle.” In this instance, Yehudah combined all these three meanings of the word when he “approached” Joseph. When he said בי אדני, this meant that he gave Joseph the chance to choose which of the three kinds of הגשה he wanted to make the basis of this meeting. He spoke like someone who is fully armed, ready for a military confrontation. He meant: “you may find in me a partner for discussion on any one of these three levels. If you want to be conciliatory, fine and good. If you want to debate the rights and wrongs of what has happened also well and good. If, however, you want to use your military power to enforce your decree I am willing to confront you also on that basis.
      Alternatively, the word בי here means: “(the guilt is all) mine.” He said this seeing that superficially it appeared that the entire guilt was that of Binyamin in whose sack the goblet had been found. He pleaded with Joseph not to treat Binyamin as the sole guilty party but to consider him, Yehudah,  the guilty party instead. He asked Joseph to keep him as a slave in lieu of Binyamin and to treat him as if he had been the guilty party. He wanted Joseph to set Binyamin free. Throughout the entire story Yehudah focused on substituting for Binyamin. When he said the words ידבר נא עבדך דבר he meant that this “word” would be instead of any that Binyamin would have to say. Yehudah had no other purpose than to serve as the surrogate slave instead of his brother Binyamin. 
      He went on by explaining why it was seemly for Joseph to listen to his plea and to his reasons, seeing כי כמך כפרעה, “you are of equal stature to Pharaoh,” and as such  it is incumbent upon you to at least listen to my arguments. Yehudah then proceeded to explain that seeing he had guaranteed the safety of Binyamin it was logical that he should take it upon himself to pay any penalty Binyamin had incurred.
      Having taken permission to speak by saying ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדני, Yehudah came to the substance of the issue, i.e. the circumstances preceding Binyamin traveling to Egypt altogether. He used the tactic suggested by Solomon in being extremely gentle in any implied rebuke of Joseph’s part in this whole affair. He begins with the fact that Joseph had inquired about their family background in order to appeal to his feelings of mercy. At the same time he implied that Joseph had described himself as a G’d-fearing man in 42,18. He reminds Joseph 
     אדוני שאל את עבדיו לאמור, “my lord asked your servants to say,” Yehudah reminded Joseph that he and his brothers had not volunteered speaking about their family status, etc. but had been forced to do so in answer to Joseph’s inquiries concerning their younger brother. Originally, they had not been willing to have  Binyamin travel to Egypt at all and had only brought him there in response to Joseph’s ultimatum. By giving them this ultimatum Joseph had severely endangered their aged father’s peace of mind. Had it not been a matter of survival for them to come to Egypt and to buy grain, they would never have been able to persuade their father to agree that his youngest son Binyamin undertake a potentially dangerous journey. If Binyamin would now fail to return home his father would die an embittered man.
     והורידו עבדיך, “and your servants would bring down;”  Yehudah used a third person pronoun, i.e. “they would bring down,” instead of saying “you would bring down.” He did not want to accuse Joseph outright of becoming the cause of their father’s premature death as an embittered man. By adding the words עבדיך, “your servants,” meaning himself, he suggested that by keeping him instead of Binyamin, Joseph would not only save their father’s life, but he would acquire a far better slave than Binyamin seeing that he, Yehudah, was superior to Binyamin in all aspects pertaining to performing the tasks allocated to slaves. Moreover, Joseph would thereby be spared the sin of failing to honour his guarantee that he would bring Binyamin back safely.
     ועתה ישב נא עבדך תחת הנער עבד לאדוני...כי איך אעלה אל אבי והנער אינני אתי?; “And now allow your servant to remain as a slave to my lord,...for how could I return to my father when the lad is not with Me? Yehudah made it plain that he would feel more at ease as a slave for the rest of his life than returning as a free man to his father minus Binyamin.
      A Midrashic approach  based on Tanchuma Vayigash 3 to Yehudah’s speech. The words ויגש יהודה introduce a confrontation between the lion and the ox. Yehudah represents the lion (Gen. 49,9), Joseph the ox (Deut. 33,17). The words בי אדני are a plea not to apply the attribute of Justice when judging Binyamin as well as themselves. The words: “let me say a word in the hearing of my lord,” mean “may my words find a receptive ear.” He then proceeded to tell Joseph that Sarah, the great-grandmother of Binyamin had been kept against her will in the palace of a previous Pharaoh. (Genesis 12,17) As a result, both Pharaoh and his entire household had been so stricken by G’d that he immediately not only released her but pacified her husband with generous gifts. Joseph was to reflect what this G’d would to him if he tried to keep Binyamin as a slave. He added that Binyamin’s mother died prematurely due to a carelessly worded curse by her husband Binyamin’s father (Gen. 31,32). Imagine what would happen if his father were now to pronounce a deliberate curse upon Joseph for depriving him of his son! He asked Joseph to also reflect on the fact that two of their number had destroyed an entire city (Gen. 34,25). He could imagine what all of them could do if they set their mind on it. At that time the reason for their act of vengeance had been the rape of their sister. This time it involved freedom of a male, their brother. Seeing this male was destined to house the Sanctuary of the G’d of the heavens on earth (Deut. 33,12), they would move heaven and earth to ensure that that prophecy would be fulfilled. Yehudah added: ”for you are like Pharaoh.” He meant: “just as Pharaoh makes promises and does not keep them, so you too make promises and do not keep them.” You had said that you merely wanted to take a look at Binyamin to convince yourself that we had spoken truthfully (42,20). Just as Pharaoh is known to indulge his homosexual tastes, so you appear to want to keep Binyamin for similar reasons. Just as Pharaoh is the King and you are his number two, my father has the rank of king in his country and I am second in command. He added that if he were to draw his sword he would start by slaying Joseph and finish by slaying Pharaoh.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ועזב את אביו ומת, “if he leaves his father he will die. The lad will die from the onerous conditions of the journey seeing he is such a spoiled lad.  It is possible that the words refer also to Yaakov dying in the event that Binyamin would not be restored to him. This teaches that the life of a father is tied in some way to the life of his son. Yehudah spelled this out more clearly in verse thirty with the words ונפשו קשורה בנפשו, “his soul is tied to his soul.” This is even clearer in verse thirty-one: “when he sees that the lad is missing  he will die;”
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . ילדה לי אשתי, “my wife bore for me.” The Torah should really have written “Rachel bore for me.” However, the point Yehudah made was that he too was aware that Yaakov had considered only Rachel his true wife, seeing that he had served Lavan for Rachel and not for Leah. His marrying Leah had been a totally unwilling act on his part. Yaakov’s true wife had borne him only two children one of whom had disappeared. His love for these two was therefore exceptional. If you will search the Bible you will find that Rachel’s name always precedes that of Leah though Leah was the older of the two. Even in the Book of Ruth, where the townsfolk of Bethlehem congratulate Boaz on taking Ruth as a wife, they phrase their blessing in these words: “may she become like Rachel and Leah who built up the house of Israel.” There are numerous other verses in all of which Rachel is mentioned before her older sister.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי עבדך ערב את הנער, “for your servant has guaranteed the safety of the lad.” I have undertaken to be surety for him in a manner which is irrevocable and not subject to any redemption by substitution. If I fail to honor the terms of my guarantee all my brothers will remain within the family circle whereas I will be condemned to remain outside. I will be ostracized both in this life and in the hereafter. This is the meaning of the words: “I have sinned against you for all time” (43,9). Another example in Scripture where the words כל הימים also refer to both life in the terrestrial world and life in the hereafter is found in Deut. 6,24 לטוב לנו כל הימים. 
  When Yehudah said here וחטאתי לאבי כל הימים, this may be understood as “I have sinned against my Father in Heaven.” Yehudah included both his biological father Yaakov as well as his father in heaven in this statement. Seeing that Joseph was on record as “I am a G’d-fearing man” (42,18), Yehudah reminded him of his committing a sin against his father in heaven if he were to keep Binyamin as a slave for himself. He would also be guilty of committing a wrong in both worlds.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 93,1 the words “for your servant has guaranteed the lad,” are reminiscent of what Solomon said in Proverbs 6,1: “my son if you have become surety for your friend, etc.” It is customary for the guarantor to ask the potential borrower: “do you want me to guarantee the loan for you?” Concerning such an invitation to become a surety for a second party, Solomon warns (Proverbs 6,2) “you are trapped by the words of your mouth.” The guarantor usually agreed to the lender’s request and this is why Solomon describes him as trapping himself by his words. In verse three of that chapter. Solomon warns a guarantor who is trapped by his guarantee that in order to extricate himself from his commitment he should try to use humility and plead with his friend. He should ask for an extension from the lender and should ask the borrower to release him from his guarantee. Solomon used Yehudah’s guarantee of Binyamin as the model for these verses and his advice. Having heard all this, Joseph replied: “why did you not guarantee your other brother just as you have guaranteed the safety of Binyamin?” He added that he could see in his goblet that Yehudah sold his other brother for a sum of money and caused his father a great deal of anguish so that he exclaimed: “Joseph has been torn to shreds by a wild beast.” Whereas Joseph at the time had not been guilty of a sin against Yehudah, Binyamin had proven to be a thief. When Yehudah heard Joseph’s words he exclaimed in a loud voice: “how can I go up and the lad is not with me, etc.?” He challenged Joseph to debate the issue with him, at the same time telling his brother Naftali, the most fleet-footed one of their number, to check the number of public markets in Egypt in preparation for going to battle. Naftali came back reporting that there were twelve such market places. Yehudah undertook to destroy three of them single-handedly. Joseph warned him that Egypt was not comparable to Shechem. If they were going to destroy Egypt this would be equivalent to destroying the earth. (seeing the whole earth depended on Egypt’s grain supplies). To this Yehudah replied that Joseph had accused him and his brothers of being spies already when they came to Egypt the first time, a totally unjustified accusation. Secondly, he had accused them of looking for weak points in Egypt. Thirdly, he had accused them now of stealing the goblet. Whereas he, Yehudah, swore in the name of the Almighty G’d, Joseph, by contrast had sworn by the life of Pharaoh the pagan. It was clear that if he would draw his sword he would cause a blood-bath in Egypt.  After this outburst by Yehudah, Joseph told him that if he dared draw his sword, he, Joseph, would strangle him with it by wrapping it around his own neck. To this Yehudah replied: “if I so much as open my mouth I will swallow you.” Joseph countered: “if you open your mouth I will shut it with a rock.” Yehudah then asked:  “what shall I tell my father if I return without Binyamin?” To this Joseph replied: “tell him that the rope followed the bucket” [— an allusion to Binyamin having a genetic tendency to steal. Rachel his mother had stolen the teraphim having given birth to a son who became a thief also.] Yehudah shot back that Joseph was framing them and judging them for a sin they had not committed. Joseph retorted that the only perverted justice at stake was the sale of their brother. Yehudah then said that the holy fervor which had imbued him in their fight against Shechem which was caused because of sin involving illegitimate sex was beginning to fill him now. Thereupon Joseph replied that the sin of illegitimate sex he should be thinking about was that of sleeping with his daughter-in-law Tamar. He implied that it did not take much to extinguish Yehudah’s supposedly sincere fervor. Yehudah responded shouting: “I am boiling over with fury and no one takes me seriously!” Joseph said it would be easy to cool down Yehudah’s anger. Thereupon Yehudah announced that he was about to go and paint the market places of Egypt with the blood of its people. To this Joseph replied that this was nothing new. The brothers had experience in painting their brother’s coat with blood and bringing it to their father suggesting to him that it was Joseph’s blood and that the latter had been attacked and killed by a ferocious beast. At that point all the brothers agreed to destroy Egypt. When Joseph realized this he said to himself: “I have to reveal myself to them so that they will not destroy Egypt.” At this point he said to them: “I am your brother Joseph.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ולא יכול יוסף להתאפק לכל הנצבים עליו, “Joseph could no longer control his emotions from all those who stood around him.” It appears from this wording that the courtiers around Joseph became gradually more inclined to side with Yehudah in that argument, something that Joseph was not prepared to tolerate. This is why he ordered them out of his presence, calling out: “remove everyone from my presence!”  Subsequently, the Torah reports: ויתן את קולו בבכי, “he raised his voice by weeping.” He broke out crying after he was left alone with the brothers,   וישמעו מצרים וישמע בית פרעה, “The Egyptians heard; then this was heard in Pharaoh’s palace.”  
  According to Tanchuma Vayigash 5 things happened somewhat differently. The words “Joseph could no longer control himself” reflect a tremendous inner conflict raging within Joseph. If the brothers were to kill him, he had no next of kin who would demand to avenge his blood. He finally decided to take a chance on the brothers killing him rather than his exposing the fact that he had been kidnapped and sold into slavery by these men. This was the consideration which prompted him to order everybody out of the room.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   העוד אבי חי “is my father still alive?” Joseph’s very first words concerned the well being of his father and the concern if he was still alive.  ולא יכלו אחיו לענות אותו כי נבהלו מפניו, “his brothers were not able to answer him as they had become frightened of him.” They were dumbstruck realizing that they had sold him into slavery and now he wielded the authority of a king. They were also scared that he would take revenge on them now. The expression נבהלו occurs in that sense in Isaiah 13,8 ונבהלו צירים וחבלים יאחזון, “And, overcome by terror, they shall be seized by pangs and throes.”
      According to Tanchuma Vayigash 5 Joseph said to them: “did you not say: ‘this one’s brother is dead?’ I shall call upon him now and he will come to me.” Thereupon he started calling: “Joseph, son of Yaakov, come to me!.” The brothers looked at each of the four corners of the room and nothing happened. Then Joseph said: “what are you looking for, I am your brother Joseph!” When the brothers heard that they lost consciousness. This is why they could not answer  him. Rabbi Yochanan used this experience of Joseph’s brothers to exclaim “woe to us on the day of our death, woe to us when we will be called upon to answer for our sins.” If the brothers were so stricken when they heard Joseph reveal himself to his them, how much more will we be frightened when we stand before G’d to be judged! This is what is meant by the verse in Isaiah 10,3: “What will you do on the day of punishment, when the calamity comes from afar?” Another verse on the same theme is found in Maleachi 3,2: “But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can hold out when he appears?”
  
  Verse 4
  
   גשו נא אלי ויגשו, “step closer to me! They stepped closer.” When Joseph saw that the brothers were frightened and were trying to retreat he told them to come closer to him in order to calm their fear. 
  According to Bereshit Rabbah 93,10 the reason he asked them to step closer was to show them that he had been circumcised, repeating that he was their brother and felt as their brother in spite of their having sold him. He told them that he would not “boss” them around at all.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . והיית קרוב אלי, “and you will be close to me.” The land of Goshen is close to the capital of Egypt. Joseph was well aware that his father would not want to reside in the capital; this is why he arranged for him to live in Goshen. Concerning the words: וכלכלתי אותך שם... פן תורש, “I will provide for you there. so that you will not become impoverished,” (verse 11) the meaning of these words is: “if you remain in Canaan you will surely become impoverished during the next five years of famine.” Joseph implied that he would not be able to look after his family economically while they were in the land of Canaan as he would be suspected of sending them grain in order to trade in it on the local market and to profiteer through their connection to him. Furthermore, they would suspect that the export of such grain supplies to his family were only a prelude to his own return there. On the other hand, if they would all come to Egypt everyone would know that he had no reason to return to Canaan and that he was not amassing a secret fortune in order to enable him to leave the country.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והנה עיניכם רואות ועיני אחי בנימין, “and here you can see with your own eyes and so do the eyes of my full brother Binyamin.” He equated Binyamin with the total of the other brothers. The Torah teaches that the love of the other brothers for him was no less than that of Binyamin who had not been a party to the sale.   כי פי המדבר אליכם, “that it is my mouth that is speaking to you.” He referred to the fact that he addressed them in Hebrew (without interpreter). According to Nachmanides the fact that Joseph had a command of Hebrew did not prove that he was their brother as many people in Egypt knew that tongue and the ruler was bound by law to be familiar with all the languages spoken in countries which had trade relations with Egypt. The proof of his identity was the revelation that he knew they had sold their brother Joseph to Egypt. The meaning of the words: “that my mouth is speaking to you,” was a reference to his authority and that by dint of this authority he decreed that the brothers bring their father to Egypt as well as their families. By underlining that he was “your brother,” he demonstrated that he had their welfare at heart when he wanted them to move to Egypt.
      According to Megillah 16 the words mean that “my mouth speaks only what is in my heart.” Although Joseph made no reference to his heart, our sages arrive at this conclusion as he could simply have said: “I am speaking to you.” He mentioned “my mouth” as the mouth is the instrument used to convey feelings of the heart.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ויפול על צוארי בנימין אחיות, “he fell on the neck of his brother Binyamin.” The verse tells us that Joseph embraced Binyamin and Binyamin embraced his brother Joseph by each one falling on the other’s neck, a customary gesture amongst brothers who wanted to demonstrate their fondness for each other. Solomon refers to such an embrace in Song of Songs 8,1 when he wrote: “if only I could embrace you as I would embrace a brother who has nursed at my mother’s breast.” The intimate relations between brothers of the same mother are also spelled out in the Torah in Deut. 13,7 where the Torah describes a secret seduction to idolatrous practices by someone who is the brother of the second party by the same mother.” Evidently, the Torah considers the bond between two sons of the same mother as stronger than a similar bond by two sons of the same father. The reason our verse refers to צוארי, i.e. “two necks,” is that a person’s “neck” consists of two parts known as עורף and גרון respectively. Jeremiah 2,27 distinguishes between עורף and פנים, the rear of the neck and the part of the neck facing forward. The sides of the neck are also known as צואר.
      A Midrashic approach to the plural form of the “necks.” Joseph wept when he foresaw that the Temple in Binyamin’s territory would twice be destroyed. The reason that the neck of a person evokes the image of the Temple is that it is the highest part of his body and the Temple was also erected on a mountain. When Binyamin wept, he thought of the destruction of the Tabernacle at Shiloh which was situated in the territory of Joseph (Ephrayim), and which was also slated to be destroyed.
  
  Verse 15
  
   וינשק לכל אחיו ויבך עליהם, “he kissed all his brothers and wept upon them.” He assured them that he not only harbored no ill feelings toward them but that on the contrary, he meant to treat them well. ואחרי כן דברו אחיו אתו; “after this his brothers talked with him.” Up until this moment he had been speaking and they had not had a chance to talk to him. Now their minds had been put at ease.
      Tanchuma Vayigash 5 interprets the words וינשק את כל אחיו as meaning that every brother kissed Joseph and wept while doing so. Joseph did not reconcile himself with the brothers until they had wept. This is a lesson for future Jewish generations that G’d will not send the  salvation until the Jewish people have wept in remorse for their sins. This is the meaning of Jeremiah 31,9: “They shall come with weeping, and with compassion will I guide them.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  .והקול נשמע בית פרעה , “the news was heard in the palace of Pharaoh.” All of Egypt was already aware that Joseph had prominent brothers as he had told them about it. Now, when they heard that the brothers had arrived this was very pleasing to the Egyptians seeing that originally they had felt ashamed to be ruled by a onetime slave. Now that Joseph had been able to establish that he never had been born a slave but was a member of a highly respected family they felt honoured.
      Tanchuma Vayigash 5 takes an entirely different view of the meaning of the words “a voice was heard in the house of Pharaoh.” According to this Midrash as soon as the brothers recognised Joseph they wanted to kill him. An angel descended and scattered them to the four corners of his mansion. At that moment Yehudah raised his voice in a thundering tone so that all the walls in the public squares of Egypt collapsed; all pregnant women immediately had miscarriages from the sound of that voice. Joseph fell off his throne and the faces of the guards who surrounded Joseph’s throne turned gray in consternation. Tanchuma bases himself on Job 4,10: “The lion may roar, the cub may howl, but the teeth of the king of beasts are broken.” At any rate, the sound that was heard in the house of Pharaoh was that of Yehudah’s roaring like a lion.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ואכלו את חלב הארץ , “and you will eat the fat of the land.” Pharaoh prophesied without being aware that he prophesied. The same applies to verse 20 where Pharaoh said “the best of the whole land of Egypt is yours.” These remarks were allusions to what the Jewish people would do to the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus. We read there (Exodus 12,36) “they emptied out all of Egypt.”
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ואתה ציויתה  זאת עשו, “and you are under orders to do the following.” Pharaoh was well aware of Joseph’s modesty and loyalty and the fact that he would not send anything to his father and his brothers unless he had been given express instructions. This is why Pharaoh had to order him to do all this.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   עגלות על פי פרעה, “wagons, at the command of Pharaoh.” Joseph sent his father a sign seeing that when he had parted from him he had studied with him the subject of how a murdered person whose murderer is not known is to be expiated. One of the needs to obtain forgiveness for possible indirect involvement in such a murder is the killing of an עגלה, a calf which had not yet been used to perform any work (compare Deut. 21.) [The Hebrew word for wagon עגלה is the same as for “calf.” This is why the sending of wagons was symbolic. Ed.] This explains also why Yaakov’s spirits revived as soon as he saw the wagons (verse 27).
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ולבנימין נתן שלש מאות כסף, “and he gave Binyamin three hundred pieces of silver.” The number 300 is related to the indebtedness of the brothers. When ten brothers sold a slave they each have to pay 30 shekel ransom. This is the value of the life of a slave who has been killed  [gored by an ox or otherwise] and the compensation payable by the killer according to Exodus 21,31. When a Jewish master sells his slave to a Gentile he may be required to pay punitive compensation of up to ten times the value of the slave, i.e. three hundred shekel silver (Gittin 44).
     חמש חליפות שמלות, “five changes of clothing.”  He hinted to him that eventually Mordechai would be descended from him who would be distinguished with five garments as mentioned in Esther 8,15.
  
  Verse 23
  
  .ולאביו שלח כזאת “and to his father he sent the following:” The word מנחה, “gift” is missing here. The meaning of the verse is that Joseph sent his father a gift consisting of the items mentioned in our verse. He sent both male and female donkeys just as Yaakov had done when he sent a number of gifts to Esau [though Yaakov had sent twice as many female donkeys as males. Ed.]
     בר ולחם ומזון, “grain, bread, and food.” The word בר includes the five major cereals fit to bake into bread. The word לחם in this instance refers to kitniyot, pulses. The word מזון, refers to dried fruit such as figs, dates, raisins, etc. Whereas every kind of בר is suitable raw material to make into bread, the same does not apply to the term לחם. Similarly, whenever we encounter the word לחם, it is definitely a kind of food, whereas the word מזון does not necessarily refer to something which can be converted into bread.
  
  Verse 24
  
    וישלח את אחיו וילכו “he sent off his brothers and they went on their way.” All his brothers, Reuven, Shimon and the rest, including Binyamin so that Yehudah kept his promise to his father. Why then did the sages (Sotah 7) say that Yehudah was punished for his guarantee so that the bones in his coffin rattled during all the 40 years the Israelites wandered through the desert? The reason is that his vow and its fulfilment depended on the goodwill of others. It is sinful to make such promises unless the factors relating to fulfilment of the promise are all under the control of the person making the promise. Yehudah had known from the outset that it would depend on the ruler of Egypt if he could make good on his guarantee.  Our sages (Makkot 11) used this incident to formulate a halachah concerning conditional excommunication, saying that the threat of excommunication even if conditional, requires a retroactive annulment even if in the meantime the party who had been threatened with such excommunication had fulfilled the conditions imposed upon him. This explains why Yehudah qualified for punishment for having guaranteed Binyamin’s safe return.
     אל תרגזו בדרך, “do not become agitated on the journey.”  The word may mean: “do not be afraid,” based on Deut 28,65 ולב רגז, “a trembling heart,” or on Deut. 2,25 ורגזו וחלו מפניך, “they will tremble and be anxious before you.” It is customary that during periods of famine people who are loaded with grain and food  are constantly afraid of being attacked. How much more so would this apply when the whole clan of the Hebrews including all their chattels would travel to Egypt. This is also why Joseph told his brothers to rush home and not to have any fear at all as his reputation and the fact that they were under his protection would suffice to frighten off marauders. Thus far Nachmanides on the subject.
      Our sages in Taanit 10 understand the words אל תרגזו בדרך, as an instruction not to get involved in halachic discussions while they were traveling as this would slow them down. He did not mean to stop them from discussing such matters; he only did not want them to go into them at depth as this would prove time-consuming. He could not in good conscience have told them not to discuss Torah as we have a statement in Sotah 49 that when even two Torah scholars travel together without discussing matters of Torah they deserve to be burned at the stake. Our sages base this on Kings II 2,11: “as they kept on walking (Elijah and Elisha), a fiery chariot with fiery horses suddenly appeared and separated one from the other.” They needed to be separated because they were engaged in Torah-discussions. Had they not been engaged in discussing Torah they would both have been burned to death.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויפג לבו, “his heard went numb.” The word ויפג is related to Lamentations 3,49 מאין הפוגות, “without respite.” The meaning is that Yaakov’s tears went on flowing without interruption. The meaning of the expression here is: “his heart stopped beating, he became like dead.” It is not unusual for someone to faint when he is the recipient of unexpected good news. The physiological explanation is a sudden expansion of the arteries of the heart which causes the heat inside the heart to suddenly dissipate and to cover the outside of the body. As a result, the heart itself is left cold, or at least too cold to perform its task. This causes fainting. These phenomena are more common among the elderly and among people with a weak constitution.The Talmud in Ketuvot 62, when discussing the frequency or otherwise of marital relations between Torah scholars and their wives, reports that after an absence of twelve years from his home, the wife of Rabbi Chanina ben Chachinai suddenly saw (according to Rashi thought she saw) her husband standing in the doorway. Her heart gave such a leap that she died from the shock. Her husband was stunned that this should be the reward of a pious woman who had enabled him to study Torah all these years. He prayed for her revival and she was restored to life.
  
  Verse 27
  
   וידברו אליו את כל דברי יוסף אשר דבר אליהם, “they told him all the words Joseph had said to them.” According to Nachmanides what they told Yaakov was as follows: “Your son Joseph has said: ‘G’d appointed me as ruler over the whole land of Egypt, etc. etc. G’d has sent me to be the provider of my whole family, etc.’,” When they told Yaakov all this they failed to mention that Joseph had added the words “you who have sold me to Egypt.” Yaakov was never told of this. He was left under the impression that Joseph had lost his way at the time he tried to locate his brothers at or near Dothan, and that the members of some caravan who had found him had kidnapped him and sold him to Egypt. The brothers on their part did not tell their father about their part in the sale of Joseph as they did not want to incriminate themselves. In addition, they were afraid that if they would tell their father about their share in Joseph’s disappearance he would curse them as he did on his deathbed when he referred to the sins of Reuven, Shimon and Levi. Joseph, in his humility  and dedication to maintaining peaceful relations with his brothers, never told his father either. This leaves us with the problem of why the brothers claimed after Yaakov’s funeral that the latter had asked them to tell Joseph to forgive them (Genesis 50,14). Actually, these words were proof that Yaakov had never known about who had sold Joseph. Had he known about it surely the brothers would have begged their father to intercede with Joseph while he was still alive and to beg Joseph personally to forgive his brothers. Surely Joseph would not have refused such a request by his father.
     ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, “the spirit of their father Yaakov revived.”  Onkelos renders this as ושרת רוח נבואה על יעקב אבוהון, “a prophetic spirit came to rest on their father Yaakov.” The reason Onkelos added this dimension to the meaning of the word is clearly that the Torah could have simply written: “their father Yaakov revived.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  . ויאמר ישראל, “Yisrael said.” As long as his prophetic spirit had not been restored to him, the Torah referred to him only as Yaakov. Now that he had regained this additional spiritual dimension he is once more referred to as Yisrael. We have 18  instances from here until the end of the Book of Genesis where Yaakov is referred to as ישראל, such as 46,1; 46,5; 46,8; 46,29; to name but a few. The reason that G’d called him “Yaakov” in 46,2 whereas the Torah (G’d Himself) had referred to him as ישראל in the same verse was because the journey to Egypt was a voluntary exile on the part of Yaakov and it was not appropriate that the name Yisrael which denotes authority, victory, etc., should be applied to someone who exiles himself and subordinates himself to a human ruler. Once G’d had called him by the name Yaakov, it is not surprising to see that the Torah reverts to use of that name (compare 46,5, 46,6, 46,8, 46,19, 46,26, 46,27, etc.). When the Torah (46,5) nonetheless speaks of וישאו בני ישראל את יעקב אביהם, “the sons of Israel carried their father Yaakov, etc.,” the message of the Torah is that Yaakov’s descent to Egypt involved both his names, i.e. although at this stage he had become an exile, ultimately, -through the exile experience in Egypt- he (his people) would be redeemed there and would emerge as more deserving of the name בני ישראל than before. This is the reason that in the verse mentioned the sons of Yaakov are referred to as בני ישראל rather than as the בני יעקב. The Torah could have simply written that “Yaakov’s sons carried him, etc.” We have this concept repeated at the beginning of the Book of Exodus where the Torah speaks of: “these are the children of Israel who came down to Egypt.” The same verse goes on naming them as “Yaakov and his sons.” These are the very ones who in the future would be called “the children of Israel.”
     רב, עוד יוסף בני חי, “it is indeed great! My son Joseph is still alive!” According to the plain meaning of the text the two separate exclamations by Israel refer to the two separate pieces of information that the brothers had brought with them. 1) The information that Joseph was alive. 2) The news that he occupied such a lofty position in Egypt. When Israel exclaimed רב!, he meant that the news that Joseph was alive was already sufficient good news. The fact that he occupied such a lofty position was an added bonus to the principal news that he was alive.
      A Midrashic approach to this verse  is that the exclamation רב, was meant to acknowledge Israel’s satisfaction at having been granted such a reward in his life on earth, whereas the second exclamation עוד, “in addition,” refers to the meta-physical dimension of this news, i.e. that his standing in the world to come would remain unimpaired, not as he had been afraid that the fact that he lost a child during his own lifetime was a sign that he had forfeited his claim to that world. Technically speaking, the use of both these exclamations in this sense is found in Psalms 31,20 מה רב טובך,  whereas the word עוד in this sense is found in Psalms 84,5 עוד יהללוך סלה, “forever (even in the hereafter) they will praise You.”
      I believe that this is also what Onkelos alluded to when he translated סגי לי חדוא , “great joy for me.” This kind of joy is of a type reserved for the hereafter. Joy in this life is something finite and only in the hereafter do we encounter something enduring. This in spite of the fact that Yaakov had experienced more than his fair share of disappointments during his life on earth [ — Compare his own words in Genesis 47,9. Ed.] Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 state that “promises made to the righteous by G’d are not ironclad as to their validity during the terrestrial life of the recipient (my translation).” When Yaakov had thought that he had lost Joseph and had said (37,35) “for I will go down to my grave mourning for my son,” this expressed his fear that he had forfeited eternal life. He had come to believe that both Joseph and he himself were slated for purgatory due to sins they had committed. Now that he heard that Joseph was alive he was certain that both he and his son would merit life in the hereafter.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויזבח זבחים לאלו-הי אביו יצחק, “he offered meat-offerings to the G’d of his father Yitzchak.” The Torah really should have written: “he offered sacrifices to the Lord.” Seeing that the Torah did not use this wording, it is clear that the emphasis on the words “G’d of his father” refers to the attribute of G’d which had served as the model his father Yitzchak was in the habit of emulating. It was the attribute גבורה, the attribute of Justice. This was a kind of admission that Yaakov felt he had already been granted by G’d all that he was entitled to. Until he had returned to the land of Canaan, Yaakov had not been able to serve that particular attribute of G’d exclusively. This is why the Torah here informed us that this particular sacrifice of Yaakov was offered specifically to this attribute of G’d.    This is what the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 had in mind when they said concerning this verse that we learn from it that “a person is obligated to honor his father more than his grandfather.” The name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה represents the attribute of חסד, loving kindness, Avraham’s (Yaakov’s grandfather’s) outstanding attribute. Had the Torah reported Yaakov as offering his sacrifice to Hashem, i.e. the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, Yaakov would have demonstrated more honour for his grandfather than for his father. This is why the Torah here spoke of “the G’d of his father Yitzchak,” [even adding the name Yitzchak though all us know that Yaakov’s father was Yitzchak. Ed.]   In the same section of Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the illustration provided by the Midrash as to what constitutes honouring ”one’s father before one’s grandfather is that one greets one’s student before greeting one’s teacher.” This means that when one encounters both Rabbi and student simultaneously, one first addresses the student. Seeing that the students walk ahead of their teacher, one encounters them first and also greets them as one meets them. One does not get to meet the teacher until after one has met the students. Seeing that Yitzchak was a student of Avraham, Yaakov sacrificed to the attribute represented by Yitzchak described by the Torah as “the G’d of his father Yitzchak.” Yaakov was bound to mention Yitzchak ahead of Avraham either because Yitzchak had been Avraham’s student or because  Yitzchak was Yaakov’s father. The type of sacrifices which Yaakov offered were שלמים, “peace-offerings,” seeing Yaakov realised that the exile commenced now for his sons, something which filled him with fear. He considered it appropriate therefore to offer them to the attribute of פחד יצחק, i.e. the attribute of Justice. The word שלמים contains an allusion to the fact that Yaakov strove to perfect his various character traits. Seeing that this was his goal, he merited a vision of the “weaker” form of that attribute, i.e. G’d appeared to him in a nocturnal vision while he was asleep. This was to reassure him that although he was on the way to Egypt and to exile that his descendants would not perish as a result of being exiled. When the Torah stressed that G’d appeared to him במראות הלילה, “in a nocturnal vision,” this was an allusion to the fact that subsequent to their exile, his descendants would experience redemption after having suffered cruel persecution.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . אנכי הא-ל אלו-הי אביך ,”I am the Lord G’d of your father.” G’d meant: “I am the same G’d who prevented your father from leaving the Holy Land by telling him “do not go down to Egypt (Genesis 26,2). If I tell you now to proceed to Egypt, I do not want you to be afraid of this trip.” We have a similar assurance phrased by a warning not to be afraid in Isaiah 41,14 “do not be afraid, O worm Jacob.” A third example of G’d offering reassurance by phrasing it in a similar manner is found in Isaiah 41,10  “fear not for I am with you, be not frightened for I am your G’d.”
  
  Verse 4
  
    אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה, “I will go down to Egypt with you.” According to the plain meaning of the text this verse contains an assurance by G’d that He will be with Yaakov on this descent. This is why He said “I will go down,” instead of “I will make you go down.” If not for this lesson the latter form would have been more appropriate as G’d uses it when describing Yaakov’s return to the land of Canaan as a corpse which is described in the transitive form of אעלך instead of the intransitive form we have here.   ואנכי אעלך, “and I will bring you up.” G’d hinted to Yaakov that he would be buried in the land of Israel, “the highest” of the countries as it commands the gateway to heaven. G’d added the words גם עלה, “also raise up,” as Yaakov would experience also an “elevation” of a different dimension emanating from there, one to eternal life and the spiritual vistas in store for him there. This is the reason the term עליה appears twice in this verse. 
  The verse contains the promise that his descendants would be redeemed in due course and that they would then reside in the land of Israel, the only country in which Torah precepts can be practiced to the full. The second עליה promised is that to the heavenly spheres, to eternal life of the soul, something for which every Israelite will qualify as part of his birthright (compare Sanhedrin 90). This is something which even Bileam, the accuser of Israel, already recognised when he wished himself a similar future as that of Israel, saying: “may my soul experience the death of the upright, and may my afterlife be like that of Israel” (Numbers 23,10). By saying this, Bileam hinted that pagans are not going to share in that afterlife. This is why he added immediately before this: “they are a nation that dwells in splendid isolation” (Numbers 23,9). The reason G’d emphasised the word אנכי, when giving these assurances to Yaakov was that this was the word with which G’d introduced Himself at the revelation at Mount Sinai, when He gave us His Torah (Ten Commandments). He who abides by them would qualify for the promises made to Yaakov in this verse.
      A kabbalistic approach to our verse: The words: “I will go down with you,” are an allusion to the Presence of G’d, the שכינה, which would go down to Egypt with the Israelites. Our sages in Shabbat 89 and elsewhere say that G’d’s Presence descended with the Israelites.  In order to hint at this, Onkelos translates the words as אנא אחות [a “physical” as opposed to a merely spiritual descent, in anthropomorphic terms, of course. Ed.], instead of as אנא אתגלי which is his usual translation for the word ירד, such as in Exodus 19,11 when applied to G’d. This is especially remarkable considering the care Onkelos takes not to apply anthropomorphic terms to G’d or His activities.   The reason the Torah writes מצרימה instead of למצרים, i.e. concluding with the letter ה, and also writing the word עלה in a form ending with the letter ה, is to provide tangible proof that G’d’s Presence, i.e. “ה,” will accompany the Israelites to Egypt. The letter ה, the last letter in the Ineffable Name, is the attribute which provided sustenance for Egypt during the years of famine.   Joseph already hinted at this attribute when he told the Egyptians in 47,23 הא לכם זרע, “here is seed for you.” In the following verse Joseph speaks of the חמישית, “fifth” or “hand” which G’d used to enact retribution from the Egyptians for abusing the Israelites during their exile there. This “hand” of G’d was in evidence when the livestock of the Egyptians was struck in Exodus 9,3,  and it was the attribute the Israelites witnessed at the sea 14,31. It is also the attribute which Ezekiel mentioned when he described G’d’s anger during the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple (Ezekiel 16,43). We also find the words לא אחמול, “I shall not display pity,”  five times in connection with that destruction (commencing in Ezekiel 5,11) after having described such scenes as parents eating the flesh of their children and children eating the flesh of their parents, to illustrate this lack of G’d’s pity for the state His people were in at that time. We find that Daniel 2,43 refers to this attribute when he speaks about iron not blending with earthenware. Daniel mentions five different categories of materials which cannot form a blend, an alloy. This word הא occurs a total of three times in the Bible, once in the Torah, once in the Books of Prophets (Ezekiel 16,43), and once in the Hagiographa (Daniel 3,25). The message is that this attribute of G’d will accompany the Israelites through all the various exiles. The very word עמך, “with you,” which G’d uses to describe Himself as accompanying Yaakov to Egypt, is also associated with  צרה, distress, sorrow, trouble, as we know from עמו אנכי בצרה, Psalms 91,15 “I am with him when it is in trouble.” In our verse the choice of that word then is a double-entendre. It means that even when the Israelites were exiled to Babylon the שכינה was with them also. Our sages base this on Isaiah 43,14: “for your sake I send (the redeemer) to Babylon.” We have a similar situation regarding the exile under the Edomites, (the present exile). Isaiah 63,1 describes the redeemer as coming from Edom, his clothing full of blood, etc., an allusion to G’d taking His vengeance on our oppressors. The word זה in that verse is a reference to G’d Himself being that redeemer. The word זה referred to our redeemer, i.e. G’d, already when the Israelites had crossed the sea and watched the Egyptians drown. At that time they broke out in a song of thanksgiving adulating G’d by saying זה א-לי ואנוהו “this is my G’d and I want to enshrine Him.” The word זה, of course, also ends with this letter ה, the attribute we have been discussing. Interestingly enough, even Joseph phrased his invitation to his father to come to him in Egypt in a word ending with the letter ה, when he said (45,9) רדה אלי אל תעמוד, “come down to me, do not  delay.” He added the letter ה instead of saying רד אלי, which would have been quite sufficient. He meant to convey his confidence that the attribute of G’d represented by the letter ה would accompany his father and his family. Keeping all this in mind, the phenomenal increase of the Jewish people from 70 souls to over 600,000 arms-bearing men at the time of the Exodus (only 210 years later) becomes much less surprising. Clearly the Presence of G’d’s benevolent שכינה must be credited for this. (the author had referred to the addition of the latter ה in Avraham’s name in Genesis 17,5 as supplying the element which would enable his descendants to multiply prolifically). This element came into its own while the Jewish people were in Egypt and actually was also a prime factor in their eventual enslavement (compare Exodus 1,7-13). Once they had attained the required number of 600.000 men over 20 years of age they qualified for G’d revealing Himself to them openly at Mount Sinai.
      Having heard all this you will now understand the meaning of the scholar who claimed in a public lecture that a single Jewish woman in Egypt gave birth to 600,000 children (compare Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,7). The word לידה, giving birth in an expanded sense, means to bring potential to fruition. The birth of Moses was equivalent to the coming into existence of 600,000 Israelites. The reason the scholar is described as making this mind-boggling pronouncement during a public lecture was because the audience had begun to doze off and the scholar wanted to rouse them from their sleep by making such an earth-shaking statement. The multitude was aroused by this statement though learned people knew that it was not to be taken at face value but summed up a certain concept. The scholar had sufficiently provoked his audience so that they asked who that woman was. He then told them that he referred to Yocheved who gave birth to Moses who was equivalent to 600,000 Israelites. The reason the scholar had used the term אשה, “a woman,” is the same as the reason which prompted Solomon in Proverbs 12,4 to say אשת חיל עטרת בעלה, וכרקב בעצמותיו מבישה, “a virtuous wife is the crown of her husband, but a wife who embarrasses him is like rot in his bones.” Solomon pointed out later in Proverbs 31,10 that finding such a virtuous woman was something very exceptional. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  .בנותיו , “his daughters.” This is a reference to Dinah. We find a similar instance of a single son being described in the plural in 46,23 ובני דן חושים, though he had only one son. We also encounter this phenomenon in Chronicles I 2,8 ובני איתן עזריה, “and the sons of Eytan, Azaryah.” Our sages in Baba Batra 143 used these examples as the basis for their statement that if someone says: “my property is to be given to my sons,” and he has a son and a daughter, that the entire property goes to his son. The Talmud there questions: “since when does a father call a solitary son, “my sons?” Answer: indeed this is so as we know from Numbers 26,8 ובני פלוא אליאב “and the sons of Phalu were (was) Eliyav.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה יעקב ובניו, “and these are the names of the children of Israel who arrived in Egypt, Yaakov and his sons.” All the three patriarchs were called “Israel,” (Bereshit Rabbah 63,3). At this point Yitzchak is called “Israel” by the Torah as we read: that the “children of Israel” were none other than “Yaakov and his sons.” This verse clearly indicates that Yitzchak too was called “Israel.” We find proof that Avraham was also called “Israel” in Exodus 12,40: “and the length of time the Israelites had stayed in Egypt was 430 years.” We know that the calculation of the 400 years of which G’d spoke in Genesis 15,13  commenced with the birth of Yitzchak. Seeing the Torah refers to “the children of Israel” at a time when the Israelites left Egypt this makes their founder Avraham also one of the “Israelites.” How else could they be described as the “children of Israel?” This is also why the Talmud (Kidushin 18) calls Esau an “heretic Israelite.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ובני יהודה ער ואונן ושלה ופרץ וזרח, “and the sons of Yehudah: “Er, Onan, Shelah, Peretz, and Zerach.” The verse includes the two sons Er and Onan, though already deceased, as amongst the seventy people of Yaakov’s family who migrated to Egypt. This is extremely puzzling. How could the Torah include those two amongst those described earlier as “arriving” in Egypt? The answer is provided by the kabbalists (who have elaborated on the theme of migration of the souls) and it is made clearer in Numbers 26,19 where the Torah wrote: “and the sons of Yehudah, Er and Onan; Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.” Immediately following that verse the Torah writes: “The sons of Yehudah according to their families were: Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; Peretz, the family of the Partzites; Zerach, the family of the Zarchites.” This is the mystical dimension of Ruth 4,15; “he (the new born Oved)” shall be for you as a life-restorer. This also explains why Naomi’s neighbours exclaimed at Oved’s birth “a son has been born to Naomi” (remember she had lost both her sons before either one had fathered a child). If not for the approach of the kabbalists, the prophet should have described Oved as having been born to Ruth instead of to Naomi.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כל נפש בניו ובנותיו שלושים ושלושה , “all the people- his sons and daughters numbered thirty-three”. Yaakov himself is not included in the count of seventy. The count of the seventy commences with the word “Reuven.” When you count from Reuven to Dinah you obtain a total of thirty-two. The missing person is accounted for by Yocheved who was born between the entrance gates to Egypt as mentioned in Baba Batra 123. 
  The total of seventy is divided here into four segments in accordance with the four wives of Yaakov. The Torah mentions the word נפש each time repeating  the word נפש in the singular when summing up the total number of Yaakov’s family. This teaches the indivisibility of the Jewish people. All Jews are members of the same whole. The four times נפש preceding the final word נפש may allude to the four “camps” in the celestial spheres presided over by the four arch angels (compare commentary on verse 27).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
    יוצאי ירכו מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “his biological descendants aside from the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 where Rabbi Yehudah claimed that a twin sister was born to each one of Yaakov’s sons, the words יוצאי ירכו here are an allusion to the fact that the wives of the sons of Yaakov were each one of those twins. What would be the point of the Torah writing: “apart from the wives of the sons of Yaakov,” if the reference had been to Canaanite women whom the brothers married? Who would ever have thought that Canaanites would have been included in the count? The Torah had to mention that these women were not included in the count of seventy precisely because they were descendants of Yaakov. When the Torah here concludes with the words  כל נפש ששים ושש, “all the persons sixty-six,” this is because only sixty-six were included in the ones previously described as הבאים מצרימה, arriving in Egypt. Joseph and his two sons as well as Yocheved (who did not make the journey as she had not been born yet) made up the missing four from the number seventy. The Torah testified in Numbers 26,59 that “Yocheved was born for Levi in Egypt.”
  
  Verse 27
  
   כל הנפש לבית יעקב הבאה מצרימה שבעים , “all the people of Yaakov’s household who came to Egypt — seventy.” They were seventy without Yaakov. This is why they have been described as “descendants of Yaakov” (Exodus 1,5), Yaakov included there were 71. This is also the reason that when G’d responded to Moses’ request to have executive help, G’d ordered him to assemble seventy men so that together with him there would be a total of seventy-one elders. The Jewish Supreme Court later on also consisted of seventy-one members. The number seventy when applied to the nations of the earth also excludes the Jewish people so that all in all there are seventy-one nations. These numbers are all patterned after what goes on in the celestial regions where seventy angels surround G’d’s throne. When combined with G’d Himself, this amounts to seventy-one and is known in Rabbinical parlance as the בית דין של מעלה, the Heavenly Tribunal. This may be the reason why the Torah did not add the word ליעקב, when speaking of it as it did in verse twenty-six but here it speaks about לבית יעקב, the household of Yaakov; this is to show that Yaakov together with the seventy members of his household amounted to 71 just as the Heavenly Tribunal including G’d amounts to seventy-one members.
      From all the above we can deduce the spiritual power of Yaakov  who transmitted  a great portion of this to 600,000 of his descendants. In fact, until this number of his descendants formed a nation, G’d did not see fit to reveal Himself to Israel and to give His Torah to that nation. The number 600,000 also corresponds to a similar number in the celestial regions. Once that number of Israelites had been reached, the inhabitants of these celestial regions all consented to the Torah being transferred to earth. Furthermore, unless this number of Israelites is present the שכינה does not rest on Israel on an ongoing basis.    During the existence of the second Temple the שכינה did not rest over it and the Jewish people as it had during the first Temple (Yuma 21). This does not mean that G’d’s Presence was not present in that Temple at all; seeing that we have evidence of the שכינה manifesting itself in the presence of 22,000 Jews. (based on Numbers 10,36: “Return, O Lord, You who are Israel’s myriads of thousands!”) We also have a verse in Psalms 68,18 where the psalmist makes a similar point by saying: “G’d’s chariots are myriads upon myriads The Lord is among them as in Sinai in holiness.” There is therefore no need to prove that the Presence of G’d hovers over Israel when there are 40,000 of them, i.e. the approximate number of Jews returning to Zion under the leadership of Zerubabel (Ezra 2,64 mentions 42,360). The prophet Chagai 1,8 specifically promises G’d’s Presence when he writes: ”Go up to the hills and get timber, and rebuild the House; then I will look on it with favor and I will be glorified- said the Lord.” The difference between the conditions prevailing during the first and the second Temple respectively was that during the former G’d’s שכינה was “at home” in the Temple whereas during the latter it was only “visiting.” Our sages in Yuma 21 have characterized the difference by citing the absence of the following five items during the existence of the second Temple. There was no Holy Ark, no oil (the special mixture of ingredients listed in Exodus 30,31-33) for anointing the High Priest and other holy vessels. There was no heavenly fire which descended on the altar to consume sacrifices; there was no Shechinah; and there were no urim vetumim, (the means of direct communication between the High Priest and G’d) A look at the spelling of the wording of the verse we quoted from Chagai illustrates the point of our sages. The prophet wrote ואכבד (“and I will be glorified”), whereas we read ואכבדה. This is a hint of the five items that G’d said would be missing in that second Temple He asked Chagai to build. You will note again the crucial role of the letter ה in matters pertaining to the intervention of that attribute of G’d in the affairs of man, or rather when the welfare of the Jews is involved. Expressed differently, whereas the second Temple enjoyed a measure of שכינה, it did not enjoy the presence of G’d’s תפארת, “glory.” Moses described such irregular presence of the שכינה by using the word חופף, “hovering”  to describe it in Deut. 33,12 when he blessed Binyamin.  In the future, after the redemption, a time of which the prophet says that the number of the children of Israel will parallel that of the sand of the shores of the sea (Hoseah 2,1) the situation will change drastically. The prophet does not speak of the “number of descendants of Israel;” rather, he speaks of מספר בני ישראל, “those who had once been counted as ‘the children of Israel;” i.e. the males of over 20 years of age, they will bring back the element תפארת, “glory,” that has not been seen in Jerusalem since the destruction of the first Temple. This is what Isaiah 60,1 speaks of when he writes: “Arise! Shine!, for your light has dawned; the Presence of the Lord has shone upon you!”
  
  Verse 28
  
  .ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף , “and he sent Yehudah ahead of him to Joseph.” He sent Yehudah ahead to prepare living quarters for him in Goshen; he picked Yehudah as the most capable one of his sons. Our sages (Tanchuma Vayigash 11) paid especial attention to the unusual word להורות in this verse stating that Yaakov’s purpose in sending Yehudah ahead was for him to establish a Torah academy so that Torah study could take place as soon as Yaakov and his family would arrive in Goshen. This is not nearly as strange as it sounds at first glance as we have a tradition that Yaakov had been instructing his son Joseph in Torah and that at the time he had sent him on that fateful errand they had studied the subject of eglah arufah together, a subject dealing with a town’s expiation for a murder committed in its vicinity by a murderer or murderers unknown. When Yaakov had seen the עגלות his son sent him for transportation, he realized that his son had not forgotten this last lesson and that is what made his spirit revive (45,27).
      Another Midrash (Tanchuma Vayigash 8) on the same verse  draws attention to the miraculous reconciliation between two brothers. Only yesterday the ox and the lion had been crossing swords, whereas already now Yaakov sends Yehudah to Joseph as his emissary. This is an example of what Isaiah had in mind when he wrote (Isaiah 65,25): “the wolf and the lamb shall graze together and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” The wolf in that verse is a reference to Binyamin, based on Genesis 49,27: “Binyamin is a predatory wolf.” The lamb in Isaiah is a reference to the tribes of Israel as Jeremiah 50,17 describes the tribes as “Israel are scattered sheep.” The words: “the lion and the ox will eat straw,” are a reference to Yehudah and Joseph. Joseph has been compared to an ox in Deut. 33,17, ”like a firstling bull in his majesty.” Yehudah symbolizes the lion as we know from Genesis 49,9 “Yehudah is a lion cub.” They have been described as sharing the same meal in Genesis 43,33: “he seated them, the oldest according to his birthright, etc.” The fact that Yaakov sent Yehudah ahead to Joseph is proof that the brothers had reconciled completely.
  
  Verse 29
  
  . ויאסר יוסף מרכבתו, “Joseph harnessed his chariot.” Tanchuma Vayigash 7 states that there were two people who were honoured in a manner unparalleled. One was Yitro, the other was Yaakov. When Yitro visited Moses in the desert, the Torah writes: (‎Exodus 18,7) “Moses went forth to greet his father-in-law.” As soon as someone saw Moses leave his customary place in order to welcome Yitro, all the princes, Aaron the High Priest, as well as the entire nation went out also to welcome Yitro. Yaakov experienced something similar. As soon as people saw that heir ruler harnessed his chariot in order to welcome his father, the entire nation did the same. This was an example of what Isaiah 24,23 had in mind when he said: “and the Presence will be revealed to His elders.”
     ויפול על צואריו ויבך על צואריו עוד. “He fell around his neck and he kept crying on his neck exceedingly.” Nachmanides writes that one must not understand this verse as if Joseph fell around his father’s neck, seeing that this would not be in good taste. Good taste would have dictated for Joseph to kiss the hand of his father or to prostrate himself in front of him. The verbs in this verse all apply to Yaakov. It was Yaakov who fell around the neck of Joseph and broke out crying for quite some time. Just as he had still been crying over him while they had not been reunited, the reunion also evoked a crying spell. He cried over the reunion, and he cried additionally when he considered the position of power and eminence Joseph had attained.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   והאנשים רועי צאן, “and the men are shepherds of flocks.” Joseph meant that they were self-employed and had minded their own flocks. In order to make doubly sure that Pharaoh should not misunderstand and think that his brothers worked as employees for others, he added: “for they have been cattlemen.” They were very wealthy. If they had chosen this vocation of their fathers before them, they were motivated by two considerations. 1) It was a very profitable vocation. They reaped the wool of the sheep, the milk, the young animals, etc. It is a vocation which does not require a great deal of physical labor and does not tempt those who pursue it to commit sins, dishonest business practices, etc.. Solomon already said in Proverbs 27,23: “make sure that you know the looks of your flock; pay attention to the herds.” 2) Seeing the brothers were aware of the prophecy that when the time came they would be exiled in Egypt  and they were aware that the Egyptians worshipped the ram in the zodiac, they chose this vocation in order that their descendants would be familiar with sheep and the limitations of such animals. This would be an antidote to the temptation to deify sheep. When you examine Scriptures you will find that a majority of the righteous people of whom the Torah tells us were shepherds. Hevel, Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moses, the prophet Samuel, King Saul prior to his election as king, as well as David, all practiced this vocation. They used this as an excuse to separate themselves from urban centers as they realized that most sins are the direct result of people living together in urban centers. A rural life, relatively lonely, keeps one from most of the temptations offered in the city. It reduces one’s opportunity to engage in slander, libel, petty thievery, violence, etc.. Compare what happened to Lot after he began to associate with the city dwellers of Sodom. He was forced to flee Sodom, leaving all his wealth behind in order not to become killed by association with the sinners of that city. He absorbed his lesson and henceforth resided on a mountain, far from an urban society. He had taken temporary refuge in Tzoar, citing the fact that that town was of recent origin as proof that they could not yet have become too guilty in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 19,20). Even this fact did not persuade him to settle there but he moved to a mountain preferring the isolation of the mountain to associating with sinners. Another advantage to living in isolation on a mountain is that such isolation enables one to better concentrate on one’s Creator and, if one has attained the proper degree of spiritual preparation, to qualify for prophecy, for a communication from G’d. 
  Most major prophets practiced living in isolation for long periods of time, not even engaging in tending sheep. Examples are Elijah and Elisha. Of Elisha we read in Kings I 19,19 that “12 yokes of oxen were ahead of him.” This means that he had already given up his vocation of tending the oxen and had withdrawn from them. This is what Jeremiah meant when he wrote there in verse 20 that Elisha asked permission from Elijah “to let me kiss my father and mother good-by, and I will follow you.” At the end of verse 21 we are told: “Then he arose and followed Elijah and became his attendant.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . רעה צאן עבדיך , “your servants are shepherds.” When the Torah has the letter ה at the end of the word רעה instead of the customary letter י for the plural ending, this can be explained because the letters אהו'י are interchangeable.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . כי אין מרעה לצאן, “for these is no grazing land for the flocks.”  Due to the severity of the famine in the land of Canaan the grazing land normally used for the animals to feed on had turned into meagre grass and even that was reserved for human consumption.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  .  ויברך יעקב את פרעה, “Yaakov blessed Pharaoh.” He wished him wealth and success in his position as ruler of a great Empire. This was the customary blessing conferred by elders and pious people who were granted an audience by a king. We find an example of this in Kings I 1,31 where Bat Sheva, David’s wife, blesses him in a similar vein, saying: “may my lord King live forever.” The Torah mentions Yaakov blessing Pharaoh again before he took his leave. Our sages (Tanchuma Nasso 26) say that the blessing consisted of a wish that the river Nile would rise again and irrigate the fields of Egypt. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  . כמה ימי שני חייך, “how old are you?” Yaakov appeared to Pharaoh as considerably older than anyone he had seen in Egypt. When Yaakov replied he was careful not to equate the years he had been on earth as “life.” He said: “the days of my sojourn on earth, etc.” This is typical of the righteous. They consider themselves as merely transients in this world. Having established how he related to the experience of living within a body here on earth, he did say: “the days of my life are fewer and have been marked by sorrow.” He used the word “life” in contrast to his fathers who had not experienced such sorrows and who could therefore describe their days of life on earth as “life.” In order for Pharaoh to understand that the term “life” applied to his fathers was merely relative, Yaakov reverted again to describing even the lives of his fathers as “the days of their sojourn.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף הנמצא, “Joseph collected all the money which could be found, etc.” When the verse continues with: “Joseph brought the money he had collected to the palace of Pharaoh,” the letter ה is to tell us that he brought all of it to Pharaoh’s palace. All the acquisitions Joseph made from the people he channeled to Pharaoh. He did not pocket any of it for himself. Although he took from the people their most precious possessions he remained popular with them. This was clearly something that G’d had arranged.
      The plain meaning of all these verses is that the money mentioned (verse 18) is money which Joseph collected over a period of five years  and brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. It is not reasonable to suppose that the population of Egypt ran out of money and cattle within a single year or two. The Egyptians had hoarded their money and it had lasted them for five years although under non-famine conditions they would have been less frugal and would have used it up much sooner. The Torah records only that after five years when their money had run out, the people turned to Joseph. Joseph agreed to hand out food in return for their cattle and, when at the end of  the sixth year, they had no more cattle left either, he had to warn them to be very frugal in their eating habits.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ותתם השנה ההיא, “when that year came to a close, etc.” This is the year during which they had received food in exchange for their cattle.
     ויבואו אליו בשנה השנית, “they came to him in the second year.” This was the second year after their money had run out, i.e. the seventh year of the famine. At this point the people asked Joseph to acquire them as well as their soil in exchange for the food he would give them. Subsequently Pharaoh would have to provide the seed for planting to prevent the land from becoming wasteland. This explains the continuation of the verse:  למה נמות לעיניך....קנה אותנו ואת אדמתנו בלחם ונחיה אנחנו ואדמותנו עבדים לפרעה, “Why should we die before your eyes?...Acquire us and our land for bread;  and we and our land will become serfs for Pharaoh.”  According to the plain meaning of the text this was an offer to buy both their bodies and their lands.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah  that there were actually only a total of two years of famine seeing that Yaakov’s blessing that the Nile should rise again had stopped the famine in its tracks, we would have to understand verse 18 “that the people came to Joseph at the beginning of the ‘second’ year” as referring to the second year of the famine. If you were to say that this would result in the Egyptians suspecting Joseph of not having correctly interpreted Pharaoh’s dream, we would have to assume that the remaining five years of famine occurred immediately after the death of Yaakov.    Another possibility is that seeing Joseph had not predicted that the seven years of famine would occur consecutively, there was no question of Joseph’s competence as an interpreter of dreams would be questioned. 
  Rabbi Yoseph in Tossephta Sotah 10,9 points out that the famine resumed after Yaakov’s death and that Joseph’s promise to provide for his brothers (50,21 made after his father had died) was precisely because the famine had resumed at that time. Just as Joseph had used the expression וכלכלתי אתכם, “I will provide for you” in 45,11 at a time when the famine was in full force, so the same expression used in chapter 50 also reflects that the famine was again in full force. Rabbi Shimon did not feel that such an explanation would reflect credit on G’d as it creates the impression that blessings by the righteous are valid only during their own lifetime. His son Rabbi Eleazar nevertheless said that he preferred Rabbi Yoseph’s interpretation to that of his father. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים בארץ גושן, “Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the province of Goshen.” The city Goshen is close to the capital of Egypt. Seeing that his twelve sons were all prominent people in their own right, each one of them capable of dealing with kings on a basis of equality, Yaakov did not want to reside in Egypt proper to forestall his sons becoming politically involved in Egyptian matters of state. 
  Yaakov was well aware that this was the time when the exile of his descendants began. He wanted to minimize this exile to the greatest extent possible and this is why he preferred the status of “וישב" , he “settled down,” to the status claimed by those of his sons who had been introduced to Pharaoh and who had claimed the status as resident strangers, i.e. לגור בארץ באנו, “we have only come here as temporary residents” (47,4). It had been the sons’ intention to return to the land of Canaan as soon as the famine ended.
     ויאחזו בה, “they acquired property in it.” The word ויאחזו suggests the acquisition of permanent, hereditary property; their intention was never fulfilled, however. The correct wording of the verse should have been ויאחזו בניו בה, “his sons acquired landed property there.” In fact, what happened was the very reverse. The passive form of the word ויאחזו describes that instead of becoming masters of that soil they became enslaved to it. The word is reminiscent of something taking root. Seeing that their father had already “taken root” in that land as the Torah described him as “settling,” there was no need for the Torah to mention that his offspring branched out like roots. If the Torah describes what happened with Yaakov’s sons as something in its own right, it indicates that there was some dramatic change in the spiritual direction of future generations of Yaakov’s sons. 
      The righteous are described as active, as setting the tone for something.  Examples are Isaiah 27,6: “In days to come Yaakov shall strike root.” The psalmist in Psalms 80,10  speaks of “it took deep root and filled the land.” The reason that in this paragraph the Torah wrote: “these are the names of the Israelites who came to Egypt,” is an indication that only that generation was still “master” of its destiny. Later generations became “possessed” by the land instead of actively possessing it. We have numerous instances in the Bible of the wicked not striking root. Examples: Ezekiel 31,3 (speaking about Sancheriv). The prophet extols the height to which his kingdom had risen comparing it to a lofty cedar but carefully omitting mention of any roots. Daniel 4,8 describes Nebuchadnezzar and his rise to power in similar terms. The lesson is that the wicked, though apparently flourishing greatly at one time or another, are devoid of roots and therefore prone to sudden collapse. There is an exception to this in Daniel 4,12 where a root is mentioned in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (“however its major roots leave in the ground”); the angel mentioned this only to show Nebuchadnezzar that the kingdom would be restored to him. It has no bearing on the fact that the wicked are depicted as devoid of roots. This idea is spelled out in Isaiah 40,24: “their roots will dry out and the storm beats them off like straw.” The righteous by contrast is depicted as having solid roots which will not deteriorate. This is what Solomon alluded to when he said (Proverbs 12,3) “but the root of the righteous cannot be shaken loose.”
  
  Verse 28
  
     באורח צדקה חיים ודרך נתיבה אל מות. “The road of righteousness (charity) leads to life, by way of its path there is no death” (Proverbs 12,28).
   In this verse Solomon wishes to extol the virtue of charity in the wake of which much reward may be expected; in fact, the performance of that good deed may add years to one’s life (compare Psalms 19,12). The practice of charity is a panacea for both body and soul. It is capable of overcoming what is in store for people based on the mazzal they have been born under. We have proof of this in Samuel I 26,10  where David speaks of: “or his time will come and he will die.” What he meant was that the person’s day of death will approach sooner than had been originally scheduled. Death may sometimes occur sooner than originally scheduled, such as in the case of David of whom we read in Kings I 2,1 “David’s days approached to die.” On the other hand, there are instances when years are added to the life of a person who had been born under horoscopic influences which presaged a much shorter life for him. The best known example of this was the King Chiskiyah who, though he had been told by the prophet Isaiah to make his last will and testament, was granted an additional 15 years in response to his prayer (Isaiah 38,4-8).    Conversely, we find that the life span of a person may be shortened from what had originally been decreed for him as we find in the case of King Yehoram son of Achazyah who was punished for his idolatry. We find in Kings II 1,16 that  Elijah told him: “because you sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zevuv the god of Ekron — as if there were no G’d in Israel whose word you could seek — assuredly you shall not rise from the bed which you are lying on but you shall die.” This is what prompted Solomon to say that charity is such a powerful virtue that it can overcome even decrees of death. Its power is equal to that of “being fruitful and multiplying.” The word  חיים in the sequence בארח צדקה חיים means that an additional life span may be granted in recognition of the charity one practices. The word מות, “death,” in the second half of our verse refers to shortening someone’s life expectancy as retribution for some sin committed.    We are told in Baba Batra 11 that a certain righteous individual Binyamin, who was in charge of the distribution of public charity once had a certain woman approach him  during a year of famine. The woman said to him: “please support me!” He answered her that there were no funds left in the kuppah. Thereupon she said to him: “if you do not provide me with food, a woman and her seven children will surely die.” He then gave her of his own money. Some time later, this very Binyamin fell sick and was on the point of death. At that point the angels said to G’d: “did You not say that anyone who keeps alive even a single Jew is considered as if he had kept a whole world alive? Did not this Binyamin save the lives of a woman and her seven children? Why does he have to die so young?” Thereupon the decree ordering his death was torn up and he had 22 years added to his life span.   The words ודרך נתיבה אל מות mean that because a person is performing constant acts of charity he may be certain that he does not die prematurely. Translated literally: “there is no death on its path.” This idea is expressed also by Proverbs 10,2 צדקה תציל ממות, “charity saves from death.” This means that the person who practices charity does not die before his appointed time thanks to his acts of charity. Seeing that on occasion acts of charity are the reason why someone’s life span is extended beyond what was originally decreed, it is only logical that such acts protect the person performing them against dying prematurely.   The subject matter of charity, how to practice it, and in what amount to practice it is quite complicated; the fundamental ingredient of doing charity is that one gives to someone else something which belongs to one. There are many ways of doing this. A minimal performance of the commandment would be giving a small alms to a Gentile. The next higher level of charity would be giving a similar amount to a Jewish person from another town who is in need. A still higher level of charity is giving this amount to a needy Jew from your own city. This is based on Exodus 22,24 “the poor person who lives amongst you.” A poor person residing in your house takes precedence in his claim on your charity over someone who lives out of town. A poor person who is also a next of kin takes precedence over another poor person of your hometown. The relevant verse in Isaiah 58,7 states: “do not ignore your own kin.” A still higher level of charity is to provide one’s children with a livelihood. Our sages (Ketuvot 50) applied to this Psalms 106,3 “Happy are those who do right at all times.” They argued that it is not possible to do right at all times as most people do not become called upon to perform acts of charity all the time. The only way they can fulfill what the psalmist talks about is by providing for their children while they are minors. The next higher level of performing charity is looking after one’s aged parents financially. By doing this one also fulfills the commandment to honour father and mother. This is the finest way of doing charity. When one does this one may be in line for living to a ripe old age oneself. This is why the Torah wrote in connection with this commandment (Exodus 20,12) “in order that you may experience long life on the earth that the Lord your G’d is assigning to you.” This is precisely what Solomon termed בארך צדקה חיים, that the path to life is righteousness. G’d repays measure for measure. If children keep their parents alive longer by ensuring that they can enjoy their old age, G’d in turn will recompense the children in a similar manner.   We see a perfect example of this principle in the relationship between Yaakov and Joseph. Yaakov had provided for Joseph during the first 17 years of his life; in our Parshah we are told that Joseph repaid his father by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. This is why the Torah (Genesis 47,28) was at pains to write: “Yaakov lived in Egypt for 17 years.”  [Had the Torah not wanted to make this point it could simply have written that Yaakov lived for a total of 147 years. We know that he was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh. Ed.]
  ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו שבע שנים וארבעים ומאת שנה  “the years of Yaakov’s life were one hundred and forty-seven years.” This Parshah is “closed,” i.e. we do not have the customary separation of words, lines or letters between the last portion and this one. There are two reasons for this. 1) The exile was about to start and the hearts of the Israelites became “closed”  due to the progressively increasing difficulties in their daily lives. 2) Yaakov wanted to compensate for their feeling that a deterioration in their lives was about to take place by revealing to them the glorious future in store for them after the redemption. However, he was unable to do so. In other words, Yaakov’s channels of communication with the celestial regions had become “closed.” He had announced that he would reveal to them “what will befall you in the end of days” (49,1). When reading what follows it becomes clear that this is not what Yaakov announced. The “end of days” Yaakov had in mind was the exile in which we find ourselves now, not the exile in Egypt or Babylon. Seeing that Yaakov was the third of the patriarchs it is reasonable that his life should have foreshadowed experiences of the Jewish people during their third exile, i.e.  our exile. At any rate, G’d would not let him reveal these matters and even Daniel (Daniel 12,9) states that these matters remained sealed secrets until the end of that exile. Our sages felt that Daniel had known about these developments and that is why the angel had to tell him to obscure the matter (Daniel 12,4).  Isaiah said something similar in Isaiah 9,6 where we read: לםרבה המשרה ולשלום אין קץ. The final letter ם in the middle of the word לםרבה where we should have had a regular “open” letter מ, is a warning that whatever the areas in which Israel excels, these will not be in evidence during their exiles. The prophet seems to be saying that even attempts to hasten the redemption through Torah-study, through establishing G’d’s authority on earth, etc., will not affect G’d’s timetable. It is interesting that we find exactly the reverse phenomenon in the Book of Ezra (Nechemyah 2,13) where an open letter מ appears at the end of a word, i.e. בחומות ירושלים אשר המ פרוצים, “the walls of Jerusalem which are broken down.” A Midrash comments on this verse that this is an allusion that whereas when the walls of Jerusalem which are now “open,” i.e. broken down, were still “closed,” i.e. intact, such as during the period of the Temple, G’d’s authority which had been “closed”, i.e. not in evidence during that period, will re-emerge and reassert itself as a result of the Jewish people learning their lesson during a harsh exile. Just as the two letters מ in the verses we have quoted from Isaiah and Nechemyah respectively contain allusions to matters hidden from us, so the unusual absence of a division between the two portions Vayigash and Vayechi  also contain allusions to matters hidden from us, i.e. hidden from Yaakov.   There is a Midrash according to which Yaakov saw that the names of his twelve sons [the future tribes of Israel. Ed.] contained between them all the letters of the alphabet except the letters ח and ט. He concluded that this was a hint that none of these sons were guilty of a sin (chet.) This prompted him to reveal to them what he knew about the period preceding the final redemption. When he re-examined the letters in the names of the sons and realized that the letters ק and צ also did not appear in the names of any of them, he reconsidered and decided that his sons were not fit to have this information revealed to them. He therefore desisted, and this is why this portion is “closed.”
     שבע עשרה שנה. “seventeen years.” This is something we already knew from when Yaakov had told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old. If the Torah enumerates the total number of years Yaakov lived in this verse this is another reason to see allusions in these numbers, in this information. We know that the Torah does not contain a single superfluous sentence, word, or even letter. In this verse the Torah alludes to the number of years Yaakov lived or did not live as an example of how G’d deals with us on the basis  of מדה כנגד מדה, measure for measure.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, “The time approached for Israel to die.” How did Yaakov know that his death was approaching? He realised that his strength was ebbing and this is why he wanted to make his last will in the presence of Joseph; however, at this stage he had not yet been taken ill. Later on, when he was taken ill (48,1) Joseph was informed of this. We find something similar before King David died. Kings I 2,1 speaks about “the time for David to die approached;” he himself said of himself: “I am going the way of all the earth” before giving his final instructions to his son Solomon.
      The plain meaning of why the Torah suddenly calls Yaakov by his alternate name Yisrael again instead of writing “the time approached for Yaakov to die,” (which would have been the natural sequence to the line: “Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt for seventeen years”) is that ever since he had been given the additional name the Torah uses both names interchangeably.  Throughout our portion the names Yaakov and Yisrael are used intermittently. [The name “Yaakov” appears six times, whereas the name “Yisrael” appears thirteen times. Ed.]
      From a more rational/scientific point of view we may detect a distinct pattern in the Torah sometimes choosing to refer to Yaakov by his original name and sometimes by his additional name. The name Yaakov applies to the physical part of Yaakov’s personality, matters connected to his terrestrial existence, whereas the name Yisrael refers to spiritual aspects of his personality, matters connected to his eternal existence in celestial regions. When Yaakov had first been given the name “Yaakov” the Torah stated that this reflected his holding on to the heel of his brother Esau (Genesis 25,26). We find the name Yisrael first used in connection with Yaakov having successfully contended with the celestial force representing his brother Esau (Genesis 32,29). It is therefore clear that the additional name Yisrael was intended principally to reflect Yaakov’s spiritual accomplishments. 
  Seeing that it is impossible for a  human being while part of a body to divest himself totally of bodily needs and concerns, we can appreciate what our sages said that contrary to the name Avraham which replaced the name Avram, the name Yisrael did not replace the name Yaakov. It reflected the fact that this Yaakov had attained an additional dimension in his personality development (compare Berachot 13). The name Yaakov henceforth became subordinate to that of Yisrael. The use of these names teaches amongst other matters that if someone makes his spiritual dimension subordinate to his physical, terrestrial concerns this “kills” him, leads to his death sooner or later. This is what David had in mind when he said in Psalms 22,30: “all those who in full vigor shall eat and prostrate themselves, all those at death’s door whose spirit lag, shall bend the knee before Him.” David refers to people who make a point of first tasting all the pleasures of terrestrial life before prostrating themselves before G’d as having their priorities reversed. As a result, such people experience death in a very real sense of the word. In the verse we just quoted the word יכרעו, “they will bend the knee” does not refer to something similar to השתחוה, “prostrating” oneself (before G’d). Rather, it is similar to Psalms 20,9. In that psalm it is used as meaning falling down and not rising up again. This is the punishment for having had one’s priorities mixed up. When the people mentioned in Psalm 22 finally decide to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” i.e. to also make an obeisance to G’d as an afterthought, it is too late. They had not lifted a finger to secure their share in eternity while there was time.    Upon closer examination you will find that when the Torah employs the name Yaakov to describe our patriarch it refers to his terrestrial concerns, concerns which are indispensable for any human being, whereas when it switches by calling him Yisrael it refers to his spiritual concerns, matters which are largely abstract. This is what the prophet (Isaiah 43,1) had in mind when he said: ”who created you O Yaakov, who formed you O Yisrael?” In connection with the name Yaakov, the prophet only mentioned the word בריאה, a primitive kind of creation, whereas in connection with spiritual parts of man the prophet speaks of a more sophisticated product, one that has undergone יצירה, an advanced stage of formation. You will note that at the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,3) G’d says to Moses: “so shall you say to the house of Yaakov and relate to the children of Yisrael.” The name Yaakov referred to the women, the word Yisrael to the men. [Perhaps the fact that Adam had described Eve as “bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” but not as “spirit of my spirit” (Genesis 2,23), is the reason that woman symbolizes primarily the physical part of the human being. Ed.] Isaiah 43, 22 had something similar in mind when he wrote: “But you have not worshipped Me, O Yaakov, that you should be weary of me O Israel.” He meant that while you Yaakov were concerned with your terrestrial matters you did not really worship Me (even if you paid lip-service). As to worshipping Me as “Yisrael,” you indicated that it was too wearisome for you.    When our Parshah commences by referring to Yaakov’s existence on earth by calling him Yaakov (twice in 47,28), this is in keeping with what we have explained. In 47,29 however, when the Torah commences to speak of “death” of the body, it switches  to using the name “Yisrael” seeing that the death of a righteous person is but the necessary preamble to his taking his place in eternal life in the celestial spheres. Whenever preparations for death are described, including the very mention of the bed on which Yaakov lay sick, the Torah describes him as Yisrael. As soon as  the Torah finishes describing his preparations for the life in the hereafter by blessing Joseph and his brothers, it reverts to the use of the name Yaakov. The Torah never describes Yaakov as having died. Only Yisrael is described as having died. The embalmers are described as embalming Yisrael (50,1). As soon as Yaakov had made the physical preparations for death, i.e. “he gathered in his feet to the bed,” the Torah calls him Yisrael again. As of that moment he had entered eternal life. When we find in 49,1 that the Torah refers to Yaakov suddenly again as Yaakov, the reason is that at that moment G’d withheld from him the visions of the redemption and what precedes it which he had intended to reveal to his sons. In other words, at that moment he had become primarily physical, his spiritual dimension having temporarily become subordinate. There is another instance where we could question why the Torah suddenly reverts to the use of the name Yaakov. This is in 48,3 where he explains to Joseph where and when he had his first communication from G’d, i.e. at Luz. The reason that  the Torah calls him Yaakov at that point in our chapter is because he referred to a time in his life prior to his having the name Yisrael added to his regular name. in other words, we detect the following pattern. When the Torah indicates that Yaakov had not yet established mutual communication with G’d he is called Yaakov. When, even after he had established such communication, this channel of communication had been interrupted, he is also called Yaakov instead of Yisrael.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Vayechi 1: the words “the days of Yisrael’s death were approaching” reflect what we have read in  Chronicles I 29,15: “for we are sojourners with You, mere transients like our fathers; our days on earth are like a shadow, with nothing in prospect.” If at least the shadow would be that of a wall or a tree, i.e. an enduring shadow; but our days are only like the passing shadow of a bird which flies over us. This is what the psalmist had in mind when he wrote concerning man (Psalms 144,4): “Man is like a breath; his days like that of a passing shadow.” As soon as the bird flies over, his shadow departs with it. When David said in Chronicles that “there is no prospect,” he meant that there is no prospect of escaping physical death. Everybody knew and verbalised the fact that he would die. Avraham  phrased it by saying (Genesis 15,2) “I am going to die without a child.” [Had he not known that he would die, having no child to replace him would not have bothered him. Ed.] Yitzchak had called in his son Esau in order to bless him “before I die” (Genesis 27,4). Yaakov referred to his impending death by saying “I want to be buried with my fathers” (Genesis 47,30). Seeing that he said these words close to his death, it is clear he spoke about the need to die, i.e. “when the days of Yisrael to die drew near.” When Yaakov was close to death he began to belittle himself in the presence of Joseph by saying: “if I please find favour in your eyes.” You find a similar phenomenon happening with David where the prophet describes the last days of his life as “the days for David to die drew near,” whereas nowhere else did the prophet refer to him as merely David instead of as “King David.” All of this proves that on or about the time of a man’s death he loses whatever control he used to possess over his spirit as mentioned in Kohelet 8,8: “No man has authority over the lifebreath- to hold back the lifebreath;” there is no authority over the day of death.”
     ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called in his son Joseph.” He did not call upon his firstborn son Reuven or upon Yehudah who represented Royalty but upon Joseph who had the authority to carry out his request.   אל נא תקברני במצרים, “do not bury me in Egypt.” Actually, Yaakov requested two things from Joseph. 1) not to be buried in Egypt. 2) to be buried in the land of Israel. He did not want to be buried in Egypt in order that the Egyptians should not deify him after his death.  He was afraid that just as the people worshiping idols are punished so are the objects of their worship. We know this from Exodus 12,12 “and G’d punished all the idols of the Egyptians.” He asked to be buried in the land of Israel just as all the patriarchs expressed a desire to be buried in the Holy Land. This is because the nature of the land helps those buried there to obtain atonement for their sins. Isaiah speaks of this when he said: “It shall be inhabited by folk whose sin has been forgiven.” We also have a verse in Deut. 32,43 stating the same. The Torah writes of the Holy Land: “its land will atone for its people.” Eretz Yisrael is the gateway to heaven, the place whence all the prayers of the Jewish people ascend to heaven. This is the reason all the sages wished themselves to die in that land when their time to die came. There is a tradition that certain highly spiritual people enter heaven from there without the need for their souls to take painful spiritual detours. We also have a tradition that the people who died in the land of Israel will be amongst the first to be revived at the time of the resurrection. People buried in other lands will experience pain at the time of the resurrection as they will have to travel underground after bursting out of their graves until they arrive in the land of Israel (based on an interpretation of Ezekiel 36,14).
  
  Verse 30
  
   ושכבתי עם אבותי ונשאתני ממצרים, “I wish to lie with my fathers and that you carry me up from Egypt.” The first request pertained to his spirit, the second to his body. Yaakov meant that he was convinced that even if his body were to be buried in Egypt his spirit would reside with his fathers and that it would not have to undergo painful גלגולים, metamorphoses, before arriving in its rightful place in the celestial regions. Rabbi Yitzchak claims that this verse teaches us that on the day a person dies he becomes aware of what destination he is headed for, whether he will be assigned to the region reserved for the righteous or the region reserved for the wicked. This is why Yaakov first said: “I will lie with my fathers,” and subsequently he asked Joseph to transport him there. He taught Joseph that even if one were to die on a boat or in a remote inaccessible island, one’s spirit would immediately head for the location assigned to it. We  have been told that Rabbi Avohu saw the reward that was in store for him shortly before his death. The sages base this principle on Psalms 31,20: “How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in the full view of men for those that take refuge in You.” According to tradition when Rabbi Avohu was shown all the reward which was in store for him he was so overwhelmed that he could not help exclaiming: ‘is all this really in store for Avohu?!’ He immediately wished himself dead and began to recite the above quoted verse from Psalms.
     וקברתני בקבורתם, “and bury me in their burial vault.”  Our sages used this verse to tell us that the righteous ought to arrange that they be buried alongside other righteous people. We have a verse in Kings II 13,21 describing that someone who had been thrown into a grave next to that of the prophet Elisha emerged resurrected through having contacted the remains of the prophet. This is also what the false prophet said before he died when he requested to be buried alongside the true prophet. He had said: “you shall bury me in the grave of the prophet.” According to this interpretation the temporary resurrection of the sinner in question served the purpose of preventing him remaining buried next to the righteous man, the true prophet Elisha. (Compare Sanhedrin 47 on details of this story.)
     אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I will comply with what you have said.” According to the plain meaning of the text Joseph agreed to honor his father’s request. According to a Midrashic interpretation the words mean “just as you made me swear to bring your bones up to the land of Canaan, so I will make my brothers swear to do the same for my own bones when the time comes.”
  
  Verse 31
  
   השבעה לי, “swear to me!” seeing that Joseph had already agreed to honour his father’s wish in this regard, Yaakov most certainly did not suspect him of reneging on his promise. The purpose of the oath was so that in the event urgent matters of state would claim Joseph’s attention after his father’s death, or in the event that Pharaoh would raise an objection to Yaakov’s remains being taken out of Egypt, Joseph would have something to reinforce his desire to fulfill his father’s last wish. We know that Yaakov was very astute in the matter as in fact Joseph did have to tell Pharaoh that he had had to promise his father on oath that he would not allow him to be buried in Egypt (50,4). According to Nachmanides Pharaoh then instructed Joseph to go to the land of Canaan in order to bury his father there.
     וישתחו ישראל, “Israel prostrated himself.” Seeing that Joseph had agreed to honour his father by undertaking to fulfill his wishes, Yaakov in turn prostrated himself before him to show that he respected the position Joseph occupied as effective ruler of the country. This is the view of Megillah 16 quoted by Rashi. Concerning similar situations, our sages are on record as saying: “prostrate yourself (even) before a fox when you see that fortune is smiling upon him.”
      A different approach quoted in Tanchuma Vayechi 3 holds that Yisrael prostrated himself before G’d and thanked Him for the promise Joseph had made him. The reason the Torah defines the exact location where Yisrael prostrated himself-toward the head of the bed- teaches us that G’d’s Presence takes up its position at the head of the bed of a sick person. Regardless of before whom Yisrael prostrated himself, the interesting thing is the mention of the word מטה, “bed,” in our verse. This is to teach us that whereas the “bed” of Avraham and Yitzchak were not “complete,” (i.e. neither Avraham nor Yitzchak had succeeded in raising all their children true to their beliefs) Yisrael was the first of the patriarchs who had succeeded in doing this. The Talmud in Pesachim 56 relates the following concern expressed by Yaakov prior to his death when his prophetic powers suddenly failed him: “Maybe G’d forbid one or more of my children is not really loyal to my teachings as happened to Avraham with Ishmael and as happened to Yitzchak with Esau.” His sons reassured him by reciting the words שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד. Another reason why the word מטה is mentioned here is that the שכינה had come to Egypt with Yaakov. When he is now reported as “gathering in his feet to the bed,” this is a reference of his joining the שכינה which had accompanied him ever since he had gone down to Egypt. The word מטה occurs in that sense also in Song of Songs 3,7 just as the word יאסף appears in Isaiah 58,8 as referring to G’d’s Presence being Israel’s rear guard.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel summoned his strength.”  Reflecting on this exertion by Yaakov, our sages asked themselves why he subjected himself to the obvious pain of sitting up in bed? They say that Yaakov reasoned that if a mere general were to send him some clothing would he not go out of his way to show honor to such a general? How could he shame his own son by showing him less honor?
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי, “they will be for me just like Reuven and Shimon.” This verse shows that Yaakov transferred the birthright to Joseph. As to the verse in Chronicles I 5,1 “Reuven the first-born of Israel, but when he defiled his father’s bed his birthright was given to he sons of Joseph son of Israel but he is not to be reckoned as the first-born in genealogy.” 
  Rashi holds that the transfer of the birthright did not include transfer of the right to inherit an extra portion of his father’s estate, but that only the honour due to the first-born was taken away from Reuven. 
  Nachmanides rejects Rashi’s approach arguing that it is impossible to say that Joseph was given only part of the birthright, i.e. that he would be two of the twelve tribes without inheriting accordingly in the land of Israel. He quotes 49,22 as proof that Joseph became two tribes and uses the plural in the words יקראו בנחלתם, “they will be called such in their respective inheritances” as proof that Joseph’s birthright included the extra share of the inheritance. This is also in accordance with the translation of Onkelos who renders the words בנות צעדה עלי שור in 49,22 as תרין שבטין יפקון מבנוהי יקבלון חול'קא ואחסנתא as “two tribes from my sons will receive חולקא and אחסנתא” (different categories of land shares respectively). 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ואני בבואי מפדן, “as to my own situation, when I was on the way from Padan, etc.,” seeing that Yaakov was about to request from Joseph that he bury him in the cave of Machpelah he first had to apologise to him for not having brought Joseph’s mother Rachel to be buried there; this is why he said: “Rachel died on me on the journey in the land of Canaan.” He emphasised that Rachel too had been buried in the Holy Land and not outside its boundaries. The fact that she was not buried in the cave of Machpelah was due only to her sudden and unexpected death which did not afford Yaakov an opportunity to carry her all the way to Chevron seeing he had so many children and cattle with him. Had he buried her there she would have started to decompose on the journey to that cave which would have taken several days at least. According to our best estimates today such a journey should not have taken longer than half a day. This is why he emphasised that although she died “on the way,” she was not buried on the way, but on a hill, a distinctive place.
     ואקברה שם בדרך אפרת, “and I buried her there on the way to Efrat.” The words “I buried her there” would have sufficed. Why did he add the words: “on the way to Efrat?” We have already seen told that Rachel died only a tract of land away from Efrat, another name for Bethlehem. Yaakov hinted what our sages told us in Bereshit Rabbah 82,10 that Yaakov buried Rachel where he did as he foresaw that in the future Jews going into exile would pass her grave and she would offer prayers on their behalf. This is what the prophet (Jeremiah 31,15) referred to when he wrote: “Thus said the Lord: ‘a voice is heard in Ramah- wailing bitter weeping- Rachel weeping for her children.’” All of these details Yaakov revealed now so that Joseph would not become angry at what might appear an unreasonable request by his father who himself had not shown such concern about Joseph’s mother. This is what Nachmanides wrote on our verse.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וירא ישראל את בני יוסף “Yisrael saw the sons of Joseph, etc.” The word “he saw” in this verse is to be understood as a vision; he did not see them physically. We have already been told כי לא יכול לראות, “for he was unable to see.” (verse 10)  מי אלה, “who are these? How can they qualify for a blessing?” He foresaw at that moment that Jerobam, a future descendant of Ephrayim, would erect two golden calves of whom it was said: “these are your gods O Israel” (Exodus 32,8). He also foresaw that Yehu and his sons would be descendants of Menashe. To this question Joseph replied:  בני הם אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, “they are my sons whom G’d has given me here.” Joseph mentioned the name of the Lord who had performed miracles for him and had raised him to the position of king so that he had been given this woman as a wife by Pharaoh. This wife had born these children for him. Targum Yonatan explains the word בזה to mean that he showed his father his marriage certificate, כתובה.  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
    ויקח יוסף את שניהם, “Joseph took both of them, etc.” He presented them to his father in the proper order, Menashe the older one on his father’s right, and Ephrayim the younger one on his father’s left. 
  Yaakov realised that this was the order in which Joseph would place his sons before him. This is why he crossed his arms in order to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim on the left hand on the head of Menashe. He possessed sufficient divine inspiration to foresee that historically Ephrayim would be of greater significance than his senior brother Menashe. This is why he said of Menashe (verse 19) “he too will become a nation, however his younger brother will be greater than he.”    According to Rabbeinu Chananel, Yaakov did not actually cross his arms but he placed his hands one on top of the other. What the Rabbi meant was that Yaakov did not rearrange the position of the boys but the position of his hands. This does not seem right. We do not need Rabbeinu Chananel to tell us this as the Torah had already made it plain that the lads remained in their respective positions but that Yaakov crossed his hands!
      The correct interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel appears to be that  the words שכל את ידיו, “he rearranged his hands” mean that relative to Joseph he rearranged his hands. When the Torah said: “he placed his right hand on the head of Ephrayim,” the meaning is that he rearranged the boys and placed them so that Ephrayim was opposite his right hand, etc. He also rearranged the position of Menashe so that he stood opposite Yaakov’s left hand. He did not rearrange his own hands at all. All he did was to rearrange the position of the boys. This is the correct meaning of the words שכל את ידיו, i.e. he rearranged them differently from the way Joseph had arranged them. The blessing took effect as a result of Yaakov placing his hands firmly on the heads of the lads. We find something similar in Numbers 27,23 where Moses placed his hands on Joshua and proceeded to bless him, making him his successor. The act of placing one’s hands on the person one blesses is designed to facilitate the transfer of the holy spirit possessed by the one conferring the blessing to the recipient of said blessing.     When the sages of old ordained someone they also literally placed their hands on the head of the person so ordained. In the case of the priests blessing the people this was physically impossible. Instead the priest spread his hands heavenwards in a gesture commanding G’d’s blessing on all those present. This is the deeper meaning of the words שכל את ידיו,  the word שכל being derived from שכל,חכמה, “intelligence, wisdom.” The ten fingers are to be the instrument which draws down blessings from its celestial source.
     כי מנשה הבכור, “although Menashe was the first-born.” Yaakov ignored this biological phenomenon as the younger of Joseph’s sons displayed signs of spiritual superiority. The use of the word  כי in the sense of “although” is not unique. We find it being used in the same sense in Psalms 41,5  רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך, “heal me although I have sinned against You.” Another example of the use of the word כי in the sense of ”although” is found in our daily prayer: “forgive us our Father although we have sinned.” It would certainly not be logical to translate the words סלח לנו אבינו כי חטאנו, “forgive us our Father for we have sinned.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויברך את יוסף ויאמר, “He blessed Joseph, saying:” In commencing with Joseph’s blessing Yaakov blessed him only by conferring his blessing on Joseph’s sons.
      From what appears to be a simplistic point of view, i.e. a reading of the text without reading between the lines, the message of the Torah is that the true blessing a person can experience is that his sons (children) are being blessed. The vicarious aspect of the blessing is its most powerful aspect. (The Torah only had to write: “he blessed them,” instead of bothering to write ”He blessed Joseph and said; etc.”)
      A kabbalistic approach sees in this blessing an allusion to all ten emanations. The wordsאשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו  ה-אלו-הים embody the attributes חסד וגבורה, the outstanding qualities of Avraham and Yitzchak seeing that it is such an unusual way of phrasing the blessing. We would have expected Yaakov to say ה-אלו-הים אשר הלכו לפניו אברהם ויצחק. The fact that Yaakov added the words אבותי are a reference to the names of the attributes of G’d which had been revealed to Yaakov. A few words later he adds: ה-אלו-הים הרועה אותי; the word רועה is derived from ריע, companion. Yaakov referred to the attribute of G’d which had become manifest to him throughout the vicissitudes of his trouble-filled life. His שלום וריעות, “peace and serenity,” had been achieved only by means of that attribute of G’d. Psalms 80,2 alludes to this when the psalmist says: רועה ישראל האזינה, נוהג כצאן יוסף, “Give ear, O shepherd of Israel who leads Joseph like a flock!” He concludes his blessing with the words המלאך הגואל ...בקרב הארץ, “the angel who redeems me...may they proliferate like the fish within the land.”  The word בקרב, is analogous to כי שמי בקרבו, “for My name is present within him (Exodus 23,21).” Had Yaakov begun his prayer with the words המלאך הגואל, this would have sounded heretical, as if he had prayed to the angel. Seeing that he commenced his prayer with the words ה-אלו-הים, there cannot be a suspicion that he addressed the angel as the one who should fulfill his prayer.  A careful analysis of the wording used by Yaakov in verses 15-17 will demonstrate that this blessing is essentially the same as the one he extended to Joseph in verses 22-26. In the latter blessing Yaakov spoke of מידי אביר יעקב, “from the hands of the mighty One of Yaakov,” as being the source which רעה אבן ישראל, “shepherded the stone of Yisrael.” The words ידי are a reference to the two hands supporting the throne of Solomon, the attributes גדולה and גבורה respectively; these attributes were earlier referred to by the words אברהם ויצחק; the expression אביר יעקב which refers to תפארת ישראל, the attribute which combines the attributes of Avraham and Yitzchak respectively, is called אביר יעקב, in verse 24. Proof that the Torah speaks of a unique attribute of Yaakov is the fact that you do not find the expression אביר אברהם or אביר יצחק anywhere in the Torah. In our prayers we call upon this attribute when we say עננו אביר יעקב “answer us O mighty One of Yaakov” in the Selichot during the days preceding Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This attribute occurs only in connection with either יעקב or ישראל. In verse 24 it appears in both forms as אביר יעקב and as רועה אבן ישראל The overall meaning of verse 24 is that the source of Yaakov’s spiritual strength also known as תפארת ישראל is אבן ישראל, another name for כנסת ישראל, the “spiritual concept of the people of Israel.” 
  There is therefore no reason to be surprised that the Torah (Yaakov) describes the blessing of Joseph’s sons as the blessing of Joseph. Blessing the “fruit,” i.e. the product, is the most effective way of blessing the tree, the source.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . וגם הוא יגדל ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו, “he too will become great; however, his younger brother will become even greater than he.” Yaakov used both the adjectives “great” and “small” in connection with Joseph’s sons. We have encountered this description of relative “smallness” already in connection with the sun and the moon on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1,16) where both luminaries have first been described as “great;” subsequently the Torah distinguishes the relative greatness of one of he luminaries, the sun, by describing it as “great” when compared to the lesser luminary the moon. The “greatness” of Ephrayim which Yaakov referred to was that Joshua would be descended from that tribe. Joshua was so great that he could arrest the orbit of both sun and moon as we know from Joshua 10,12. In response to Joshua’s instruction for the sun and the moon to “stand still,” the Book of Joshua informs us in Joshua 10,13 that they did indeed interrupted their respective orbits until Joshua had taken his revenge of the Canaanites. In that verse the prophet reports that this miracle was recorded in a book called ספר הישר, and our sages in Avodah Zarah 25 have revealed to us that the ספר הישר is none other than the Book of Genesis, a Book describing the outstanding feats of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. They are the ones who are called ישרים, “the upright ones.” Joshua was a product of these people and the prophet testifies that G’d was with Joshua and that his fame spread throughout the globe (Joshua 6,27).
  
  Verse 20
  
   בך יברך ישראל, “By you shall Israel bless:” Yaakov told Joseph that when Israel would bless its children they would hold up Joseph’s children as the models they hoped their own children would emulate. When blessing Jewish boys the father would invoke the names of Ephrayim and Menashe as the models he wished G’d to use when blessing his own children. וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, “he placed Ephrayim ahead of Menashe.” The Torah means that in all the blessings Yaakov bestowed he always mentioned the name of Ephrayim before mentioning the name Menashe. He did so knowing full well that Ephrayim was the younger of the two as he had detected qualities in the character of Ephrayim which were superior to those of Menashe.
      It is also possible to interpret the words: “ahead of Menashe,” in a literal sense, i.e. Ephrayim stood in front of Menashe. In that event Yaakov would not have referred to Ephrayim’s superiority over Menashe. The words “in front of Menashe” would emphasize Menashe’s superiority, his being used as the term of reference. We find something similar in Genesis 44,14 where Yehudah is mentioned before Joseph and the Torah describes the brothers as prostrating themselves “before Him,” meaning Joseph, of course, seeing he was superior in stature to Yehudah though he was named last. If we accept this interpretation then the lesson in etiquette which Yaakov taught us on that occasion was that the older brother is to be treated respectfully because he is biologically senior. When a person places someone in front of a person of superior rank then this does not mean that the person so placed is superior but the very opposite is the case. This interpretation does not conflict with the fact that Yaakov foresaw a greater future for Ephrayim. On the contrary, precisely because in the future someone may attain a higher rank than his brother this is no excuse not to defer to his older brother when this future has not yet occurred.
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף, “Yisrael said to Joseph, etc.” After Yisrael had blessed the lads and appointed each one of them to become a founding father of one of the tribes, he turned his attention back to Joseph and promised him both matters pertaining to the exile as well as matters pertaining to the eventual redemption when G’d would bring the nation back to the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 22
  
   שכם אחד על אחיך, “one portion more than to your brothers.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yaakov told Joseph that he had already apportioned the one piece of land which was specifically his to apportion to Joseph. This was the portion which according to Jewish law is the extra portion belonging to the first-born. Seeing Yaakov personally had wrested the town of Shechem from the Emorite by fighting when attacked by the Emorite, he was personally entitled to it as spoils of war. This fact enabled him to apportion two parts to the sons of Joseph and to appoint princes from each without depriving any of Joseph’s brothers of their rightful share or even diminishing their shares. 
      The words מיד האמורי, “from the hands of the Emorite,” may be understood as if he had said מיד הכנעני, “from the Canaanite.” The reason Yaakov mentioned the Emorite was because of all the Cannanite tribes the Emorite was the most powerful and the most aggressive. 
  What did Yaakov mean when he described himself as having taken that city בחרבי ובקשתי, ”with my sword and with my bow?” Did he really mean that he personally had been involved in a battle for the town of Shechem? Yaakov meant that when the time would come for the Jewish people to inherit the land of Canaan this would be preceded by physical warfare. Our verse is an allusion to Joshua 11, 19-20 that “there was not a city that had made peace terms with the Israelites; all were taken in battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to stiffen their hearts to give battle to Israel, in order they might be proscribed without quarter and wiped out, as the Lord had commanded to Moses.” [The only exception were the Gibeonites who misrepresented themselves as not being Canaanites and tricked the Israelites into making a covenant with them]. Actually, you would have expected Yaakov to say: בחרב וקשת, “with sword and bow,” instead of “with my sword and my bow.” The reason Yaakov represented the sword and bow he spoke of as being his very own  was that he claimed that success of the Israelites in battle was due to his merit. Compare Psalms 44,4: “it was not by their sword that they took the land, their arm did not give them victory, but Your right hand, Your arm, and Your goodwill for You favoured them.” The psalmist attributes the success of the Israelites’ arms to the merit of the patriarchs. The word “Your goodwill” is a reference to  Yaakov. The words “Your right hand” are a reference to Avraham, and the words “Your arm” are a reference to Yitzchak. The facial features of Yaakov are engraved on G’d’s  throne.   Onkelos translates the word בחרבי as בצלותי, “with my prayer,” and the word בקשתי as ובבעותי “with my entreaty.” We could read the word bekashti as bakashati, “my request,” changing only the vowel pattern. From a defensive point of view, prayer and entreaty may be viewed as viable alternatives to sword and bow. It is also possible that the word בחרבי is a veiled reference to Torah, i.e. the merit of having studied Torah. The patriarchs had not only studied but also observed even minutiae of the Torah precepts. They had divined by means of their intellect what G’d would require of the Jewish people when He would give them the Torah in due course. Our sages also interpreted Yaakov’s words when he sent a message to his brother Esau as informing him that he had observed the 613 commandments of the Torah while employed by Lavan. The words he used (Genesis 32,5) to hint at this were עם לבן ג-ר-ת-י, the word גרתי having a numerical value and the same letters as 613. We find that the Torah is compared by our sages to a two-edged sword in the hands of those who study it and practice it in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,16 (compare Psalms 149 6). A two edged sword cuts with both edges. The Ten Commandments, i.e. the Tablets, are also described by the Torah as being two-edged, i.e. as having been engraved from either side (Exodus 32,15).
      Nachmanides writes as follows: It is very likely that Yaakov acted similarly to the prophets. He aimed his sword in the direction of the Emorites and sprayed arrows in that direction so that he land was conquered before him. Elisha did something like this as reported in Kings II 13,16-17. He said to the King of Israel: “grasp the bow!” When the King had grasped the bow, Elisha put his hands over the King’s hands and said to him: “open the window toward the east.” When the King had opened the window Elisha said: “shoot!” and he shot. Then Elisha said: “an arrow of victory for the Lord.” The report goes on suggesting that if only the King had  carried out all of Elisha’s instructions his symbolic actions alone would have secured victory over Aram for him.  Yaakov referred to his own symbolic actions with sword and bow which had resulted in the Emorites’ defeat.
      The words אשר לקחתי, “which I captured,” may be a reference to the birthright Yaakov secured for himself from Esau who was the original Emorite, i.e. who acted as did the Emorites. Alternatively, Esau was compared to the Emorites as he also hunted, using his mouth as his weapon in setting traps for his father. When  Yaakov said: “I have given it (Shechem) to you,” he meant that seeing he had come by it by his own merit he was entitled to give it to whomever he wanted.
      A Midrashic interpretation (compare Rashi) does not see in Yaakov’s assertion the right to apportion the birthright he had himself bought from Esau to Joseph, but sees in it a reference to the actual town of Shechem. Yaakov said to Joseph: ”since I put you to the trouble to bury me in the cave of Machpelah, I for my part have assigned the city of Shechem to be the place where you will be buried.” This accounts for Joshua 24,32 writing “and the remains of Joseph whom the children of Israel had taken up from Egypt they buried in Shechem.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקרא יעקב אל בניו, “Yaakov called in his sons.” According to a Midrash, Yaakov commenced his blessing from the point where Yitzchak had concluded blessing his son as it is written: “Yitzchak called Yaakov and blessed him” (Genesis 28,1). Moses in turn commenced his blessing (Deut. 33,1) from the point where Yaakov had left off. David in turn, at the commencement of the Book of Psalms, began with the words with which Moses had left off, i.e. אשרי האיש, “happy the man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked.” Moses  had concluded (Deut. 33,29) his blessings of the Jewish people with the words: “happy Israel, who can compare to you?” Referring to this David said in Psalms 119,100 “I have gained more understanding than my elders .”
     באחרית הימים, “in the End of Days.” The time Yaakov referred to is the messianic age. It was quite appropriate that he should tell his sons matters dealing with the redemption from Egypt rather than matters dealing with the redemption  in a distant future. How could he have preferred to concentrate on matters far distant instead of revealing some of what was relatively close at hand? 
  We surmise that perhaps he had already given his sons allusions of the redemption from Egypt when he told them in 48,21 “and the Lord will be with you and He will bring you back to the land of your fathers.” After all, had it not been for the incident with the spies the redemption at the time of the Exodus would have resulted in Israel immediately taking possession of the land of Canaan.  Seeing that he had alluded to the Exodus in the previous verse, it was quite normal that at this point Yaakov would want to reveal something about a final redemption. After all, both redemptions have this in common that the Jewish people would emerge from a very terrible exile. Besides, we have it on the authority of our prophets that the final redemption will parallel the redemption from Egypt in many respects. The principal difference will be that the final redemption will result in mankind acquiring a far greater knowledge of G’d and His attributes.  When you examine Yaakov’s introduction you will note that he was going to concentrate on two assemblies i.e. he said האספו והקבצו, “assemble yourselves,” and in the next verse “gather yourselves.” The first expression האספו referred to the exiled people of the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Yehudah respectively, just as mentioned in Isaiah 11,12 “and assemble the banished of Israel and gather the dispersed of Yehudah.” Isaiah 56,8 also speaks of G’d “gathering in the dispersed of Israel.” This indicates that there will be two redemptions after Isaiah’s time. It most likely refers to the redemption of the ten tribes in a separate redemption after the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin have been redeemed first. The only time all of the tribes were redeemed simultaneously was at the Exodus from Egypt. The next time this will happen would be the final redemption. This is why the prophet (Isaiah 11,11) says “in that day My Lord will again apply His hand to acquire the other part of His people  who have been left over.” Seeing that at the redemption from Babylon only 42.000 Israelites were redeemed the prophecy could not apply to that redemption. This is why the verse in Isaiah refers to a “second” redemption.
  
  Verse 2
  
   הקבצו ושמעו, “assemble and listen!” Yaakov refers to both of his names when addressing his children. He speaks of “Yaakov” when referring to his בנים, children, as at the time when his sons were still children he had not yet been given the name “Yisrael.” When he refers to himself as simply “your father,” he uses his name “Yisrael.” It is also possible to understand the words אביכם ישראל as a reference to “your Heavenly father O Israel.” In that event Yaakov introduces his blessings by exhorting his sons to remain loyal to G’d, who is known in Rabbinic terms as ישראל סבא, “grandfather (of) Israel.” This would account for the repetition of the names Yaakov and Yisrael respectively in these two verses.
      I have found some support for this theory in Bereshit Rabbah (Vilna edition under the heading שיטה חדשה לברכת יעקב),”on the first of Yaakov’s blessings.” The Midrash says that what occurred at this stage in Yaakov’s life may be compared to the following parable. A king had a trusted servant and was in the habit of leaving everything in that servant’s care. When the servant was about to die he called in his sons in order to make free men out of them, and to tell them where they could find the documents proving that they were free men. When the servant suddenly noted that the King was observing what he was about to do, he  did an about-turn by asking his sons to serve the King all their lives just as he himself had served him all his life.   Yaakov experienced something similar. First he wanted to reveal to his sons the end of their exile, when and how they would be redeemed. When he noted that G’d looked at the matter he was going to do with disfavour, he switched gears and exhorted his sons to remain loyal to G‘d throughout their lives just as he had been i.e. האלו-הים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, “the Lord before Whom my fathers have walked.” G’d had expressed concern that whereas Yaakov had called upon his sons, he had not called upon Him. This is what the prophet (Isaiah 43,22) referred to when he said: “upon Me you did not call O Yaakov!” When Yaakov heard this he prostrated himself at the head of the bed and whispered “blessed be the name of His exalted Majesty forever more.”
  
  Verse 3
  
    ראובן בכורי אתה, “Reuven you are my first-born.” As a first-born Reuven was entitled to three advantages over his younger brothers. He was entitled to all the privileges normally accruing to the first-born; he was entitled to be the family priest; and he was entitled to a position of authority including Royalty if and when his family would develop into a nation. He lost all three parts of what would have accrued to him by reason of his being the biological first-born due to his sin. He lost the ordinary privileges of being a first-born as Yaakov gave those privileges to Joseph. He lost the priesthood to Levi, and he lost his status as potential king of the Jewish people to Yehudah. This is the deeper meaning of Yaakov saying (verse 4) “water-like, impetuously-you cannot be foremost.” The expression פחז is used in that sense by our sages in Shabbat 88 where they quote a Gentile referring to the Israelites saying to G’d at Mount Sinai: “we shall do and we shall hear,“ ”you are still an impetuous nation referring with your mouth to matters your ears have not heard yet.”   Yaakov referred to the priesthood when he said יתר שאת, “foremost in rank.” Yaakov referred to the eventual status of Royalty when he said יתר עז, “foremost in power.” The expression עז denoting such power is found in Samuel I 2,10 ויתן עז למלכו as well as in Psalms 99,4 ועז מלך משפט אהב, “Mighty king who loves justice.”
  
  Verse 4
  
   כי עלית משכבי אביך, “because you mounted the couch of your father.” Yaakov revealed here that when the Torah wrote of Reuven that he “slept with Bilhah” (Genesis 38,22) that that verse is not to be taken literally, but that all he did was to disarrange the sheets on his father’s couch, compare Shabbat 55 where it is made clear that Yaakov criticised Reuven only for mounting the bed. This in itself was an act of desecration. According to the Talmud the words אז חללת...אביך must be understood as “then you desecrated your father (in heaven) whose Presence was associated with my bed.” Proof of the validity of this interpretation is the fact that Yaakov spoke of משכבי אביך, “your father’s beds (pl).” On the same folio of the Talmud our sages also said that this means that Reuven desecrated two couches, two sheets,  that of his father, and that of the Divine Presence. The authors of that interpretation were forced to say this as they were of the opinion that the Divine Presence, שכינה, was ever present in Yaakov’s vicinity. G’d was never out of Yaakov’s thoughts. We have an interesting nuance in Genesis 30,16 where the Torah speaks of Yaakov sleeping with Leah on a night which was not originally her turn [in return  for her giving Reuven’s dudaim to Rachel. Ed.]. The Torah does not write וישכב עמה בלילה ההוא, “he slept with her on that night,” but it writes: וישכב עמה בלילה הוא, “He (G’d) slept with her at night.” This is proof  that the Divine Presence was present even on Yaakov’s couch. Leah’s conceiving on that night may well have been helped by that Divine Presence. She may have been aware of this when she called the son born to her as a result יששכר. This episode also teaches that anyone who honours his father  also honours G’d vicariouly. Conversely, anyone who dishonours his father dishonours G’d at the same time. All of this corresponds to what our sages (Kidushin 30) taught that every human being is the result of input by three partners, i.e. his father, his mother, and G’d (who provides the soul). As a result, G’d accounts it as a meritorious deed when someone honours his father and mother, seeing that by honouring His partners such people honour G’d Himself. By doing this they treat G’d as if He were present in the company of his parents.
      Another Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 157) states that the words אז חללת יצועי עלה, reflect Yaakov saying to his son Reuven: “your sin will not be fully expiated until the presence on earth of the one of whom the Torah writes (Exodus 19,3) ומשה עלה אל האלו-הים, ‘and Moses ascended to G’d.’” When Moses came to Mount Eyval (Deut. 27,20) and appointed the tribe of Reuven as the first one (amongst the ones who would utter the curses) we find that the paragraph contains the words: “cursed anyone who sleeps with the wife of his father.” This is proof that by that time Reuven’s misdemeanor had finally been totally expiated.
      You should also know that the very name Reuven is an allusion to the attribute of Justice and how it operates in our terrestrial world. I have dealt with the subject of the mystical dimension of the names of the twelve sons of Yaakov in Genesis 29, 32-34.
  
  Verse 5
  
   שמעון ולוי אחים, “Shimon and Levi are brothers, etc.”  Who did not know that these two were brothers? According to the plain meaning of the verse Yaakov wanted to state that when these two brothers attacked the people of Shechem they were both of one mind that only violence was the solution to the problem of releasing Dinah which confronted them. When Yaakov uses the termמכרותיהם , the meaning is similar to סעודותיהם, that which is “their meal,” i.e. what provides them with סעד, support, sustenance. The word מכרה is related to כרה, i.e. a meal (compare Kings II 6,23). What Yaakov meant was that these brothers use the tools of violence to live and sustain themselves. Yaakov implied that when the brothers Shimon and Levi killed the male inhabitants of Shechem they killed people who personally had not done any harm to them, but on the contrary, had made a covenant with them. Yaakov therefore felt the need to apologise and to make clear that he had not been a party to their scheme. This is why he stressed בסודם אל תבא נפשי, ”may my soul not enter their conspiracy.”
      A Midrashic approach to this verse (Bereshit Rabbah 99,7) “Shimon and Levi are brothers when it comes to taking revenge for the rape of Dinah, but when it came to their behaviour vis-a-vis Joseph they certainly did not act as brothers.” By using the word מכרותיהם, Yaakov alluded to the sale of Joseph i.e. מכירה.  We should remember that the four brothers Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehudah were the senior brothers. Seeing that the Torah reported that both Reuven and Yehudah considered the sale of Joseph as inappropriate (compare 37,22 and 37,26), this leaves Shimon and Levi as the ones who must have suggested that Joseph be sold. This explains why when the brothers went to Egypt, Joseph detained only Shimon.
       כלי חמס מכרותיהם, “instruments of violence are their stock-in-trade.”  According to Bereshit Rabbah 99,7 the arms in their hands are used to perpetrate acts of violence and have been stolen from Esau. The Midrash bases himself on Ovadiah 10, “for the outrage to your brother Jacob, disgrace shall engulf you.” [— The abuse of Yitzchak’s blessing to Esau “you will survive by your sword.” Yaakov had not attacked Esau. Ed.]  
      A kabbalistic approach: please refer to 29,32 where I have explained the mystical dimension of these words.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
    אחלקם ביעקב¸ ”I will disperse them within Yaakov,” so that they will not be able to conspire together. Yaakov added ואפיצם בישראל, ”and I will scatter them in Israel.” He wanted to make it difficult for the members of these tribes to all assemble in one place simultaneously. History proves that Yaakov’s intention was carried out. The territory of the tribe of Shimon was an enclave within the territory allocated to Yehudah (compare Joshua 19,1), and the Levites were assigned 48 separate towns throughout the territories of the various tribes. The dispersal of the Levites was to prove especially beneficial as it helped fulfill Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,10 that the Levites were to disseminate Torah knowledge throughout the land of Israel. 
  You will note that Yaakov did not dispense a blessing to either Reuven, Shimon, or Levi, but instead accused them of faults. He accused Reuven of the indiscretion involving the tent of Bilhah, and he accused Shimon and Levi of their high-handed handling of the males of Shechem. He did see fit to dispense a blessing to all the other sons however.
  
  Verse 8
  
   יודוך אחיך, “your brothers will acknowledge you.” According to the plain meaning of the text this is a reference to the Israelites eventually acclaiming David, a descendant of Yehudah as their king.   ישתחוו לך בני אביך, “the sons of your father will prostrate themselves before you.” He did not say: “the sons of your mother.” There was no need for him to say that Leah’s sons would acknowledge Yehudah as their leader. The point Yaakov made was that even the sons of his other wives would also acknowledge him as their leader. Yaakov referred to Yehudah (verse 9)  as גור אריה instead of as אריה, a fully grown lion. He added the word גור seeing Yehudah had still been a child (less than 20 years old when the brothers first deferred to him). He called him אריה on account of his physical power which [paralleled that of the lion, the king of the beasts. He is also called גבור,  to reflect Proverbs 30,30  “the lion is the mightiest of the beasts  and recoils before none.” Yehudah is described in similar terms in Chronicles I 5,2.
  
  Verse 9
  
   מטרף בני עלית , “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself.” Yaakov referred to his suspicion that it had been Yehudah who had “torn Joseph like a wild beast” (37,33). Yaakov refers to Yehudah’s having had second thoughts when he had said: “what advantage is there in killing our brother?”
      He mentioned that “the scepter shall not depart from Yehudah until the arrival of Shiloh.” This was an allusion to the redemption from the exile in Egypt which was relatively close at hand (in terms of Jewish history). Yaakov did not feel that he could fail to allude to this redemption in view of the fact that this particular exile was about to commence as soon as he had died. How could he fail at least to allude to the first redeemer of Israel, the one who would be from the tribe of Levi, while he did allude to the eventual redeemer? He therefore alluded to the first and last redeemer by the same word, the numerical value of the word שילה  being the same as the numerical value of the name משה, i.e. 345. The immediate meaning of the verse is that up until the arrival of the first redeemer, i.e. Moses, the leadership of the Jewish people will be in the hands of Yehudah. At that time the leadership of the Jewish people would revert to the tribe of Levi. Moses’ position of “king” is stressed in Deut. 33,5 ויהי בישורון מלך, “he became King in Yeshurun.” Concerning the appointment of Moses as de facto king of Israel Yaakov said here כי לו יקהת עמים, “for to him an assembly of people will congregate.” Deut. 33,5 phrases this as בהתאסף ראשי עם, “when the heads of the people would assemble around him.” The fact that the people of Israel are referred to as עמים, “nations (pl), is not unique but occurs also in Deut. 33,3. In other words, the paragraph containing the blessing of Yehudah contains also references to the first redemption the Jewish people would experience.
      In commenting on the plain meaning of the text of this verse, Nachmanides writes as follows: “the words ‘the scepter will not depart from Yehudah’ mean that Yaakov granted Yehudah the status of Royalty and blessed him by saying that he would not be deprived of that status by any of the other tribes. He assured him that as long as the Israel would be a kingdom, its king would be from the tribe of Yehudah The meaning of the blessing, however, was not that Israel would always be a kingdom and would always be ruled over by a king. After all we have an explicit verse in Deut. 28,36 that under certain conditions “G’d will lead you as well as your king whom you will set up over yourself to a nation you never knew, etc.” Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that nowadays we do not have a king nor princes.” It follows that Yaakov’s promise applied only to the periods in history when the whole Jewish people would be ruled over by a single king. If, temporarily, the Jewish people would be deprived of the conditions which call for it to be ruled by a king, in due course when the proper conditions return, the kingship would again be accorded to a member of the tribe of Yehudah.”    This is why David said (Chronicles I 28,4) “The Lord G’d of Israel chose me of all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever. For he chose Yehudah to be ruler, and of the family of Yehudah, my father’s house; and of my father’s sons He preferred to make me king over all Israel;” We also have a verse in Chronicles II 13,5: “surely you know that  the Lord G’d of Israel gave David kingship over Israel forever- to him and his sons- by a covenant of salt.”    Seeing that by rights the kingship of Israel was granted only to descendants of the tribe of Yehudah, any kings from another tribe who occupied that throne were punished and could not perpetuate their dynasties. Even King Saul, the first king over Israel,  was killed in battle and his sons died a violent death. The Hasmoneans (from the tribe of Levi) who claimed the throne of the Jewish people were all punished and died violent deaths as they had disregarded this cardinal rule established by Yaakov. The Hasmoneans wound up by becoming slaves to slaves (to the extent that any of them survived at all). He who took the crown by force was punished by having it taken away from him by force. Our sages in Baba Batra 3 go so far as to say that anyone claiming to be a descendant of the Hasmonean Kings is an impostor and is in fact a slave (who has falsified his genealogy). This is what Hoseah 8,4 had in mind when he said: “they appointed kings without My permission, and they made officers but not of My choice.” Apart from the fact that slaves or their descendants must not become Kings over Jews, the tribe of Levi and in particular the priests were prohibited from ascending the temporal throne. We have an explicit verse in Numbers 18,7 telling the Levites and the Priests to dedicate themselves exclusively to their tasks in tending to the altar and what is beyond the curtain. Seeing that the Hasmoneans who appointed themselves kings neglected to observe this commandment they became liable to such terrible punishment.
      The Jerusalem Talmud Horiot 3,2 specifically rules that priests must not be anointed as kings. Rabbi Yehudah there explains the linkage between Deut 17,20 “so that he and his descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel,” with the following verse (18,1) “the levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no territorial portion with Israel,” as clear evidence that the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people and its temporal leadership, i.e. the kingship, are to be separate.
      Ibn Ezra explains the words “the scepter shall not depart from Yehudah” as an indication that the kingship of Yehudah would not commence until David was crowned king. Accordingly, the word לא יסור must be translated: “he will not attain;” in other words: none of the descendants of Yehudah will attain a position of which it can be said that a “lawgiver has emerged from between his feet until Shiloh.” The word יסור does appear in that sense in  Exodus 3,3 אסורה נא ואראה, as well as in Ruth 4,1 סורה שבה פה. In both instances the word expresses a desire to attain either information or it is an instruction to do something.  עד כי יבא שילה, “until the coming of Shiloh.” According to the plain meaning of the text “until the destruction of Shiloh;” [the word יבא in the sense of “the sun is setting, i.e. its light is failing. Ed.] We also have a specific verse indicating that the reign of the house of David did not commence until after the destruction of Shiloh. In Psalms 78,67-70. Asaph says: ‘“He rejected the clan of Joseph; He did not choose the tribe of Ephrayim. He did choose the tribe of Yehudah, Mount Zion, which He loved. He built His Sanctuary like the heavens, like the earth that He established forever. He chose David, His servant, and took him from the sheepfolds.” Historically speaking, after the destruction of Shiloh (in which Eli presided as High Priest) the prophet Samuel anointed David as King (while Saul was still on the throne).
      It is also possible to explain this entire paragraph in which Yaakov blesses Yehudah without reading anything between the lines. Yaakov alluded to two redeemers, both in the distant future. The first one is David, son of Yishai. The second one is David reincarnated as the Messiah. 
  I believe the very fact that the Torah devotes three separate verses to Yehudah’s blessing before mentioning the excellence of the territory Yehudah would inherit in the land of Israel (verses 11-12) supports this line of interpretation. In each of the three verses 8-10 Yehudah is mentioned by name; (something most unusual, something that does not occur in connection with any of the other sons).    The reason that the name of Yehudah appears on three separate occasions in his blessing is that the blessing refers to three distinct periods of Jewish history. The Torah refers to Yehudah, son of Yaakov. Then it refers to King David. Finally, it refers to King Messiah. The first verse in which Yaakov says that his brothers will acknowledge Yehudah refers to his biological son Yehudah. In that verse Yaakov blesses his son by granting him גבורה, both spiritual and physical strength, the ability to lead his brothers in warfare as well as the authority needed to be a leader. To make certain we understand this, Yaakov addressed Yehudah by saying to him: אתה, “you.”. The second verse, where Yaakov speaks of Yehudah as גור אריה, a lion cub, he refers to King David. The reason he calls him “Yehudah” in that verse is because David is descended from Yehudah. He refers to him as גור, “a cub,’ i.e. not fully matured, as at the time when Samuel anointed David, Saul was still the effective King over Israel. David qualified for the description אריה, “lion” only after Saul had died. The words מטרף בני עלית “you arose from the prey my son,” is a reference to David having been saved from Saul’s persecution of him The words כרע רבץ כאריה, “he crouched and lay down like a lion,” refer to the time of Solomon, David’s son, when each and every Israelite is described as securely resting “under his grapevine and under his fig tree” (Kings I 5,5). Finally, the third verse, in which Yaakov says לא יסור שבט מיהודה, “the scepter will not depart from Yehudah,” is a reference to Israel’s final redeemer the King Messiah. This is why Yaakov said עד כי יבא שילה, “until ‘Shiloh’ arrives, i.e. a “son” of David [descendent, reincarnate]. The reason Yaakov described the final redeemer as “Shiloh” instead of as a son (descendant) of Yehudah is that he wanted to make sure we understand that this final redeemer would be a human being in the full sense of the word, i.e. born משלית אשה, “by woman including her afterbirth.” [Clearly the author wants to dispel the Christian concept of the Messiah being the “son of God.” Ed.]  The letter ה at the end of the word שילה is a reference to the last letter in G’d’s Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה, a certain attribute of G’d. We have discussed this on numerous occasions. This “letter” is also known in kabbalistic jargon as בתו של אברהם, “the ‘daughter’ of Avraham,” the one married to King Solomon, the one who represents the foremost attribute of the Messiah. Concerning this attribute the prophet uses five separate expressions in Isaiah 11,2-3: “The spirit of the Lord shall alight upon him: a spirit of wisdom and insight; a spirit of counsel and valour; a spirit of devotion and reverence for the Lord. He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord.” In his time “the land shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord as waters covers the sea” (verse 9).  The meaning of our verse then is: “once Shiloh=the Messiah has arrived, the kingship will never again depart from this descendent of Yehudah.”
       According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, the word שילה is a composition of the words שי לו, “at that time people will bring gifts to him” (the Messiah). According to Onkelos the meaning of the word שילה is שהמלכות שלו, “the kingdom belongs to him.” In this connection my own teacher Rabbi Shlomoh Adret explained that the word עד in this instance means the same as לעד, “forever.” This is to teach that the word עד does not belong to the expression כי יבא שילה. This explains why Onkelos translated it as “forever.” Onkelos translated the word כי יבא שילה as דייתא משיחא, “when the redeemer arrives.” Anyone who translates the sequence as “until the Messiah arrives” is in error. The whole message is that once the Messiah arrives the kingship will not depart anymore from Yehudah forever.   We find confirmation of this theme in Daniel 2,44: “In the days of these kingdoms the G’d of heaven will establish a kingdom that will never be harmed nor will its sovereignty be left to another people; it will crumble and consume all these kingdoms and it will stand forever.”    Seeing that the Christians have used this very verse to prove their theory that the Messiah (in the form of Jesus) has already arrived  by interpreting our verse that the rule of Yehudah would last only until the advent of the Messiah, my teacher responded to them that, on the contrary, Yaakov stated and Daniel predicted that  the kingship of Yehudah once it commences will endure forever Seeing this is not the case in our time, this is proof that the Messiah has not come until now.
      You should realise that when Yaakov said עד כי יבא שילה, the first redeemer as well as the last redeemer are both included.  [By the “last” redeemer, the author refers to the period of the resurrection. Ed.] Both will be descendants of Yehudah and both will tend the flock of G’d  in the Holy land. This is what the Talmud (Sanhedrin 91) had in mind when it discusses the fact that in Exodus 15,1 the Torah reports Moses and the Jewish people as אז ישיר instead of as אז שר “then he will sing,” instead of as “then he sang.” This wording is considered as proof that the resurrection is a Biblical Promise. 
  Devarim Rabbah  at the end of the third section uses Exodus 34,1 where G’d tells Moses to carve the second sets of tablets himself, the ones which G’d in turn will inscribe with the Ten Commandments. G’d said to Moses: “by your life, seeing you went to such lengths to secure a second set of tablets for the Jewish people in this life, when the time comes and I will send the prophet Elijah in advance of the Messiah, you too will reappear on earth.” What proof do we have that the opinion cited by the Midrash is correct?  We read in Nachum 1,3: “He (G’d) travels in בסופה, whirlwind, and storm.” This is a reference to Moses  of whom it is said ותשם אותו בסוף, “she (his mother) placed him in theסוף . Of Elijah we are told that ויעל אליהו בסערה השמים, “Elijah ascended to heaven in a storm” (Kings II 2,11).  We have other allusions and predictions concerning the same matter such as Micah 7,15 who predicts that G’d will perform miracles in those days which parallel or excel those He performed during the time of the Exodus. The prophet quotes G’d as saying to him אראנו נפלאות, “I will show him miracles.” We would have expected G’d to say: “I will show you miracles.” This can only mean that G’d will display miracles to him who has once before experienced such miracles.    This is the reason that as soon as Yaakov had concluded with his blessing for Yehudah, he added אסרי לגפן עירה ולשרקה בני אתונו, “he will tie his donkey to the vine and his donkey’s foal to the vine branch.” The similes refer to the excellence of the land of Israel, its produce and its fruit.
      A Midrashic approach based on (Bereshit Rabbah 99,8) The words יודוך אחיך, “your brothers will acknowledge you,” are designed to put Yehudah’s mind at rest. When Yehudah had heard his father chastise all three of his older brothers he had become afraid that his father would level criticism at him also.for his having slept with Tamar. Instead, his father used the word יודוך as a reminder of Yehudah owning up to his making his daughter-in-law Tamar pregnant. This confession of his would cause his brothers to acknowledge him as their leader. He would be their king both in the terrestrial world and in the world to come. In this terrestrial world 30 kings descended from Yehudah ascended the throne. We know this from Ruth 4,18 “these are the descendants of Peretz, etc.” When you count the number of Kings starting with David through Yehoyachin you will find a total of 20 kings. The Temple was destroyed during the reign of Tzidkiyahu. David was the tenth generation from Peretz son of Yehudah. David will also be pre-eminent in the world to come as we know from Ezekiel 37,25 “and My servant David will be their prince forever.”
     מטרף בני עלית. These words are understood by the Midrash as referring to four people whom Yehudah saved personally, i.e. Joseph, Tamar, Peretz and Zerach. G’d saved four more people, all of them descendants of Yehudah, i.e. Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah. The Midrash tells us that G’d saved Daniel from the pit of lions as a reward for Yehudah  having saved Joseph from the pit. He saved the three righteous men Chanayah, Mishael and Azaryah from a fiery death at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace (Daniel 3,25) because Yehudah their ancestor had saved Tamar and the twins Peretz and Zerach inside her womb from death by burning. The Midrash refers to further repercussions in the distant future due to Yehudah’s conduct, citing the fact that the first Temple was built by Solomon a descendant of Yehudah whereas the second Temple was built by Zerubabel, also a descendant of Yehudah. (compare Chagai 2,23), Zecharyah 4,9 and Zecharyah 4,7) The third Temple which we hope will be built soon will be erected by the King Messiah, also of David’s i.e. Yehudah’s descent. We base this on Isaiah 11,10.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, sees in the name Yehudah the beginning of an expanded awareness of a mystical connection between this world of matter and the celestial world of the spirit. The word יוודך אחיך suggests that he will be the one who transmits greater awareness of these connections to the other brothers. If Yehudah mastered the attribute of גבורה it was due to his ability to acknowledge his own mistakes. The letters in his very name are indicative of this. We find something similar in Genesis 29, 34-35 where Leah acknowledged with thanks that she had given birth to more children for Yaakov than she was entitled to on the basis of each of Yaakov’s wives bearing him three sons. Leah expressed her feelings in naming her fourth son יהודה. [The ethical lesson to be learned from all this is that gratitude, i.e. acknowledging that G’d does more for us than we are entitled to, leads to a deeper understanding of the mystical bonds that hold the terrestrial world and the celestial world together. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   אוסרי לגפן עירה, “he will tie his donkey to a grapevine.” Yaakov predicted that the territory of Yehudah would produce wine in abundance, that wine would flow there just like a fountain. The meter of the verse is: “a man from Yehudah would tie his donkey to one vine and would completely load it with the grapes from that single vine. Similarly, a she-ass would be loaded fully with the produce from a single choice vine. When Yaakov continued with: “he laundered his garments in wine,” he also alluded to the abundance of wine in his land. 
  According to Onkelos our verse speaks of Jerusalem and Israel respectively. The words אוסרי לגפן refer to the people of Israel, the word עירה to Jerusalem. The word שורקה again refers to Israel as we find Jeremiah saying in Jeremiah 2,21: “I have planted it (Israel) as a choice vine.” The words:בני אתונו   are rendered by Onkelos as עמא יבנון היכלה, “the people who will build the Sanctuary.” Clearly, Onkelos understands the word בני as related to בנין, “building.” He understands the word אתון as based on Zecharyah 9,9: “riding on a male donkey the son of a she-ass.” The prophet thus describes the arrival of the Messiah.
  
  Verse 12
  
   חכלילי עינים מיין, “Red-eyed from wine,”  This too is a hyperbole relating to the abundance of wine to be found in the tribal territory of Yehudah. Yaakov said that every person in the territory of Yehudah would have red-looking eyes due to the abundance of wine. The word חכלילי is really spelled backwards. Its meaning is as if it had been spelled כחלילי. The idea is that the people would actually have blue eyes, i.e. כחול, [women always used a blue tint to enhance the appearance of their eyes. According to the Talmud they used פוך, antimony, as eye-shadow to achieve this effect. Ed.] Just as women throughout the rest of the country colour their eyes blue so the eyes of the women of Yehudah  would be coloured red from the abundance of wine. White teeth would be white by contrast due to the abundance of milk in the valley and the abundance of milk yielding flocks of sheep.
      According to Bereshit Rabbah 99,8 the word חכלילי  is a composition of the three words חיך לי לי, i.e. when the palate, חיך, has tasted the wine of the land of Yehudah its owners will request refills of this beverage by saying לי, לי “more for me, more for me.” Onkelos believes that the mountains on the land of Yehudah are reddish looking due to the vineyards which cover them. This is why he described them was עינים, “eyes,” organs which are on top of the body. Mountains on earth are similar to the eyes in the body. He describes the valleys as white-looking due to the abundance of sheep and the milk they yield. The word שינים when used by the Targum here is related to שיני סלעים, the “teeth of rocks.”   If you will examine this paragraph carefully you will find that it contains all the letters of the alphabet except the letter ז. The message is that the Kingdom of Israel as represented by Yehudah does not base its military victories on its arms, כלי זיין,  as do the other nations whose inheritance is the power of the sword.   The Jewish people did not conquer the land of Canaan because of superior arms or superior military skills of its soldiers. Its entire success or failure is due to the system of reward and punishment by which G’d operates in this world and specifically in the land of Israel. This is all symbolised by the fact that Yehudah’s name contains all the four letters of the Ineffable Name. When the Israelites act in accordance with G’d’s laws they will always be able to perform deeds of valour (compare Numbers 24,18). Their Kingdom will progressively become stronger and more secure and its inhabitants will not need to resort to force of arms at all. All of this is hinted at in the absence of the latter ז during the lengthy blessing given to Yehudah.  There is also a moral message in the addition of the letter ד to the letters of the Ineffable Name in the name יהודה. The letter ד, meaning “four,” is reminiscent of the fourth day of creation, the day the sun was placed in orbit. Yehudah was also the fourth of Yaakov’s sons symbolising the fact that the fourth son was to shine forth just like the sun which was placed in orbit on the fourth day. The fact that the Kingdom of Yehudah is compared to the sun is already reflected in the words of the psalmist (Psalm 89,37) “his throne is as the sun before Me.” Alternatively, seeing that that the specific attribute of Yehudah has been described by Moses as זאת (Deut. 33,6), he has been crowned with the letter ז, already, so that there was no need for Yaakov to include this letter in Yehudah’s blessing here. Yaakov had already alluded to this when he said to Yehudah: “your hand will be on  your enemies’ nape” (49,8). This was an allusion to the bow which is described as Yehudah’s weapon [The word קשת in this connection refers to the original קשת, the rainbow, which was the sign of G’d’s covenant with man (Genesis 9,12)]. This is the mystical significance of Samuel II 1,18 (where David eulogises King Saul) “He ordered  the members of the people of Yehudah to be taught (the song of) the bow. It is recorded in the Book of Yashar.” We needed the verse in Deut. 33,6 to explain the meaning of the verse in Samuel. When Moses continued in Deut, 33,6 ידיו רב לו “his hands fight for him,” this helps round out the meaning of Yehudah’s blessings.
      We may also find an additional reason why the letter ז is the only letter of the alphabet missing in Yehudah’s blessing here. The reason is that Yehudah was the seventh of the “patriarchs” counting from Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah.” Accordingly, Yehudah corresponds to the number “seven,” i.e. the seventh day, the Sabbath. This is also why the word יודוך, “they will acknowledge you” appears in connection with Yehudah seeing that the psalmist also uses that word in connection with the Sabbath when he says (Psalm 92,2) טוב להודות לה', “it is appropriate to acknowledge the Lord on the Sabbath).” The words מטרף בני עלית also assume a new significance in that context, meaning that on the Sabbath it is appropriate to desist from the struggle to gain a livelihood, something comparable to the animal devouring its prey. Yaakov’s words parallel those of the Torah that on the Sabbath one must refrain from any manner of work, even the kind of work which helps one to stay alive in this world. When Yaakov continued: “when he crouched and lies down  like a lion, or even like a lion cub, who dares to rouse him,” this also parallels what the Torah commands the Jewish people to do on the Sabbath, i.e.  שבו איש תחתיו, “let every man remain in his place” (Exodus 16,29). The words ומחוקק מבין רגליו, are an allusion to the commandment to circumcise Jewish males on the eight’s day after birth. The performance of this commandment on time (unless there is danger to the baby’s life) overrides even the prohibition to perform work on the Sabbath. [the male organ which is situated בין רגליו, between the baby’s legs, is exempt from the commandment not to perform any work on the Sabbath. Ed.] Yaakov continued with אוסרי לגפן עירה ולשורקה בני אתונו, to alert us to the fact that the work prohibition on the Sabbath also includes one’s beasts as we know from Exodus 23,12: “in order that your that your ox and your donkey rest, etc.” The words כבס ביין לבושו, are an allusion to the requirement to sanctify the Sabbath by reciting a benediction over a cup of wine. When Yaakov added the word חכלילי עינים מיין, this may be a reference to the statements of our sages Berachot 43 that he who makes big steps (on the Sabbath) impairs his eyesight by doing so to the extent of 0.2%. By drinking a cup of wine on Friday night one can counteract the damage one has inflicted on his eyesight by taking big steps.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   זבולון לחוף ימים ישכון, “Zevulun will reside along the coast of the seas, etc.” The order in which the names of the tribes are listed here corresponds to  the order of their births The first six sons being blessed are the sons of Leah; they are followed by the list of the four sons born to the servant-maids, i.e. Dan, Gad, Asher and Naftali. They are followed by the sons of Rachel, Joseph and Binyamin. Actually, according to this principle, Issachar should have received his blessing before Zevulun, seeing that he was senior to him. However, Yaakov blessed Zevulun first as he foresaw that Issachar’s Torah study was due to Zevulun who provided for him so that Issachar did not have to worry about making a living. When we look at the order in which Moses blessed the tribes prior to his own death, we find that he too blessed Zevulun ahead of Issachar (Deut. 33 18). 
   The meaning of the words לחוף ימים ישכון is that seeing that his territory will be alongside the sea he will be near the sea constantly and will engage in maritime pursuits. His commercial activities will provide for his brother Issachar also, enabling him to pursue his Torah studies without financial worry. Zevulun’s share in the merit of Issachar’s Torah will be so great that we apply to it the verse in Kohelet 7,12: “to be in the צל of wisdom is to be also in the צל of money.” Normally, we would translate the word צל as “shadow.” In this instance we have to consider the word as derived from אצילות, “nobility,” something transcendent,” an emanation. The meaning would be that the emanation “wisdom” can be maintained by means of the nobility of the money. Using money to enable Torah to be studied ennobles the money itself, makes into something of transcendental significance, something of enduring value.
      It is important to understand that the very name Zevulun alludes to what is called the קו האמצאי, the “middle line,” i.e. the line that forms the connection between the terrestrial and celestial world. This is why he is described as residing (being at home) לחוף הימים, at the beach of the seas. The wordימים  appears in Genesis 1,10 ולמקוה המים קרא ימים, “and the accumulation of water he called seas, or oceans.” The word חוף is connected to חופה, the wedding canopy. Zevulun is viewed as the groom who emerges from his wedding canopy when he engages in commerce to supply his brother Issachar with the necessary funds to study Torah. No wonder then that he enjoys precedence over his older brother.
  
  Verse 14
  
   יששכר חמור גרם, “Issachar is a strong-boned donkey.” According to the plain meaning of the text he is like a donkey whose proportion of bones far overshadows the amount of its flesh. People who engage in constant study of Torah will not be found to amass much flesh. The people of the tribe of Issachar are burdened down by the weight of their Torah study as the donkey is burdened down with physical loads. רובץ בין המשפטים, “he lies down between the sheepfolds.” Donkeys work both by day and by night and even when they lie down briefly, they lie down between the boundaries of the towns instead of in their own stables at the home of their owners.
  
  Verse 15
  
   וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “He saw that tranquility was good;” Issachar realised that warfare and military activity was far inferior to Torah study, a quiet way of life. Torah study can flourish only when the body is physically as inactive as possible as the mental strain of studying drains the body of its strength. Torah study engages the opposite energies of the pursuit of vocations involving activity of one’s physique. The latter engage the body fully while leaving one’s mental faculties relatively uninvolved. The former makes great demands on one’s mental faculties while leaving the body relatively at rest. It is quite impossible for true Torah study to be successfully carried on by someone whose body has been worn out by physical labour or even by mental anguish and the like. This is one of the reasons that our sages included the request השיבה שופטנו כבראשונה ויועצינו כבתחילה, “restore to us our judges as in former times and our advisors as originally,” in our daily prayers. They added the words והסר ממנו יגון ואנחה, “and remove from us sorrow and anxiety,” as these factors are so inhibiting to anyone who wants to dedicate himself to Torah study. The purpose of this prayer is not that G’d should give us advisors to show us how to escape the burden of taxation, etc. This was not what the prophet Isaiah 1,26 had in mind when he promised that: “I will restore to you your judges as of old and your erstwhile advisors.” The prophet first and foremost had in mind the kind of advisors who had been able to calculate the occurrence of the new moon and other astronomical dates with precision. The judges who were able to do this were the ones who sat in the offices adjoining the Holy Temple. Once these types of judges will be restored to us the entire people would be able to upgrade the level of their Torah study. At that time the prophet’s promise that “the whole earth would possess a  knowledge of G’d as the waters which cover the seas” (Isaiah 11,9) would be fulfilled. This is why the sages followed the request to restore these judges to us with the request to remove sorrow and sighing. They hinted that it would be impossible to pursue intensive Torah studies until the requisite conditions had been met with the help of G’d. These conditions include absence of sorrow and physical rest for the body. This benediction was suitably arranged by our sages as the next step following our return to the Holy Land i.e. תקע בשופר גדול לחרותנו, “sound the great horn heralding our freedom!”
     כי טוב, “that it was good.” The word “good” in this connection is similar to  כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, “for I have given you a good instruction.”  ואת הארץ, “and the earth.” This word is related to ומארצו יצאו in Ezekiel 36,20 meaning (according to Targum) “and it will emerge from religious discourse, from Torah study.” The words כי נעמה are a reminder of the verse דרכיה דרכי נועם, that “the ways of Torah are the paths of pleasantness” (Proverbs 3,17).  ויט שכמו לסבול, “yet he bent his shoulder to bear.” The burden he bears is that of Torah study. We have another example of this kind of wording in Samuel II 22,10 ויט שמים וירד, “He bent the sky and came down.” Subjecting spiritually gigantic concepts to one’s understanding results in one’s back being bent. An additional meaning included in this may be that “by humbling oneself, i.e. bending down, Torah knowledge may be acquired.” Our sages stated that it behooves a Torah scholar to walk with a stoop.  ויהי למס עובד, “he became an indentured labourer.” He was subservient to all of Israel, dispensing religious rulings, pointing out errors in Torah-observance made by the people. This is expressed more clearly in Chronicles I 12,33 where the tribe of Issachar (respectively its representatives at the crowning of King David) is described as “of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times, to determine how Israel should act; their heads consisted of 200 men and all their kinsmen acted according to their instructions.”
       Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 on our verse writes: “the words ‘Issachar is a sturdy donkey,’ allude to when Yaakov returned from the field in the evening, and Leah heard the sound of his donkey which was lowing, she immediately went out towards him telling him that she had made a deal according to which he would spend this night in her tent  The Torah reports that as a result of that night with Leah, Issachar was conceived. In other words, the donkey גרם,  was the indirect cause, of her bearing Issachar.
      A kabbalistic approach to the same verse: Kabbalists concentrate on the word רובץ in that verse comparing it to Deut. 22,6 והאם רובצת “while the mother (bird) is sitting (on her eggs)”. This is another allusion to the emanation בינה, associated with Issachar. We just quoted a verse from Chronicles in which Issachar is represented as the most insightful tribe (the one possessing בינה). This would account for the fact that Yaakov associated מנוחה with Issachar as without this quality no deep insights are possible. 
  
  Verse 16
  
   דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.” This is a reference to Samson the judge who was a member of the tribe of Dan. The reason Yaakov said ידין “he will judge,” is because Samson was only a judge and not a king.  כאחד שבטי ישראל, “uniting the tribes of Israel.” The word כאחד is to be understood as כמיוחד, “like the unique one amongst the tribes,” like Yehudah of whom it is said that his hands were at the nape of his enemies. The judge Samson from the tribe of Dan would display similar strength when vanquishing his enemies.
      Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 understands the word כאחד as describing the judge from the tribe of Dan as having something in common with the “unique One,” i.e. with G’d. Just as G’d has no need of anyone, so Samson would be a one-man army not relying on anyone else to help him. Of G’d it is said (Isaiah 63,3) “I trod out a vintage alone; of the peoples no one was with Me. I trod them down in My anger, trampled them in My range.” Samson’s dealings with the Philistines who had aroused his justified anger could be described in similar terms. (Compare Judges 15,16: “with the jawbone of an ass I killed one thousand men.”)
  
  Verse 17
  
   יהי דן, “Dan will be, etc.” There are several reasons why Yaakov in his blessing compares Dan to a serpent, a snake. The first one is that Samson, unlike others before or after him, did not command armies in his battles against the enemy of his people. He acted totally alone, just like a snake which attacks from an ambush, coming out of its lair. Secondly, just like a snake receives some mysterious whisper which causes it to act aggressively, so Samson would respond to the whisperings of Delilah. This is the deeper meaning of Judges 16, 16-17: “Finally, after she had nagged him and pressed him constantly, he was wearied to death and he confided everything to her. He said to her: ‘no razor has ever touched my head; for I have been a Nazirite to G’d since I was in my mother’s womb. If my hair were cut, my strength would leave me and I should become as an ordinary man.’” Furthermore, just as a snake is also known as שרף due to its venom which burns, so Samson burned down the fields of the Philistines when the corn in them was close to being harvested. (Compare Judges 15,5). Also, just as the snake attacks man in his heel, at is lowest point, seeing the first serpent had been condemned to crawl on its belly, and G’d had told it that the way it would attack man would be by biting man’s heel (Genesis 3,14), so Samson  is described as נוקב עקבי סוס “attacking the heel of a horse,” i.e. bringing down the pillars of the temple of the Philistines (compare Judges 16,29). He killed 3,000 Philistines who were sitting on the roof of that temple (Judges 16,27). The reason Samson’s exploits are described here as causing “the rider to fall backwards,” is that when a snake bites the heel of a horse, the horse rears upwards with its front legs throwing its rider backwards. Just as the snake kills without the use of a sword, so Samson killed without conventional arms as mentioned in Judges 16, 30: “those who were slain by him (when he made the pillars of their temple collapse) outnumbered those whom he had killed while he was alive.”   Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 relates that just as a serpent is vengeful so Samson was vengeful. This is based on Judges 16,28: “O, Lord give me strength once more to take revenge of the Philistines, if only for one of my two eyes.” Thus far the Midrash. 
  Know that in order to fully understand this Midrash we must remember that the very name Dan and what Yaakov predicts here reflects what is only hinted at in the name Reuven. This is the deeper meaning of “Dan will judge his people.” [The author had explained on Genesis 29,32 that the name Reuven was employed by Leah as an acknowledgment by her of the attribute of Justice which is concentrated in the final letter of the Ineffable Name. Yaakov had, of course, accepted that the names the mothers gave to his sons had been divinely inspired. Ed.]
     שפיפון עלי ארח, “a viper by the path.” The smallest variety of snakes was called שפיפון. According to Sotah 10, Samson was lame on both feet, something derived from Bileam (Numbers 22,8) of whom the Torah reported that his she-ass squeezed one of his feet against a wall after which the Torah reports him as וילך שפי, “he walked with a limp”(Numbers 23,3). Seeing the word שפי implies limping on one foot, שפיפון  implies being lame on both feet.
  
  Verse 18
  
  'לישועתך קיויתי ה, “For Your salvation I do long, O Lord!” According to Nachmanides this verse is a prayer by Yaakov to G’d (not part of a blessing). This prayer came to Yaakov spontaneously when he foresaw that in spite of Samson’s deeds of valour it was not he who would be Israel’s redeemer. Yaakov’s blessing for Dan concluded with the words ויפל רוכבו אחור. 
      It is however possible to explain this verse as a prayer offered by Samson. Yaakov foresaw the death of this judge of Israel and how G’d had responded to his final prayer (Judges 16,28). Samson was content to die together with his enemies as long as G’d would help him to revenge himself on them as he himself said in Judges 16,30. 
      Know that experts in names and their meanings derive from this verse a name which by itself is designed to be a defense against one’s enemies. We find that it is written (Judges 16,30) concerning Samson who was able to kill so many of his adversaries:   ויט בכח, “he pulled with (his) might,” though we would have expected the prophet Samuel to write: ויט בכחו, “he pulled with his might.” The implication is that the word בכח refers to G’d’s strength. Samson “co-opted” G’d’s strength to that of his own in order to bring about this impressive result, i.e. that 3,000 Philistines died as a result of his uprooting two pillars of the temple. The name of G’d which emerges from this verse  is to be read in an unusual order. [The author refers to the custom of reading the words 'לישועתך קיויתי ה in three different sequences. He bases this on the fact that the mystique of the כח which assisted Samson lay in the re-arrangement of these three words in different permutations, קיויתי ה' לישועתך, לישועתך ה' קיויתי as well as ה' לישועתך קיויתי. When a prayer containing these words is offered in that manner it is liable to be effective. Ed.] By reversing the words, the enemy “falls ”backwards,” so to speak.
  
  Verse 19
  
   גד גדוד יגודנו, “Gad will recruit a regiment.” Yaakov praised Gad’s prowess, predicting that he would be involved in many military encounters and that troops would flock to his banner.   והוא יגד עקב, “and he will retreat on its heel.” Yaakov meant that ultimately, after having helped his brethren to conquer the land from the Canaanites, its soldiers would return to their families on the East Bank of the Jordan. An alternative meaning is that Gad would vanquish the forces opposing him only in the end. We would then have to understand the word יגד as related to the Aramaic גדו אילנא in Daniel 4,11: “chop down the tree.”  Actually, Moses explained this verse when he said in his own blessing of the tribe of Gad (Deut: 33,20) “blessed the One Who broadens Gad; he dwells like a lion  tearing off arm and even head.” 
  When Yaakov realized that in spite of Samson’s deeds of valour he was not to be Israel’s redeemer, Yaakov now expressed the hope that Gad would produce the redeemer. The word עקב refers to the tribe that “follows” that of Dan in the sequence of his blessings. He based it on Maleachi 3,23: “Here I will send you Elijah the prophet,” etc. The prophet Elijah reputedly is from Gad. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah 71,9. [The prophet Elijah was a resident of Gilead, in the territory of Gad. This does not mean that he was not also a כהן, a priest. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
   מאשר שמנה לחמו, “From Asher — his bread will have richness.” His food will contain much fat seeing that olives grow in his territory in abundance. He will extract the oil from these olives. Moses alludes to the same thing in his blessing of Asher in Deut. 33,24: “he will dip his feet in oil.” Actually we would have expected Yaakov to address Asher directly, saying: “Asher’s bread will be fat.” 
  Perhaps the letter מ at the beginning of the word אשר was intended to allude to the super-abundance of that oil. There would be so much oil that Asher would even export it to other countries, i.e. “from Asher.”
  
  Verse 21
  
   נפתלי אילת שלוחה, “Naftali is a hind let loose.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yaakov describes Naftali as exceedingly fleet-footed. His services are used to convey happy tidings. 
  According to Tanchuma Vayechi 13 the words refer to the valley of Ginosaur, situated in its territory which produced excellent and early ripening fruit. This speed is compared to the speed of a hind. הנותן אמרי שפר. “delivering beautiful sayings.”  The people of Naftali used to  honour the kings with gifts of their fruit and in the event the Kings had any complaints against them they had the facility to respond and disarm these complaints with pleasant words.
      Another approach to this verse based on Bereshit Rabbah 95,22 and cited in Sotah 13: Naftali sprinted to Egypt when Esau made difficulties about burying Yaakov in the cave of Machpelah. He brought back the document proving Yaakov’s ownership. He did not return however until Chushim, son of Dan, had killed Esau who held up the burial.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word אילה שלוחה is an allusion to the concept of צדיק, the truly righteous. The word is reminiscent of a messenger, שליח, the word אילת, is an allusion to the כנסת ישראל also known as אילת השחר. Naftali brings the prayers of the Jewish people to the throne of G’d with his exceptional speed. We have support for this from Shemot Rabbah 21,4 where we are told that a certain angel awaits the prayers of the Jewish people and weaves all of them into a crown to be placed on the head of G’d. This is based on Proverbs 10,6: “blessings rest on the head of the righteous.” The “righteous” par excellence is G’d, of course.
  
  Verse 22
  
   בן פורת יוסף, “Joseph is a charming son.” According to the plain meaning the word בן in this context means “a plant producing many offshoots.” Compare Psalms 80,16 בן אמצתה לך, “the stem You have adopted as Your own.” It would refer here to the fact that Joseph produced two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. This would also account for the fact that the word בן appears twice in this verse. The term בן פורת compares to Moses referring to Joseph in his blessing of him in Deut. 33,17 as both שור and ראם, two different animals. Moses there continues by speaking respectively of the myriads of Ephrayim and the “thousands” of the Menashites.   The reason Yaakov begins by extolling Joseph before even naming him, something not the case in the blessings of any of the other sons, is probably due to the fact that he was forced to refer to Joseph by name twice, seeing he was to become two tribes. The first בן פורת refers to Menashe, Joseph’s senior son, the second בן פורת to Ephrayim. Seeing that Ephrayim was the more promising of the two Yaakov added the words עלי עין, “appealing to the eye.” 
      Nachmanides understands the words בן פורת as related to a statement by our sages in Baba Metzia119  אפריון נמטייה לרבי שמעון, “an accolade is due to Rabbi Shimon.” The word also occurs in a similar sense in Ketuvot 54, "פורנא ליתמי". 
  בנות צעדה עלי שור “each of the girls climbed the walls.” The girls of the most eminent families of Egypt climbed the walls in order to catch a glimpse of Joseph. Joseph, however, did not look at even one of them. This is why Yaakov added immediately: “but his bow was firmly emplaced,” i.e. he did not allow himself to get aroused by any of these alluring girls.  A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 99,11: the words בן פרות = בן פורת, meaning that Joseph attained his outstanding greatness due to two sets of cows which Pharaoh had dreamt about.  The words עלי עין  should be understood as if the Torah had written: עולי עין, "rising above the eye". The verse is a reference to Joseph’s descendants which were not subject to the damaging influence of the evil eye.
        According to a kabbalistic interpretation the words בן פורת  are an allusion to the glory of Israel, the word פרת, being a derivative of תפארת. The words עלי עין,  refer to the origin of the river Euphrates, i.e. פרת, which is one of the four rivers originating in גן עדן, in Paradise. Joseph gets his vital input directly from גן עדן. Seeing that the emanations נצח and הוד respectively appear left and right of the emanation תפארת in our usual diagrams, it is logical that he, Joseph, would produce two tribes instead of merely one.  This is why Yaakov continued with בנות צעדה עלי שור which Onkelos translates as “two tribes will emerge from him.” This is what caused Moses to speak of both שור and ראם, in his blessing of the tribe of Joseph (Deut, 33,17) the former representing the emanation נצח, the latter the emanation הוד. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   מאל אביך ויעזרך, “from the G’d of your father, and He will help you.” According to the plain meaning  the attribute אל will provide help, i.e. when you are in trouble, whereas G’d’s attribute שדי will be the source of the blessings you will experience. The blessings will include both input from the heavens and input from the תהום, the depth of the earth.   ברכות שדים ורחם, “the blessings of breasts and womb.”   According to Onkelos this is an allusion to the combined blessings of Joseph’s father and mother. In Exodus 15,4, on the words ירה בים, Onkelos translates this as שדי בימא, “as something ‘flung’ into the sea.” He appears to understand the word שדים as related to an activity by the male, i.e. the ejaculation of sperm which is expelled like an arrow from a bow.
      A kabbalistic approach:  The word אביך is a reference to אביר יעקב, the attribute of G’d which protected Yaakov. It is this same attribute which Yaakov invokes when asking that it also protect Joseph after he had already received the heavenly blessings. The heavenly blessings are alluded to in the word שדים, the earthly ones by the word רחם.  In mystical terms, “father and mother” are  viewed here as symbols of heaven and earth.
  
  Verse 26
  
    ברכות אביך גברו על ברכות הורי, “the blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of my parents.” According to the plain meaning of the words the word “my parents” refer to Avraham and Yitzchak (not to Yitzchak and Rivkah).   Yaakov meant that his blessings were additional to the blessing which had already been bestowed by Avraham and Yitzchak on his offspring.
      A kabbalistic approach: Yaakov meant that the emanation from which his own blessing would originate is more powerful than the emanation in which Avraham and Yitzchak and also their blessings were at home. Avraham and Yitzchak had primarily represented the emanation  חסד and גבורה respectively. Yaakov’s emanation, i.e. the aegis under which he modeled his life was תפארת, harmony, a blending of the two emanations which each formed Avraham’s and Yitzchak’s guiding light. The reason the patriarchs are called הורי, “my parents,” is that they were the principal carriers of the שכינה, the “benevolent Presence of G’d on earth,”  as we have explained repeatedly.  [The word הורי may be read as without the letter ו, i.e. הרי, “my mountains,” i.e.. the ones I look up to. Ed.]. We find that David also refers to  the patriarchs as mountains when he said in Palms 121,1 “I will raise my eyes to the mountains.” Midrash Tehillim  on these words understands them as David raising his eyes to the spirits of the patriarchs.   עד תאות גבעת עולם, “to the utmost bounds of  the eternal  hills.” Until the emanations will have played their parts in full. At that time G’d and His Name will be One, [there will no longer be a dichotomy between man’s ideals and his realising them. Ed.] The הורי of which Yaakov has spoken will then be identical with גבעות עולם.  These “mountains” may then serve as “crowns”. The word גבעות has much in common with מ-גבעות, the headgear (Exodus 28,40) worn by the priests. The welfare of the whole world depends on the priests, and their garments are the זרועות עולם ”the arms of mankind.” Just as warriors wear a medallion on their arms as a charm of good luck, so the priests when the carry out their function suitably adorned, are the medallion of mankind (or at least of the Jewish people). The author quotes more verses showing that the word גבעות is used in that sense and linking the words פתחי עולם and שאו שערים to the same concept.
  
  Verse 27
  
   בנימין זאב יטרף, “Binyamin is a predatory wolf.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov compares Binyamin  to a predatory wolf seeing that in the future the surviving young men of Binyamin would kidnap girls and make them their wives. (Judges 21,21)  Rashi there translates the words וחטפתם לכם איש אשתו,  “grab yourselves each one his wife-to-be.”
      A Midrashic approach: Binyamin had ten sons, a number which corresponds to the numerical value of the letters in the word זאב. בבוקר יאכל עד , “in the morning he consumes a foe.” This is a reference to King Saul (of the tribe of Binyamin) the first king of Israel  who defeated numerous enemies of Israel   ובערב יחלק שלל, “and by evening he would distribute the spoils.” Even after the sun had set over Israel when Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the Temple, i.e. Israel’s fortunes were like an “evening,” Mordechai (Saul’s descendant) still triumphed over Haman when Esther made over Haman’s house to him (Esther 8,7).
      A kabbalistic approach:  Binyamin combined within him the two “great” emanations  (attributes)  גדולה וגבורה. This is why the Temple, i.e. the home of the שכינה stood on its territory. The שכינה, of course, is representative of all the emanations (all the ten attributes) Binyamin is compared by Yaakov to the altar which consumes a sheep in the morning and in the evening [the daily communal offerings in the Temple]. It is therefore not difficult to accept the simile of his being like a preying wolf, a predatory animal. Seeing he is so representative of all the ten emanations he was granted ten sons to symbolise this. The words יחלק שלל,  are reminiscent of Psalms 68,13 ונות בית תחלק שלל, “the soul in the house would share out the spoils.” The soul of the house, is, of course, the שכינה. This is also why Onkelos translates our verse asבארעיה תשרי שכינתא  “in his land the Shechinah will dwell.”
      Having explained that the name of Binyamin (or Yaakov’s definition of his name) corresponds to celestial attributes and reflects either one or several emanations, let me just say that the same holds true for the names of each one of Yaakov’s sons. If you examine the Torah with your eyes open, you will discover that the colour of the gemstones which had these names engraved in them and which formed a part of the High Priest’s breastplate, reflects the respective attribute and emanation of that particular tribe. For instance, Reuven, whose name symbolized the attribute of Justice  had his name engraved on a red-coloured gemstone called אודם, whereas the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was engraved was called ישפה to reflect the fact that it was a multi-coloured stone. I will get back to this subject when we discuss Exodus 28,15.
  
  Verse 28
  
   כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר, “all these are the twelve tribes of Israel.” We would have expected the Torah to write אלה שבטי ישראל. Why did the Torah add the word "כל?"  Seeing that Yaakov had severely criticized Reuven, Shimon, and Levi, I might have thought that the fact they were not given a blessing placed them outside the fold. In order to prevent us from making such an assumption the Torah had to add the word כל to show that all of Yaakov’s sons qualified for becoming founders of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rashi).
      Personally, I believe that this verse is an allusion that all of existence is due only to the merit of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is the true meaning of the words כל אלה, “all of these.” The same expression has been used by the prophet Isaiah to describe the entire universe (Isaiah 26,2) “all of these My hand has created.” This is also what the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 1,4 had in mind when they said that prior to creating the universe G’d planned the creation of the Jewish people. This may be why the number 12 is so prominent in all three parts of the universe. In the “highest” part of the universe, the throne of G’d is “surrounded” by 12 angels just as Solomon’s throne which represented G’d’s throne on earth was guarded by 12 lions  which faced each other on the 6 steps leading up to that throne (Kings I 10,20). Jeremiah added that no such throne was ever made for any other Kingdom. The central part of the universe contains 12 horoscopes which symbolize the forces which govern that part of the universe; finally, in our terrestrial part of the universe the twelve tribes of Israel represent the forces without which this part of the universe would cease to exist. This is the deeper meaning of what Solomon meant when he said in Kohelet 7,14 “the one no less than the other was G’d’s doing.” 
       וזאת אשר דבר אליהם אביהם, “and this is what their father spoke to them.” According to the plain meaning these words mean: “this is the blessing Yaakov gave to his sons.” 
  A kabbalistic approach:  the word זאת is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of “the people of Israel.” Of that concept it is written in Song of Songs 7,7: זאת קומתך דמתה לתמר, “such is your stature, likened to the  towering palm tree.” the word זאת mening that  Israel is G’d’s heave-offering to the world, so to speak. The words וזאת התרומה in Exodus 25,3 are being understood as the covenant. Both the covenant and the Torah itself have been described with the word זאת in Genesis 9,12 and Numbers 19,14 respectively. The Torah had been given by the  Unique One, as the Torah said (Exodus 20,1) וידבר אלו-הים. (Compare author’s commentary on that verse). This (the giving of the Torah) is also what the prophet Chabakuk 3,10 alluded to with the words נתן תהום קולו, “loud roars the deep.” We find this attribute in Leviticus 16,3 בזאת יבא אהרן, “equipped with the attribute זאת Aaron may enter the Holy of Holies.” The reason is that “this is the gate which (only) the righteous may enter” (Psalms 118,20). 
  Yaakov had attained this virtue (attribute) called זאת which he employed to bestow the various blessings on his children.    Tanchuma Vayechi 16 understands these words as follows: Yaakov told his sons that in the future there would arise a man not unlike him who will give them a blessing commencing with the words with which he had ended his blessing. Tanchuma meant that Yaakov had alluded to זאת as his ultimate achievement. This is why the author of that Midrash emphasises Yaakov speaking of where he “left off,” Moses, however, who had attained a higher level of insight than Yaakov could use the word זאת as a point of departure in his blessings of the Jewish people (Deut. 33,1 וזאת הברכה). Using that word he would ascend and penetrate ever deeper into holy domains. This may also be the reason that Moses alluded to all ten emanations, something which I hope to explain in more detail on Deut. 33,8.
     איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם, “he blessed each one of them according to the blessing appropriate for him.” This seems peculiar; after all he had already bestowed the blessings on each of his sons! According to the plain meaning the words ויברך אותם apply to the collective blessing. The words איש אשר כברכתו apply to the individualised blessing he gave to each son. Alternatively, the words: “he blessed them,” referred to the blessing for the immediate future. The words: “each according to his appropriate blessing,” referred to individual blessings intended to meet specific requirements of that tribe in the future.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 99,4: seeing that Yaakov had singled out Yehudah by describing him like a lion, and he had singled out Naftali describing him like a hind, etc., I could have thought that these sons were not part of the collective blessing. The Torah therefore said: “he blessed them (all),” to make certain we understand that all the sons were included in the collective blessing. 
      A kabbalistic approach: the words “he blessed each one of them, etc.” mean that the twelve tribes each represent one of the twelve lifelines from the celestial regions from which heavenly blessings are channeled to the creatures in this terrestrial universe. The number 12 in this respect is found in Psalms 122,4 “for there the tribes make pilgrimage, the tribes of the Lord who are testimony of Israel praising the name of the Lord.” David calls the “tribes” of the celestial regions שבטי ה', referring to them by the same appellation as the 12 tribes of Israel on earth. We have pointed out elsewhere that when these tribes are enumerated in the Torah, each name beginning with a prefix ה, and ending with the suffix י such as in הראובני, השמעוני, this is a clear allusion to the fact that parallel “tribes” exist in the celestial regions. When Yaakov said איש אשר כברכתו, he referred to the fact that each tribe received a blessing appropriate to his corresponding counterpart in heaven.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויגוע ויאסף אל עמיו,“He expired and was gathered to his people.” The word מיתה is not mentioned in connection with Yaakov. This prompted our sages in Taanit 5 to say: “our patriarch Yaakov never died.” 
  Seeing that we see from the reports of the Torah here that he was treated as if dead, i.e. embalmed, buried, etc., surely this is evidence that he did die!  
  We must therefore understand the statement of our sages who said “he did not die,” to mean that Yaakov’s soul remained hovering over his body  due to the degree of holiness he had attained. Whereas other righteous people who did not attain the level of holiness that Yaakov attained are forced to return their souls to celestial regions, and once they have returned there they do not return to earth, Yaakov’s soul was in a constant state of commuting between heaven and earth. Only extremely rarely did great men attain this degree of holiness in their lives, Rabbi Yehudah (the editor of the Mishnah) being one of those select few. it is said of this Rabbi Yehudah in Ketuvot 103 that his soul returned to his former residence on earth every Sabbath eve. It happened on one such Sabbath eve that a neighbour of his widow came to visit her calling to her from the doorway. Her maid said to the neighbour: “Be quiet, the Rabbi is sitting here!” As soon as Rabbi Yehudah (his soul) heard this he decided to stop visiting his former home on earth. He did this so that people should not say that previous scholars whose soul had not been observed as returning to earth had been inferior to him in piety. If this was true of Rabbi Yehudah, how much more so must it have been true of Yaakov who had acquired (almost genetically) three levels of holiness. 1) Yaakov had been equipped with the holiness of Avraham, i.e. he was sired by someone whose body had already been circumcised. 2) He had had the residue of the holiness of his father who had submitted his life to G’d at the Akeydah. 3) He had acquired holiness in his own right becoming the third pillar of the מרכבה, the “chariot” supporting G’d’s Presence on earth when G’d had told him that He would even descend to Egypt with him. The practical demonstration of Yaakov’s personal holiness was the fact that all his children followed in his footsteps and embraced his outlook on life. For all these reasons we find that G’d Himself is referred to as קדוש יעקב, (Isaiah 29,23) “the Holy One of Yaakov”, and we do not find such an expression "Holy One of Abraham" or Holy One of Yitzchak".
      A kabbalistic approach to the statement that “Yaakov our patriarch did not die.” Yaakov’s attributes were not of the usual kind, i.e. that every virtue has its negative counterpart.  Usually, the more extreme someone is in the practice of a particular virtue the greater the contrast with people practicing the opposite. When we look at scales we find that the more we depress one side, the higher the other side rises. This seems to be a law of nature. In human society there is a similar phenomenon. Extremes of one kind are usually counterbalanced by extremes on the opposite side. In a certain sense life therefore is the opposite of death. Yaakov who pursued the golden mean in his outlook on life and in his conduct, did not need to die as he did not need to “balance the scales.” The same did not apply to Avraham and Yitzchak respectively. The former’s life concentrated almost entirely on involvement on behalf of his peers, whereas the latter’s concentrated almost entirely of perfecting his own personality. As a result of this balance in Yaakov’s life there was no need for him to achieve such a balance of either his body or soul posthumously, as do the souls and bodies of ordinary people.    This “body” of Yaakov which remained “alive,” was what is called the “second body,” something very diaphanous, not like the “body” that we normally think of. This “second” body serves as clothing for the soul and is therefore not something merely allegorical. According to tradition such a “second” body clothes the soul either once a week on Sabbath eve to the end of the Sabbath, or from the onset of the Day of Atonement until its end. During the rest of the year this “body” floats around in the atmosphere at the direction of G’d. It becomes visible to those whom G’d has taken a liking to. Yaakov’s “first” body, i.e. the kind of body he had in common with everyone else, was embalmed and buried  in normal fashion just as the Torah writes, and as the Rabbi in Sotah called out when he was told of the fact that Yaakov did not die. This Rabbi had referred to the “first” body, whereas his colleague had referred to Yaakov’s “second” body. The first Rabbi then told him that he had not come to his conclusion on his own, but had derived it from the verse (Jeremiah 46,27) “Here I am going to deliver you from far away, your folk from their land of captivity; and Yaakov again shall have calm and quiet, with none to trouble him.” The fact that Jeremiah addresses both Yaakov and his descendants in the same breath indicated to the first Rabbi that Yaakov was still alive. Jeremiah addressed the “second” body of Yaakov which I have mentioned.
      I believe that this is also what is alluded to in the Midrash Eycha Rabbati 2,9 where the verse in Lamentations 2,3: ”He has ravaged Yaakov like flaming fire, consuming on all sides,” is dealt with. The author says that when disaster struck the Jewish people only Yaakov “felt” it. Similarly, when the redemption comes only Yaakov will “feel” it. This is why the psalmist (Psalms 14,7) says: ”Yaakov will exult, Israel will rejoice.” You are aware that he expression מרגיש, “feeling something, experiencing a sensation,” cannot be used in connection with bodies which have been embalmed and buried. This term could only be applied to this diaphanous “second” body of which we spoke earlier. This is also the way we have to understand the passage in Ketuvot dealing with Rabbi Yehudah’s return to earth every Sabbath eve. The same applies to the passage in Shabbat 152 where Rabbi Acha remonstrated with grave diggers who had disturbed his peace  (he had long been dead and buried). If such people’s “second body” survived, how much more so is this plausible in the case of our patriarch Yaakov?  This may be the mystical dimension of Proverbs 10,2  וצדקה תציל ממות, “that charity saves one from death.” Clearly, the meaning is not that people who give charity will enjoy eternal physical life in the normal sense here on earth. Rather, they may retain this “second” body as did Yaakov and Rabbi Yehudah. This may also be the meaning of what we recite daily in our prayers that G’d זוכר יצורים ברחמים, “remembers the creatures (human beings) in mercy.” Our sages who composed this line meant that an ongoing existence is due to G’d exercising His attribute of Mercy. Our  sages in Bereshit Rabbah 68,12 explain that even at the early stage of Yaakov’s life when he had the dream (vision) of the ladder (Genesis 28,12), the message of the angels “ascending and descending the ladder” is that they wanted to compare Yaakov’s features with the features of the face engraved under the throne of G’d.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ויחנטו הרופאים, “the physicians embalmed.” The technique of embalming consisted of perfuming the body with a variety of spices, similar to what is written concerning King Assa of Yehudah in  Chronicles II 16,14: “he was laid in a resting place which was filled with spices of all kinds, expertly blended.” This took place after the body had been washed. The wording ויחנטו  which is transitive, indicates that the physicians ordered others  who had expertise in that science to perform this task whereas they themselves did not touch Yaakov’s body.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . שבעים יום, “for seventy days.” Forty days embalming followed by thirty days of mourning.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ויעברו ימי בכיתו, “when  the days of weeping for him passed.” This verse teaches that one must not spend more than thirty days mourning for the loss of even the greatest leaders of Israel. We certainly did not have a greater leader than Moses and he too was mourned for thirty days, no more (Deut. 34,8). There is a tradition that the sages at the time of the death of Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nassi first wanted to observe a whole year of mourning until they found these verses and deduced that this would be excessive and disrespectful to both Yaakov and Moses (compare Ketuvot 103).
  
  Verse 5
  
    בקברי אשר כריתי לי, “in the grave which I have hewn for myself.”  According to the plain meaning of the text, the word כריתי is the same as in Exodus 21,33  כי יכרה איש בור, “if someone digs a pit.” 
  According to Shemot Rabbah 31,16 the meaning of the word כריתי is related to כרי, “a big heap,” and means that Yaakov  took a great heap of silver and gave it to Esau to ensure that he, as the senior son of Yitzchak, would not demand to be buried in Machpelah. The word then means “I have legally acquired my grave by paying a lot of money for the site.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויעל יוסף לקבור את אביו, “Joseph went up in order to bury his father.” We find that nine groups of people traveled to Canaan to bury Yaakov and to eulogise him. These nine categories of people are hinted at in the text as follows: 1) Joseph went up to bury his father (verse 7). 2) All the servants of Pharaoh went up with him, i.e. the ministers; 3) the elders of Pharaoh’s palace. 4) The elders of the land of Egypt; 5) the whole household of Joseph, (verse 8) his wife and her servant maids and the children. 6) Joseph’s brothers; 7) his father’s household; 8) a military escort (verse 9) traveling in chariots. 9) A cavalry escort.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . ויעל עמו גם רכב גם פרשים, “also chariots and horsemen went up with him (Joseph).” This was a security escort aimed at Esau and his sons. Joseph was well aware of the wickedness of Esau and his family. Already Flavius Josephus recorded in his history of the Jewish people (chapter 2) that Tzefo, (Genesis 36,11) a son of Eliphaz, oldest son of Esau began a quarrel regarding Yaakov’s right to be buried at Machpelah. This quarrel erupted into open warfare with Joseph and his troops emerging victorious. He captured this Tzefo and brought him to Egypt where he and other supporters of his remained incarcerated until Joseph died. When Joseph died, this Tzefo escaped from prison and migrated to Campagne, ruling over certain Roman tribes until eventually he ruled over all of Greece and Italy. He became the first king in Rome and built the first temple there. This is why the Torah reported here that apart from all the entourage who traveled all the way to Canaan to bestow honour on Yaakov there was a also a sizable military contingent whose purpose was defensive.
     ויהי המחנה כבד מאד, “it was a very imposing camp.” Perhaps the Torah also alludes to a parallel camp in the celestial regions, angels that came to guard Yaakov in death just as they had stood watch over him in life. They were the angels previously mentioned in Genesis 32,3 where they had been called “the camp of G’d.” This may be why the Torah described this entourage as כבד מאד, (in two separate words) so that the first letters in the line ויהי המחנה כבד מאד yield both the number 26 (numerical value of י-ה-ו-ה ) using the letter ו from ויהי, and the letter כ  from כבד  as well as the letter ה from המחנה and the letter מ from מאד to allude to the name of G’d amounting to 45 (when you write the letters in the Ineffable Name as words, i.e. יוד-הא-ואו הא.)
  
  Verse 10
  
   גרן האטד, “Goren ha-Atad.” “The threshing floor of thorns.” This obviously does not make any sense as no one requires a threshing floor for threshing thorns. We must assume that the place was called such, just as we find that  there was a place called גורן כידון, “the threshing ground of a spear” (Chronicles I 13,9). This too does not make sense in terms of the purpose of that threshing floor. Perhaps that threshing floor was surrounded by a large number of spears seeing that David said to Goliath: “you are confronting me with the sword, the spear, and the lance” (Samuel I 17,45). 
     ויספדו שם מספד גדול וכבד מאד, “they held there a very great and solemn eulogy.” There were nine types of eulogies (corresponding to the nine categories of mourners who had come from Egypt). In Hebrew they are known as מספד, נהי, צעקה, הילל, נידה, מרזה, קינים, הגה, והי. [The author proceeds to quote verses from Scripture showing that these various terms for “eulogy” occur scattered throughout the Bible. Ed.] 
   The point made by the author why so many different expressions exist for the word “eulogy” is that eulogies must take into consideration how the one eulogizing the dead related to him. 1) He must acknowledge how he benefited from the deceased’s being alive. 2) He must explain what he has lost through the death of the departed, etc. 3) He must list how the deceased enriched other people’s lives while he had been able to-do so. 4) If the deceased was a scholar, the eulogy must mention how his scholarship was unique and how the world has sustained a loss in terms of its absence forthwith. These and (5)  more aspects of Yaakov’s life all formed part of the eulogies delivered on that occasion. [I have abbreviated here somewhat as the reader may surmise. Ed.]  אבל שבעת ימים, “a mourning period of seven days.”  These seven days of mourning were observed prior to Yaakov’s burial. We know this from verse 13 which follows and tells us: “his sons carried towards the land of Canaan and buried him there in the field of the cave of Machpelah, etc.” The mourning which we observe as a Biblical commandment always takes place after the funeral.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . כאשר צום, “as he had commanded them.” Yaakov had told his sons (compare Tanchuma Bamidbar 12) “be careful with my bier and do not allow any of the Canaanites to touch it. You should carry my bier according to the following procedure: ‘Yehudah, Issachar and Zevulun to the east; Reuven, Shimon and Gad from the south; Ephrayim, Menashe and Binyamin from the west; Dan, Asher and Naftali from the north.” Joseph was not to carry the bier as he was a king. Levi was not to carry the bier as in the future he was slated to carry G’d’s Holy Ark, and it is not fitting that anyone who carries the Ark of G’d should carry the ark of a dead person. Yaakov added that if his sons were to abide by his instructions G’d would reward them with flags in the desert. This is what our sages (Rashi on verse 13) referred to when they said that this is why the Torah reports: “his sons carried him;” his grandsons did not participate in that task.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . וכל העולים אתו, “and all those who had been going up with him.” This verse contains an allusion to the fierce fighting which preceded Yaakov’s burial in the cave of Machpelah. This is why it was necessary for the Torah to report that all of Joseph’s family returned to Egypt in peace. Not a single person who had engaged in honoring Yaakov by traveling to Canaan to bury him came to any harm. When the brothers had fought against Shechem and had subsequently been engaged in a battle with the Emorites they also did not sustain any casualties. To make this point, the Torah had written (Genesis 35,6) “Yaakov came to Luz which is in the land of Canaan,...he and all those with him.”  The addition of these words at the end of the verse were also meant to hint that the family had not sustained any casualties.
     אחרי קברו את אביו, “after they had buried his father.” Why did the Torah suddenly mention Joseph’s part in the burial when the Torah had already stated earlier that Joseph had gone up to bury his father? Moreover, when the Torah reported that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” surely this included Joseph? 
  The reason that the Torah reports Joseph’s return from that journey at this point may be so that people should not have any doubts about Joseph discharging his oath to his father. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah here describes the return of Joseph in terms which makes it sound as if the entire procession was Joseph’s doing exclusively. To make this point clear the Torah used the singular when reporting that Joseph קברו את אביו, as if to say: “Joseph personally and single-handedly buried his father.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויבך יוסף בדברם אליו, “Joseph wept when they were speaking to him.”  As soon as the brothers merely mentioned the name of their father Joseph already started weeping. This was due to the great love he had for his now departed father. This stirred his sense of compassion, especially seeing that his brothers asked his forgiveness. The Torah does not spell out that Joseph actually forgave his brothers. Our sages (Bava Kama 92) point out that if a person has wronged his fellow man and regrets this wrong and determines not to act in the manner which had offended his fellow man he is not forgiven by G’d until after he has made an effort to obtain forgiveness by the aggrieved party first. At any rate, the Torah is not on record anywhere that Joseph did forgive his brothers. This was the reason why the sin committed against Joseph resulted in the ten martyrs being executed by torture at the hands of the Romans.
      I tend to think that of the word פשע in this verse contains an allusion. This sin could be divided into two parts. 1) the sin of the brothers including the unwitting part of it in their capacity as Joseph’s brothers. 2) The sin in their capacity as servants of the Lord G’d whom their father Yaakov revered. Had the Torah not wanted to hint that part of those sins had not been forgiven it should have written merely ועתה שא נא לפשעם, “and now, please, do forgive their sin (sing.).” 
  The wording before us  appears to make G’d’s forgiveness conditional on Joseph’s forgiveness. In other words: “if you Joseph forgive the sin of the brothers against you, then I G’d, will be able to forgive their sin seeing they are servants of the same G’d as your father Yaakov.” The concise meaning of the verse is: “the sin of the servants of your father’s G’d is the one they committed against their brother.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אל תיראו כי התחת אלוקים אני, “do not fear! For am I instead of G’d?” He meant that the reason they did not have to be afraid of him was that he himself was a G’d-fearing man. He implied, as explained by Onkelos who uses the word דחלא — “real fear”, that even if he were bent on retaliation this would only backfire as G’d would punish him in turn. The letter ה at the beginning of the word התחת must not be understood as introducing a question but as part of Joseph conception of “fear of the Lord.” If one “fears” the Lord it is because one knows that He returns tit for tat. We have other examples where such letters ה which at first glance appear to introduce a question do not in fact do so. Compare Samuel I 2,27 הנגלה נגליתי אל בית אביך. The translation of these words is clearly not: “did I appear in the house of your father?” Rather these words need to be translated as: “I revealed Myself to your father’s house.” Joseph repeated the words “do not be afraid,” in both verse 19 and 21. The first “fear” he spoke of was the brothers’ fear of him; the second fear he spoke of was the fear of the famine which had started again. This is why he added immediately, (concerning their second fear) “I will provide for you.” (Compare my comments on  Genesis 47,14).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . וינחם אותם  וידבר אל לבם, “he comforted them and spoke to their heart.” Rashi has this to say about these words of comfort: Joseph demonstrated to the brothers how his own status had been made more secure by their very existence. As long a they had not come to Egypt he had been suspected of being a slave who by a quirk of fate had risen to power. Ever since the arrival of his brothers such an accusation could not be sustained. If he were to revenge himself on them now these same people would conclude that they had not really been his brothers at all but had been hired by him to play that part in order to legitimise himself as a free man. After all, who would believe that he killed his actual brothers!? Moreover, from a logical point of view, if the ten of them had been unable to extinguish his light, how could he single-handedly hope to extinguish their collective lights? 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים, “Joseph lived long enough to see three generations of his son Ephrayim.” The true meaning is that whereas Joseph saw three generations from his son Menashe, he saw four generations from his son Ephrayim (Ephrayim plus his great grandson). This is based on the word בני being a possessive of the word שלשים. [However, according to the cantillation, the tipcha under the word בני means it belongs to the word אפרים, Ed.] There is some allusion to this fertility of Ephrayim in Yaakov’s blessing who foresaw greater things for Ephrayim than for Menashe. Concerning the latter Yaakov had said that “he too would develop into a nation,” the implication being that it would take him longer, i.e. more years to do so The word גם in the line גם בני מכיר בן מנשה indicate that Menashe also lived in Joseph’s home; however, seeing that Joseph loved Menashe better than Ephrayim, the Torah mentions the fact that Menashe’s grandchildren were born on Joseph’s knees rather than those of Ephrayim.   The מכיר named here was actually Gilead, son of Machir, son of Menashe. He was the grandfather of Tzelofchod (Numbers 27,1). The Torah wanted to show that Joseph raised righteous people in his own home, people who in turn produced daughters of outstanding caliber such as  the daughters of Tzelofchod.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וישבע יוסף את בני ישראל, “Joseph made the children of Israel swear an oath.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: “Joseph adjured his brothers.” However, he made even later generations take this oath as he did not know precisely when the opportunity would come to keep this oath. This is why Moses felt duty-bound to raise Joseph from his grave before the Israelites left the country and to take his bones with them (compare Exodus 13,19). The meaning of the verse there is that Moses felt that unless he located Joseph’s remains and took them with, the entire nation would be guilty of not honoring their oath. 
  Joseph had the extraordinary merit that 600,000 men all functioned as his pall bearers throughout the many years they were in the desert until finally they laid him to rest at Shechem (Joshua 24,32). It is a well known tradition that the righteous are buried when they have been accompanied by a mass funeral cortege. Our sages (Ketuvot 17) elaborated  saying: “as his arrival  so his exit.” [The arrival refers to the Torah being given in the presence of 600,000 people. It is fitting that when someone who personifies the Torah leaves this earth that he should also be accompanied by a similar number of people. Ed.].
     והעליתם את עצמותי מזה, “you will bring my bones up from this. ” He meant “from this place.” Some commentators claim that each tribe took with them the remains of their respective founders, i.e. that the remains of all of Yaakov’s sons were eventually buried in ארץ ישראל. (Compare Pesikta d'Rav Kahane in Beshalach.)
  
  Verse 26
  
   וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשר שנים “Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten.” According to the Talmud (Sotah 9), Joseph, who had buried his father, received his reward in that someone greater than either he or his father, namely Moses, took care of his earthly remains. Exodus 13,19 relates that Moses took the remains of Joseph. This was not as simple as it seems, and our sages (Tanchuma Beshalach 2) describe how Moses lowered a plate or piece of parchment on which he had written “arise ox” into the river Nile. He called out: “Joseph, Joseph, your brethren are about to be redeemed and your absence is delaying the Presence of G’d from moving with us. If you want to be redeemed and to join our journey, arise! If you fail to arise now, we will be free from the oath you have made us swear to take you along.” All of this had become necessary because the Egyptians had placed Joseph’s body in a metal coffin and had hidden it by lowering it into the river Nile to prevent the Israelites from having access to it. This is the deeper meaning of the final words of the Book of Genesis ויישם בארון במצרים, “he was placed in a coffin in Egypt.”    Moses also received a reward for having performed these rites on Joseph by Someone greater than he when G’d Himself buried him (Deut. 34,6). This teaches us that anyone who engages in the performance of מצות can look forward to great reward. Such a reward may accrue to him many years after he performed the good deed in question. If he did not receive his reward for the מצוה while alive on earth, he may be sure that his deed has been recorded by G’d and he will receive the appropriate reward in the hereafter. These considerations are another reason for encouraging people to perform מצות with eagerness instead of dragging their feet while doing so. However, one must be careful not to perform these מצות in order to become known as a pious individual or in order to reap the benefit in terms of honor received by one’s peers. The performance of מצות should only be designed to confer honor on G’d and His Holy Name. The psalmist (Psalms 131,3) expressed it best when he said: ”O Israel wait for the Lord now and forever.” We also have a verse in Psalms 31,25: “be strong and of good courage, all you who wait for the Lord.” A third verse conveying a similar message is found in Jeremiah 17,7: “Blessed is he who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is in the Lord alone.” Finally, Isaiah 26,4 conveys the same message when he wrote: “Trust in the Lord forever and ever, for in The Lord G’d you have an everlasting Rock.”
  
  Shemot
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  
  A Midrashic approach: The repetition of a person's name in Scripture indicates that he merited both worlds. We find such repetition by Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Peretz, and even by Terach. This very repetition of Terach’s name indicates that he had done Teshuvah before he died thus securing for himself a place in the hereafter.
      A rational/scientific approach to our verse: seeing that a prophet would become frightened when he heard his name called for the first time, and as a result of his confusion he would misunderstand the divine message which was to follow, his name is called a second time in order to give him time to collect his thoughts. After the second mention of his name he would receive the message G’d wanted him to receive.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the reason that both here and in other instances the name of the addressee was repeated was to indicate that both the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy had concurred that the prophet should be addressed in the manner to follow. As a matter of fact there are only four instances in the Bible of G’d repeating someone’s name when He called him (Genesis 22,11, 46,2 Exodus 3,4 and Samuel I 3,10).
  
  Verse 5
  
   של נעליך, “remove your shoes.” According to the plain meaning of the text the angel warned Moses to remove his shoes on account of the holiness of the site. This was to serve as a warning not to be disrespectful, i.e. nonchalant, when he would be addressed by the שכינה, “G’d’s Presence” (compare Berachot 54). We find something similar in Exodus 23,12 where G’d tells Moses to be on his guard in the presence of the angel as G’d’s name was within him.
      A rational approach to our verse: the term של נעליך is not to be confused with the term חלוץ נעליך. Whereas the latter means: ”take off your shoes,” similar to the expression שלוף נעליך, in Ruth 4,7 “taking off a sandal,” or to Deut. 25,9, “she will strip off his shoe,” the word של is related to שלילה, something negative and means that there was no need for Moses to wear shoes in such a place. He was warned to strip off what the shoe represented, i.e. material concerns. The act of removing his shoes was a mental preparation to ready him to become G’d’s vessel, His prophet. The lesson was that just as a man can take off his shoe at will, so he can divest himself of material concerns and concentrate on spiritual concerns. Instead of remaining attached to the עור, the leather of his shoe, he should become attached to the enlightening properties of his illuminating intellect, his אור השכל.  When Joshua received a similar command in Joshua 4,15 he was told של נעלך, “remove your shoe (singular).” The difference between Moses and Joshua was that Moses had separated from his wife and was thus able to divorce himself more easily from earthly concerns. Joshua had not. G’d had told Moses in Deut. 5,28: “you- stay here with Me,” something which had enabled him to remain closer to G’d and to holiness.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words של נעליך suggest that the Shechinah was revealed to Moses on two levels, in two colours, i.e. “white” fire and “black” fire. These two “colors” symbolized the two attributes, the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy respectively.   The words אל תקרב הלום של, “do not come closer, remove!” meant that the reverence Moses was to display for G’d’s Majesty as well as for the sacredness of the site should stop his attempt to inspect the phenomenon more closely. Another thing which was hinted to Moses at this time was that the Torah which would be written in black fire on white fire would be given at this site. This is the reason that G’d used the expression של, i.e. the two letters of this word are the first two letters of שחור  and לבן “black and white,” respectively.
     אדמת קודש הוא, “it is holy ground.” The word אדמת is in the construct form of the word קדש, i.e. Mount Sinai is holy ground. Compare Psalms 68,18 אדנ-י בם סיני בקודש, “the Lord is among them as in Sinai in holiness.” Now that Moses was only at the very beginning of his career as a prophet he was not yet allowed to step on this holy ground. The word הלום is itself a reference to the שכינה, as it is a word describing Majesty, Royalty (Shemot Rabbah 2,6). This is based on Samuel I 10,22: הבא עוד הלום איש?, “has anyone else come here?” [Samuel referred to Saul who was to be king, Ed.]. The word is again used in that sense in Samuel II 7,18: כי הביאותני עד הלום, “for He has brought me thus far?” [David acknowledging his position of King over Israel by grace of the Lord. Ed.] Seeing that the שכינה is emanated from a holy source, Moses was given his first inkling of the meaning of holiness in terms of “holy ground.”
  
  Verse 6
  
   אנכי אלוקי אביך, “I am the G’d of your father, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is the same as if G’d had said “the G’d of your fathers (pl).” We find such constructions in Exodus 15,2 אל-הי אבי וארוממנהו, “the G’d of my father (sing) and I want to exalt Him.” There too the word “my father” really means “my fathers.”
      A Midrashic (Shemot Rabbah 3,1) approach to the words “G’d of your father.” These words refer to Amram. Actually, G’d had wanted to say: “I am your G’d.” However, we have a rule that G’d does not associate His name with the living in the event such a person turns wicked. This is why G’d chose the nearest relative who was no longer alive, i.e. Moses’ father, who had been a righteous person and died as a righteous person. 
  According to Tanchuma (Shemot 19)  when Moses heard the voice calling him  he rejoiced thinking that his father Amram was still alive. [Moses had been away from Egypt for many decades at this point. Ed.]. At that point G’d added: “I am the G’d of your father,” i.e. I misled you when I called your name in the voice of your father. I did this in order not to frighten you. The above proves that it is quite usual for prophets to become frightened at the time a voice from G’d suddenly calls to them. They need to be put at ease in order to overcome their fear. This is why we find in Samuel I 3,4  that when G’d first called to Samuel, He did so making His voice sound like that of the High Priest Eli, Samuel’s mentor.
      A kabbalistic approach: The “father” G’d referred to was Adam, i.e. G’d had already been the G’d of Adam This was appropriate seeing that when Hevel had offered his sacrifice he had had a glimpse of the Shechinah for longer than is permissible and had incurred the death penalty as a result. This is why Moses quickly turned away his face when he became aware of the fact that it was G’d speaking out of the bush. He was ashamed to look at something he had seen once before just as a person is ashamed to come face to face with sins committed on a previous occasion. Seeing that Moses was Hevel’s reincarnation it is not surprising that G’d described Himself as the “G’d of your father (Adam).” When our sages in Berachot 7 explain the verse (Exodus 33,20) “you cannot see My face for man cannot see My face and live,” G’d supposedly told Moses: “when I wanted to show you My face you did not want to look, (here at the bush); now that you want to see My face, I am not ready to show it to you.” In chapter 33,18 Moses had asked: “Please show me Your Presence.”    This passage in the Talmud is at variance with a statement by Rabbi Meir who is quoted on that same folio as saying that due to three merits Moses was granted three things. Seeing he had turned aside at the bush, not wanting to look at something forbidden, he was granted to behold the image of G’d’s “face.” Seeing he displayed the proper degree of awe and reverence in the presence of such a vision (כי ירא, “for he was afraid” verse 6),  he was granted that when he descended from Mount Sinai that the skin of his forehead radiated light so that the people in turn were afraid to approach him (Exodus 34,30). Finally, as a reward for not having indulged his eyes (מהביט, when he had a chance to do so at the bush), he was granted (Numbers 12,8) greater visions than any other prophet as G’d explained to Miriam and Aaron on that occasion. Whereas visions seen by lesser prophets are known as אספקלריא שאינה מאירה, “blurred visions,” Moses enjoyed visions described as מאירה, distinct, brilliant. The latter is the kind of vision which originates with the attribute of Mercy.
  
  Verse 7
  
  'ויאמר ה’, “the Lord said.” We have to understand why the whole paragraph up until now employs the name אלו-הים to describe G’d,  whereas in this verse the name of G’d mentioned is the tetragrammaton. The reason is simple. This is the moment at which G’d promises for the first time that the time has arrived for Him to display His pity for His people and to arrange for their redemption.
     ראה ראיתי, “I have indeed seen, etc.” In this verse we encounter three references to G’d’s awareness of what had been happening to the Jewish people. Each awareness mentioned is more specific and more encompassing than the previous one. G’d begins by speaking about what He has seen; He continues describing what He has heard; finally He describes the result of what He has seen and heard as “I have become intimately aware,” ידעתי את מכאוביו, “I have become intimately familiar with its pains.” According to what we read here the sensation of seeing something is not as powerful a tool to awaken responses as is hearing something. Only a combination of seeing and hearing is a truly powerful tool to arouse compassion. It is a fact that when one observes something without hearing any sound it is difficult to truly understand what the picture means. Similarly, if one hears sounds without seeing what causes these sounds, one also cannot form a coherent idea of what one has heard. One needs to both hear and see something in order to be able to evaluate these phenomena. The Bible uses the expression ראיה or שמיעה on different occasions as substitutes for the word הבנה, understanding. For example, we are told that a people whose language we do not “hear” is one that we do not understand (Deut. 28,49). The same is true of “seeing” unaccompanied by “hearing.” This is what  Solomon said in Kohelet 1,16לבי ראה , “my heart has seen.” If someone has understood something only with his heart this is not comparable to someone’s understanding which was based on seeing and hearing it first.
      Shemot Rabbah 3,2, questioning the need for the repetition of the word ראה concludes that G’d told Moses that there would indeed be two events to be witnessed by G’d but that Moses would witness only one of them, i.e. the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. The second event, the Israelites trying to wriggle out of keeping the Torah, would be something reserved for G’d to see. Moses would not have to see it in his lifetime. The latter event is depicted by Ezekiel 1,10 “and the face of the ox (turned) to the left.” The “left” is always an allusion to something sinful.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וארד להצילו ...אל ארץ טובה, “I shall descend in order to save it....to a good land, etc.” What was the need for the Torah to lavish so many compliments on the stones and trees of the land of Canaan? Was it not enough for a people in the condition of abject slavery such as the Jewish people to be told that they would be redeemed and would become free? Would they not consider this a welcome message even if the land they would go to would be of inferior quality? The fact is that all the compliments in our verse apply to the Torah. Torah has been described as לקח טוב, “good” instruction; (Proverbs 4,2) it has been described as רחבה, “spacious” (Psalms 119,96). All the adjectives in this verse apply to Torah as if the Torah had written “to a land (Torah) which is good, spacious flowing with milk and honey” (compare Song of Songs 4,11).   The details of the land of Israel itself are described only commencing with the words: אל ארץ הכנעני, “to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, etc.” G’d’s message to the Israelites is that they would inherit the land of these nations as these people are not worthy of living in a country in which the Torah makes its home. Our commentary corresponds to what I have found in Bereshit Rabbah 16,7 on Genesis 2,12: “the gold of this land was good;” the Midrash says: “there is no Torah comparable to the Torah in the land of Israel and there is no wisdom comparable to the wisdom to be found in the land of Israel.”  We may add that the words אל מקום הכנעני “to the place of the Canaanite,” instead of the usual “to the land of the Canaanite,” contain an additional message, i.e. that the Israelites would wipe out the present inhabitants of that land and inherit their land. They would not merely live there as residents as had their forefathers.
  
  Verse 9
  
   צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי, “the outcry of the Children of Israel has come to Me.”  Has this very wording not already been mentioned in verse 7? 
  According to a Kabbalistic approach the words צעקת בני ישראל in this verse are a reference to כנסת ישראל, the mystical dimension of the Jewish people, the representative of the Jewish people in the celestial spheres. It is this כנסת ישראל which has added its outcry in front of G’d pleading on behalf of its counterparts in the terrestrial world. 
     וגם ראיתי את הלחץ, “and I have also seen the pressure, etc.” Rabbeinu Chananel comments on the word לחץ that this pressure was due to the fact that Joseph at the time had assigned the province of Goshen to a family comprising only 70 souls. He had not realised that the population explosion that was to follow would result in the province of Goshen being far too small to contain all the Israelites and to provide them with a livelihood. At the same time, the Egyptians had not been prepared to make allowance for this and to allocate additional land to the Israelites. The Rabbi supports his view of the meaning of the word לחץ by citing Judges 1,34: וילחצו האמורי את בני דן ההרה כי לא נתנו לרדת לעמק, “the Emorites squeezed the Danites into the hill country; they would not let them come down to the plain.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ועתה לכה ואשלחך אל פרעה, “and now, go and I shall dispatch you to Pharaoh.” Actually, we would have expected G’d to say ועתה לך!, “go now!” Why did G’d use this cumbersome form of instruction? According to the plain meaning of the text the letter ה here is an allusion to the five days the Israelites would spend encamped at Mount Sinai prior to receiving the Ten Commandments on the sixth day of Sivan. This is also why G’d added: “this shall be the sign for you.” The word אות in this instance referred to the extra letter ה. G’d said to Moses (verse 12) “when you take out the people from Egypt you will serve the Lord at this mountain” (for five days and on the sixth you will receive the Torah). 
      A kabbalistic approach: The additional letter ה in the word לכה, represents the final letter ה in the Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה; this explains why G’d added in verses 12 זה לך האות “this letter ה (of My name) will be for you (proof) that, etc.” The letter ה of this name is also known as זה, such as in זה אלי ואנוהו, in Exodus 15,2 or such as in Exodus 13,8 בעבור זה עשה לי,  “for the sake of זה G’d has done for me, etc.”
  
  Verse 11
  
   מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה? “who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?” Nachmanides writes on this verse that G’d instructed Moses to perform two tasks: The first instruction to Moses was to free the Jewish people, something that could be accomplished by bringing them back to the province of Goshen to remain free there. The second instruction was to take the Jewish people out of Egypt and lead them to the land occupied by the Canaanites. 
  Moses had concerns about carrying out both tasks. Concerning the first task Moses said to G’d: “who am I the lowly shepherd to demand such a thing from the powerful King? He will simply have me killed.” We have a parallel for this in Samuel I 16,2 where G’d had commanded the prophet to appoint one of Yishai’s sons as king instead of King Saul, and the prophet says to G’d: “as soon as Saul will hear about this he will kill me!” Concerning the command to take the Jewish people out of Egypt, Moses said:  “this is a great and intelligent nation. They will not allow me, an ignorant shepherd, to lead them into a confrontation with powerful nations such as the Emorites, the Canaanites, etc.” Moses agreed that the people would definitely be anxious to be free of the burden of hard labor and slavery. After all, which nation does not yearn to be free? However, they would not obey the call to ascend to the land of the Canaanite. In the event, Moses proved right as every time the Israelites faced war against the Canaanites the people were scared and even preferred to go back to Egypt.   G’d responded to both of Moses’ fears. Concerning Moses’ fear of confronting Pharaoh, G’d said “I will be with you, i.e. you need not be afraid of being killed.” He pointed to the vision Moses had now experienced which would be the sign that at this very spot the Jewish people would serve the Lord prior to being given the Torah. Once they would accept this they would become true servants of the Lord. The whole purpose of the phenomenon of the bush which refused to burn to cinders was to reinforce Moses’ belief in the success of the mission assigned to him. What was intended as a sign for Moses not to be afraid of confronting Pharaoh, would also be a sign for the Jewish people never to be afraid to confront the Gentile nations once they arrive at Mount Sinai. For the time being the people would be prepared to obey Moses’ instructions to follow him to a place only three days’ march away from their homes in Egypt. Thus far Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואמרו לי מה שמו? מה אומר אליהם? “when they will say to me: “what is His name? What shall I say to them?” Actually, Moses should have assumed that the people would ask him for a sign that he had been sent by G’d to be their redeemer. Deut. 13,13 describes the legitimization of a man claiming to be a prophet to be that he promises that a certain event or events would occur and that after these events have occurred he uses this as his legitimization as a prophet. Seeing Moses wanted the people to follow him out of Egypt, he most certainly would have to perform some very impressive miracle or miracles. When Moses asked G’d which of His names (attributes) he was to invoke to prove that he was a legitimate messenger this would not be considered a miracle or proof at all. If the people were familiar with such a name of G’d there was no reason why Moses should not also be familiar with it. It would prove nothing. If, on the other hand, the people were not familiar with that name of G’d, what proof would mention of that name be that the man in front of them had been appointed by their G’d to be their redeemer? We can therefore well understand Moses’ reaction: “but they will not believe me.” This is why G’d had to equip Moses with the ability to perform certain miracles to help convince the people that he was no charlatan.
      The plain meaning of the words “what is His name?” is: “what is the proof of His existence?” Moses wanted to know how to convince the people that G’d exercised supervision both of the universe and the fate of His people, something which had been sorely absent for so many years. He wanted that G’d reveal to him an attribute which would be adequate to convince the leaders of the people that He was real and took a real interest in them.  This is the reason G‘d replied אהיה אשר אהיה, “I shall be whoever I shall be”, i.e. that He was the only true existence of this universe, that all other phenomena in this world are transient, bound to expire sooner or later. G’d meant for Moses to explain this concept to the elders of the people.
      Nachmanides explains the words as הנמצא אשר הוא נמצא which is Maimonides’ way of explaining the name אהיה אשר אהיה in his Moreh Nevuchim.  It means that G’d’s Presence  is capable and likely to become manifest. Not only had He never been absent, but He would never be absent in the future either (though His Presence might not always be manifest). According to the explanations provided by both Maimonides and Nachmanides, Moses’ question had been addressed to G’d’s being manifest and His providing proof of His intervention in the fate of man. If that were really so, we have to express our amazement that the elders of Israel at the time should have had the slightest doubt about such fundamental tenets of our faith. Why would they require proof and reassurance of something so basic? Moreover, how would the revelation of a name of G’d they had not heard before serve to strengthen their belief in His involvement in their fate? If there had been any heretics amongst them denying G’d’s existence, telling people like that of another name of G’d would hardly impress them.
      Rabbi Bachya Ibn Pakuda, author of the work חובות הלבבות, “duties of the heart,” writes in the tenth chapter of שער היחוד  that when Moses quoted the Jewish people as asking him “what is His (G’d’s) name,” he meant that they would want to know something about G’d’s Essence. We always describe G’d in terms such as “the G’d of heaven and earth,” or “the G’d of the winds,” always comparing G’d to phenomena with which we are familiar. The reason we have to do this is because we have no idea of G’d’s Essence. It is something beyond our comprehension. Moses was quite astute therefore in asking: “what shall I tell them if they want to know Your Essence?”    The fact is that knowledge about G’d may be acquired by two methods. It can be attained through tradition or it may be attained by means of an intellectual process of reasoning and observation. When G’d told Moses that אהיה אשר אהיה, He addressed people who looked for knowledge of Him by means of their intellect. In addition, He also informed Moses that He was the G’d of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, i.e. there was a long tradition of knowledge about Him and about what He had done for the patriarchs. He did so because the common people would not be able to arrive at valid conclusions about G’d by using only their intellectual powers. The cognition of G’d via the process of קבלה, history, tradition, is described in Job 15,18 in the following words: “that which wise men have transmitted from their fathers and have not withheld.”
      A Midrashic approach to the above (based on Shemot Rabbah 3,6). Moses actually had asked to know G’d’s “great” name, i.e. His Essence. Thereupon G’d said to Moses: “You want to know My name? I am known according to My deeds. When I am busy judging My creatures, I am known as “elohim.” When I am preoccupied  in fighting against the wicked, I am known as “tzeva-ot.” When I am suspending judgment of man’s sin temporarily, I am known as “shaddai.” When I am seated on the throne of Mercy I am known as ‘‎Hashem.’” What the sages of the Midrash wanted to convey to us by means of these illustrations is  אין רבוי ביחוד, that there is no such thing as a “plural which can be applied to the Unique One, to G’d.” The fact that G’d enjoys being known by a multiplicity of “names” does not mean that each name represents a different deity or even a different “power.” G’d is One. The reason He is known by many names is that man cannot express in his language all the attributes of G’d which combine to make up His Essence in a single word or expression. The nearest thing we can do is to describe facets of G’d’s Essence in terms reflecting His activities.
      It is important that you, the reader, appreciate that in our verse (14) the attribute (name) אהיה is mentioned three times.  This is meant to reflect G’d’s existence on three levels. It is a hint that G’d is supreme in three time zones. He is and was supreme in the past; He is and remains supreme in the present; He is and will remain supreme in the future. The reason this is so is because “time” does not effect G’d as it does any of His creatures. G’d is the “constant.” The creatures are the ones effected by the concept of time. If we would have to translate the words אהיה אשר אהיה, we would have to say: “I am the One who has not only been the same in the past as in the present, but I will continue to be the same in the future for all time.” Whenever we use the tetragram, the eternal nature of G’d is also meant to be part of that name. There is no need to elaborate on this further.
      A rational/scientific approach: The study of the permutations of the name or names of G’d yields the result that the letters in the name אהיה symbolise the existence of G’d in all three time zones. The letter א relating as it does to a “beginning,” is reminiscent of the “past;” the middle letter ה is reminiscent of something which is “in between,” i.e. the הוה the present. The letter י, the last one of the single digits (1-0) and the objective of all calculations is reminiscent of the future, i.e. יהיה. The last letter ה teaches that G’d’s existence during all the three time zones described is that of an ever-present one. He is no more or no less distant from the past than He is from the future. He relates to all time zones as if they were the present, the “here and now.”     The spelling of the tetragrammaton (י-ה-ו-ה) alludes to the same thing. The reason it commences with the letter י is that the letter א is the head of all numbers beginning with the digit 1. When we think of the number 9  which is the last of the single-digit numbers for instance, and we then think about the number 10, we need to use the letter א)) in its capacity as the digit 1. It is impossible to write the number 10 in numbers without resorting to the digit 1. It follows that the letter א serves both as the beginning in the sequence 1-10 as well as at its end. In a similar manner the Creator (represented by the א) is also both beginning and end of all things, of all existence. The letter י then is to be viewed as being a combination of the two digits 9+1 respectively. It is the first letter of the Ineffable Name in order to preempt the inquiry of what had been prior to the beginning, prior to “number 1,” and what would come after the “end.” א represents the beginning, whereas ט represents the last digit. By placing the letter י (combining 1+9) at the beginning, the Torah wishes to forestall such questions. One may therefore conceive of the tetragrammaton as a combination of היה and יהיה. It teaches that G’d was “before” anything and will continue to exist “after” everything. His name will remain unchanged.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words: “they will say to me: ‘what is His name?’” Moses meant they would ask him in what capacity, i.e. which of G’d’s names (attributes) had communicated with him? 
      Nachmanides writes as follows concerning all this: “I do not believe that the elders of the Jewish people at the time had the slightest doubt about the continued existence of the G’d of their forefathers as suggested by Maimonides. Moses was also sufficiently knowledgeable as befits someone appointed as a prophet to be aware of the intellectual and theological level of the elders of the Jewish people (compare Sifri Deut. 1). He simply exploited this opportunity to present G’d with a theoretical situation which might face him when trying to legitimize himself in the eyes of these elders, in order for him personally to obtain additional insights from G’d as to whether G’d would bring the redemption in His capacity as the attribute of Mercy or in His capacity as the attribute of Justice. During the lives of the patriarchs G’d manifested Himself by means of נסים נסתרים, miracles which did not openly contradict the laws of nature. Moses assumed that the elders might ask him if G’d were now going to perform נסים גלויים, visible miracles, i.e. phenomena which demonstrate His mastery over the laws of nature. The former type of miracles are usually performed by the attribute of Justice whereas the latter type are the domain of the attribute of Mercy. When Moses asked G’d what “name” he should tell the people about, he meant under what heading the forthcoming redemption would take place. G’d’s reply that He is אהיה אשר אהיה, meant that He intended to perform only “hidden miracles,” that He did not intend to upset the laws of nature in order to bring about the release of the Israelites.    G’d made this plain when He told Moses that he should tell the people אהיה שלחני אליכם, “the One who is called אהיה has sent me to you.” Had G’d wanted to inform the people that He intended to employ both the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy, He would have instructed Moses to present himself as the messenger from the One Who calls Himself אהיה אשר אהיה, and would have had to answer the inquiry by the elders with the words אהיה אשר אהיה שלחני אליכם. When, in verse 15, G’d gives additional instructions to Moses how to speak to the people by telling him to refer also to the fact that He had been both Hashem and elohim for the patriarchs, this is to teach the people that though the element of Mercy, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה had played a role in His dealing with the patriarchs, this element had not been manifest to them. It was important that now the people understand that even though this element might manifest itself in front of their very eyes it was but another facet of the unique and indivisible G’d. He wanted Moses and the people to understand that even the letters in the name אהיה which we have explained as pointing at the attribute of Justice are (basically) the same as the letters in the Ineffable Name, the only difference being that the letter א at the beginning sums up the idea that G’d is both ”first” and ”last,” as we explained earlier. G’d informed Moses and had him inform the people that the attributes represented by both names would accompany him and enable him to discharge his mission successfully.    The letters א and י respectively reflect the wisdom of Solomon and the wisdom of G’d respectively. The prophet in Kings I 5,26 wrote  וי-הוה נתן חכמה לשלמה  “and the Lord (tetragrammaton without the letter א in front) had granted wisdom to Solomon.” The verse commences with the conjunctive letter ו to show that this wisdom of Solomon was “secondary” to that represented by the name אהיה with the letter א in front. At this point the author digresses and explains the significance of the letters א-י at the beginning and end of the name of G’d which we use most of the time and which is spelled א-ד-נ-י. That name is also a combination of the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice, seeing that when you subtract the letters א-י which represent the “Mercy” aspect you are left with the letter דן, “judged.” [I believe that Solomon’s wisdom consisted primarily in knowing how to judge truly when the evidence available to him was not adequate according to most yardsticks. This may be why our author uses this whole verse to mention  Solomon. The author continues in this vein for some considerable length pointing out that such expressions by David (Psalms 138,2) as כי הגדלת על כל שמך אמרתך, “because You have exalted Your name, Your word above all,” can all be understood in terms of what G’d revealed in our verse. I have decided to condense the remainder of his comments on the mysticism involved here. Ed.]    When the Torah emphasizes G’d saying to Moses כה תאמר אל בני ישראל a second time in verse 15, the words אל-בני, etc., which are quite unnecessary, may be an allusion to לבנים “the bricks” i.e. the same letters as אל-בני. The people making the bricks under intolerable conditions qualified for the attribute of Mercy. Actually, we find that the message of the Torah here is divided into four parts. Section one was addressed to Moses alone. Section two was addressed to the  people making the bricks. Section three was addressed to the Israelites who were neither bricklayers nor elders.  Section four was addressed to the elders. They were mentioned last as G’d revealed to them elements of the emanations which by definition grants the student of this discipline an insight into the relationship between the beginning and the end.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אלו-הי אברהם, אלו-הי יצחק, ואלו-הי יעקב שלחני אליכם זה שמי לעולם וזה זכרי לדור דור, “the G’d of Avraham, the G’d of Yitzchak, and the G’d of Yaakov has sent me to you (with the message) ‘this is My Name forever and this is My remembrance from generation to generation.’” According to the plain meaning of the text G’d informed Moses that the name He mentioned now was the one He wanted to be known by amongst mankind, and this was the name by which He would be remembered throughout the generations. When Jews speak about G’d in their prayers they refer to Him as the G’d of Avraham, the G’d of Yitzchak, etc. The additional letter ו in front of the words ואלו-הי יעקב is something that is customary whenever you enumerate a list of names. We find other examples of this in the sequence of the gem stones in the breastplate of the High Priest, i.e. נופך, ספיר, ויהלום (Exodus 25,18). Another example of such a construction is found in Micah 6,4 ואשלח לפניך את משה, אהרון, ומרים. “I did send before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam.”
      A Midrashic approach  based on Pessachim 3 on the words “this is My name, etc.” G’d explained to Moses that contrary to usual practice G’d’s name is not spelled the way it is spoken. Although His name may be spelled with the letters י-ה it would be pronounced as if it had been spelled with א-ד. It is a well known fact that the Ineffable Name was pronounced in accordance with its spelling only in the Holy Temple not outside its precincts (Sotah 38).
   This has been confirmed in Midrash Tehillim (Psalms 87) where Rabbi Chiya son of Idi asks the rhetorical question of why the exalted name of G’d could be pronounced only inside the Holy Temple whereas outside we have to content ourselves with referring to G’d in a more oblique fashion, using substitute names? He pointed to Psalms 87,3 where the sons of Korach say:  נכבדות מדבר בך עיר האלו-הים סלה, “glorious things  are spoken of You, O city of G’d, selah.” Rabbi Chiya interpreted this line to mean that the glorious name of G’d maybe spoken only in the Temple. In the provinces, i.e. “the city of G’d,” He may be referred to only by means of כנוים. Our sages (Eruvin 18) add that ever since the destruction of the Temple, “pronouns” substitute for His real name. Mankind was meant to use only the two first letters of the tetragrammaton, i.e. the letters י-ה. They base this on Psalm 150,6 כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה, הללו י-ה. The meaning of this verse is that while the Temple is standing not all souls would praise G’d by using the same names for Him. Inside the Temple His real name would be used whereas outside people would have to be content with using כנויים. Once the Temple had been destroyed, כל הנשמה “every soul” was reduced to the same common denominator of having to praise the Lord by invoking only His “substitute” names. They may use only “half” His name, i.e. the letters י-ה.
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words זה שמי לעלם refer to the attributes חסד ופחד whose combined numerical value equals that of the word לעלם. This corresponds to the meaning of אלו-הי אברהם ואלו-הי יצחק who personified these two attributes. The words זה זכרי allude to the attribute זכור, the emanation “harmony.” This was the attribute personified by Yaakov. The reason that the letter ו was added to the word אלו-הי  is that this letter joins the tenth emanation, i.e. it is the link to that emanation  also known as דור. The generations, דורות, derive from this emanation.
      According to Nachmanides the word זכרי  is a reference to the emanation יסוד, which in his view is the emanation from which the שבת הגדול is derived. This concept was personified by the term אלו-הי יעקב. The reason it is mentioned here in connection with the expression לדר דר, is that the tenth emanation is known as דור, seeing that all future generations derive from it. [Counting the emanations from the one closest to the Essence of G’d, i.e. כתר down to the tenth emanation (nowadays known as מלכות, Ed.) This tenth emanation is what we call our terrestrial universe, the עולם העשיה, the world of tangible phenomena. All generations of human beings have their origin in that generation. Ed.] When Isaiah 41,4 speaks of G’d as קורא הדורות מראש “announcing the generations from the start,” this is an association of זכר, having something in common with the concept of the שבת הגדול, which is a concept that is paired with that of the כנסת ישראל.     Let us try and explain this in more popular language. The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 11,8 describes the Sabbath as complaining to G’d that every day has its partner whereas the Sabbath was the only day which had not been assigned a partner. G’d responded that the Jewish people, כנסת ישראל, would become the partner of the Sabbath. The emanation יסוד  argued similarly in front of G’d, seeing it represents a decisive force. Every decisive force is perceived as זכר, masculine. This emanation יסוד is also known אמת, truth. Truth is the seal of the Almighty. It is the 7th of the 13 attributes G’d revealed to Moses, i.e. the central one. As such it is a decisive force. Decisive forces are by definition masculine, i.e. זכר. 
  To sum up: The word זכרי refers to the power of the attribute of Mercy, an attribute present in some measure both in the emanation תפארת as well as in the emanation יסוד. The emanation יסוד is the source of G’d’s blessings for His creatures; this is the mystical dimension of the verse (Proverbs 10,7) זכר צדיק לברכה, “the memory of the just is a source of blessing.” Concerning this concept David said in Psalms 145,17 צדיק ה’ בכל דרכיו, ”G’d is righteous in all His ways,” seeing that all the “paths of the world and all its activities are essentially originating with Him.” Seeing that He displays a tendency towards the attribute of חסד whenever He makes a decision, David continued by saying וחסיד בכל מעשיו, that G’d is “full of loving kindness in all the activities He completes.” As a result, He is “close to all those who call upon Him; and he performs the wishes of those who fear Him.” However, the words: “G’d protects and guards all those who love him,” apply only to those of the tenth emanation, the one which is adjacent to Him. Another dimension of our verse: The words “this is My name forever” refer to the tetragrammaton, a name which is capable of 12 permutations [a variety of 12 possible letters when it is spelled as words instead of as letters, such as י=יוד. Ed.] These 12 permutations symbolize 12 בתים, houses, which in turn comprise 48 letters. This is the mystical dimension of Sukkah 53 where we are told that Achitofel applied a logical form of reasoning “on his own” [which had not been handed down by previous generations, Ed.] saying that if it is in order to deliberately dissolve the Holy name of G’d which comprises 48 letters in order to restore domestic peace between husband and wife [in the case of a Sotah, a woman suspected by her husband of infidelity, Ed.] how much more so is it permissible to do so in order to restore peace on earth, not just between one man and his wife. [Following this piece of reasoning they wrote the tetragrammaton on a shard and threw it into the hole under the altar called שיתין, the place from which earth had been formed in order to prevent the waters gushing forth from there from flooding the earth.]
  
  Verse 16
  
   פקד פקדתי אתכם, “I have surely remembered you.” The Torah speaks here of two distinct remembrances. One is that Israel is being remembered, the other that the שכינה, which had descended with Yaakov to Egypt and had been exiled and subjected to abuse together with the Jewish people, was also now being “remembered.” The שכינה had been alluded to at the time by the letter ה at the end of the word מצרימה in Genesis 46,4 where G’d had promised to also bring it up again as we have explained there. The שכינה referred to by our sages in that context is none other than the כנסת ישראל which is referred to in verse nine as צעקת בני ישראל. This is also the reason that G’d said to Moses that He had remembered אתכם ואת העשוי לכם במצרים, “you  and the כנסת ישראל,” the letter ה of the word מצרימה which we referred to earlier as proof that the שכינה descended to Egypt also. It is this שכינה which shared the pain that the Jewish people were experiencing.    As to the meaning of the word עשוי, “what has been done.” The word is related to Tzefaniah 33,19 הנני עושה את כל מעניך, which means that G’d is actively suffering as a result of His people suffering from by the Gentiles.
      Another reason for the repetition of the words פקד יפקד is that it refers to two separate remembrances one by the attribute of Mercy the other by the attribute of Justice. The first one is extended to the Jewish people, hence the Torah writes פקדתי אתכם, “I have remembered you.” The second is that G’d’s attribute of Justice will remember יפקד, (future tense) the Egyptians and what they had done to the Israelites in Egypt. This is a reference to the promise G’d made to Avraham in Genesis 15,14: “and also the nation who enslave them I will judge.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   אלו-הי העבריים נקרה עלינו , “the G’d of the Hebrews has manifested Himself to us.” According to the plain meaning of the text the additional letter י in the word עבריים is an allusion to the forthcoming ten plagues with which G’d would afflict the Egyptians [they would have an extra ten of something added to them]. 
  According to Shemot Rabbah 3,8 the letter alludes to the Israelites crossing the sea (עברי ים).    A Kabbalistic approach:  the extra letter י is an allusion to the first עברי the most noble Avraham who had been called by the Torah אברם העברי, Avraham from the other side (of the river Euphrates compare Genesis 14,13.) He had been called thus as he was the first person who (without parental or scholarly guidance) had found his way to G’d. Concerning Avraham we read in the ספר יצירה (the most ancient Kabbalistic text) chapter 1, Mishnah 7 discussing the ten emanations all of which were created prior to anything tangible נעוץ סופן בתחילתן כשלהבת בגחלת “the end is connected to its beginning as is the flame to its coal.” In other words, the letter י is a reminder that Avraham the first Jew recognized that G’d is eternal and had no beginning, and that He used the ten emanations to create the tangible universe out of “nothing.” The letter י is added on occasion where it did not first appear to be needed in order to remind us of the ten emanations which preceded the creation of the physical, tangible universe. You find an example of this when Solomon admonishes us (Kohelet 12,1)  וזכור את בוראיך, “and remember your Creator.” There is no reason for the י after the word בורא except to point to something additional connected with the Creator and His creation.
     דרך שלשת ימים, “a distance of three days.” We must not accuse Moses of deliberately misleading Pharaoh in order for the Israelites to escape from his authority. Moses meant that in order to receive the commandments from G’d the people had to travel a distance of three days from the boundaries of Egypt. G’d had intended to introduce the commandments gradually, first the Sabbath legislation, such as happened later at Marah (Exodus 15,25 compare Mechilta 1 on 15,22). G’d had also introduced Avraham gradually to any demand He made upon him. He had not said: ”take your son Yitzchak and offer him as a sacrifice,” but had introduced the subject in stages  saying 1) “your son;” 2) “your only one;” 3) “the one you love;” 4) “Yitzchak” (compare Genesis 22,2).
  
  Verse 19
  
   ולא ביד חזקה, “except through a strong hand.” These words mean that a single plague ("ביד") would not be enough to change Pharaoh’s attitude but that he would have to suffer numerous plagues ("בידות") before he would respond. Alternatively, the word ולא could mean “except.” Rashi, based on Midrash, understands the words יד חזקה as a reference to Pharaoh’s strong hand, i.e. stubborn attitude. G’d’s message then was that that Moses should not be surprised that he would see Pharaoh remain unbelievably stubborn. Such stubbornness would not be due to Pharaoh’s unaided strength of character but would be the result of G’d reinforcing his resolve to keep the Jewish people enslaved.  Proof of the validity of this interpretation are the words (Exodus 6,1) כי ביד חזקה ישלחם, “for due to a strong hand he will dismiss them.” G’d clearly referred to His own strong hand in that verse. Onkelos also supports this view when he writes: ולא מן קדם דחיליה תקיף, “not before he becomes very much afraid.” This is the reason that verse 20 follows immediately with the words: “and I will  stretch out My hand and smite Egypt with all My miracles.”     The word נפלאתי, in verse 20 is spelled defective, i.e. without the letter ו which is part of the plural ending, in order to remind us that it is impossible for G’d to display “all” of His miracles, as we would have assumed after reading the word בכל, i.e. “with all.” This matter has been elaborated on in Job 26,14: “these are  but glimpses of His rule, the mere whisper that we perceive of Him. Who can absorb the thunder of His mighty deeds?”
      Using a kabbalistic approach, it is possible that the reason the Torah describes the plagues as “all” of G’d’s miracles is the fact they numbered ten, corresponding to the total number of the emanations. The last one of these emanations is also known as כל “all.” It would be the final emanation (counting from מלכות in an ascending order) beyond which is the forever concealed א, G’d’s Essence. [According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai as quoted by Pardes Rimonim in chapter 23, the emanation which may be called כל is the emanation יסוד as it is the one containing the 50 שערי בינה, i.e. all the gateways to בינה, “insight.” This would be the 2nd lowest emanation then. Ed.]
      All the miracles of a supernatural nature which have occurred after the six days of creation had their origin in this domain of א which remains forever inaccessible to us. All the miracles mentioned in the Bible originate in a world to which we have no access. The reason that these miracles are known as נפלאות, is because although their origin is in a domain that is completely hidden, their manifestation makes the existence of such a domain נגלה, “revealed.” This is the reason the Torah needed to describe these miracle with two words, i.e. בכל as well as נפלאתי. The first word relates to the hidden domain from which these miracles emanate; the second word refers to the fact that they have become manifest. The whole verse may be understood thus: “I shall smite Egypt with the number of plagues which include the emanation “all” i.e. נפלאתי. When you understand the verse in this way this also accounts for the fact that the word ידי, “My hand,” has been repeated once more in verse 20 after G’d had already said in verse 19 that he would employ “His hand.” The sequence of the plagues would be ד”צך עד”ש באח”ב, corresponding to the list of emanations starting with the lowest emanation מלכות, seeing that blood corresponds to that emanation (compare Zohar Parshat Vaeyra 29).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ושאלה אשה משכנתה, “each woman will ask her neighbor, etc.” There can be no question of G’d permitting the Israelites to engage in deception by giving the impression that what they asked for would only be borrowed whereas they did not intend to return it. The word  ושאלה means “she will request (as a gift).” We find the word שאל used as the request for gifts in connection with Gideon (Judges 8,24) אשאלה מכם שאלה, “I have a request to make from you; each one of you give me the earring he has received as booty.” Clearly, Gideon did not mean to “borrow” thousands of earrings. Another occasion when the word שאל is used as a request for outright possession is Kings I 2,20 שאלה אחת קטנה אני שואלת ממך, Bat Sheva speaking to her son King Solomon: “I have a small request to make from you” [that Adoniah be permitted to marry Avishag the concubine of David]  Clearly the word שאלה did not refer to something or somebody which would merely be borrowed. In other words, the word שאל as applicable to the request of a gift is not unique, and this is what G’d had in mind when he told Moses what the Israelites would do prior to the Exodus.  As to the peculiar wording “a woman will request from her neighbor” instead of “a man will request from an Egyptian,” the Torah merely wanted to indicate that if even the Egyptian women would give gifts to their Jewish neighbors how much more so would the men give gifts to the male Israelites. We find a parallel for this in Isaiah 33,23  פסחים בזזו בז, “the lame shall seize booty.” If even the lame seized booty, how much more booty must have been seized by the able-bodied! (compare commentary by Rabbeinu Chananel).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?” The absence of the letter ה in the word מזה instead of מה זה, is an allusion to the fact that only five out of the plagues would be performed by means of Moses’ staff. They were: the snake, the hail, the locust, the darkness, the splitting of the sea of Reeds. All the other miracles did not involve Moses’ staff as an instrument. Some of the other plagues were initiated by G’d personally, some by Aaron. A Midrashic (Tanchuma Shemot 23) approach: the word מזה could be read with the vowel chirik under the letter מ instead of the vowel patach. The verse then would be the beginning of a line saying: “from this (staff) in your hand (you will be smitten).”  [The idea is that since you Moses have slandered the Jewish people just as the original serpent engaged in slander, ultimately your use of this staff (when hitting the rock instead of speaking to it) will become your undoing.”]
  
  Verse 3
  
   השליכהו ארצהת וישליכהו ארצה ויהי לנחש. “Throw it to the ground! He threw it to the ground and it turned into a snake.” You should realise that the changing of the staff into a snake was related to the reversal of the natural power inherent in the letters used by the Torah. It is alluded to in our verse so that when the order of the letters would be reversed the snake could become changed into a staff again. [According to Torat Chayim quoting a Rabbi Naftali, — cited by Rabbi Chavell —the final letters in the words ארצה, וישליכהו, ארצה, ויהי are the letters of the tetragrammaton in reversed order. When these letters appear again in the proper order at the end of the words ויהי למטה בכפו, it is easy to understand why the snake turned again into a staff.] We know that basically the tetragrammaton consists of the three letter י-ה-ו. The letter ה appears twice in that name.
      We may understand that by means of these two miracles, i.e.  Moses’ staff turning into a snake and his hand becoming afflicted with tzoraat, G’d hinted to him that it was in His power to kill the living and to revive the dead. The staff had been a dried out piece of wood, devoid of life of any sort, and by throwing it on the ground it turned into a living organism. Moses’ hand on the other hand, which had been part of a perfectly healthy living organism, suddenly became as if dead. The disease tzoraat is viewed by the Bible as a form of death as we know from Moses’ prayer for his sister Miriam (Numbers 12,12) “do not let her remain like a dead person!” G’d (Moses) performed both of these miracles here in the desert and later in the presence of the assembled Jewish people in Egypt (4,30). This was what G’d had meant when He said: “so that they will believe that the Lord G’d has indeed appeared to you” (verse 5). The second miracle was repeated in accordance with G’d having said: “in the event they will not believe the impression made by the first miracle, they will believe the impact of the second miracle” (verse 8).    The question remains why these miracles had first to be performed in the desert, i.e. while Moses was standing at the foot of Mount Chorev. After all, surely Moses did not doubt anything G’d told him! We have to accept what our sages Shemot Rabbah 3,15) handed down to us as their tradition, i.e. that the first miracle Moses had to perform was to make him aware that he had slandered the Jewish people when he had stated that the people would not believe that G’d had appointed him as their redeemer. He had no right to say this (4,1) after G’d Himself had told him in 3,18 ושמעו לקולך, “they (the Jewish people) will hearken to your voice (message).” The second miracle, that of Moses’ hand becoming afflicted with tzoraat was as a punishment for his slandering his people and not believing G’d. The miracles performed a different function  each time Moses performed it.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  . והאמינו לקול האות האחרון, “they will believe and pay heed to the second miracle.” G’d referred to the miracle involving the tzoraat as the “last” one instead of as “the second one,” as it was the last one relative to the first one. Besides, it was the last miracle Moses performed in the desert where he had no audience.
  
  Verse 9
  
  . והיו לדם ביבשת “they (the waters) will turn into blood on the dry land.”  The reason the Torah repeats the word והיו, is because  the people will first observe that the water poured on the dry land was still water. Only afterwards will it turn into blood to prove there had not been a sleight of hand. This is why the Torah had to write והיו לדם ביבשת.
  
  Verse 10
  
   בי אדוני לא איש דברים אנכי, “Please, My Lord, I have never been a man of many words.” According to Shemot Rabbah 3,16 G’d tried to seduce Moses into accepting his mission for seven days. The fact that this dialogue had continued for some days is proved by Moses adding the words “since yesterday or the day before.” This already accounts for three days; he had  added the word גם three times which adds another three days. Seeing that this conversation took place on the day following the previous conversation this makes seven days during which G’d waited for Moses to accept His invitation to become the leader of the Jewish people.    Concerning Moses’ additional argument that he was not suitable for this appointment as he was כבד פה וכבד לשון, “I am slow of speech and slow of tongue,” we have been told in Pesikta Zutrata on this verse that while growing up in Pharaoh’s palace Moses once took the king’s crown and threw it on the ground. The king wanted to execute him on account of this misdemeanor. His astrologers used this incident to point out that Moses must  be the boy of whom they had warned that he would become the redeemer of the Israelites. According to Shemot Rabbah 1,12 Pharaoh consulted with his closest advisors who included Bileam, Yitro. and Job. They offered different advice, one saying that the boy was guilty of death, the other saying that it was a youthful prank not to be taken seriously. They devised a means to test if there had been an evil intent in Moses knocking off his foster grandfather’s crown. They placed before him a bowl containing both a golden coin and a glowing coal. If Moses were to grab for the coal this would prove that he had not had any evil intention. If he were to grab for the golden coin this would be a sign that he was dangerous and he would have to be killed. Moses was about to grab the golden coin when an angel pushed his hand toward the coal and he burned his tongue when trying to taste it. According to this Midrash this is where Moses’ stammer originated. 
      When he said כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי, he meant that seeing that he had been so handicapped from his earliest youth, now that he was already eighty years old this handicap had become much more difficult for him to conquer. He implied that seeing G’d had not seen fit to cure him of this affliction this was proof that he was not the right man for the mission G’d wanted to send him on. Actually, the only reason G’d had never cured him of his stammer had been that Moses had been remiss in not praying to be cured. The reason he did not pray to be cured was so as to avoid having no excuse to refuse this mission. 
  Rabbeinu Chananel writes that the fact that Moses mentioned two facets of his handicap separately, i.e. כבד פה and כבד לשון is proof that he had difficulty enunciating the letters ז-ש-ר-ס-ץ all of which require one’s teeth. Furthermore he mentioned the word כבד לשון to indicate that he also had difficulty with the letters involving the tongue, i.e. ק-ט-ל-נ-ת.
  
  Verse 11
  
   או מי ישום אלם, “or Who makes one dumb?” The word אלם refers to someone who cannot speak because he is not equipped to communicate thoughts at all, and the expression ישום in our verse does not apply to Moses’ situation. However, seeing that man is by definition a creature who communicates thoughts by means of speech, the word אלם when applied to a human being means that the tendons controlling his tongue have been locked into place and that is the only reason that they act as if they never had a sense of speech at all. 
  Maimonides writes in his in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,10 that if someone removes pillars supporting a roof thereby causing the roof to collapse, he is considered as having removed the roof. In other words, if one removes light one has thereby created darkness. It follows that the removal of the ability to speak is equivalent to making someone dumb. As to the words או חרש, “or deaf,” why did the Torah not quote the alternative of “or provides him with the ability to hear or to be deaf” which would have corresponded to the words “gave man a mouth or made him dumb?” The Torah may have chosen to omit the words “or gives him an ear to hear with,” in order to remind us that the sense of hearing is closely related to the sense of speech. After all, failure to hear means inability to benefit from the sense of speech. It follows that the word חרש, deaf, already includes part of any statement made concerning the ability of communicating thoughts through speech. It sufficed therefore to mention only the opposite of the ability to hear, the deafness of a person.
      We need to understand the structure of this verse in which three (senses) attributes of man, each one superior to the following one are described. First we are told about the ability to speak, an ability connected to the soul, the ability to express what the soul feels. The opposite of this ability is to be a dumb, silent person. The second (sense) attribute the Torah mentions is the ability to hear, (a passive attribute). This ability is rated as superior to the (sense) attribute of sight. Here the Torah contrasts פקח and עור, someone possessing sight with someone who is blind. Solomon (Proverbs 15,30) writes: “enlightenment gladdens the heart, good news (received by the ear) puts fat on the bones.” Solomon made it clear that whereas the sense of sight expands the heart, the sense of hearing does something more tangible for man’s bones. In other words, the sense of hearing bestows greater benefit on man than the sense of sight. Our sages (Baba Kama 85) confirm this  when they ruled that if one robs someone of his eyesight he has to pay compensation for the eye. If one robs someone of his hearing he has to pay compensation as if he had caused total disability. Seeing that the Torah had indicated that the ear is superior to the eye, Solomon continues (Proverbs 15,31) “the ear that listens to life-giving discipline will abide with the scholars.” 
  I am aware that that you may ask, that if this is so why did Leah name her first son Reuven, commenting on what G’d had seen, whereas she called her second son Shimon, commenting on what G’d had heard? (Genesis 29,32 and 29,33) She ought to have called the first son Shimon and the second son Reuven!  This matter can be understood only by reference to kabbalah, a knowledge of the mystical bond between the terrestrial and the celestial parts of the universe. The sense of sight is anchored in the energy or potential inherent in the attribute of G’d represented by the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton. The ability to hear, on the other hand, is anchored in the potential inherent in the letter ו of that name of G’d (compare commentary on Genesis 29,32). This obligated Leah to name her firstborn in a manner reflecting the letter ה of the name of G’d before she named a son in a way which reflected the letterו  which follows the letter ה in the alphabet. [The letters of the alphabet are understood to reflect an ascending order of significance. Ed.]
     הלא אנכי “Is it not I?” Possibly the addition of the word י-ה-ו-ה at the end of this verse is a reference to the emanation בינה, (נשמה) which is given an outlet by means of the power of speech possessed by man. This idea is reflected in (Job 32,8) “but truly it is the spirit in man, the breath of Shaddai that gives them understanding.” Psalms 45,2 alludes to this when the sons of Korach observe: “I speak my poem to a king; my tongue is the pen of an expert scribe.” I have made some comment on this phenomenon on Genesis 1,26 נעשה אדם .
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . בי אדו-ני שלח נא ביד תשלח, “please My Lord, send through whomever You usually send!” We have explained previously (3,13) that Moses had been appointed by the attribute of Justice which formed a minor part of the attribute of Mercy. This is the reason that he used this attribute of G’d here which reflects the attribute of Justice. The aspect of the attribute of Justice is contained in the letters אי at the beginning and the end of the word א-ד-נ-י. These two letters were “borrowed” from the names אהיה and י-ה-ו-ה- respectively. The letter י has the vowel kametz, alluding to the attribute of Mercy as explained in connection with 3,13. The words ביד תשלח are best translated as “by means of someone qualified to undertake a mission on Your behalf.” By saying this Moses wanted to make clear that he did not consider himself qualified to speak to the king. He implied further that it would not reflect honour on G’d to have to dispatch a stammering representative as if no one else better qualified was at G’d’s disposal. This is also the way Onkelos translates this verse, i.e. ביד מאן דכשר למשלח.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויחר אף ה' במשה, “The Lord became angry at  Moses.” Whenever the Torah mentions that G’d became angry at someone this has tangible consequences. Here too G’d’s anger had immediate consequences as our sages (Shemot Rabbah 3,17) comment that as a result of Moses’ last remarks he lost the entitlement to become the High Priest. This is the significance of G’d saying: “is there not Aaron the Levite?” G’d meant that as of now Aaron had been slated to become the Priest instead of remaining merely a Levite. According to another Midrash, the result of Moses’ improper remark was that he would now never be cured of his speech defect. G’d could have honored Moses by curing his affliction at least as easily as He honored Moses by making the  skin of his face radiate light.    The implication of the words: “is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he can speak fluently,” is that by contrast Moses would never be cured from his stammer.
     וראך ושמח בלבו, “when he sees you he will be happy in his heart.” The Torah informs us with this comment that neither of the two brothers would be jealous of the other’s rank. This is what inspired David to sing (Psalms 133,1) “how good and how pleasant it is that brothers dwell together.” The Torah did not speak about Aaron being happy בפיו, with his “mouth,” i.e. expressing joy about Moses’ appointment verbally, but it wrote that he was “happy in his heart.” Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai  comments that the heart which was so generous that it could be happy at the elevation to leadership of his younger brother was found worthy to wear the breastplate with the Urim veTumim (the parchment enabling him to communicate with G’d at will) as it is written "And they will be worn on the heart of Aaron" (Exodus 28,30 compare Tanchuma Shemot 27).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   בני בכורי ישראל, “My firstborn son is Israel.” Rabbeinu Chananel comments: “G’d implied that the fact that He had delivered the Israelites into Pharaoh’s hands should not be misconstrued by him to indicate that G’d did not care much about the Israelites. He allowed this to happen only in order to discipline them. What G’d allowed to happen to the Israelites was analogous to what Moses told them in Deut. 8,5: “bear in mind that the Lord G’d disciplines you just as a man disciplines his son. Now that you Pharaoh have exceeded your mandate and have behaved in an exceptionally cruel manner toward My firstborn son, I will retaliate by smiting your own firstborn son. This was a reference to the tenth plague.     G’d called Israel “My firstborn son” as a sign of distinction just as we find in Hoseah 2,1: ‘they shall be called ‘Children’-of- the Living-G’d.” We find that Mount Sinai, the most sacred of the mountains is called “Mountain of the Lord,” (Numbers 10,32) and the Temple is called “the House of the Lord” (Isaiah 56,7) “and let them rejoice in My House of prayer.” Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. According to the above we may understand our verse to mean: (G’d speaking to Moses) “take note of all the miracles which I have placed at your disposal, i.e. the ten plagues. The reason I will perform them all is that I will strengthen the heart of Pharaoh after he has not responded to the first five plagues  and you will perform the last five plagues. Prior to the last plague, the one during which the firstborns of Egypt will be slain, you will say to him: ‘Israel is My firstborn son.’ Now the Israelites will be redeemed and it will become manifest that they are My firstborn son and that they are distinguished.    As to the words: “let My people go so they can serve Me,” why did G’d not instruct Moses to say to Pharaoh: “let My firstborn son go,” seeing He had already told Pharaoh that Israel was G’d’s firstborn son? 
  The answer is that as long as Israel was in bondage He called them only “My son,” for how was the fact that they were “firstborns” manifest in the treatment they were still being subjected to? If you will examine the verses at the time of the redemption you will find that as of that time G’d did refer to the Israelites as firstborn, as He did in fact to Himself in 13,2 קדש לי כל בכור, the deeper meaning of which is “Sanctify for Me the ‘firstborn’ as part of the legislation requiring that the firstborn amongst man and Jewish-owned beast be sanctified. The meaning of that verse is parallel to Exodus 25,2 ויקחו לי תרומה, “and they will take a gift for Me.” Kabbalists have explained those words to mean  ויקחו אותי תרומה, “they will take Me as a gift.” [a reference to G’d’s Presence in the Tabernacle as a gift to the Jewish people.] We deduce from the fact that the Jewish people were called בכור, only from the time redemption and onwards that G’d Himself was with them while they were in bondage. This is why their status as G’d’s firstborn was not manifest during all those years.
      I have found confirmation of this approach in the Sefer Habahir of Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah (item 104 edition by Rabbi Margulies). ‘Rabbi Eliezer was asked by his disciples: “how are we to understand the words  קדש לי כל בכור seeing that G’d surely cannot be referred to as having a ‘first-born?’” He answered them: “Indeed yes; the meaning of the words קדש לי כל בכור is that G’d’s sanctity is the result of His becoming sanctified by the Jewish people. The proof of this meaning of the words קדש לי כל בכור is in the line בני בכורי ישראל, “My firstborn son is Israel.” It suggests that G’d too was with them in Egypt. If not, G’d would not have commanded Pharaoh “release My son so that he can serve Me,” but “release My firstborn.” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
    ויהי בדרך במלון,”It was on the journey, at the inn, etc.” The word ויהי refers to Moses, as if to say: “when Moses was on the way at the inn, etc.” [The alternative is that it could have referred to the baby]. The meaning of the words ויפגשהו ה' is that an angel met him. This angel is described by the holy name of G’d although it was one of the lower ranking angels [a category that was not in constant touch with the highest sphere in the heavens. Ed.] as it had been dispatched in order to complete a specific task  G’d wanted to be carried out. This is also confirmed by Shemot Rabbah 5,8 which writes that the performance of the rite of circumcision is so dear to G’d that Moses was not allowed to delay it unnecessarily for even a single hour.”   ויפגשהו ה' ויבקש המיתו, “G’d confronted him and wanted to kill him.”  The angel wanted to kill Moses (not Eliezer, the baby). Even though this angel was dispatched by the attribute of Mercy, he tried to kill Moses. Rabbi Yossi adds: “on no account must you presume that Moses had been negligent (lazy) in performing this rite. The delay had been due to Moses deliberating if to circumcise the baby immediately and to wait before moving on for three days until the baby was no longer in danger, or if to proceed without delay seeing G’d had commanded him “go back to Egypt” (verse 19). If we accept Rabbi Yossi’s comment the question is why Moses was punished and almost lost his life? The answer is that he first concentrated on matters related to his lodgings at the inn instead of circumcising Eliezer immediately. We have a rule (Pesachim 64) that one does not delay the performance of a commandment once the time has arrived for it to be performed.    When we referred to the angel as being an “angel of Mercy,” this means that he was a messenger of the attribute of Mercy. 
  You should appreciate that according to the Midrash the surprising feature of what occurred is that Tziporah performed the circumcision (verse 25). Surely, if Moses had been at the inn he himself should have performed this commandment! This is why Rabbeinu Chananel said that Moses was not at the inn at all, for the Torah had written earlier (verse 20) that Moses took his wife and children and let them ride on the donkey whereas he himself took the staff of G’d in his hand and walked. The meaning of these two verses is that Moses sent his wife and children ahead of him. If he had been walking and they were riding on the donkey it makes sense that they arrived at the inn before he did. When the Torah wrote of the angel: “he wanted to kill him,” the reference must be to the infant Eliezer. The angel assumed the shape of a snake devouring the upper half of the baby’s body down to the area where the circumcision should have occurred. The snake then spit out the baby and started to devour him from his feet upwards stopping at the same area as previously. At that point, Tziporah, realizing what the problem was, seized a sharp piece of flint and performed the act of circumcision. She had understood that the whole phenomenon was a punishment for not circumcising this infant on the eighth day after its birth. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel at the beginning of his commentary on Parshat Yitro. On the other hand, I have seen that Rashi is of the opinion that Moses was present at the inn at the time but had been taken sick; since he was unable to perform the circumcision Tziporah acted as his surrogate.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וירף ממנו, “so he released him;” the angel released.  We also find the word הרף applied to an angel in Chronicles I 21,15  ויאמר למלאך המשחית רב עתה הרף ידך, “He said to the angel of destruction: Enough!, now release your hand!” This occurred after Tziporah had removed her son’s foreskin.
      It is possible to explain that in view of the Torah only writing “he released him,” instead of writing that ”the angel went on his way,” that at that point the circumcision had not yet been fully completed and that Tziporah understood the hint and completed it by removing the second membrane and performing what we call פריעה, a procedure which prevents the foreskin from growing back. The fact that she mentioned the words חתן דמים, “a bridegroom through blood” twice, indicates that the omission of either part of the procedure made Moses guilty of the death penalty.
  
  Verse 27
  
    ויפגשהו בהר האלו-הים וישק לו, “he met him at the Mountain of G’d and he kissed him.” Tanchuma Shemot 27 comments on our verse that it is a perfect illustration of Song of Songs 8,1: “If only it could be as with a brother, as if you had nursed at my mother’s breast; then I could kiss you.” We also have a verse in Psalms 85,11: “love (kindness) and truth meet; justice and well-being kiss.” The word “kindness” is a metaphor describing Aaron of whom the Torah wrote (Deut. 33,8) “Your Tumim and Urim for your devout and loving man.” The word “truth” is a metaphor for Moses of whom G’d said  (Numbers 12,6) “he is trusted in My entire house (because he is so truthful).” Moses is also described as the personification of צדק, righteousness, in Deut. 33,21 “he carried out G’d’s righteousness,” whereas Aaron personified שלום, peace, as we know from Malachi 2,6 “in peace (harmony) and equity he walked with Me.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  את כל דברי ה' אשר שלחו,“all the words of the Lord which He had dispatched him (to say).” The word “all” is a reference to Moses’ vision at the burning bush. He even reported the fact that he had refused to accept the mission repeatedly. 
  According to Shir Hashirim Rabbah the words “all the words of the Lord,” indicate that Moses told Aaron all the holy names G’d had revealed to him, i.e. the name אהיה, the name י-ה-ו-ה, the composition of the name א-ד-נ-י, and the significance of its first and last letter, as we have already explained earlier. He also explained to him that the sequence אהיה אשר אהיה points to the fact that the attribute of Mercy may be found even within the attribute of Justice. All this is the opinion of Nachmanides.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
    מי ה' אשר אשמע בקולו, “Who is this Hashem that I should obey His instructions?” Tanchuma Vaeyra 5 comments on this that when Pharaoh heard Moses mention the name of G’d, he took out a register of all known deities and did not find the name Hashem listed there. What the Midrash means is that Pharaoh was intelligent and knowledgeable enough to be familiar with the extent to which earth was populated and civilizations had been established. He knew that the earth had been divided into 7 climatic zones and that each zone had been assigned a deity (zodiac constellation) to supervise its fate. He was also familiar with the 70 nations and what deity was responsible for their respective fates. Seeing that he could not find the name of Hashem listed anywhere in his list, he challenged Moses by saying: “who is this Hashem?” He was unaware that the Hashem Moses had spoken of was the supreme G’d who presided over all forces in the universe and without whose approval no other power could wield any influence in the universe.  Our sages in the above Midrash illustrated this by a parable. A priest had a servant who was mentally defective. Once when the priest had left the country this servant went in search of him. When he came to a cemetery he started shouting at the people assembled there: ”have you seen my master?” The people answered him: ‘is not your master a certain priest, etc.?’ The servant confirmed that this was so. Thereupon the people said to him: ”you idiot why do you look for a priest in a cemetery, a place which is out of bounds to priests?” Similarly, what business does a king have in a slaughterhouse? Moses and Aaron replied to Pharaoh that the reason he had never heard of the supreme G’d was that he had not looked for Him in the right place. Earth, which is a vast cemetery for mankind was most certainly not the place where he could expect to find the supreme G’d. The gods Pharaoh had spoken of were all dead themselves whereas the supreme G’d personified life, growth, development, etc. In answer to Pharaoh’s question what this G’d did and what He had accomplished, Moses and Aaron listed the fact that He had created the universe, the plants, the animals, man, etc., that He made mountains, covered the earth with an atmosphere, that He appoints kings, etc. After hearing this Pharaoh became angry exclaiming: “I have created myself and I am lord of the universe! The river Nile is my river. Who is this G’d that I should take orders from Him?” Thereupon G’d said: “you wicked person!” I am going to bring a plague upon you from this very river which you claim to own and to have created. This is why the first plague was the turning of the waters of the river Nile into blood.   Another explanation of the words: “who is this G’d that I should pay heed to His command?” Pharaoh did not deny G’d’s existence but he felt slighted that G’d did not communicate with him directly as he had done to the Pharaoh who had kidnapped Sarah, and to Avimelech who had wanted to marry Sarah against her will. Seeing that this G’d had revealed Himself to these two kings they had reason to obey His instructions. Seeing that this G’d had not revealed Himself to him, he saw no reason to accept what Moses said as instructions emanating from that G’d. He was angry that G’d had not given him an opportunity to defend his conduct as He had done for Avimelech. [This assumes that the Pharaoh in Genesis 13,17 was the same one as here some 400 years later. Ed.]
  
  Verse 3
  
   אלו-הי העברים נקרא עלינו, “the G’d of the Hebrews has manifested Himself to us.” It is somewhat peculiar that after Pharaoh had denied any knowledge of the G’d in whose name Moses and Aaron had addressed him, Aaron and Moses continue to refer to this G’d. Were they bent on intensifying the confrontation?” 
  The fact is that G’d had told Moses in advance (Exodus 3,18) that when Moses would come to Pharaoh he was to tell him that the G’d of the Hebrews had manifested Himself to the Israelites; G’d had added then already that Pharaoh would not respond positively to the request to release the Jewish people  even for a journey of three days in order to offer sacrifices to their G’d.”    A closer look at our verse shows that here Moses described the G’d of the Hebrews in terms of אלו-הי, i.e. a term for G’d which was familiar to Pharaoh. Moreover, the word נקרא [as opposed to נקרה in 3,18 Ed.] implied that failure to obey G’d’s command would result in harm to the Jewish people. This is why they added “lest He smite us with the plague of the sword.” There cannot be a question then of Moses and Aaron provoking a confrontation for the sake of a confrontation. On the contrary, they made their previous request sound plausible and even advantageous for Pharaoh. Pharaoh, revealing the true wickedness of his nature, did not even debate the merits of the request but accused Moses and Aaron of interfering with the people’s work schedule and he told them to go about their own business.
     ונזבחה לה' אלוקינו פן יפגענו בדבר או בחרב, “and we will bring offerings to the Lord our G’d lest He strike us dead with a plague or the sword.” In this verse we hear something about the mystical dimension of animal sacrifice, i.e. that it may atone for people guilty of  death. Chabakuk 3,5  spells out that plague is a punishment by G’d when he said: “Pestilence marches before Him, and plague comes forth at His heels.” The reason Moses added death by the sword as an alternative is connected to Isaiah 66,16: ”For with fire will the Lord contend, with His sword, against all flesh.” You are aware that the שכינה represents the attribute of Justice. This is the source of the powerful fire which consumed the Israelites’ offerings on the altar in the Temple. This is what the Torah referred to when it wrote: (Leviticus 9,6) “so that the glory of the Lord will appear to you (and consume the sacrifice).”  Immediately after that (verse 24) the Torah reports that “fire descended from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offerings and the fat parts.” This is also the reason the שכינה describes the daily public offerings (Numbers 28,2) as קרבני לחמי, “the offerings of food due to Me.” G’d added the word לאשי, “to be consumed by My fire.” This is why at the beginning of this verse Moses had spoken of G’d as אלוקים as it is this attribute which receives and responds to animal sacrifice. Only subsequent to mentioning this attribute did he spell out the need for the Israelites to offer sacrifices He also mentioned the attribute Hashem, as though the sacrifice is offered to the attribute of Justice, the intent behind it is the great name of G’d, and this is what David had in mind when he said (Psalms 50,14) “sacrifice a thank-offering to G’d and pay your vows to the Most High.” The mechanics are that the sacrifice is presented to the attribute of Justice but the idea behind is is recognition of the Most High, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה. [If this were not so the sacrifice would be no more than an attempted  bribe. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
   לכו לסבלותיכם,” go about your business!” He meant “attend to your affairs.” [The Levites were not performing slave labour]. The Egyptians, i.e. Pharaoh,  respected Joseph’s law that religious dignitaries were not owned by Pharaoh. Pharaoh himself was interested in the people having religious leadership and instructions that would make them a disciplined people. 
  According to Shemot Rabbah 5,16 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi  said that Pharaoh meant that the only reason Moses and Aaron were bent on going to the desert to sacrifice to their G’d was because they were beneficiaries of the law that the Levites did not have to perform slave-labor. He therefore ordered them to join the Isaelites .
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . לא תאספון לתת תבן, “do not continue to supply straw, etc.” It is entirely possible that this decree was in force for only a single day and that the unusual letter א in the word תאספון is proof of this. This is the view of Rabbeinu Chananel.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . תכבד העבודה, “increase the workload!” The Egyptians were punished for this new decree at the sea when their chariots found it especially difficult to escape the onrushing waters. This is why the Torah specifically mentions (14,25) that “G’d made it כבד, “hard, difficult,” for the drivers to guide their chariots. Because the Egyptians decreed that the Jews had to provide their own straw, we find that they were tossed on the sea like straw (15,7). When we read here that the people had to scatter in order to find the straw, we find that in Jeremiah 18,17 the prophet describes that the Egyptians were scattered all over the sea. G’d’s punishing arm made the punishment fit the crime wherever possible. As to Pharaoh’s derisive comment that Moses and Aaron should not cause the people to turn to “false hopes,” Onkelos renders the words  דברי שקר as “vain slogans.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אדנ-י למה הרעות לעם הזה, “My Lord, why have You allowed things to become worse for this people?” Moses chose this name of G’d as he was not afraid of the element of the attribute of Mercy which is part of this name; he was however afraid of the central part of the name, the word דן, the attribute of Justice. This fear of Moses is expressed in his adding the extra letter ה at the end of the word הרעותה. It is as if he had said to G’d: “Why did You allow the harmful effect of the attribute of Justice to be invoked against this people?” He added the words: “why did You send me?” He meant: “why did You not wait until the predetermined time for the redemption when these negative elements of the attribute of Justice could not have affected the people?” This is the way Nachmanides explains Moses’ outcry.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Vaeyra 1) When Moses began to question G’d’s methods in our verse, G’d responded by saying to him: “what a pity that the patriarchs are no longer alive; they are indeed unforgettable. When I told Avraham  to walk ahead of Me and be perfect, he did not question  My ways. When he searched for a piece of ground to bury his wife Sarah and could not find it until he finally paid a fortune of 400 shekel for a cave, he did not question Me and My ways [after all G’d had promised the whole of the land of Canaan to Avraham and his descendants. Ed.]. When I told Yitzchak to stay in the land of Canaan during the famine instead of seeking relief in Egypt, he did not question My ways. How many times did he have to dig for water only to be denied its use by the Philistines? He never questioned My ways. I had promised Yaakov that the land he was lying on was all going to be his and his children’s and when it came to finding a piece of land whereon to put his tent 26 years later he had to acquire a small tract near Shechem for 100 kessitah (an outrageous amount) yet he never questioned My ways. You, on the other hand, who are only at the very beginning of your career as My messenger already are beginning to question My ways! First you wanted to know My name; now you accuse Me of making things worse for the Jewish people! Truly, עתה תראה “what I am going to do to Pharaoh now you will experience, but because you have seen fit to question My ways you will not live to see what I am going to do to the 31 kings of the land of Canaan.” This will be a battle under the leadership of Joshua. According to this Midrash Moses had already accepted the decree that he would not enter the land of Canaan at this time. Thus far the Midrash.
      It appears to me that when you read the plain text without trying to read between the lines as did the sages of the Midrash, you will come to the conclusion that Moses had not sinned at all with what he asked. There are two reasons for not finding fault with Moses’ question למה הרעותה לעם הזה, “for what purpose did You allow this people to experience a deterioration in their plight instead of redeeming them immediately?” The Torah wanted to inform us that improvements or deteriorations in the fate of the Jewish nation are the result of G’d’s doing, not of someone else’s doing. By his very question, Moses wanted to make it clear that he understood this. After all, evil does originate with G’d though in a more indirect manner than good. Did not Tzefaniah 1,12 admonish the people saying: “I will punish those who say to themselves: ‘the Lord will do nothing good or bad?’” Secondly, If Moses had been under the impression that his question had been sinful, it is hard to understand why he would repeat the same mistake in Numbers 11,11 where he used similar language applying it to his own situation when he asked G’d למה הרעות לעבדך ולמה לא מצתי חן בעיניך, וגו', “why did You do this evil to Your servant; why did I not find favor in Your eyes, etc.”   Moses did commit a sin however when he said in the following verse: “Ever since I have come to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has done evil to this people, but You did not rescue Your people.” In response to this criticism of G’d’s methods, G’d told Moses that he would indeed shortly observe how He would make good on His promise against Pharaoh and the Egyptians; He implied that Moses would not become a witness to how G’d would make good on His promise to bring the Israelites to the Holy Land. The lesson G’d was going to teach Pharaoh would be that he himself would ask the Jewish people to leave. They would not escape but Pharaoh would actually expel them.
      I have found support for my theory in the wording of Tanchuma Vaeyra 1 which quotes Moses as saying: “seeing that I have sinned with a remark commencing with the word אז, I wish to make amends by extolling You with a song commencing with the word אז.” (Exodus 15,1). As to the Midrash which I have quoted earlier in which G’d is reported as saying to Moses ‘you have questioned My ways already at the beginning of your mission by asking “what is Your name,” and now you continue by saying: “why have You made things worse, etc.?’” I do not think that we need to interpret these words by G’d as a rebuke. The reason the Midrash had G’d quote these words was simply because they had been the first words Moses addressed to G’d during that entire dialogue at the burning bush.
      I have seen in the commentary by Rabbeinu Chananel that the words למה הרעותה are not a complaint at all. They were simply a question; Moses asked for enlightenment. He did not mean to criticise. Moses’ question included the whole subject of צדיק ורע לו ורשע וטוב לו, of why the righteous is often seen to suffer whereas the wicked is often perceived as prospering in all his undertakings. Moses wanted to know the point of this attribute, this phenomenon? He referred not to what had occurred during the time since his appointment but to what had occurred during the hundreds of years prior to his appointment during which time the innocent Israelites had been subject to all kinds of torture at the hands of an immoral society such as the Egyptians.   Seeing that afflictions can be divided into two categories, i.e. the ones which are retribution and the ones which are known as יסורין של אהבה, afflictions which reflect G’d’s love for the afflicted, Moses wanted enlightenment. We know that there are these two kinds of afflictions from Isaiah 57,17: “for their sinful greed I was angry; I struck them and turned away My wrath.” On the other hand, we know of a different category of afflictions described in Deut. 8,16: “who fed you manna in the wilderness...in order to test you through hardships and to benefit you in the end.” These latter kinds of afflictions are called יסורין של אהבה, and concerning them David has said (Psalms 94,12) “happy is the man whom You discipline, O Lord, the man whom You instruct in Your teaching.” Seeing that Moses had now observed that ever since his appointment to Pharaoh the latter had increased the people’s workload, Moses asked G’d why He had allowed this seeing that it was within His power to save them and He had not made use of that power. The meaning of הרעותה is: “You have allowed things to get worse,” not “You have made things worse.” It is similar to Exodus 1,17 when the Torah wrote of the midwives ותחיין את הילדים. The meaning obviously is not that the midwives “gave life” to the children, but that they had allowed the children to survive. When Pharaoh (Exodus 1,22) ordered וכל הבת תחיון, the meaning was not “you shall bring to life every daughter,” but “you may allow every daughter to survive.” After all, it is not within the power of human beings to grant life or death. Moses spoke out of a fear that Pharaoh would further add to the sufferings of the Jewish people.
      Actually, many hundreds of years later the prophet Jeremiah posed a similar question when he asked (Jeremiah 12,1) “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are the perpetrators of treachery at ease?” Jeremiah wanted to know if the ease experienced by the wicked is the compensation they receive from G’d in this life for any good deeds they have performed, or if their ease was a form of punishment which would reinforce them in their belief that they were not accountable for their wicked deeds. As a result of their continuing their wicked ways their eventual punishment would be so much greater. At that time G’d answered him that whatever ease the wicked experience in this life is only a prelude to their eventual terrible punishment.   We find that David was troubled by similar thoughts when he asked of  G’d (Psalms 69,28) “add to their guilt, let them have no share of Your beneficence; may they be erased from the book of life; and not be inscribed with the righteous.”    G’d’s answer to Moses’s question: “now you will see, etc.” meant that he would become aware that the afflictions suffered by the Israelites were only designed to increase the reward they would reap at the end of their period of enslavement; at the same time it would also serve to double and redouble the punishments to be endured by their oppressors The first message was contained in the words עתה תראה, the second in the words אשר אעשה לפרעה, “what I am going to do to Pharaoh.”
      There is an allusion to our present exile under the descendants of Edom in the experience of the Jewish people in their first exile under the Egyptians. The Jews in Egypt had to bear up under increasingly difficult conditions only in order to experience a wonderful redemption and in seeing their oppressors being killed after suffering many plagues and then dying a painful death by drowning. Similarly, when the time comes we will experience a wonderful redemption when the Messiah will arrive, a redemption by comparison to which the Exodus of the Jewish people will fade into relative insignificance. David referred to this redemption in Psalm 130,6 where he described the longing of the  כנסת ישראלsaying “I am more eager for the Lord than watchmen for the morning.” If in spite of our impatient wait for the redemption it has been delayed then this is only in order to add to the guilt of our oppressors in the interval and in order to punish them more severely for their sins against G’d and against His people. Just as we find that oppression of the Jewish people reached a new intensity after Moses asked that his people be allowed to celebrate a holiday for the Lord in the desert, the redemption in the future will be ushered in after a period of unparalleled suffering by the Jewish people. The initial attempt at bringing about the final redemption will suffer setbacks just as the initial attempt by Moses to secure the release of the Jewish people encountered setbacks.    Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 5,20 comment on verse 20 where Moses and Aaron are being assailed by the overseers of the Jewish laborers for having been instrumental in their situation deteriorating rather than improving,  that after 6 months G’d appeared to Moses in Midyan and said to him: “go back to Egypt (4,19) for all the people who wish to kill you have died.” When Moses and Aaron met, the former coming from Midyan and the latter from Egypt, the overseers met them as they emerged from their audience with Pharaoh. We find a similar comment in Midrash Chazita on Song of Songs 2,9: “My beloved is like a gazelle.” Just as a gazelle is visible to the eye one moment, disappears and then reappears, so the first redeemer appeared to the Jewish people, disappeared, and reappeared again in due course. Rabbi Tanchuma said that Moses disappeared for only three months and that this is the meaning of ויפגעו את משה ואת אהרן. [The expression ויפגעו always refers to an unexpected meeting, i.e. since both Moses and Aaron had returned to their previous abodes there was no reason to expect them at the palace gates of Pharaoh at the time (quoted in the name of עץ יוסף)]. When the prophet Micah 7,15 speaks of G’d performing miracles “just as in the days when you came out of Egypt,” he alludes to certain similarities between what preceded the Exodus from Egypt to what will occur when the final redemption will be at hand. We have another Midrash (Sanhedrin 98) according to which the meaning of Isaiah 59,19: “for he will come like a hemmed in stream which the wind of the Lord drives on,” is that if you observe a certain generation being flooded by troubles from all sides like a river, await him (the Messiah), seeing that the prophet Isaiah continued there (verse 20) “for he shall come as a redeemer to Zion and to those who turn back from sin.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
     ה' קנני ראשית דרכו קדם מפעליו מאז, “The Lord created me at the beginning of His course; as the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8,22). 
  In this verse Solomon speaks in the name of the emanation חכמה, wisdom. This is the level of wisdom which is concealed even from the מלאכי השרת, “the ministering angels.” Job referred to this elusive wisdom when he said: ”but where can wisdom be found?” (Job 28,12) Concerning this level of wisdom we also have a verse in Job 28,21 “it is hidden from the eyes of all living, concealed from the fowl of heaven.” Our sages  interpreted the words: “from the fowl of heaven” as a reference to the ministering angels. This is the “wisdom” which preceded creation of heaven and earth. We have an allusion to this fact in Proverbs 3,19: “The Lord founded the earth by wisdom; He established the heavens by understanding.” We have a further verse in Scripture alluding to this in the very next verse. “By His knowledge the depths burst apart, and the skies distilled dew.” All the verses we have just quoted prove that heaven and earth, the depths and all that is contained within them have been created by G’d using this חכמה, “wisdom” as His instrument.  This is also what Solomon meant to say in Proverbs 8,25-29: “Before [the  foundations of] the mountains were sunk, before the hills I was born. He had not yet made earth and fields of the world’s first clump of clay. I was there when He set the heavens into place; when He fixed the horizon upon the deep. When He made the heavens above firm, and the fountains of the deep gushed forth; when He assigned the sea its limits so that its waters never transgress His command.”    If you want to examine the various expressions used by Solomon in greater depth, the expression “the deep” refers to what our sages call the קו ירוק, another word for the emanation בינה, “insight.” The word הרים, “mountains” is a reference to the patriarchs. (the emanations חסד, גבורה and תפארת represented by the patriarchs.) The word ארץ is a reference to the emanation סוף [an alternate name for the emanation מלכות, Ed.]    Solomon called this חכמה by the name ראשית, seeing that it preceded the creation of the universe popularly known as מעשה בראשית. This was also the reason that when the Torah commenced its report about the creation of the universe it had to commence with the word בראשית. The word ראשית not only refers to the beginning of something in terms of time, but it also means that something is superior in quality. An example is found in Amos 6,6: וראשית שמנים ימשחו, “and anoint themselves with the best oils.”  Just as superior oil floats to the top of all other liquids so wisdom rises to the top of all other forms of existence. This is what is meant by the words in our opening verse: “He has  created (acquired) me at the beginning of His discourse.” In other words, wisdom proclaims that it had been G’d’s first acquisition, something G’d has secured for Himself from a hidden source. This mysterious source is the region in which wisdom originates. Inasmuch as the  words “and from the fowl of heaven it is hidden,” were understood to be a reference to the angels, it is clear that the word קנני of which Solomon spoke in Proverbs 8,22, has its root in the word קן, i.e. a bird’s nest. The nest is the place in which the bird originates. Solomon explained that the original “site” of wisdom gave birth to wisdom which is its first “nest.” Wisdom  relates to all other phenomena in this universe as does the nest to all the chicks hatched in it, i.e. it is its origin.  If all this is true then wisdom was not created out of a total void as some of the philosophers have thought, but it is a phenomenon and a derivative of the original אין, void or nothingness, the supreme and hidden source. This is what Job spoke about when he said: “where can wisdom be found?” These words of Job must not be understood as an inquiry, a question expressing hopelessness, but as a piece of information. The Torah has informed us that “wisdom” emanates from a hidden source. The Torah itself was created by drawing on that hidden source. Seeing that the Torah originates in that domain it is called לקח טוב, “good instruction” (Proverbs 4,2)  and the ministering angels are envious that it was entrusted to man.     Our sages in Shabbat 85 confirmed this when they described that when G’d was about to give the Torah to Moses the angels were upset and remonstrated with G’d how He could entrust such a hidden treasure to mere man, a creature that defiles himself so often, a creature dominated often by its evil urge? We derive the fact that such a conversation took place from David’s remark in Psalms 8,2: “O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Your name throughout the earth, You Who have covered the heavens with Your splendor!“ This statement reflects the angels’ argument that G’d’s splendor should remain in the heaven and not be made available on earth. G’d answered the angels with rhetorical questions such as: “it is written in the Torah ‘you should remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.’ It is written: ‘honor your father and your mother!;’ it is written in the Torah: ‘you shall not steal, etc., etc.’ Is there any need for such instructions for celestial beings? Do you suffer from either an evil urge or exposure to defilement? Are there foods which are permitted to you and others which are not?” Thus far the Midrash.
     I believe that when the Midrash speaks about “jealousy” between the angels and man we need to examine these words. Jealousy is an emotion which is the result of man being equipped with an evil urge. Seeing that G’d Himself is on record as denying that the angels possess an evil urge, how could they be described as being “jealous” of man? This fact is spelled out even more forcefully in Chagigah 15 where the Talmud states: “in the celestial regions such concepts as standing, being seated, jealousy and competition are non-existent.” It is a region in which all beings are inclined to agree with one another in the search for a deeper understanding of the Essence of their Creator. The nutrition of these celestial beings consists of their obtaining progressively deeper insights into the Essence of G’d. This ensures the continued existence of the ministering angels. Seeing that all these beings are united in the same aspirations, how could there exist amongst them something described as ‘jealousy?” At the same time, it is no secret that jealousy is a well known phenomenon amongst human beings which afflicts mostly people who are envious of their immediate superiors. You do not find that a king is envious or jealous of a simple villager, neither is the villager envious of the king seeing that the difference between their respective social situations makes comparisons pointless. A fool is not jealous of a scholar as he has no conception of what it means to be a scholar. The scholar is not envious of the fool as he has no need of him. Jealousy is reserved for people of similar status. A scholar may be jealous of another scholar, a warrior of another warrior who has achieved greater fame, etc. A rich man is jealous of someone richer than himself (compare Avodah Zarah 55). Having appreciated all this, how could one apply the term “jealousy” to a relationship between such unequals as human beings and the ministering angels?     We must therefore understand this term when used by the Midrash to describe a situation prevailing in the celestial regions as a mere euphemism, a parable. Clearly, the angels were aware of the difference between human beings, creatures who were a fusion of body and soul, of the material and the spiritual. It is equally clear that they were aware that most of what is written in the Torah in the form of legislation was not addressed to them as they were not capable of fulfilling such commandments by reason of their being of a uniform “material,” i.e. disembodied creatures.  What concerned the angels was that there was a “wisdom” which was deemed appropriate for creatures whom they considered inferior by definition precisely because they had bodies and urges which interfered with their serving their Creator at all times. They could not understand why such a superior wisdom would be entrusted to inferior beings instead of to them! They had assumed that the absence of a body made them superior to man by definition. They considered any matter which was a combination of materials as something inferior to matter consisting of a single element. Creatures which were the result of some fusion represented to the angels something of a dichotomy, containing built-in tensions. G’d, in a manner of speaking agreed with them, saying that precisely because of this built-in tension the superior wisdom represented by Torah was needed by man.    A superior person such as Moses attained the highest level of insight called ראשית, something not attained by any other living human being, as testified to in the Torah itself (Deut. 33,21) where we read: ”He saw (chose) for himself the ראשית, the best; for that is where the lawgiver’s portion is hidden.” He received this from the domain called ראשית. This attainment by Moses was not part of his prophetic qualities but an intellectual achievement on his part. This is why the Torah refers to it as וירא, “he saw,” i.e. he comprehended. The other outstanding achievement of Moses, the one called by our sages אספקלריא מאירה, “a clear vision,” was something that he attained as a prophetic quality. It was an insight into the workings of the attribute of Mercy. This was something which the patriarchs with whom G’d communicated in His dimension as the attribute of Justice had not comprehended as  personal insights. [They had been aware of it as a phenomenon but not by personal experience applied to their lives. Ed.] All the other prophets who experienced various levels of revelations did not experience such revelations of the attribute of Mercy. This was an attribute which resulted in certain supernatural miracles becoming part of G’d’s manifestations during those days.     The word אספקלריא employed by our sages (Yevamot 49) to describe visions received by the prophets is an acronym composed of ספק קלריא, i.e. “supplied a degree of light, enlightenment.” It resembles the ability to look through a solid body because the material the body is made of is transparent glass. When the sages said that all  prophets other than Moses received אספקלריא שאינה מאירה, the meaning is not that they received blurred visions which they could not decipher, but that G’d did not supply additional light so that what was beyond the solid material was lit up brilliantly. The “picture” they saw was clear, not blurred, but insufficiently illuminated to reveal to them every detail. When Moses received a similar vision, the “picture” was brilliantly illuminated so that he could distinguish every detail in it. To reflect this fact G’d made the skin of Moses’ forehead radiate light so brilliant that the people approaching him became intimidated by that light (Exodus 34,20). They could not absorb it, i.e. “digest it.” It blinded them. Proof that Avraham and the other patriarchs did not receive this level of prophetic insight is provided by the fact that Avraham never uttered the tetragrammaton when he addressed G’d but used the name א-ד-נ-י. Moses, on the other hand, used the name י-ה-ו-ה when addressing G’d. Moses employed both the attribute of G’d שדי as well as His attribute י-ה-ו-ה when he was active in his capacity as a prophet. When G’d reveals Himself to a prophet preparatory to performing “hidden” miracles, i.e. miracles which are not directly “impossible” in terms of the laws of nature, such revelations are also called אספקלריא שאינה מאירה, “unclear vision.”
  וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב באל שדי, ושמי ה’ לא נודעתי להם. “whereas I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, I appeared to them in My capacity as the G’d  Shaddai, but in my capacity as Hashem I did not become familiar to them.” The Torah used the expression וידבר אלו-הים when telling Moses about this, whereas at the beginning of the chapter, 2 verses earlier, when G’d spoke to Moses this was prefaced by the words ויאמר ה'. There is a reason for this. The name ה’ denotes the attribute of Mercy, and the word ויאמר  implies a friendly tone used by the speaker, whereas the name אלו-הים is a reference to the attribute of Justice, and the word וידבר implies that the speaker uses stern language. We find proof of this when the brothers related how Joseph had spoken to them when he accused them of being spies. They said: (Genesis 42,30) דבר האיש אדוני הארץ אתנו קשות, “the man, the ruler of the country spoke harshly with us.” When you examine the entire dialogue between G’d and Moses at the burning bush, you will find that in all the sixteen instances when G’d addressed Moses He did not once use דבור, i.e. stern language. Here G’d resorted to דבור, to stern language, after Moses had challenged His method of doing justice with the words: “why did You make matters bad for the people, etc.?” Also the attribute אלוה-ים which is mentioned here indicates that it was the attribute of Justice which addressed Moses here in contrast with the attribute of Mercy which G’d had employed previously at the burning bush. At the end of the previous portion G’d is on record as responding kindly to Moses’ challenge, i.e. ויאמר ה’...עתה תראה, He had reassured Moses that He was going to punish those who deserved it and reward those who had experienced suffering. Now however, G’d wanted to let Moses know that he had overstepped the bounds of what is proper by asking that question. It is not unusual for G’d to at almost one and the same time appear both as a stern mentor and as a kindly teacher. In Leviticus 19,3 we read איש את אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמורו אני ה’ אלוקיכם, “each one of you shall display reverence for his mother and his father and you shall observe My Sabbath days, I am Your G’d (the merciful) and the (just).” G’d employs the attribute of Justice to lend weight to the command, but He also employs the attribute of Mercy to inform us that He can be counted on to reward our compliance with His instructions. We encounter a similarly worded verse in Leviticus 19,12 where the Torah first forbids the use of G’d’s name to swear a false oath, by writing לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר וחללת את שם אלוה-יך, “do not use My name to swear a false oath and to thereby defile My name (attribute of Justice)- אני ה’, “for I am the Merciful G’d (attribute of Mercy). Again our sages explain the conclusion of this verse in which G’d suddenly switches to the use of the tetragrammaton as meaning that (“I am guaranteed to pay you your reward for observing My commandment”).    The point G’d is making here is that although He had not bothered to add the assurance that He would recompense the patriarchs for observing His commandments again and again, they nevertheless had not seen fit to question His manner of running the universe every time they were mystified by something which appeared to affront their sense of justice. Moses, who had been the recipient of such assurances, seeing he had become privy to the fact that G’d upsets the laws of nature (in order to help His people) had seen fit to question Him and His methods. Use of the word שדי in our verse is a reference to G’d’s handling the universe and sometimes employing an attribute designed to overcome the powers He has delegated to the horoscopic influences on the fate of man. However, He had not employed the powers inherent in the use of His four-lettered holy name י-ה—ו-ה  in His relations with them.    According to the opening word וארא, “I have become visible,” in our verse, the word נודעתי used as a contrast is strange; we would have expected the Torah to write לא נראתי להם, I have not become visible to them, by My attribute י-ה-ו-ה, or words to that effect. Or, the verse should have commenced with the words ואודע אל אברהם אל יצחק וגו’ “I became visible to Avraham, to Yitzchak, etc.” Why this asymmetry in the verbs used here? The answer is that the patriarchs as a rule experienced their visions at night. It was appropriate therefore to apply the expression “vision” from the root ראה “to see” to their experiences of encounters with G’d. G’d wanted to contrast the fact that Moses had been granted a revelation of His presence while he was fully awake already the first time he had had a communication from G’d. The word נודעתי which is derived from ידע, “to know intimately,” was therefore more appropriate to bring home to Moses that G’d had seen fit to let him experience a superior form of divine communication. In fact the use of the intransitive form לא נודעתי instead of the transitive form לא הודעתי להם, “I have not made (Myself) known to them,” teaches that He and His name are all one. We find a similar switch between the transitive and intransitive use of the same word in Exodus 33,22 והיה בעבור כבודי.....עד עברי. The Torah wanted to inform Moses (and us) that he and His כבוד are all one.
      Nachmanides writes as follows. “The true message of this verse is in strict accordance with the text. G’d announced to Moses that “whereas I had appeared to the patriarchs as the attribute שדי,” such as when G’d contrasted His appearance to them with what He spelled out to Aaron and Miriam in Numbers 12,6 when He said: במראה אליו אתודע, ‘I make Myself known to him (prophets other than Moses) in a vision.’” G’d implied that He certainly did not reveal Himself to those prophets in His capacity as  ‘by My name י-ה-ו-ה ‘ while granting them prophetic insights.” This did not imply that the patriarchs had not been aware of such an attribute of G’d. This then accounts for the fact that when Avraham addressed G’d he employed the name of the letters א-ד-נ-י  (superior to the attribute אלו-הים) which contains two of the letters of the tetragrammaton. G’d’s entire dealings with Moses were based on use of the attribute of Mercy on a regular basis. This attribute is present in more pronounced form in the name  י-ה-ו-ה than in any other name of G’d. [I am omitting the balance of Nachmanides’ comments on this verse. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   לכן אמור אל בני ישראל אני י-ה-ו-ה . Therefore “say to the Children of Israel: “I AM  י-ה-ו-ה-.”  After the Torah had written earlier (3,15) “and say also to the Children of Israel ‘Hashem the G’d of your forefathers has sent me to you this is My name forever and My remembrance from generation to generation,’ and He had already commanded him to inform the Israelites of this attribute of G’d, He now repeated these instructions adding that the redemption would occur in four stages, i.e. ‘I will take you out, I will save you, I will redeem you and I will acquire you as My people (and I will bring you to the land, etc.).’”    The difference between these four stages of the redemption is as follows: stage one referred to termination of slave labor. Stage two meant that the Israelites would no longer be legally inferior to the Egyptians. Stage three was a hint of the crossing of the sea by the Israelites. Stage four was a hint that they would be given the Torah. The promise of freedom from slave labor is contained in the words.   והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים. This implied that whereas the slave labor would be canceled, the Israelites would still be under the authority of the Egyptians. In fact, according to our tradition this state of affairs continued for six months. According to Rosh Hashana 11 the slave labor terminated on the first of Tishrei, whereas the Exodus followed 61/2 months later on the 15th of Nissan. Concerning this event the Torah wrote here והצלתי אתכם מעבודתם, “I will save you from being slaves to them.”  It meant freedom from paying taxes to the Egyptian government. The advent of total independence was promised in the words וגאלתי אתכם בזרוע נטויה ובמשפטים גדולים, “and I will liberate you with an outstretched arm and great judgments.” This was an allusion to what would occur at the Sea of Reeds. This experience would remove the Israelites’ fear, (i.e. their slave mentality) from their erstwhile masters. Seeing how the Egyptians drowned would once and for all free the people not only physically but also mentally. The words “great judgments” in the plural referred to a number of phenomena witnessed by the Jewish people; they were first referred to in Exodus 14,31 and they have been elaborated on by Isaiah 51,9 when he specifically referred to G’d employing His ‘arm’ as He had done once before. Rashi, quoting Mechilta on the Shirat Hayam, already points to the fact that when the Egyptians drowned horse and rider remained inseparably attached to one another; he based himself on Exodus 15,1. Moses enumerated several additional phenomena in that song, all of which account for the expression “great judgments.” This stage was going to be followed by והייתי לכם לאלו-הים, “I will become your G’d”- seeing that you accept Me as such.
   The words ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם, “I will take you to be My nation,” implies the promise of being given the Torah, a tangible demonstration of that promise. The words וידעתם כי אני ה’ אלוקיכם mean that henceforth, after the revelation at Mount Sinai, “you will know forever more that I am the Lord your G’d” (both attributes.). The promise concludes with the words המוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים, “Who is taking you out of the land of Egypt;” you will never credit anyone else including yourselves with having accomplished that feat.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ, “I will bring you to the land, etc.” Seeing that all the previous promises were meant to be realized in the immediate future, this promise too was intended to be fulfilled promptly. If the sin of the spies who talked the people into refusing to engage in a military struggle to oust the Canaanites had not occurred, this promise too would have been fulfilled promptly.    The prophet Ezekiel 34,13 speaks of similar four stages of redemption of the Jewish people in the future. I quote: “I shall bring them out from the nations and gather them from the lands and bring them to their ground and tend them on Israel’s mountains, etc.” When commemorating the Exodus annually on the night of the Seder  we drink four cups of wine corresponding to these four stages of our redemption outlined by the above-mentioned four expressions. The reward received by the righteous for their conduct has been compared to a כוס, a cup, by David in Psalms 23,5 where he speaks of כוסי רויה, “my cup is abundant.” We find a similar reference in Psalms 16,5: “G’d is my allotted share and cup.” The word כוס, cup, in that context occurs also in Psalms 116,13 “I will raise the cup (in thanksgiving) for salvations experienced.” Isaiah writes something similar (Isaiah 66,11) “that you may suck from her breast consolation to the full.” The author continues to quote examples from the Bible showing that traditionally we either drank or will drink cups of wine as a form of thanksgiving to the Lord for salvations experienced or yet to be experienced.
     נשאתי את ידי, “I have raised My hand.” The Torah employs an anthropomorphism here (using language employed by human beings to portray non-existent limbs of disembodied Beings such as G’d). The whole verse is to be understood as an allegory.  When a man swears an oath he usually raises his hand towards heaven to reflect his sincerity and earnestness. The Torah used this form of expression to describe that G’d related with similar seriousness and determination to what He had in mind for the descendants of Avraham, etc. This is not an isolated instance in which G’d is described as “raising His hand.” Compare Deuteronomy 32,40: “For I have raised My hand to heaven.”
      Nachmanides writes in a similar fashion, prefacing his comment with the words: על דרך האמת. “I have raised My strong arm to Myself that I will give them the land.” He also quotes the verse in Deut. 32,9 as a parallel to our verse. Nachmanides points out, however, that he does not consider Daniel 12,7 ורם ימינו ושמאלו אל השמים,  “he (the man dressed in linen, an angel) raised  his right hand and his left hand to heaven,” to be in the same category. In that instance the angel is portrayed as swearing an oath in the name of the Lord.
     מורשה, “an inheritance.” G’d refrains from saying ירושה. There is a  difference between מורשה andירושה . The people addressed were not the ones who would personally receive the land as a heritage seeing that all those who were adults would never get there due to the sin of the spies. They would, however, bequeath their claim to it to their children, i.e. they would be מורישים. This is why the Torah used the word מורשה instead of ירושה. We need to interpret the word מורשה in Deut. 33,4 in a similar manner. Torah cannot be handed down as an inheritance as if it were a house, a field, or a business, i.e. some object  merely to be passed on from father to son. Inasmuch as Torah is an inheritance it remains such only for that particular generation. which stood at Mount Sinai and had received it as an inheritance, i.e. something inalienable, not to be stolen from them. The next generation had to study Torah on its own in order that it should become an inheritance for them also. However, the children of someone who “owned” Torah are predisposed to acquire it for themselves. Hence Torah is forevermore a מורשה for such children. Parents have been commanded not only to study Torah but to train their children in studying Torah, ושננתם לבניך, (Deut. 6,7). it is a מורשה, something to be transmitted to successive generations down the ages. By the same token later generations of Jews are as duty-bound to observe the commandments of the Torah as were those who had actually received it at Sinai. According to our sages the souls of those generations had already stood at Mount Sinai at the time when G’d revealed Himself to Moses and to the people (Pesikta Zutrata Va'etchanan 5,3). This concept is spelled out in detail in Deut. 29,14 “including all those who are not present (in the flesh) on this day.” (the day Moses renewed the covenant with the generation who would enter the Holy Land). G’d concluded this promise with the words אני ה’, seeing He had commenced the paragraph (verse 2).   The message is : “I Who make a promise can be relied upon to translate it into reality.”
  
  Verse 9
  
   ולא שמעו אל משה, “but they did not listen to Moses.”  The reason was not that they either disbelieved G’d’s promise or His servant Moses, but it was due only to shortness of breath and  hard work. The people’s collective condition was much like that of an individual  who wishes himself dead as he can no longer bear the pain that he is enduring. 
  According to a Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata) the word מקצר in the expression מקצר רוח which totals 430 in numerical value, made them believe that the redemption was due to occur only after 430 years of such suffering. Such a prospect naturally made them deaf to Moses’ promises at this time. [They did not realise that by commencing the count from the time G’d had revealed Himself to Avraham at the covenant between the pieces 430 years had just about elapsed so that the redemption was close at hand. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויצום אל בני ישראל, “He commanded them regarding the Children of Israel.” G’d commanded Moses and Aaron to put up with the expressions of frustration by the people and not to get impatient with them nor to curse them.   ואל פרעה מלך מצרים, “and regarding Pharaoh the King of Egypt.” He instructed them to display respect for Pharaoh seeing he was the King of Egypt. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 6,3 use the unusual wording on 5,3 where Moses and Aaron referred to G’d as punishing Israel if they did not offer sacrifices to Him as proof. What Moses and Aaron meant was that G’d would punish Pharaoh for refusing to let the Israelites do that. However, they deliberately phrased it the way they did out of respect for Pharaoh’s official position. Here too, G’d repeats the warning to Moses and Aaron to continue in their deferential manner. We note that even in Exodus 11,8 (near the end of all the plagues when Moses predicted that instead of his having to come to Pharaoh’s palace for an audience the role of petitioner and the one who is being petitioned would be reversed) he did not say (though he meant it) that Pharaoh would trouble himself to come to him, but said “all your servants will come down to me and will bow down to me begging us to leave.”
      Another Midrash (Mechilta on the verse we quoted from 11,8) understands the words: “He commanded them concerning the Children of Israel,” as a warning to tell the Israelites to desist from idolatrous practices. The Midrash bases this interpretation on Genesis 2,16 where the word ויצו is also understood as a warning against idolatrous practices [one of the 7 Noachide laws]. They derive this meaning of the word צו from Hoseah 5,11 כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו, “for he (the Jewish people) agreed to follow the command of its kings to indulge in idolatry).” Ezekiel 20,5-9 also makes clear reference to the Israelites serving idols while they were enslaved in Egypt, and their being warned to desist prior to the redemption. He warns his compatriots not to commit the same errors made by the Israelites then. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  . אלה ראשי בית אבותם, “these are the heads of their father’s houses.” Seeing that the time of the end Israelites’ stay in Egypt was close at hand, and their redemption meant their separation from Egyptian society, the Torah saw fit to list their genealogies from Reuven until Levi, seeing that Moses and Aaron were Levites. The word אלה, “these,” is used to disqualify anyone else from belonging to the Jewish nation. Had the Torah not begun this list with the tribe of Reuven but had only listed Levi as the head of the “houses,” we might have thought that Levi was the firstborn as far as the genealogy of the Israelites leaving Egypt was concerned, and that the entire list was only recorded in honour of Moses.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון, “Aaron married Elisheva daughter of Aminadav, sister of Nachshon (from the tribe of Yehudah).” The point of the Torah giving us these details at this time was to show that the tribe representing Royalty and the tribe representing the Priesthood (religious leadership) formed a liaison through marriage. Elisheva was the sister of the outstanding one of the princes of the twelve tribes, Nachshon scion of the tribe of Yehudah. The verse even mentions the background of the mother of Pinchas seeing that Pinchas became a High Priest in due course through his own — rather than merely hereditary — merit. It is customary in Scriptures that the mother of the ruling monarchs are mentioned (by name and /or background) For instance: Kings I 15,2 records the name of the mother of Aviyam King of Yehudah as being Maachah daughter of Avishalom. In Chronicles II 20,31 we are told that the mother of King Yehoshaphat was Azuvah daughter of Shilchi. The reason the Torah identifies the wife of Eleazar as “of the daughters (pl) of Putiel” instead of merely stating her personal name or that she was “a daughter” of Putiel is to indicate that she was descended either from Yitro or from Joseph. According to Sotah 43 there was some doubt if this lady was related paternally or maternally respectively to descendants of Joseph/Yitro respectively. 
  Our paragraph contains the names of no fewer than six prophets from the tribe of Levi. They are: Aaron, Moses, Pinchas (identical with Elijah), plus three sons of Korach Assir, Elkanah, and Aviasaph (verse 24). They have been enumerated in the list of 48 prophets in Megillah 14. These six prophets all lived during the same time. Presumably, the verse in Numbers 26,11 stating that Korach’s sons did not die (during the uprising) refers to these three prophets.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . הוא אהרן ומשה, “the same Aaron and Moses, etc.”  Aaron was mentioned here ahead of Moses seeing he was the older of the two brothers. In verse 27, the Torah lists Moses ahead of Aaron seeing that he was greater than his brother in stature as prophet. We find that the Torah sometimes mentions Joshua ahead of Calev (Numbers 14,38), whereas at other times it mentions Calev ahead of Joshua (Numbers 14,30). Joshua was greater than Calev seeing he was a prophet. Calev was greater than Joshua by genealogy, seeing he was from the tribe of Yehudah. We also find something similar when the Torah mentions heaven and earth. In Genesis 1,1 the Torah mentions heaven ahead of earth seeing that disembodied celestial beings are more distinguished than creatures who require a body in order to be functional. They also enjoy infinite life as distinct from creatures on earth. On the other hand, in Genesis 2,4 the Torah lists the earth ahead of the heaven. The reason is that the Holy Temple and the Shechinah are at home on earth rather than in the heaven. The reason the Torah repeats (verse 28) “it was on the day that G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,” is because earlier (verse 13) it sounded as if the command to release the Israelites from Egypt was addressed to both Moses and Aaron. The Torah wants to clarify that the verbal instructions for this were issued by G’d only to Moses. Moses relayed them to Aaron.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  . הן אני ערל שפתים ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה, ”here I am (still) of  sealed lips. How could Pharaoh listen to me?”  When G’d had commanded Moses and Aaron to go to Pharaoh earlier in our chapter Moses had remained silent. He assumed that the instructions had been intended for Aaron. When, at this point, he alone was addressed by G’d i.e. “all that I am saying to you,” he repeated his previous argument that his speech defect made him unfit to serve as G’d’s vessel  and that even the people did not listen to him. At this point G’d explained to him (ויאמר ה’) in a friendly fashion how He would deal with that problem.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ראה נתתיך אלהים, “See, I have made you a master over Pharaoh,” i.e. that Pharaoh would listen to him. Firstly, G’d would give Moses a stature that Pharaoh could not ignore. Secondly, as to the matter of verbal communication between them, G’d appointed Aaron as Moses’ spokesman. The word נביאך, usually translated as “your prophet” must be understood here as ניב שפתיך, ((Isaiah 57,19) “he will express what emerges from your lips.” Onkelos also translates the word as “your interpreter.”    Shemot Rabbah 8,1 understands the words אלוהים לפרעה as “Pharaoh appointed himself as god.” He did this by claiming “the Nile is mine because I have created it “(Ezekiel 29,3). In response to this arrogance G’d told Moses that he was nothing, but that on the contrary, He would show him that Moses would be his “god.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואני אקשה את לב פרעה, “and I will harden the heart of Pharaoh.” Many people ask that if G’d’ hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he refused to release the Israelites how could G’d justify bringing the plagues upon him and the Egyptians seeing these people had acted under duress? Such plagues would represent caprice, undeserved violence by the Creator against people who were not guilty. How can we reconcile this with our concept of a fair and just G’d? Punishing Pharaoh for divinely inspired obstinacy and refusal to change his ways seems unfair. The answer is, of course, that Pharaoh had already been a confirmed sinner, having committed other sins which accounted for his forfeiting the right to do Teshuvah, repentance. If his only sin had been that he refused to let the Israelites go, and G’d had indeed made his heart stubborn on that score alone, punishing him would indeed have been doing violence to his rights as a human being.    Pharaoh’s original sin versus the Jewish people has been spelled out in Exodus 3,5 where he used the natural (or unnatural) increase of the births amongst the Jewish people as a pretext to “outsmart” them and to kill their babies. Seeing that he had displayed his wickedness for all to see without having been interfered with by G’d, the time had now come when his punishment was that he was deprived of his free choice. Had G’d allowed Pharaoh and his people to become  penitents He could not even have punished them for what they had done up until now. We have proof of this from the story of Jonah and Nineveh. G’d accepted the repentance of the people of Nineveh and they completely escaped punishment. This is why G’d had to find a stratagem to prevent the Egyptians from becoming penitents at this stage.
      A Midrashic approach based on Shemot Rabbah 13,3: Rabbi Yochanan said that this verse provides the heretics with ammunition and enables them to claim that if Pharaoh did not do Teshuvah it was G’d’s fault, not his own. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replied that on the contrary, this very verse is an answer to the heretics as it demonstrates Solomon’s saying (Proverbs 3,34)  “at the scoffers He scoffs, but to the humble He shows grace.” G’d had issued three successive warnings to Pharaoh and he had failed to respond to any of them. As a result, G’d slammed the door to Teshuvah shut. It is only after the fifth plague that the Torah actually uses the transitive form of “G’d hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” instead of the intransitive “Pharaoh’s heart remained hard” (compare 8,28 and contrast with 9,12). 
  According to this Midrash the words which G’d spoke to Moses in our verse where He said: “I will harden the heart of Pharaoh,” refer to the last five plagues. We observe that several times when the plagues were really hurting the Egyptians Pharaoh weakened and made promises and offered compromises to Moses until in the end he reneged. The reason he reneged was that G’d hardened his heart although without such interference he would have given in much sooner. G’d had provided an additional rationale for all this when He said (9,16) “in order for My name to become a household word all over the earth.” This is analogous to Ezekiel 38,23 והתגדלתי והתקדשתי ונודעתי לעיני גוים רבים, “Thus will I be exalted and sanctified and become known in the eyes of many nations, etc.”
      You should know that the obstinacy of Pharaoh had already been hinted at to Moses at the very beginning of his career as a prophet at the burning bush when G’d had shown him a bush which burned without being consumed. G’d had compared the multiple troubles and plagues to fire, and Pharaoh and the wicked Egyptians as the bush of thorns which refused to submit to the fire (plagues). This had been G’d’s way of alerting Moses to the remarkable obstinacy which would be displayed by Pharaoh plus the fact that this would be just as unnatural as the spectacle he was observing at the time.
  
  Verse 4
  
   והוצאתי את צבאותי, “and I will take out My hosts.” Here G’d referred to the Jewish people as “My hosts.” He meant to contrast them and their influence on earth with that of the planetary system. In Deut. 1,10 Moses himself refers to the multitude of the Jewish people as “here you are to-day as numerous as the stars in the heaven.” When G’d said צבאותי, He also referred to His hosts in the celestial regions. The correct translation of our verse is: “I will lead forth My celestial hosts together with My people on earth the Children of Israel.” This is another instance from which our sages derive their oft-repeated principle (Megillah 29) that the Shechinah was exiled together with the Jewish people. If even a relatively high celestial Being such as the Shechinah considered itself in exile while the Jewish people were in exile, how much more so is this true of other (lower) echelons of celestial beings! The Talmud Shevuot 35 stipulates that the word צבאות ranks as one of the names of G’d therefore must not be erased. The reason is that it represents the heavenly hosts. When later on (12,41) the Torah speaks of יצאו כל צבאות ה’ מארץ מצרים, “all the hosts of the Lord departed from the land of Egypt,” the reference is to both G’d’s celestial and terrestrial hosts (compare Mechilta on that verse).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . כי ידבר אליכם פרעה, “when Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, etc.” Here G’d informed Moses that Pharaoh would demand that he perform a miracle in order to legitimise himself. This was standard practice. A person is not accepted as a genuine prophet before he has performed some miracle (Maimonides Hilchot Yesodey Hatorah 7,7).
      Shemot Rabbah 9,1 phrases it thus. Seeing that even righteous people demand legitimisation by the performance of a miracle,  it is clear that wicked people will do no less. We find that after the deluge G’d said to Noach that He would not ever again bring a deluge to wipe out all the people. Noach asked for a sign. Thereupon G’d gave him the sign of the rainbow (Genesis 9,12). When King Chiskiyah was told by the prophet Isaiah that G’d had accepted his prayer for an extension of his life, the King (a very loyal Jew who almost became the Messiah) asked for a sign that the message from Isaiah which contradicted his earlier message that he should make his last will and testament was true (Isaiah 38,1-7). Seeing that these righteous people asked G’d for a sign, we cannot blame Pharaoh for asking Moses to perform some miracle.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויהי לתנין, “it turned into a snake.” This was the first of the many miracles Moses performed for Pharaoh. The word תנין, means serpent; we know this from verse 15 where G’d referred to Moses’ staff as having turned into a נחש, a snake. The reason the staff turned into a snake and not into some other animal was that the snake had been the first creature to introduce sin by seducing Chavah with its tongue. Pharaoh had also sinned with his tongue, when he refused to recognize the existence of the G’d of Israel and used this pretext to add that he was not obligated to obey a deity he had never heard of. Just as the serpent at the time had been punished, so Pharaoh starts being punished.   It has become accepted norm that when one slanders G’d or His existence, one is bitten by snakes as we know from Numbers 21,5 “the people spoke out against G’d and Moses“ which is followed by (21,6) ”G’d sent fiery serpents against the people and they bit the people.” Furthermore, just as a snake can make itself rigid and wriggle out of unpleasant situations, so Pharaoh squirmed and on other occasions remained rigid in order to avoid having to obey G’d’s wishes. Whenever the plagues got the better of him he seemed to relent in order to gain relief only to renege in the hope that G’d had exhausted His power. He would resume his obstinate stance of refusing to let the Israelites go. The reason that this נחש is called תנין in our verse is that Pharaoh has been referred to elsewhere as the התנים הגדול הרובץ בתוך יאוריו, “the great sea-monster that crouches within its rivers” (Ezekiel 29,3). The word תנין here contains a hint that just as the staff of Aaron swallowed all the staffs of the Egyptian magicians so the sea (G’d) would swallow Pharaoh and his army at the sea of Reeds. 
  According to an unnamed Midrash, when Pharaoh saw the transformation of the staffs of his magicians into snakes, he exclaimed: “is this your G’d’s trademark? Now I know where all the witchcraft in this world originates.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  .ויקרא גם פרעה , “Pharaoh also called in.” According to an ancient version in the Tanchuma Vaeyra 11 the word גם means that Pharaoh also called in his wife and that the latter then called in the sorcerers of Egypt. The practice of witchcraft was so commonplace in Egypt that Pharaoh’s wife and even young children were well versed in such sleights of hand.  
     גם הם, “they too.” First he had only called on the children; subsequently on the wise men and sorcerers. This is the reason why the Torah repeated the word גם  when writing ויעשו גם הם, “they did likewise.” Rabbi Shimon ben Pezzi said (Shemot Rabbah 9,3): “what did the sages perceive that they compared the wriggling of a snake to the conduct typical of  the kingdom of Egypt seeing they quoted Jeremiah 46,22 ‘she shall rustle away like a snake.’  Just as a snake winds its way slithering hither and thither, the king of Egypt did likewise. Just as the snake hisses prior to killing, so the Egyptian Kingdom hisses prior to killing its enemies.” Moses suspended the staff over Pharaoh telling him that it would become the source of the plagues he was going to inflict upon him.
     בלהטיהם, “with their spells.” Some kind of witchcraft. The ability to perform such tricks is anchored in the מלאכי חבלה, spiritually negative forces [whose origin are wasted human sperm, and other sins committed by man. Ed.] The word is derived from לוהט as in אש לוהט, (Psalms 104,4) “fiery flames.” The author speculates about a variety of causes responsible for these phenomena. One of his suggestions is that they attack man בלט, when he is unaware. The word חרטומים is a combination of two words i.e.חר טמי , “people who consult dead bones.” Most necromancers employ either human bones or animal bones to receive their knowledge of matters not accessible to ordinary people (compare Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 12
  
    ויהיו לתנינם, “they (the staffs of the sorcerers) turned into snakes.”  The Torah refrained from saying ויהיו תנינים, which would have meant that they actually became snakes. The sorcerers did not have the power to do that. They could only create the illusion not the real thing. The wording of the Torah here is similar to Joshua 7,5: “their hearts melted into water.” This was a description of people losing courage. It did not describe a phenomenon literally. We have another example of this in (Samuel I 25,37) וימת לבו בקרבו והוא היה לאבן, which translated literally would mean “his heart (Naval’s) died within him, and it turned into stone.” The word אבן is merely a figure of speech.    You may well counter that the expression ויהי לתנין is also used when Moses’ staff turned into a snake, so what is so peculiar about the Torah not writing תנין when describing what happened to the staffs of the sorcerers? We have to explain that in the case of Moses’ i.e. Aaron’s staff, this was a true transformation of the staff into a snake and that a similar wording is found in Genesis 2,7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה where the letter ל at the beginning of the word לנפש certainly does not speak about something illusory. However, by way of contrast, what the sorcerers did was merely sleight of hand. Seeing that the wording lent itself to two different interpretations, the Torah had to write immediately that Aaron’s staff swallowed all the staffs of the sorcerers in order the show the qualitative difference between what Aaron had done and what the Egyptians had been able to do. The fact that the Torah describes “their staffs” as being swallowed instead of “their snakes” being swallowed, shows that their staffs had remained staffs in spite of appearing to be snakes. Another proof that the sorcerers only created an illusion is that the Torah does not describe them as having performed their art in the presence of Pharaoh and his servants as the Torah had been at pains to emphasise concerning Moses’ miracle.    Alternatively, supposing that the חרטומים had really been capable of turning their staffs into snakes as the Talmud Chulin 7 suggests, why then were they called sorcerers instead of prophets? The answer is that they denied the power of the celestial forces. We could interpret the words ויהיו לתנינים to mean that their staffs did indeed turn into live snakes. The letter ל would be justified seeing that later on these snakes reverted to being staffs. The qualitative edge of Moses’ staff was simply that it swallowed the staffs of the sorcerers. According to Shemot Rabbah 9,7 when Pharaoh observed that Moses’ staff (as a staff) was able to swallow the combined staffs of his sorcerers he reflected that it might equally be capable of swallowing him and his throne. The word ויבלע means that something inert was able to swallow both something else inert and  something live. We have a parallel in Numbers 16,32 when the earth swallowed both Korach and family as well as his tents and belongings.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  'בזאת תדע כי אני ה', “through this you shall know that I am Hashem.” You have claimed “I do not know of any “Hashem.” I am going to perform something which will make sure that you do know Me.” We know from Exodus 14,18 that in the meantime the Egyptians would find out who Hashem is There are several verses making a similar point.
  Another explanation of  'בזאת תדע כי אני ה based on the plain meaning: Through this wondrous sign and similar ones you will come to recognize Me.  A kabbalistic approach: The Ineffable Name which had been “hidden” up until now would be revealed by an attribute known as זאת. This was the יד הגדולה, “the great hand” which G’d displayed in His treatment of the Egyptians. The words describing Pharaoh’s obstinacy most clearly are found in verse 23, ולא שת לבו גם לזאת, “he did not take to heart even זאת, “G’d’s manifesting Himself as the attribute זאת,” i.e. the Ineffable Name.
     הנה אנכי מכה במטה אשר בידי, “I am about to strike with the staff which is my hand, etc.” The words הנה אנכי mean “at my command,” (seeing Aaron was doing the actual striking of the river, verse 20); The verse teaches that the water was transformed not only in appearance but also in taste as well as in smell. We know that the appearance changed from verse 20 where the miracle is described as occurring before the eyes  of Pharaoh and his servants. We know that the taste of the river changed from the words: “the fish in the river died.” Fish live in a cool environment. When the water turned into blood it also became warmer. The fish drank from it and died as they could not survive in the warmer temperatures. We know that the smell of the river changed from the words: “the river stank.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
    ויעשו כן חרטומי מצרים, “the sorcerers of Egypt did likewise.” Seeing that all the water had turned into blood, where did the sorcerers take water from? We must therefore assume that Moses and Aaron struck only the waters of the Nile. This is supported by the words “the waters in the river” in our verse. Most of the verses dealing with the subject do not describe Moses and Aaron as striking “all the waters in Egypt.” Even verse 18 speaks only of the inability of the Egyptians to drink water “from the river.” It follows that the sorcerers had ample sources of water to draw on in order to demonstrate their skill. If we adopt this line of reasoning, how do we understand the words in verse 19 that Moses and Aaron were commanded to stretch out their hands over “all the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their ponds over their canals and over all their gathering of waters and they shall become blood?” How do we account for the fact that apparently Moses and Aaron did not comply fully with G’d’s command and struck only the waters in the river (verse 20)? We may answer this apparent omission by Moses and Aaron by remembering that the Nile was the primary source of water in Egypt and that all the ponds and canals were in the nature of tributaries receiving their water supply from the Nile. This, of course, brings us back to the question of “where did the חרטומים take water from to demonstrate their tricks?”    The answer is that they started digging in the ground. They found some water which they proceeded to turn into what looked like blood. Moses’ decree applied only to waters which were already visible as such not to subterranean pools of water. Alternatively, seeing that the sorcerers had heard the warning announcing this forthcoming plague, they had hastened to some areas where the water had not yet turned into blood, had taken some water out of its natural habitat and had then proceeded to demonstrate their skill in turning such water which had been divorced from its source into blood. They claimed that they had done this by their own efforts, though in fact, these waters also turned into blood once Moses and Aaron decreed that the waters in the Nile and those supplied by the Nile should turn into blood. You will note that Moses’ deed is attributed by the Torah to having occurred while Pharaoh and his servants were watching, i.e. לעיני פרעה ועבדיו, whereas it is not mentioned anywhere that Pharaoh or his servants actually watched the water used by the sorcerers changing into blood (verse 22).
      Another possible approach to this short paragraph is that G’d actually gave two separate instructions. 1) He commanded that the river be struck with the staff in order that its waters turn into blood. 2) Stretching out of Aaron’s hand while he was holding the staff without actually striking the waters of the tributaries, the ponds the canals, etc. When we read in verse 17 “here I am about to strike the waters in the Nile with the staff in my hand,” this referred to the river Nile only and was addressed to Aaron. Moses was not permitted to strike the river Nile seeing it was the instrument which had saved his life when he was in the basket. He was not permitted to strike the Nile to produce the frogs either (compare 8,2.)  When the Torah reports (in the plural) “Moses and Aaron did so just as G’d had commanded them; he raised his staff and struck the waters in the Nile before the eyes of Pharaoh, etc.,” this means that Aaron raised his hand with Moses’ staff and inclined it in all four directions over all the waters in Egypt. Moses’ part in all this was to warn Pharaoh of the forthcoming plague. This, after all, was what G’d had commanded in verse 19. When the Torah appears to repeat in verse 21 ויהי הדם בכל ארץ מצרים, “the blood was throughout the land of Egypt,” this means that by merely stretching out his hand whilst holding the staff the other sources of water in Egypt were turned into blood also.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   מים לשתות, “water for drinking.” It is clear from the wording that they did not succeed in drinking the water they found. Had they done so, the Torah would have written: מים וישתו, ”water which they drank.” Seeing they did not succeed in drinking the water mentioned in our verse, how did they manage for seven days without water? 
  We are therefore compelled to interpret the verse to mean that they did indeed drink water they found as a result of digging for it. The meaning of the word לשתות maybe interpreted in two ways: whereas they did drink it this was still as if they could not drink it as the water was salt-water. This is the meaning of the additional words: “for they could not drink the waters from the river.” Seeing they could not drink regular water, they were forced to drink water which tasted very salty.   כי לא יכלו לשתות מים ממימי היאור, “for they could not drink the waters of the river Nile,” which were sweet and fit for drinking. This is the explanation of the gaon Rabbi Saadyah. He makes the point that there is a difference in meaning between the word מי and the word מימי. The word מימי is used only for water which is fit to drink. We find proof of this in Numbers 20,8 ונתן את מימיו, “and it will yield its waters.” Or, Exodus 23,25: וברך את לחמכם ואת מימיך, “He will bless your bread and your water.” Another example is found in Chronicles II 32,30 יחזקיה סתם את מוצא מימי גיחון, “King Chiskiyah stopped up the sources of the waters from the river Gichon.” The word מי is used to describe waters unfit for drinking in Genesis 7,7 מפני מי המבול, “on account of the waters of the deluge;” another example of the word מי referring to waters not fit to drink is Exodus 15,19 וישב ה' עליהם את מי הים, “G’d turned  back upon them the waters of the sea.” The author quotes additional verses making the same point.
  
  Verse 25
  
  . וימלא שבעת ימים, “seven days were completed.”  The Torah spells out that the duration of the first plague was seven days, the length of time a menstruating woman is bleeding or is considered impure due to bleeding. The ritual state of the Egyptians was comparable to that of a menstruating woman. The Torah did not bother to give us data for the length of subsequent plagues as they lasted seven days unless otherwise reported. The interval between one plague and the next was 21 days so that a plague and its aftermath lasted approx. a month. We find this confirmed by Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir in his liturgical poem (recited in Ashkenazi congregations on the eighth day of Passover, commencing with the words מה מועיל רשע רשע בעליו) He says there that a full month was allocated to each plague and that three quarters of the month was allowed for warning and waiting. The fourth part of the month was the actual duration of the plague.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   את כל גבולך, “your entire territory.” The word “your territory” excludes the territory of Cham. The sons of Cham (the kushim, negroes?) and the sons of Mitzrayim had a territory  גבול,  between their respective territories. According to  Shemot Rabbah 10,2 this area had remained disputed between them until that time. Due to the plague of the frogs they made peace amongst themselves. They came to the realisation that the area not invaded by the frogs belonged to the territory of Cham. We derive this from the words of Moses’ warning “your entire territory,” i.e.  not anyone else’s territory.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ובכה ובעמך, “against you as well as against your people.” The unusual letter ה at the end of the word ובך “and against you,” indicates that every one of the ten plagues was subdivided into 5 plagues [compare Haggadah shel Pessach Rabbi Yossi Hagalilee].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    למתי אעתיר לך?, “for when shall I pray on your behalf?” Rashi comments: ”if the Torah had written מתי אעתיר, the meaning would have been: “when shall I pray?” Seeing the Torah wrote למתי, the meaning is: “concerning which time, i.e. which day shall I pray for the plague to be removed?” You find a parallel wording when Pharaoh asked for the plague of wild beasts to be removed from his land. There too the wild beasts were removed the next day (8,25-26). Although Moses prayed for the removal of the plague as soon as he left the presence of Pharaoh, the plague was not removed until the following day. The wording there confirms Rashi’s approach here.    I am surprised at the comments by Nachmanides who claims that Moses delayed praying until the following day. He claims that the letter ל in the word למתי is similar to the letter ל in the words למן היום אשר יצאת מארץ מצרים, “ever since the day you departed from the land of Egypt” (Deut. 9,7). In other words, the letter ל is integral to the word מתי, and is not a prefix. The argument of Nachmanides is that if Moses had prayed on the same day that the frogs be removed only on the morrow, then the Torah would have added the word ממחרת, “on the following day,” to its report in verse 9 that the frogs did die and would have written: “G’d did as Moses had said and the frogs died on the morrow.” Seeing that the Torah did not do so it is clear that the frogs perished immediately after Moses prayed. Seeing Pharaoh did not want them to die or retreat until the following day this leaves us with no choice but to assume that Moses held off with his prayer until the following day. Thus far Nachmanides.    I feel that if that were so the Torah would have mentioned in connection with the plague of wild beasts that Moses delayed his prayer. 
  Seeing that the Torah did not do so this is proof that Rashi is correct. Moses never said that he would pray only on the morrow. Seeing that already during the plague of frogs Pharaoh acted as if time were not of the essence to him and he wanted the frogs dead or removed only on the following day, Moses took a cue from this when he announced in future that the plagues he would orchestrate would occur on the following day, such as in 8,19. The same occurred again with the plague of hail which Moses also announced as about to occur on the day following his announcement (9,18). The same was true of the plague of pestilence when Moses gave a full day’s warning for the G’d-fearing people to bring their livestock to safety (9,5). The same occurred again when Moses announced the plague of the locusts (10,4).     The reason why Pharaoh did not ask for the frogs to die or disappear immediately was that he thought that the plague had run its course and that by waiting a day he could show up Moses as not having had anything to do with the cessation of that plague. When Moses demonstrated that the frogs would leave when he wanted, he showed that the plague fulfilled the purpose of showing למען תדע כי אין כה' אלוקינו, “so that you’ll know there is no one like the Lord our G’d.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויצעק משה אל ה' על דבר הצפרדעים, “Moses cried out to the Lord on account of the frogs.” You will not encounter the expression “he cried out” in connection with any other plague which Moses asked G’d to stop. The Torah then reported only the normal ויעתר משה, “Moses pleaded,” or “Moses spread out his hands,” or similar expressions.
   It is possible to explain the words על דבר הצפרדעים as something necessary in view of the fact that G’d had announced that the frogs would “ascend from the river.” G’d had also spoken of ושרץ, that the river would produce a swarm of frogs each time these frogs were reported as having arisen from the river, making it sound like a natural occurrence. Seeing Moses was interested in making sure the Egyptians would not forget the supernatural element of this plague, he spoke of the דבר הצפרדעים, “the whole subject of the frogs,” i.e. their arrival and their departure. Moses wanted the manner in which the frogs would disappear to reflect that their appearance too had been due to supernatural causes. Even the words אשר שם לפרעה, “which He had inflicted on Pharaoh,” were not superfluous in Moses’ prayer. He stressed at every turn the divine origin of what had happened.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויעשו כן החרטמם בלטיהם להוציא את הכנים, “the sorcerers did so with their secret art in order to remove the lice.” Seeing the Torah testifies that they did not succeed, why did the Torah first write ויעשו כן, “they did likewise?” The words refer to the manner in which they wanted to reproduce the plague, i.e. they too struck the dust of the earth with their staffs, similar to what Moses had done (verse 12). Now that we know that  ויעשו כן, “they did likewise,” does not necessarily mean that the sorcerers succeeded in duplicating Moses’ and Aaron’s miracles, we may presume that in the previous instance when the Torah wrote this expression (concerning the snake and the blood) the sorcerers also did nothing more than create an allusion. The words ולא יכולו, “they were unable,” applies to all their efforts.    Whereas prior to this the Egyptian sorcerers had been accorded the title  חרטומי מצרים, here the word מצרים is missing. It is possible that up until now these sorcerers had been held in high esteem by all the Egyptians. Now, however, they had already lost some of their image in the eyes of the people. By the time the third plague occurred and the sorcerers had to make a public admission that a higher power than they had caused this plague, i.e. אצבע אלו-הים היא, their esteem amongst the people declined further and is reflected In the missing letter י when we encounter the word  חרטומם again in 8,16. When someone’s name is spelled defectively this is an allusion to that person’s lack of ability, of power. We find these sorcerers at the nadir of their erstwhile reputation in 9,11 during the plague of “infectious boils” when they are reported as “unable” to make an appearance in the presence of Pharaoh. They were simply ashamed of their impotence. Not only were they unable to protect their fellow citizens but they could not even protect themselves.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמרו החרטומם אל פרעה, “the sorcerers said to Pharaoh.”  Up until this point the word חרטומים had always been spelled with the letter י. Now that they had been forced to admit their incompetence that letter was dropped. According to Kidushin 40 the absence of the letter י is an allusion to the proverb that of the ten units of magic G’d had allocated to the creatures on earth, nine had been appropriated by the Egyptians, whereas the remaining unit was dispersed all over the globe.
     אצבע אלו-הים היא, “it is a finger of G’d (His power).” Once the sorcerers saw that they could neither duplicate nor remove the lice they admitted that that plague was a manifestation of the power of the Lord and this is why Pharaoh did not continue to demand from them that they try and prove their abilities. They wanted to minimise the significance of that plague and that is why they attributed it to elohim instead of to Hashem. They dared not mention that name seeing Pharaoh had not yet acknowledged His existence. Pharaoh and his servants had mentioned that name only in their conversations with Moses and Aaron. This is the view of Nachmanides.
      However, the scholar Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that the words “a finger of G’d” did not mean that they admitted that what Aaron had done was a miracle by G’d. They only meant to say that this plague was not supernatural, had nothing to do with the powers of either Moses or Aaron but was a natural phenomenon that could have been foreseen by the astrologers. This is the reason they referred to elohim, i.e. the attribute of G’d by means of which He allows laws of nature to operate. One of the proofs for the reasoning of the sorcerers, according to Ibn Ezra, was the fact that there had been no warning of this plague as opposed to the warnings which had been issued prior to the plague of blood and the plague of the frogs. This proved to them that even Moses had not known ahead of time that this plague would strike Egypt.
      Nachmanides makes an additional point that the first two plagues did not involve the creation of new creatures, seeing that the frogs had their habitat in or near the river and all that happened was that they left their habitat in great numbers. In the case of the river turning into blood, this too did not involve creation of a new species but merely a role-reversal of the life-giving content of the river-bed into a life-killing content, i.e. blood. Blood, under other circumstances is for man or the mammals what water is for the fish. In the case of the “lice” however, the Torah speaks of ויהיו, “there came into existence.” Suddenly insects were created out of the dust. The expression ויהי, and ויהיו, is found primarily during the story of creation at the beginning of Genesis. Only Hashem possesses the power to create something at the stage of בריאה. The power of water and earth to produce is restricted  to the level of יצירה and onwards.     In Psalms 8,4 David describes “when I behold Your heavens the work of Your fingers,” he makes the point that creation of a whole planetary systems is no more effort for G’d than the creation of the smallest insect. Rabbi Saadyah Gaon makes a similar point when he points out that the word אצבע, finger, occurs in the Bible in three contexts. It occurs here with the plague of insect, כנים; it occurs in Psalms as we just quoted in connection with the creation of the planetary systems, and it occurs in connection with the Tablets (Ten Commandments) which are attributed to having been written with the finger of elohim (Exodus 31,18). Although there seems little common ground between these three domains, i.e. the planetary system, the insects, and the Tablets which, though inferior in size to the planetary system are superior in their spiritual significance, the common denominator between all of these is G’d’s ability to create.    According to Shemot Rabbah 10,7 however, all that the sorcerers admitted was that their craft did not extend to mastery over creatures smaller than a lentil.  When the Torah said לא יכולו, “they were unable,” this meant only that they were unable to compete on that level. If they were unable to even collect such insects how much less able were they to produce them!
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . הנני משליח בך..את הערוב, “I will unleash against you...the wild beasts.” You will not find that any of the other plagues was introduced with the letter ה as a form of definitive article except here. We would have expected the Torah to write here הנני משליח בך ערוב. We must remember that these wild beasts were not newly formed creatures. They already existed but the new element was that they invaded man’s habitat, something uncharacteristic. We find something similar when other kinds of disasters are mentioned in the Bible, for instance Leviticus 26,22.  The Torah writes in that context והשלחתי בכם את-חית השדה ושכלה אתכם, “I will dispatch against you the wild beasts of the field  and they will leave you bereft of your children.” In connection with the plague of frogs the Torah did write: “all your territory with frogs,” and the frogs were also not a new creation but simply emerged from their habitat the Nile. This is the reason that the vowel patach is under the letter ב in the word בצפרדעים (verse 27). It was to show that these frogs already existed but merely left their habitat, the Nile and its banks.
      According to Shemot Rabbah 9,9 (on 7,17) the difference between G’d striking man and man striking his fellow man is that when man attacks someone he is anxious to do so suddenly so as to preserve the advantage of surprise. Not so G’d. G’d gives fair warning to enable man to fall in with His wishes before he is taught a painful lesson. G’d warned Pharaoh in seven out of the ten plagues in order to afford him an opportunity to escape the plague by releasing the Israelites. Job 36,22 testifies to this attribute of G’d when Elihu proclaimed: “See, G’d is beyond reach in His power, who governs like Him?” The author meant that although G’d does not have any need to do so, He affords every sinner the opportunity to return to Him in penitence before punishing him. Only if the sinner fails to avail himself of such an opportunity does G’d carry out His threat as we know from Job 36,11-12: “if they serve obediently they will spend their days in happiness, their years in delight; but if they are not obedient, they shall perish by the sword.”
  
  Verse 18
  
   והפלאתי ביום ההוא , “I shall set apart on that day, etc.” The fact that the first three plagues occurred in the land of Egypt without affecting the province of Goshen was not so remarkable due to the nature of the plagues. The manifestations of those plagues were more or less local in nature. Seeing that the plague of wild beasts originated far from civilized areas of Egypt, it was remarkable that the beasts should distinguish between areas inhabited by Israelites and areas inhabited by Egyptians. It was therefore an act of G’d to redirect the instinct of the beasts so that they ignored Israelites and their dwellings.    אשר עמי עומד עליה, “on which My people are standing.” This means: “in order to enable My people to maintain itself on it.”
     למען תדע כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ, “so that you will appreciate that I am Hashem right in the midst of the earth.” G’d meant that He exercises control right on earth, punishing sinners and rewarding and saving those who put their trust in Him. The line was designed to provide a striking contrast with Pharaoh’s declared philosophy that there was no such thing as providential guidance of the earth by a divine force.
  Ramban writes that כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ can possibly be compared to כי שמי בקרבו "for my name is within him" (23,21) — this is a deep and sublime concept.
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ושמתי פדת בין עמי ובין עמך, “I will make a distinction between My people and between your people.” G’d (Moses) had already mentioned that He would make a distinction between Goshen and the rest of the country. The additional information in this verse meant that even within Egypt proper the wild beasts would not attack the Israelites or their belongings. We have confirmation of this in Psalms 78,48 where Assaph (a contemporary of the event) said: ”He inflicted upon them swarms of wild beasts to devour them.” The word פדות is also related to “ransom.” Isaiah 43,3 speaks about G’d giving a “ransom” to Egypt (in return for releasing the Jewish people). The word is spelled defective in our verse, i.e. without the letter ו, indicating that the redemption from Egypt was not a total redemption as it was followed by other periods of enslavement of the Jewish people. When Psalms 111,9 speaks about פדות שלח לעמו, “He has sent redemption to His people,” the word פדות is spelled plene indicating that David speaks about the redemption of the future.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . וסר הערוב מפרעה, “and the wild beasts will depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people to-morrow.” Moses told Pharaoh this in order that he should not assume that the plague was bound to stop on that day and that Moses knew this based on his astrological calculations. Just as with the plague of frogs Pharaoh had asked that it not be stopped until the following day as he had hoped to embarrass Moses, Moses now turned the tables on him using the delay in arranging relief to prove the same point. Both arrival and cessation of the plagues were announced on the day following their being announced.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויסר הערוב “the wild beasts departed.” The Torah pointedly did not mention that these animals died as it had done with the frogs. In this instance G’d’s intention in bringing on this plague had been to make the lives of the Egyptians miserable; they were not to derive any benefit from these animals. The frogs were killed by G’d in order to produce the stench which discomfited the people. Had the wild beasts been allowed to die the Egyptians would have used their carcasses as food. G’d did not want this to happen.
  
  Verse 28
  
  . גם בפעם הזאת, “also on this occasion.” During the first three plagues, which were summarized by Rabbi Yehudah as דצ'ך, the sorcerers appeared before Pharaoh each time. Their presence had exerted a psychological pressure on Pharaoh to remain steadfast in his refusal. This time he remained obstinate without the presence of his sorcerers exerting such pressure on him. They had already concluded that they were up against a higher power when they could not reproduce the lice. Seeing that on this occasion Pharaoh was politically isolated, the Torah wrote the words “also on this occasion,” in order to draw our attention to the fact that this occasion was different from previous ones.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   הנה יד ה' הויה, “here the hand of the Lord is about to be, etc.” In introducing the fifth plague the Torah mentions “the hand” of G’d, the word הויה representing the attribute which forms the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name, the tetragrammaton. This is a name which allows for 12 permutations [different spellings using the same letters, a widely accepted kabbalistic method. Ed.]. The words זה שמי לעולם, in 3,15 provided an allusion to this concept, the word לעולם hinting at concealed methods of writing this name. Seeing that this was the fifth plague, the Torah makes a point of listing five species of animals which would be afflicted, i.e. horses, donkeys, camels, cattle and flocks.
     במקנך אשר בשדה, “amongst your cattle which are out in the field.” He warned them about those animals which are normally out in the field. This is a typical construction similar to when the Torah wrote in Exodus 22,30: ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו, “you must not eat the flesh of an animal that was torn in the field.” The example the Torah cites is one that is commonplace; the legislation includes animals which are diseased in the stable. Similarly, here; the Torah singles out the animals which are usually in the field. This does not mean that the other animals would be safe from the plague. When the Torah reports how the plague affected the Egyptians it writes that all the cattle of Egypt died (verse 6), i.e. including the cattle kept at home.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah mentions the word בשדה in connection with the cattle is that the Egyptians kept their cattle outdoors on a permanent basis. The reason was that shepherds of cattle were considered an abomination in Egypt (compare Genesis 46,34). These cattle were grazing far from Egypt proper, on the border of the province of Goshen, so that the cattle of the Israelites and that of the Egyptians intermingled. The fact that none of the Israelites’ cattle were affected by the plague was therefore all the more remarkable. Another reason why this was remarkable could have been that the bacteria causing the plague came from the same airspace so that it could have been expected to affect all the animals in equal measure
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . וישם ה' מועד לאמור מחר יעשה ה' הדבר הזה בארץ, “G’d appointed a set time, saying: “G’d will carry out this matter in the land tomorrow.” Why this cumbersome language? All the Torah had to write was: “Tomorrow I will do it.” The plain meaning of this verse is that G’d gave Moses the date on which this plague would occur and he was to tell the Israelites the date, i.e. on the following day. 
      A kabbalistic approach: The apparent repetition וישם ה', ה' יעשה, “G’d (set) determined, G’d will do,” refers to G’d Who together with His celestial tribunal would orchestrate this plague. G’d’s celestial tribunal had already been mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph with the word הנה יד ה' הויה. This is not the only time when mention of G’d in the third person rather than quoting G’d in the first person means that the reference is to G’d’s celestial tribunal. Another example of this is found in Exodus 16,29 where the words ראו כי ה' נתן לכם השבת, “see, for the Lord has given you the Sabbath,” instead of “I have given you the Sabbath” refer to the same thing. There are many such examples. .
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  . וזרקו משה השמימה, “and Moses is to throw it heavenward.” It is a well known fact that each one of the ten plagues contained within it a number of miracles. In this instance the expression “your (pl) handfuls” combined with the singular “let him throw it heavenward” poses a problem. Why did they both have to fill their hands with the soot if only Moses was to throw it? The verse teaches therefore that Moses took in his one hand the combined four handfuls of soot, both his own and that of his brother Aaron. If one throws something upwards one uses only one hand; otherwise it is hardly called “throwing.” The ability of throwing all this soot with one hand then was one of the miracles. Another miracle was the fact that the whole land of Egypt became filled with dust which had originated only in the palms of two pairs of hands. The third miracle, of course, was the plague itself, the fact that this soot turned into erupting boils infecting man and beast alike in the whole of Egypt.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, “G’d hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” This was the sixth plague already and it is the first time that the Torah writes that it was G’d who made Pharaoh’s heart strong. Up until now he had hardened his heart unassisted by G’d but due to other considerations as we explained. Now there were no sorcerers who would have lent backbone to Pharaoh by their very presence and would have caused him to remain obstinate. They were ashamed to appear in public as they themselves were suffering from the symptoms of this שחין פורח אבעבעת. Had G’d not interfered at this point, Pharaoh might have capitulated and  perhaps would have decided to let the Israelites go.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   את כל מגפותי, “all  my  plagues.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason G’d referred to the plague of hail as “all My plagues” is that this plague contained within it most of the plagues that man and beast suffer from. This is why the Torah added the words מאדם עד בהמה, “from man to beast” in verse 25 when the impact of the plague is being described. All the trees were broken by the hail, not to mention any crops which were ready or close to harvesting. The ice, i.e. the cold which accompanied the phenomenon of this hail froze all plants which were already above ground. We find confirmation of this thought by Assaph in Psalms 78,47 “He killed their vines with hail, their sycamore with frost.” The word חנמל in that psalm is a variety of hail. It is a strong frost which breaks the blossoms of the trees and dries out their moisture. Shemot Rabbah 12,4 explains that the reason why this kind of hail is called חנמל is because  when it came נח מל, “it settled on the trees and cut them (as if ‘circumcised’)  a cut which does not grow back and regenerate itself.” This hail which contained destructive fire within it was even more damaging.
      A Midrashic approach based on Shemot Rabbah 12,4: The words “all My plagues” refers to the hail which broke the trees whereas the fire contained within it burned the roots. The force of the cold did not extinguish the fire, nor did the heat of the fire melt the hail (ice). You may understand the phenomenon when you consider the following parable: a king has two dukes who hate each other. After a number of years of such feuding between the dukes war broke out in the kingdom and the king required the services of both dukes in order to defeat the enemy. He needed to see to it that the two feuding dukes stopped fighting each other and combined to help him win the war. This is the deeper meaning of Job 25,2: המשל ופחד עמו,עושה שלום במרומיו, “Dominion and dread are His; He imposes peace in His heights.” The word המשל refers to the archangel Michael, the word פחד, to the archangel Gavriel. Michael is in charge of water, Gavriel in charge of fire. G’d imposes peace between them in order for His war against evil to be fought successfully. 
  We find a similar concept in Ezekiel‘s vision of the מרכבה, “G’d’s heavenly entourage.” The prophet described a vision of the angels supporting G’d’s throne as respectively fiery and icy (1,13 and 1,22). If we consider that water or ice usually descends whereas fire usually rises, it becomes clear that we speak of natural forces with opposite characteristics, not to mention heat and cold which are opposites also. G’d arranged for water, i.e. the sky to have its habitat in the heights, whereas fire has its habitat down below.
      You will observe that our paragraph contains the word ברד, hail 14 times. [The word יד equals 14 in the numerical value of its letters. In other words, ברד was a manifestation of G’d’s “hand, יד.” Ed.] According to the author the reason that the word ברד appears 14 times is that it reflected the power of water. It is generally known that the planet moon exercises a force upon the water similar to the planet sun exercising its force upon fire. The moon is responsible for the phenomenon of the tides receding and rising respectively. During the first 14 days of the month the moon appears to increase in size, whereas during the last 14 days of the month the moon appears to decrease in size.
      A kabbalistic approach: The word כל, “all,” in the expression את כל מגפותי, “all My plagues,” may be understood as similar to the word “all” in ולא יעיר כל חמתו, “and did not give vent to all His fury” (Psalms 78,38). The meaning of the word in that context is the attribute called כל. This attribute describes G’d’s anger. Here too the Torah describes that this plague will be the result of G’d’s anger at Pharaoh having failed to respond to earlier methods to discipline him. Henceforth this attribute would be employed in order to humble him. This is why Moses needed to raise his hands (verse 29) when he prayed for the removal of this plague when the time came. He had not had to do this when he prayed for the removal of any of the preceding plagues. People had actually been dying from fear when they merely heard the sound of the hail. Seeing this plague was the result of the combined efforts of G’d and His celestial court it was more severe than the plagues preceding it. This fact is alluded to in the Torah especially mentioning the word קולות as part of the actual plague in verse 23: “and G’d sent thunder and hail.” Seeing this had been so, Moses had to make an increased effort in his prayer to stop the plague by using also his outstretched hands in prayer. He needed to sanctify all his ten fingers. The symbolism contained in raising one’s hands heavenwards in prayer is that it is an expression of one’s awareness of the source of the disaster which one wants to prevent by one’s prayer and by invoking G’d’s attribute of Mercy towards what transpires on earth. The plague’s effect on Pharaoh was that for the first time he publicly acknowledged that he and his people had sinned, that G’d was righteous (verse 27). As soon as Moses engaged in this kind of prayer the hail, etc. ceased (not on the next day as in previous plagues).
     בעבור תדע כי אין כמוני בכל הארץ, “so that you will appreciate that there is no One like Me in the whole universe.” Moses informed Pharaoh by means of this short line that G’d in His capacity as Hashem exists, exerts power over the fate of man on earth and that He has the ability to make things happen or to even reverse them. Moses had already demonstrated that Hashem exists when the plague of frogs occurred, when the Torah had introduced it by the words: “in order that you should know that there is none like Hashem” (8,6). This had meant that there is no Existence comparable to that of Hashem. The fact that this Existence exercises its dominion over creatures on earth was the purpose of the fourth plague, the wild beasts roaming at will through urban areas had been introduced with the words: “in order that you should appreciate that I am an Existence active in the very midst of the earth” (8,18). The message was that G’d acted on earth just like a king within his realm. At this point Pharaoh was taught the additional lesson about the uniqueness of every aspect of that Being known as Hashem. The reason that Moses had to repeat all this was that initially, Pharaoh had denied all three aspects of the meaning of Hashem, His existence, His impact on events, and His uniqueness. This meant simply that no other power in the universe commanded this range of abilities.
      According to Pessikta Zutrata on our verse, whenever we encounter such expressions as למען תדע, בעבור תדע “in order that you will know, so that you will know,” this is Moses’ reminder to Pharaoh of his original sin which consisted of his denial of the existence of Hashem. We have a proverb in Proverbs 27,22 “even if you pound the fool in a mortar, with a pestle along with the grain, his folly will not leave him.” Moses reminded  Pharaoh constantly of his sin. Pharaoh’s problem was that the constant pounding he received was such that it completely deadened his ability to react. He needed the weeks of relief between plagues to reassert his former obstinacy.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . בעבור הראותך את כוחי, “in order to demonstrate to you My power.” G’d did not also display His גבורות, as this was an aspect of His which He did not display in Egypt. However,  during the redemption of the future G’d will display this aspect of His power also as testified to by Ezekiel 40,4 who mentions this in connection with his vision of the building of the Third Temple. The key word in Ezekiel’s vision is the words הובאתה הנה הראותכה spelled with the letter ה at the end. This is a hint that at that time additional dimensions of G’d’s power and greatness will become manifest. The letter ה is absent in the word הראותך used by Moses to describe what G’d had shown Pharaoh.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . אשר לא היה כמוהו במצרים, “the like of which had never occurred in Egypt.” Moses did not say אשר לא היה במצרים כמוהו, but אשר לא היה כמוהו במצרים. This means that in the whole world there had never been a plague of hail comparable to the one that would strike Egypt. The reason that he added the word “in Egypt,” was that even in Egypt in which there is never any rain, i.e. precipitation, such a precipitation would now be experienced in its most catastrophic form.
  
  Verse 19
  
  . שלח העז את מקנך, “send, gather in your cattle.” Did they not die already during the plague of pestilence? Did not the Torah state in 9,6: “all the cattle of Egypt died?” Perhaps the cattle in our verse had been replacement cattle which the Egyptians had imported after the plague of pestilence. This may have accounted for the fact that Moses advised the Egyptians to bring these cattle home to save them from the hail. Alternatively, the meaning of 9,6 could have been that “most of the cattle died,” seeing that we have a Talmudic principle of רובו ככולו, that when most of something is affected we treat it legally as if all of that something had been affected. (Midrash Sechel Tov to 9,6 stipulates that such comments as the word “all” are not to be taken literally.) A third alternative: previously the animals which were owned in partnership between Jews and Egyptians did not die.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   קולות וברד ותהלך אש ארצה, “thunder and hail; the fire traveled earthward.” It is a well known fact that atmospheric changes occur during periods of hail. All diseases strike creatures composed of the four basic raw materials. The underlying reasons for such diseases afflicting man are the atmospheric changes which affect the four basic materials fire, water, wind, and earth.  As long as these four materials maintain their respective balance the bodies of the human beings consisting of them remain healthy. If one of those materials becomes stronger at the expense of the others, disease will manifest itself amongst human beings.
   In this instance two of these raw materials were in imbalance. The words “and the fire traveled earthward” expresses the reaction to this imbalance by the other two basic raw materials. The Torah describes fire as doing the reverse of its normal function, i.e. as traveling downwards instead of upwards, i.e. as doing the same as earth which always has a downward tendency. All of these phenomena demonstrated how G’d could change at will all the scientific axioms accepted by man as immutable.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . ה' הצדיק ואני ועמי הרשעים, “Hashem is the righteous One whereas I and my people are the wicked ones.” Pharaoh said to Moses in effect: ‘“you who are the messenger of Hashem are righteous and Hashem is righteous in His application of judgments. I and my people are wicked in that we refused to obey His commandments.” Seeing he had repeatedly denied even Hashem’s existence, Pharaoh now spelled out his mistake in detail as befits people confessing a sin. Actually, he only had to confess his own personal sin. However, seeing he was afraid he might be held responsible for the sins of his people because he was their king and he could have restrained them, he confessed their guilt also saying: “I and my people are the wicked ones.”.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ורב מהיות קולות אלו-הים וברד, “there has been plenty of heavenly thunder and hail.” The word רב is an entreaty or allusion to the One who is “great” in providing salvation, i.e. G’d. Onkelos also translates the word in that way, i.e. וסגי קדמוהי רווחא. The meaning of the words העתירו אל ה' are an introduction, i.e. “entreat Hashem who is capable of providing such great relief.” It is noteworthy that while Pharaoh asked Moses and Aaron to plead with Hashem, he attributed the thunder to elohim, a different attribute of G’d. This may have been because the sound of this thunder inspires fear and leaves a palpable effect on one’s body. Our sages  (Berachot 59) said that thunder was created in order to break the crookedness of the heart.    Pharaoh mentioned the thunder  before  the hail seeing that in verse 23 when the plague first began, the thunder was the first manifestation of what was to come. After the people had become suitably frightened the hail began to fall and man and beast who were outside died. You will find the same sequence occurring after Moses’ prayer to G’d to stop the plague (compare verse 33). That which had come first also ceased first. According to this principle we would have expected the Torah to write: וירא פרעה כי חדלו הקולות והברד והמטר ויוסף לחטוא, “when Pharaoh saw that the thunder, the hail and the rain had stopped, he continued to sin.” The fact is that the Torah writes the verse in such a way that the words “he continued to sin” are adjacent to the word “thunder.” This shows that the only factor which had caused him previously to agree to dismiss the Jewish people was the fear which the thunder had inspired in him. This testifies to the obstinacy of Pharaoh. Even the damage caused by the hail would not budge him; the only thing which he responded to was personal fear inspired by the sound of the thunder. As soon as this fear evaporated as a result of the cessation of the thunder, he continued to sin.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
      ידעתי כי טרם תיראון. והפשתה והשעורה נכתה. “I am aware that you have not yet developed reverence for the Lord G’d. The flax and the barley had been struck down.” These words are connected to the words: “you still have not developed reverence, etc.” They applied to a situation preceding Pharaoh’s confession that he was the sinner and G’d the righteous One. When Pharaoh spoke those words the flax and barley had already been struck, seeing their stalks were hard and the hail would break them. They were beyond reprieve, could not recover. However, the wheat and the spelt whose stalks were softer were able to recover after cessation of the plague. They could be saved if Pharaoh and his people would not continue to sin. This is the view of Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon.   והפשתה גבעול, “the flax was in its stalk.” The word may be split into גבו על. The seed had already entered its stalk so that it grew. This is why it broke.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי אפילות המה, “because they would ripen later.” As the stalks had not yet started growing they were not struck down by the hail. 
   According to Tanchuma Vaeyra 16 the words אפילות הנה are related to פלאי פלאות, that miraculous things happened to them. The fact that they were saved from the hail was not due to their being in a less advanced state of growth than the flax. Their natural state was such that they should have fallen victim to the hail. The roots beneath the ground should also have been fatally struck. The fire inside the hail would have seen to this. A miracle occurred.  Instead of reading the word אפילות the meaning of  it is פלאות, miracles.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ומטר לא נתך ארצה, “and the rain did not reach the earth.” The Torah did not write that the rain did not descend to earth; it wrote לא נתך ארצה, “it was not  allowed to complete its descent” (even after it had melted to become like regular rain).  Our sages in Tanchuma 17 state that the descent of the rain was arrested in mid-air for 41 years until Joshua 10,11 when it finally descended in the form of large (hail)stones from the sky.    The prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 13,11) commanded these stones to fall. These stones were then called אלגביש, seeing that during these many years they had been “standing” on the back of איש. The איש in question was Moses who has been described in Numbers 12,3 as והאיש משה. Seeing that the hailstones give the illusion to the onlooker that they are pearls, they are called אבני אלגביש, as pearls are described in these terms in Job 28,18. The thunder also was suspended in mid-air only to descend to earth in the days of Elisha (Kings II 7,6) where we are told: “the Lord had made the camp of Aram hear the sounds of chariots, a sound of horses, a sound of a mighty army.” [The sound was equated with thunder. Ed.]
  
  Verse 34
  
    ויוסף לחטא, “he continued to sin.” When the wicked experience troubles they are temporarily humbled; as soon as their troubles disappear they continue on as previously. When the Torah (verse 27) wrote that Pharaoh had exclaimed: “and Hashem is the righteous One,” this was an example of such a short-lived repentance. The very arrogance of the wicked is the cause of their eventual downfall. The pride  which had originally caused Pharaoh to say: “who is Hashem  that I should listen to His instructions” was the reason that ultimately he perished in the  Sea of Reeds. We find a parallel with Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon who had said (Daniel 4,27) “Is this not the great Babylon which I have built up into a royal house with my powerful strength and for the glorification of my splendor?“ It did not take long for him to be humbled as we read in verse 29 of the same chapter  that a heavenly voice announced that he would be driven from mankind and would have to live amongst the wild beasts.  The righteous, on the other hand, do not display arrogance but humble themselves. They attain whatever glory and prominence they achieve as a result of their very humility. This is what Solomon said in Proverb 29,23: ”the pride of a man will humiliate him, but the humble in spirit will retain honor.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ומקשה לבו יפול ברעה, “Happy is the man who is always anxious; but he who hardens his heart will fall into misfortunes” (Proverbs 28,14). 
  In this verse Solomon commands a Jewish person to be of “soft” heart and to be constantly concerned about the purpose and outcome of all his activities. He warns us not to he hard-hearted in order to avoid being punished for obstinacy.    The word  אשרי, “happy is,” is applied here to an individual who excels in a single virtue rather than in a variety of virtues. This is the only instance instance where David or Solomon uses this word as applicable to the possession by a person of a single virtue. The reason that generally we do not find this word applied to individuals excelling in only one particular virtue alone is that the word presupposes the possession of a string of good characteristics in order for such people to be accorded this compliment.     Let us look at Psalms 65,5: “Happy is the man You choose and bring near to dwell in Your courts;” the person chosen by G’d is not chosen by Him on account of his excelling in a solitary virtue; surely it is presumed that he is virtuous in a number of ways. The same is undoubtedly  true of  Psalms 84,6: “happy is the man who finds refuge in You, whose mind is on the (pilgrim) highways.” The expression מסלות, “highways,” proves by its being in the plural that the author speaks of the heart commanding a number of different virtues, such as reverence for G’d, faith in the Lord, etc., etc. The same is true of verse 13 in the same Psalm: “O Lord of hosts, happy is the man who trusts in You.” The virtue of trusting in the Lord itself comprises a number of positive traits and a number of praiseworthy virtues. In Psalm 1,1 where David describes as “happy” the person “who has not followed the counsel of the wicked,” the psalmist himself subdivides this virtue into neither having “sat with them, walked with them, or even having stood near them.” Just as in that instance more than one virtue or the ramifications of such virtue in all its aspects is required, so here too Solomon in describing a person as “happy” because he is constantly concerned or even “afraid,” refers to something more than meets the eye at first glance. He refers to people who weigh each one of their actions carefully, considering possible harmful effects and if the beneficial effects of their actions outweigh any possible harm they could cause. All this they do prior to deciding on a course of action. There can be no question that people who display this kind of sense of responsibility are possessed of a whole string of virtues.    Seeing that the person who is described by Solomon as “happy” is motivated by his שכל, by his intellect, and cannot perform the virtues involved unless he employs his intellect he is called אדם rather than איש (as for instance in Psalms 1,1). The term אדם derives from אדמה, earth, soil. It is as if Solomon had said: “happy he who is cut off from the earth;” prior to cutting himself off from earth he was linked to material matters. Now, by employing the virtues mentioned by Solomon and employing his שכל, a disembodied phenomenon, he will remain conscious of the responsibilities he enters into with every one of his actions. Seeing that he worries about the result and wider impact of his actions, this alone will protect him against committing a sin.   When a person eats and drinks in order to indulge his appetite he thereby makes himself a partner to the animals. If however, he uses such an activity only in order to better perform service to the Lord, by maintaining his physical health at maximum level, then he has elevated the act of eating and drinking to an entirely new and spiritual level. The considerations which are valid for the manner and purpose of our food and drink intake apply in equal measure to the marital relations between husband and wife. Anyone who while indulging in sexual intercourse even with his wife is concerned simply with satisfying his biological urges and the gratification of his libido, is thereby making himself a partner to the animals. His main purpose when engaging in sexual activity must be to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply and to raise children who will be G’d-fearing and, if possible, Torah scholars. Any other considerations are a desecration of the sex act. Similar considerations must guide people engaged in trade and commerce. Naturally, they must avoid being devious, and refrain from lies and cheating. If they were to use their business to cheat people they would lose their standing both in this world and in the world to come. But, even when they merely do not cheat or deceive, they have not yet performed these activities in a worthwhile manner. Unless their purpose is not the amassing of material wealth but to have the opportunity to acquire virtues such as to give liberally to charity, to endow brides who have no dowry, etc., etc., they have not performed what Solomon speaks of in our verse. The very money which is acquired by means of extortion, etc., becomes the instrument of the extortionist’s death sentence in the world to come. The desire to own money of this kind for the brief duration of life on earth is in itself a capital crime. It is comparable to the story of the bird which was so anxious to feed on the grain within the net that it found itself trapped within the net without hope of escape. Concerning this Solomon said (Proverbs 1,17-19) “in the eyes of every winged creature the outspread net means nothing. But they lie in wait for their own blood, they lie in wait for their own lives. So are the ways of all those who are greedy for gain; it takes the life of its owners.”    Solomon applied this parable to the people who are overly fond of money and are intent on amassing it. He said concerning such people (Proverbs 20,17) ”bread gained by deceit may taste sweet; but later his mouth will be filled with gravel.” The principles which must guide us in the examples listed apply to all of man’s activities. One must be worried constantly not to do something which runs counter to the teachings of the Torah and its outlook on life. Solomon views a person who is hard-hearted as the opposite of the one whom he describes as “constantly afraid.” The latter person obviously never considers the fact that he faces G’d every step of his life. The hard-hearted person does not think of what he does in terms of eventual reward of punishment. He who is constantly afraid does not have to worry about disaster facing him in the future as his lifestyle was his guarantee that no such disaster lurks in his future. He who is hard-hearted is always surprised when disaster strikes him and he is unprepared to cope with it. The reverse is true of the מפחד תמיד, the person who is constantly worried. His very worries are the reason that he will be spiritually uplifted. This is why Solomon applies to him the attribute אשרי, “happy.” Seeing that the proud and hard-hearted person elevated himself above others, Solomon chose the correct adjective when he described the result of such a person’s future as “he will fall into misfortune” We have a parallel verse in Proverbs 24,16: “for the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times; the wicked will be snared by evil.” Even a single stroke of misfortune will hit the hard-hearted so that he cannot recover from it. This is also the meaning of Psalms 34,22: “one misfortune is the deathblow of the wicked.” When Solomon wrote in Proverbs 16,4: “G’d has made everything for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil,” he meant that the evil which will strike the wicked has been prepared for him by G’d a long time in advance of it actually happening. It is part of what G’d does to enhance His Name, to be sanctified amongst those who observe His justice at work.   What happened to Pharaoh in our portion and previously had long been planned by G’d. Seeing that he had hardened his heart he was bound to experience the down side to his behavior. He had hardened his heart without G’d’s intervention already in 9,34. What applied to him also applied to most of his servants. In the end G’d hardened his heart even further in order to demonstrate His power to the world.
   ויאמר ה' אל משה בא אל פרעה כי אני הכבדתי את לבו ואת לב עבדיו וגו', G’d said to Moses: “Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants.” Pessikta Zutrata (Vaeyra 8,16) wrote that the arrangement of the ten plagues according to the pattern דצ'ך, עד'ש, בא'חב is based on the pattern of the first two plagues in a cycle being preceded by a warning whereas the third plague in that cycle occurred without warning as a punishment for the previous two plagues not having achieved their purpose. This is why the tenth plague was introduced again by a warning.
  When you examine the wording preceding the plagues in greater detail you will observe that the instructions to Moses  prior to the plagues introduced by warnings always were that Moses either התיצב, בא, לך אל, ונצבת, השכם והתיצב, etc. Our Rabbis established the rule that if someone was warned not to commit a sin and was warned a second time there is no need to warn such a person a third time (Sanhedrin 81). Seeing that the plague of locusts was the second in the cycle designed to teach Pharaoh “that there is no One like Me in the whole universe,” there was no need to warn him of the plague of darkness which would follow the locusts if the people had not been released by that time.
   In view of the statement in Sanhedrin, I believe that Moses would issue warnings concerning the same plague twice, once at the river’s edge and once in Pharaoh’s palace. Whenever G’d instructed Moses: “go to Pharaoh, the meaning is that he was to go to the palace. The verses of the Torah prove this theory. When Moses warned Pharaoh of the impending plague of the waters of the Nile turning into blood (7,15), this is followed by the report that Moses went to Pharaoh’s house (7,23) where the Torah says: “he (Pharaoh) did not pay any heed to this either.” The Torah meant that Pharaoh did not pay heed to the second warning either. The same pattern  occurred again and again with all the plagues concerning which Pharaoh was forewarned. The reason for these repeated warnings was to demonstrate the pride and arrogance with which Pharaoh reacted to these warnings. Pharaoh demonstrated his pride at the river claiming he had made the river, and he again demonstrated his pride in his palace feeling that this was not the place where anyone could dare threaten him. The very fact that Moses had the audacity to threaten him in his own palace put his back up. Were it not for this fact, why would the Torah have had to tell us that Moses came to his palace uninvited, and apparently not even at the command of G’d who had told him only to meet Pharaoh at the river’s bank? (7,15). The Torah wanted to show us Pharaoh’s arrogance. We have a similar situation with Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4,27) where the king boasted about his palace, saying openly that it demonstrated his glory and splendor. In verse 1 of that same chapter in Daniel he boasted: “I Nebuchadnezzar was tranquil and vigorous in my house, etc.” Just as Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance was the reason for his downfall, so Pharaoh’s arrogance became the cause of his downfall. The plagues inflicted upon Pharaoh also emanated from “his” river and his palace. The Torah lists two reasons why G’d resorted to hardening Pharaoh’s heart. 1) in order to publicize His stature as the deity through a demonstration of His miracles. 2) In order for these miracles to become the talk of the town, world-wide. The expression שתי in למען שתי alludes to the ten plagues as the letter י in the middle was otherwise quite unnecessary.
  
  Verse 2
  
   את אשר התעללתי, “how I have made a mockery.”  According to the plain meaning of the text the words mean “I have toyed with them when I performed great acts of retribution.” The expression is similar to the one used by David in Psalms 2,4: יושב בשמים ישחק, אד-ני ילעג למו, “The One who resides in heaven laughs; the Lord mocks at them.”
     'וידעתם כי אני ה', “so that you will realise that I am Hashem.” Not only for a brief period of time, but throughout the generations. The lessons learned from what happened in Egypt to the Egyptians served the people of Israel for hundreds of years as a reminder of G’d’s power. Even the Gentile nations were impressed and accepted the lesson. We find this reflected in Samuel I 6,6: (after the ark had been captured by the Philistines but had spread disease and disaster in their land the priests of the Philistines speaking to their countrymen) “Do not harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts. As you know, when He made a mockery of them, they had to let Israel go and they departed.”     It is possible to explain the word התעללתי, as being derived from עילה, cause, pretext. Most actions performed in this terrestrial world are described as עלילות.  We refer you to Psalms 105,1 הודיעו בעמים עלילותיו, “acquaint the nations with His deeds.” We have a similar meaning of the word in Samuel I 2,3 (Chanah speaking) כי א-ל דעות ה' ולא(ו) נתכנו עלילות, “for the Lord is an all-knowing G’d; by Him actions are measured.” Onkelos also translates our verse here in this manner writing ית נסין די עבידת במצרים, “the miracles You performed in Egypt.” David also refers to G’d’s deeds as עלילות in Psalms 66,5 “who is held in awe by men for His acts.” The reason that G’d’s activities are referred to by a word which hints at עילה is that He is the prime Cause of everything which transpires. All His actions have been inspired by His original planning when He created the universe and man.
      The meaning of our verse in short: “through His actions in Egypt, He demonstrated that He must have been the original Cause of all existence.” This may have inspired Hoseah 12,10 to write: “I am the Lord your G’d המעלך from the land of Egypt.” He meant that the Exodus was the point which made the Gentile nations realise who אנכי is and who אלו-היך is.
      A Midrashic approach: (Pessikta Zutrata on our verse) the word התעללתי means that in response to the Egyptian being עולל My vineyard (the Jewish people, depriving them of their infants like cutting off unripe grapes), I have done the same to them  and remove them from this world.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . עד מתי מאנת לענות מפני, “how long will you still refuse to be humble before Me?”  All that G’d asks of man is that he be humble and modest. Isaiah spells it out (Isaiah 66,2) when he said: “Yet to such a one I look; to the poor and brokenhearted, who is concerned about My word.” The same prophet also said (66,1): “the heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool...what place could serve as My abode?” Solomon confirmed this thought at the dedication of the Holy Temple in Kings I 8,27 when he said: “The heavens cannot contain You; how much less the house which I have built for You.” In view of all this “what house could possibly be big enough to accommodate Me, what place to serve as a resting-place for Me?” In spite of G’d’s being so far above anything remotely available on earth, He looks out for the brokenhearted on earth and for those who are concerned about His word. The brokenhearted one, עני, is identical with the נכנע, the humbled one. This is why Onkelos translates the words אל עני as לאתכנעא.
      We know the effect of humility on G’d from King Achav (Kings I 21,27-29) who humbled himself but once when admitting that he had sinned in allowing his wife to have Navot framed and executed. G’d used Achav’s repentance and humility to demonstrate to Elijah how much He valued such sentiments. He suspended the decree of death against him. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   הצמח לכם מן השדה, “which grows for you from the field.” The plague of locusts occurred in Nissan seeing that during that month the trees start budding and flowers become visible on earth. The plague of hail which had preceded it occurred in Adar. All the ten plagues occurred within one calendar year as we know from Ediot 2,10 where the Mishnah states that the judgments executed upon the Egyptians occurred within twelve months. Seeing that the hail which occurred in Adar had broken the trees, and the flax and barley which had sprouted previously had been struck down already, there was only one month left before the redemption of the Israelites. During that interval both the trees grew and the wheat and spelt sprouted forth seeing that these species ripened late. Concerning these two species the Torah speaks about  “what grows for you from the field.” The locusts would devour anything which had not been destroyed by the hail. This is the way Nachmanides explains our verse.
      If we accept his words we would have to say that the last three of the ten plagues all occurred during the first half of the month of Nissan whereas the previous seven plagues were scattered over a period of eleven months. It would follow then that each of the previous plagues lasted for more than the seven days attributed by the Torah to the first plague, i.e. the river turning into blood. The interval between the plagues then would have been 30 days. [I believe this is a misprint and should read “21 days” as the author stated in his commentary on 7,25. Ed.] On the other hand, from the words: “seven days were completed” (7,15), we learned that the interval between the plagues was seven days. This would have applied to all the plagues so that we could divide the time equally between periods during which there was relief and periods when one of the plagues was in effect. If we were to assume that Moses began his career as a prophet on the 15th of Nissan and that G’d spent seven days persuading him to accept His mission, then these seven days corresponded to the seven days which the Jewish people would celebrate as the Passover holiday after the redemption. [The author had already alluded to these theories in connection in his commentary on 4,10 and 4,18].    Subsequent to the 21st of Nissan, Moses first returned to Midian. He should have proceeded to Egypt immediately, but he had to return to Midian to get permission to be released from his oath to Yitro that he would not leave the country without his permission. This is the reason the Torah had to write (4,18 that Moses returned to Midian and his father-in-law, and having done so that G’d told him in 4,19 to proceed to Egypt.) G’d spoke to him “in Midian,” i.e. He told him “since you swore an oath in Midian you have to be released from that oath in Midian.”    Moses then proceeded to Egypt where both he and Aaron arranged an audience with Pharaoh when the King told them that he did not know Hashem, etc. All the subsequent developments, including the new decree for the Israelites to provide their own straw could have occurred within eight days until the end of the month of Nissan. According to one Midrash, Moses then went into a retreat for 3 months and was not seen by anyone. This brings us to the end of the month of Tammuz. The plague of blood would have covered the first seven days in Av. They were followed by  relief until the end of the month. The plague of frogs and subsequent relief occupied the month of Elul. This pattern continued until the month of Adar when the plague of locusts was decreed. The plague of darkness  occurred during the first seven days of Nissan followed by only seven days of respite. The plague of the dying of the firstborn occurred on the night of the 14-15th of Nissan so that the period from Moses’ experiencing the revelation at the bush until the Exodus was exactly 12 months. The wording in the Mishnah in Ediot that the judgments against the Egyptians extended over a period of 12 months must not be taken at face value then, but the Mishnah meant that from the time when G’d had decreed for these judgments to occur 12 months elapsed until the redemption.
  
  Verse 6
  
  . ויפן ויצא מעם פרעה, “he turned around and left the presence of Pharaoh.” Moses left immediately after having warned Pharaoh of the forthcoming plague without taking his leave. This was a well calculated move by Moses who wanted to give Pharaoh and his advisors an opportunity to consult amongst themselves and to release the Children of Israel prior to the onset of that plague. During the previous plague of hail the Egyptians had already viewed themselves as if they were about to die so that  now that Moses had warned that every remaining tree and food producing plant would die they had every reason to become scared. In fact, Moses had anticipated their reaction correctly as we know from verse eight where we are told that Moses and Aaron were recalled to the palace. This is the meaning of ויושב משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron were brought back.”
  
  Verse 7
  
   עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש, “for how long is this one going to remain a snare for us?”  According to the plain meaning of the text the servants said this on account of Moses. This explains the words זה משה האיש, “this man Moses.” (Exodus 32,1) The ערב רב had been well aware that it was Moses who had caused the plagues and that he was the Egyptians’ bane.   It is possible, however, to understand the words as aimed at the cause of the plagues, at G’d whom the Jewish people extolled in the song after the crossing of the sea (15,2) with the words זה א-לי ואנוהו, this is my G’d and I want to build Him a Sanctuary.” According to this version Exodus 13 8 בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, the word זה in that verse would also be a reference to an attribute of G’d. The advisors of Pharaoh would then have revealed their true nature by still denying the supremacy of Hashem. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . כי חג ה' לנו, “for it is a festival of Hashem for us.”  The festival Moses and Aaron spoke about was the holiday of Shavuot, the day the Torah would be given. G’d had already advised Moses of that event when He had told him at the burning bush: “when you take out the people from Egypt you will serve Me at this Mountain” (3,12). The festival Moses spoke of is not to be understood as the festival of Passover; the Passover was observed inside Egypt. It is also impossible to understand the word חג Moses spoke about as the festival of Tabernacles as nowhere is that festival connected to the Mountain of G’d. There is no doubt therefore, that the festival in question is Shavuot which occurs in the month of Sivan. The Torah writes: “in the third month after the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt they arrived in the desert of Sinai.” The date mentioned there was the first day of Sivan (Shabbat 19). After an interval of five days the Torah (Ten Commandments) were given at Mount Sinai.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם , “see here, the evil you plan is staring you in the face.” The meaning of these words is best expressed by Onkelos who translates: ”the evil you have in mind will backfire against you.” The word לאסתחרא in Onkelos means the same as תסוב in Hebrew, i.e. to turn back, to “backfire.” Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 13,5 explains Pharaoh’s argument being that normally young men and their elders are in the habit to offer sacrifices to their gods. Not so their infants and their wives. Anyone who insists that all these people come along must plan to flee and not to merely take a temporary leave of absence. This was the “evil” which Pharaoh accused Moses and Aaron of planning.
      A Midrashic approach quoted by Rashi understands the word רעה as the name of a star or planet (Mars) which is so named as it symbolises bloodshed and war. Pharaoh foresaw in his astrological charts that the Jewish people would suffer a blood bath in the desert. He warned them that their leaving Egypt would prove worse for them than their remaining in Egypt. Esau used to call that star Edom. This is why he referred to מן האדום האדום הזה, when he asked Yaakov to share with him that famous dish of broth (Genesis 25,30 — see our commentary there). The wicked Pharaoh who was an expert astrologer called the star in question רעה. He attributed all misfortune in the world to the influence of that planet. He himself became a victim of that planet’s force as part of G’d’s retribution of measure for measure. When he foresaw a blood bath facing the Jews, he did not realize that this was the  reference to the Israelites who would be killed because they served the golden calf. This is what Moses referred to in his prayer after the sin of the golden calf when he said to G’d: “why should the Egyptians who would take note of G’d killing the entire people be able to say (boast) ברעה הוציאם, ‘He took them out under the auspices of the planet (horoscope) רעה, only in order to kill them’” (Exodus 32,12). Moses pointed out that if G’d carried out His intention of killing the people (32,10) He would cause a desecration of His recently established great name by playing into the hands of the Egyptians who had predicted this already here. As a result they would retroactively deny their recently held conviction that G’d had orchestrated the plagues out of His love for the Jewish people. They would henceforth attribute all those plagues to the stars and their respective constellations. When G’d accepted Moses’ argument, i.e. וינחם ה' על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות, “G’d relented concerning the רעה He had said He would do,” (32,14) He decided that the bloodletting would be that when Joshua would perform mass circumcision of the Israelites born in the desert. In Joshua 5,9 we find the expression “to-day I have removed from you the shame (full prediction) of Egypt.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . וה' נהג רוח קדים, “and G’d guided an easterly wind, etc.”  As on previous occasions, the letter ו at the beginning of the name of G’d is an allusion to the celestial tribunal working together with G’d. An easterly wind is perceived as a forerunner to disaster striking on earth. We find that wind in evidence in 14,21 prior to the Egyptians drowning in the sea after the sea had been split to allow the Israelites to cross safely. Jeremiah 18,17  wrote concerning the surviving tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin “I will scatter them in front of the enemy like an easterly wind.”  Concerning the other ten tribes (prior to their exile) Hoseah 13,15 writes: “a blast of the easterly wind from the Lord will come blowing up from the desert and it will dry up its fountain and his spring will be parched.” Describing Israel going into exile, Isaiah 27,8 writes: “assailing them wih fury unchained, His pitilesss blast of the easterly wind bore them off on a day of gale.” There are more such quotes to be found in the Bible pertaining to an association between an easterly wind and disaster.
     הבוקר היה  ורוח הקדים נשא את הארבה, “when it had become morning, the easterly wind had carried the locusts.” The easterly wind brought disaster with it, whereas a westerly wind removed disaster. This is why the Torah wrote (verse 19) Hashem turned back a powerful west wind; it carried the locusts away  toward the sea and spewed it out there. The reason the Torah had spoken about “it was morning,” is an allusion  to the fact that usually disaster strikes the wicked in the morning. We have scriptural support for this from Psalms 101,8: “each morning I (G’d) will destroy all the wicked of the land.” When Moses predicted the disaster which would strike Korach and his fellow rebels, he  said (Numbers 16,5) “in the morning G’d will make known who is His and who is holy.” We also find that the salvation of the righteous occurs in the morning such as in Exodus 34,2 where G’d told Moses to be ready in the morning to ascend the mountain and to receive the replacement of the first set of tablets which he had smashed. Isaiah 33,2 also speaks of salvation for the righteous in the morning when he writes: ”be their arm every morning, also our deliverance in time of stress.” Lamentations 3,23 also refers to G’d’s mercies being renewed every morning and His grace being ample. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ואחריו לא יהיה כן, “and after it there will never again be its equal.” The Torah refers to a plague consisting of a single species of locusts, seeing that the prophet Yoel 2,2 describes a plague consisting of a variety of species of locusts, a plague which surpassed that of the one which occurred in Egypt now. The verse in Yoel speaks of “a day of densest cloud spread like soot over the hills; a vast enormous horde- nothing like it ever happened, and it shall never happen again through the years and ages.” In Yoel 2,25 when the prophecy had become true the prophet records: “consumed by grubs and locusts the great army I let loose against you, etc.” In  Psalms 105,34 David elaborates on this plague in Egypt explaining that there are altogether seven species of locusts, naming them ארבה, סלעם, חרגול, חגב, גזם, ילק, חסיל. Interestingly, the name ארבה occurs seven times in our paragraph. The species called ארבה is the largest and most voracious of them all, as it is described as “My great army” by G’d in Yoel 2,25.
      Nachmanides explains that seeing the very occurrence of a plague of locusts is not something so extraordinary, and moreover it is usually carried by an easterly wind,  the Torah had to add that the phenomenon of locusts experienced by the Egyptians at the command of Moses was something absolutely unique and could not be compared to previously known infestations of locusts.
      Rabbeinu Chananel, focusing on the words: “and there would be none like it in the future,” writes that no such plague would ever brought on again by a prophet. He sees in our wording here a parallel to Kings II 18,5:a “He trusted only in the Lord, the G’d of Israel; there was none like him among all the kings of Yehudah after him.” This means that Chiskiyah’s faith in G’d was indeed unparalleled but that the level of his fear of sin and other good virtues was matched by others. We also have a verse in Joshua 10,14: “neither before nor after has there ever been such a day when the Lord acted on words spoken by a man.” There too the meaning is that miracles such as performed at the instigation of Joshua remained unparalleled, but that G’d Himself might perform miracles greater than Joshua’s. We know of an incidence of G’d delaying sunset in order to enable Nakdimon ben Gurion to make good on a guarantee (Taanit 20), the difference being that on that occasion G’d acted without prompting by any man.
  
  Verse 15
  
    ויכס את עין כל הארץ ותחשך הארץ, “it covered the surface of the entire land and the land was darkened.” There was no area which remained free from locusts. The matter is comparable to Yoel 2,9: “they rush up the wall, they dash about in the city; they climb into the houses, they enter like thieves by way of the windows.” The word עין here is derived from גוון, i.e. all the normal colors on earth turned to look black. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  . חטאתי לה' אלו-היכם ולכם, “I have sinned against the Lord your G’d and against you.” The reason Pharaoh added the words: “against you,” was because he had treated them disrespectfully and expelled them from his palace (verse 11).
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ועתה שא נא חטאתי אך הפעם והעתירו לה' אלו-היכם, “and now, please forgive my sin only this once and entreat the Lord your G’d.” Nachmanides points out that Pharaoh should have said: “pray to the Lord that He should forgive my sin.” After all, it was not up to Moses to forgive sins. The reason he worded his plea as he did was that G’d had appointed Moses to be a deity as far as Pharaoh was concerned (compare 7,1). The reason Pharaoh used the plural, i.e. העתירו, was in honour of Aaron. Pharaoh knew quite well that only Moses would do the praying. Moses had told him already twice “I will entreat the Lord” (8,25 and 8,5).
     רק את המות הזה, “only this death.” This teaches that human beings also died during the plague of locusts, just as they had died from the effects of the hail. Perhaps the locusts caused them to become blind as a result of which they were prone to have fatal accidents. In the days of Joshua it is reported that the affliction of the skin disease called tzoraat caused blindness (Sotah 36).  Alternatively, the reason that Pharaoh referred to this plague as “this death,” was that seeing the hail had killed the crops, the earth and the fruit, the locust finished what was still left over. As a result Pharaoh was correct in describing the situation in Egypt now as one of “this death.” The Torah adds the word רק, “only,” as  a hint that the way he felt about things was temporary. As soon as there would be relief he would undergo a change of heart. What appeared to him as hopeless at this moment would suddenly assume a totally new dimension. He would think that he had survived the worst that the Jewish G’d was able to do to him. He revealed his eventual change of mind by asking that Moses entreat G’d “only at this moment.” He implied that there would not again come a time when he needed Moses’ intercession.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא נשאר ארבה אחד בכל גבול מצרים, “not a single locust remained on Egyptian territory.” Moses’ prayer remained in force until this day. Locusts do not attack crops in Egypt. Even when locusts fly southward from the land of Israel and cross the border with Egypt, they will not molest fields in Egypt. This is a well known fact. 
  When Moses prayed that the frogs should remain only in the river (8,8) a certain insect called <i>altamseh </i>remained; this insect multiplies from time to time and infests the land areas of Egypt. It is reported to sometimes swallow two human beings at one gulp. It is immune against spears and arrows and unless struck in its underbelly it cannot be killed. It is a sub-species of frogs. It was a remainder of Moses’ plague. However, due to Moses’ prayer now, not a single locust remained in Egypt that could breed there. This is how Rabbeinu Chananel explains this, and is a reflection of the verse in  Chronicles I 16,9  “speak of all His wondrous acts.”
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, “G’d reinforced Pharaoh’s resolution.” It is totally unnatural for a person experiencing the kind of plagues Pharaoh and the Egyptians endured not to suffer a total mental collapse. The Torah had already described how, during the first five plagues, Pharaoh had drawn on his psychological reservoirs of obstinacy to stand fast in face of these plagues. Starting with the sixth plague, pestilence, however, G’d had lent him psychological support as we read for the first time in 9,6. This bears out what the prophet said in Jeremiah 18,6, “O House of Israel, can I not deal with you like this potter?- says the Lord. Just like clay in the hands of the potter so are you in My hands!” The prophet continues: “one moment I may decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted, etc., but if that nation turns back from wickedness I change My mind, etc.” Similarly, Solomon states (Proverbs 21,1) "Like channeled water is the mind of the king in the G-d’s hand; He directs it to whatever He wishes".
  
  Verse 21
  
   נטה ידך על השמים, “ extend your hand toward (over) the sky.” Verse 22 confirms that this is exactly what Moses did. The unusual preposition in both verses is the word על instead of אל? How could Moses extend his hand “over” the sky?  At the sea (14,16) Moses did extend his arm over the sea, but here this hardly seems possible!  
  It is possible  to explain that seeing the planets are physical bodies and every normal natural function is an integral part of their composition, that the word על in this context is not to be understood as a physical “above” but as denoting the assumption of sovereignty over something. Moses assumed dominion over the sky, the domain within which the planets are presumed to orbit. All miracles are essentially manifestations of a power above or beyond the natural forces operating in the universe. A careful perusal of all verses in the Torah will show that the expression על השמים, occurs only in connection with two plagues, i.e. hail and darkness. The reason this expression is used there is that though both of these plagues descended from the sky (as distinct to plagues originating in the water or on earth) the word שמים was not to be confused with רקיע, horizon or sky. The power which propelled these plagues into action was not one that is part of the domain “sky.” This is also the reason that when these plagues materialised the Torah employs the kind of expression we find during the story of creation, i.e. ויהי ברד, or ויהי חשך, “there came into being hail,” or “there came into being darkness.” When the manifestation of the other plagues is described the Torah uses words such as והיה instead of ויהי. The letters in the word ויהי are the ones that depict matter coming into existence and that is why Moses with the help of his staff was able to work this kind of miracle. [Kabbalists have demonstrated that there are numerical values in the word מטה and the word א-ד-נ-י which, when added to the letters in the word ויהי, make such manipulations of the laws of nature more plausible. Ed.] You will notice that whereas the plagues of hail and darkness materialised immediately after Moses inclined his staff, the plague of locusts and the splitting of the sea occurred either a day later, after G’d had made a wind blow in a constant direction or at least after a full night of such a wind. These factors plus the use of the expression יד which is a reference to G’d’s יד הגדולה, great punishing hand, explain why during the plague of darkness the Israelites who were wicked (would not abandon idol worship and slaughter the passover lamb) were stricken also. According to many sources only 20% of the Israelites actually qualified for redemption. The others died during the darkness so as not to offer the Egyptians the satisfaction of seeing that Jews had been afflicted also. 
      There are actually three kinds of darkness of which the Torah speaks in this portion. We have here the expressions ויהי חשך, וימש חשך, ויהי חשך אפלה. “darkness will materialise,” “darkness will be tangible” (verse 22) and “there was a thick darkness” (verse 23). Actually these three descriptions of darkness correspond to three other terms for darkness we know from the Torah which are עלטה, אפלה, ערפל. The עלטה was the kind of darkness experienced by Avram during the covenant of the pieces (Genesis 15,17). אפלה is the kind of darkness which occurred in Egypt, whereas ערפל is the kind of darkness which engulfed Moses on his ascent to Mount Sinai (Exodus 20,18). 
  The meaning of the expression וימש חשך is that the darkness will continually deepen. The word is related to אמש, “last night.” The Torah means that this darkness will be deeper than last night’s darkness. Alternatively, the word is related to the expression לא ימיש, “He would not remove (the cloud).” It means that even after the departure of the natural darkness of night, this darkness would not lift. This proves that the plague of darkness commenced in the morning when it was light already. Had It begun at night the Egyptians would simply have thought that this was a night lasting for three days. The miracle would not then have the had the desired effect. This is reflected in  Onkelos’ translation בתר דיעדי קבל לילא, “after it had already almost become daylight, night set in.” This is also how Elihu in Job 34,25-26 describes it, i.e. “truly, He knows their deeds, night is over and they are crushed;” He strikes them down with the wicked where other people can see.” In other words, G’d struck the Egyptians wherever they happened to be be where others can see this. They perished there on the very seats being unable to move as we read in verse 23: “none could even rise from his place for three days.”
      Shemot Rabbah 14,1 understands the word ימש as “tangible, something that can be felt and touched. The word would be derived from ממש as in Deut. 28,29. ממשש בצהרים, “groping about at noon (like a blind man)”. This is also what is meant in Psalms 105,28: “He sent darkness, it was very dark, did they not defy His word?” The appropriate nature of this plague may best be explained by means of a parable. A king who was displeased with a number of his subjects told one of his servants to punish 50 of the rebellious citizens. The servant proceeded and punished 100 of them. In other words, the servant used his authority to add something of his own. Here too, G’d had given darkness instruction to envelop the Egyptians. Darkness used the opportunity  to add something of its own, so it intensified what G’d had decreed. Instead of only חשך, “simple darkness,” which if non-stop for three days is pretty bad by itself,   “It became חשך אפלה.” Some of our sages debate the origin of this darkness. Whereas Rabbi Yehudah holds that it originated  in celestial regions, Rabbi Nechemyah holds that it originated in gehinom, in hell. Rabbi Yehudah bases his opinion on Psalms 18,12: “Who made darkness His screen (G’d),” whereas Rabbi Nechemyah bases his view on Job 10,22, ”a land whose light is darkness, all gloom and disarray whose light is like darkness.”    Tanchumah Bo 2 as well as Shemot Rabbah 14,2 claim that the plague lasted for a total of seven days. They base this on the verse (22) “there was a thick darkness throughout the land of Egypt for a three-day period.” This is followed by verse 23: “they did not see one another and could not rise from their respective seats for a period of three days.” This verse refers to the second period of three days. It was followed by “and for all the Children of Israel there was light in their dwellings.” This applied to the seventh day. This seventh days was similar to Exodus 14,20 ויהי הענן והחשך ויאר את הלילה, “there was the cloud and the darkness and it lit up the night” (when the Egyptians pursued the Israelites). The apparent contradiction is resolved by under-standing the darkness as enveloping the Egyptians, whereas the Israelites enjoyed the light in that same place. The same would have happened here. This is also the reason for the  word במושבותם, “in their dwellings,” i.e. in the dwellings in which the Egyptians could not see a thing. 
  The main thrust of this Midrash is to teach us that the darkness was not a kind of solar eclipse. On the contrary, the sun operated completely normally during all these days. In fact, the whole universe operated normally; the palpable darkness was as if each individual Egyptian had been imprisoned all by himself in a black box seeing the atmosphere of Egypt had been darkened. The Israelites did not only benefit by the fact that this change in the atmosphere did not affect the province of Goshen, their principal abode. The author claims that it is a scientific fact that just as a voice penetrates solids in order to reach the ears of the listener, so light, especially light emanating in heaven (sky), does the same. [An interesting thesis of sound and light waves considering he wrote in the 14th century. Ed.] The miracle was that G’d interfered with this system of light reaching the Egyptians. He shut off every Egyptian’s “antenna” for these light waves without interfering with the source of their transmission. Seeing that the Egyptian airspace could not receive these light waves it simply turned a natural black for them. They could not see the stars and the moon either seeing their capacity to receive light waves had been tampered with. Once this stage had been reached, G’d intensified this darkness to the extent that it was felt physically, preventing people from being able to move without “bumping” into darkness at every move they tried to make. The reason all this did not affect the Israelites was that their “antennae” had not been deprived of the ability to absorb light waves.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
    רק צאנכם ובקרכם, “only your flocks and your herds shall remain.” Earlier, during the plague of locusts, (verse 11) Pharaoh had demanded that the children and women remain behind. as it was customary only for adult males to engage in the religious rites Moses had been speaking about. He reasoned that if the fathers were forced to leave behind their children they would not flee the country. Now, under the impact of the darkness, he had become willing to allow the children to accompany their fathers —  גם טפכם ילך עמכם, “your children may go with you also.” 
  Pharaoh still wanted to detain the principal wealth of the Israelites, i.e. their flocks and their herds. He reasoned that even if per chance the Israelites would try to escape by not returning, he would at least become the beneficiary of the wealth they had left behind. This is why Moses replied to this suggestion by saying (verse 24) “you will even add to our wealth by giving us of your own livestock begging us to offer sacrifices on your behalf.” He did not need to add that there could not even be a question of their taking their own flocks and herds with them. Moses made the point sound more palatable by saying they did not know which kind of animal G’d would instruct them to offer as sacrifices. This is Nachmanides’ way of interpreting this dialogue.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   לא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך, “I will not again see your face.” Shemot Rabbah 18,1 understands these words as “I will not again come to you but you will trouble yourself to come to see me.” This is the meaning of (11,8) “all these your servants will come down to me.” He should really have said: “you yourself will come down to me.” However, even at this stage, Moses still preserved the diplomatic niceties by phrasing what he said to Pharaoh in as inoffensive a manner as was possible. He therefore made it appear as if this “climb down” would be initiated by Pharaoh’s servants. The fact is, however, that when the Torah describes what happened (12, 30-31) it is clear that the initiative was Pharaoh’s, “Pharaoh arose during the night, he and all his servants..and he said: ‘rise and leave from the midst of my people, etc., etc.’”
      Seeing Pharaoh had forbidden Moses to return to the palace, when Moses announces (11,1) “one more plague I will bring upon Pharaoh,” this must have been related to Moses by means of a divine vision inside Pharaoh’s palace. Seeing that G’d did not want to make a liar out of Moses who had announced that he would not come back to see Pharaoh G’d had to inform him (Moses) of the forthcoming death of the firstborn already at this time, before he had a chance to leave the palace. This is also the meaning of Shemot Rabbah 18,1 that “G’d jumped upon him.” G’d “entered” Pharaoh’s palace on account of Moses who had said: “I will not see your face again.” You may search the entire text and you will find that this is the only time G’d spoke to Moses in Pharaoh’s palace. Every other time Moses made statements such as: “when I leave town I will pray to G’d,” implying that he had difficulty communicating with G’d in an impure environment such as Pharaoh’ palace.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . כשלחו כלה גרש יגרש, “when he does send them off, he will expel them.” The word כלה means “in toto,” i.e. including all the flocks and herds and all their moveable belongings. Not a single one of these will be left behind. This corresponds to the message of Ezekiel 39,28 concerning the redemption of the future: “I (G’d) will not leave behind a single one of you.”
  
  Verse 2
  
    וישאלו איש מאת רעהו, “let them each ask from their fellow Egyptian male, etc.” This “request” was not similar to a man or a woman asking his or her  respective neighbour for some tool on the understanding that after he or she has finished using it it would be  returned it to its owner. Here G’d’s instructions were to ask for the respective items as outright gifts. It was understood that G’d would make the Egyptians feel well disposed toward the Israelites so that they would willingly comply with their requests for such gifts. The last thing G’d had in mind was that the Israelites, at the very moment when their redemption was at hand, would leave behind the impression that they had fooled their neighbours and pretended that they would give back the items in question. According to Jewish law whenever a servant is released from service after he has toiled for the agreed period of time, he is entitled to receive a stake from his erstwhile master to enable him to start his economic independence. This is spelled out in Deut. 15, 13-14: “but when you send him away free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. Furnish him out of your flocks, your threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord has blessed you.” If this law applies to treatment of a fellow Jewish servant whose wages the master has paid six years in advance, how much more so were the Jewish slaves in Egypt entitled to receive some silver trinkets in compensation for over 200 years of slavery for which no wages had ever been paid.    We may find the expression רעהו both in the masculine and the feminine form as peculiar when applied to Egyptians who could hardly be described as equal to the Israelites so that this definition would apply. We have to answer that prior to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai all human beings were treated as equal before the law. Hence the expression רע “fellow human being” was appropriate. Ever since the giving of the Torah Gentiles are not again referred to by that description. Seeing that G’d had offered the Torah to the Gentile nations and they had refused it they no longer qualified as equals. Henceforth Jews were described as brothers and companions of G’d as we know from Psalms 122,8: “for the sake of My brothers and friends, I pray for your well-being.” Our sages in Baba Kama 113 explain the phrase לכל אבדת אחיך (Deut. 22,3) as “your brother, but not a Gentile.” In other words, a Jew does not have to go out of his way to restore lost property to a Gentile seeing he is not his brother anymore. The same law applies to the prohibition of charging or paying interest to others. While the Torah forbids this inasmuch as it writes: “you must not charge interest to your brother” (Deut. 23,20), this excludes those whom the Torah does not recognize as our brothers, i.e. the Gentile.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כה אמר ה' כחצות הלילה, “thus has the Lord said: ‘around midnight,’ etc.” Actually, G’d had told Moses that the dying of the firstborn would occur precisely at midnight, as the Torah testifies that it took place בחצות הלילה, “at midnight” (12,29). Moses changed the wording to “around midnight.” Berachot 4 explains that Moses did so in order not to give the Egyptian astrologers a chance to call him a liar in the event their calculations of midnight were not precise and they thought that Moses did not know the exact time of midnight.
      The obvious question which arises is that we know that for several plagues past the astrologers and magicians had not dared show their face at Pharaoh’s palace anymore after they had acknowledged that the plagues were G’d’s doing. What would cause them to accuse Moses of being imprecise if the plague did not occur at the time they considered as “midnight?” Had Moses not established his own credibility beyond any doubt during the preceding nine plagues, each one of which had occurred precisely when and how Moses had predicted? These astrologers were well aware that Moses had not done anything on his own but had only announced what G’d was about to do!   Furthermore, even assuming that the astrologers would accuse Moses of having lied, would this bother him enough to edit what G’d had told him, i.e. “at midnight?” 
  We may have to answer that up until the third plague all the Egyptian astrologers and magicians had indeed thought that Moses had instigated the plagues on his own, not G’d. They had credited him with superior skills and knowledge. Once they had observed the third plague they had revised their attitude and admitted that “a finger” of  G’d was at work. After that they had observed that the plagues had been performed by Moses himself after he had issued warnings. They had also observed that each time the cessation of the plague had occurred after Moses had prayed to G’d to cancel it. Moses’ image as a powerful  prophet had increased from plague to plague. The image of the Egyptian astrologers and magicians had suffered in direct proportion to the image of Moses and G’d having increased in the minds of the Egyptians at large. Seeing this was so, Moses worried that all of this could be undone if at the last plague the Egyptian astrologers would finally be able to accuse him of an inaccuracy. If that were to occur, they would retroactively renounce their new-found belief in G’d and His power. Moses was not prepared to risk this desecration of the name of G’d.
      I believe that a further consideration which compelled Moses to change the word בחצות to כחצות, was the well known fact that according to the astronomers the beginning of a day rotates in the order of the following seven planets commencing with ח'לם כצ'נש, whereas the nights commence according to the pattern כנ'צש חל'ם. [The first set of letters stands for the planets “sun, moon,  Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn. Sunday morning would be under the aegis of the sun; Monday morning under the aegis of the moon, etc., Ed.]  Moses changed the word בחצות to כחצות to create the impression that the plague of dying would commence at the end of the 6th hour of the rule of Jupiter which was perceived to be the omen for life, not death. Had the plague commenced or been predicted to commence at midnight, i.e. at the time that the planet Mars came into its own, the fact that dying would occur then would have been considered far less miraculous. They would have attributed the whole disaster to natural forces.
   In fact, the plague did begin at that moment as G’d does not bother to interfere with laws of nature unless there is a compelling reason. Whenever He can accomplish His purpose by utilizing the existing norms He does so. In this instance He was desirous of utilizing one of His regular servants, i.e. the planet Mars in order to kill His enemies. We find something similar in connection with the deluge. The Talmud Berachot 59 explains that in order to orchestrate the deluge G’d took  two stars out of the constellation Pleidas and as a result there developed the deluge.    [In other words, G’d used mechanisms existing in nature in order to produce certain hitherto unknown phenomena. Ed.] The plague of the dying of the firstborn would have remained a most powerful plague even if Moses had not changed G’d’s wording seeing that even the scoffers would not have credited Mars with the power to effect more than a few deaths at a time, especially seeing this was not the time of year the influence of this planet was at its height. The demonstration of maybe a million Egyptians dying and all of them being firstborns at that would surely have enhanced G’d’s image rather that diminished it. It would have been demonstrated beyond doubt that such an occurrence could not be credited to horoscopic influences at all.    Nonetheless, all the believers in horoscopic influences are convinced that the majority of children born after a nine-month pregnancy owe their live birth to the influence of the planet Jupiter. This prompted Moses to word G’d’s warning in such a way that if the dying occurred at a time which was governed by the planet Jupiter the phenomenon would appear to contradict accepted concepts even more than if he had announced that it would take place when the planet Mars was the dominating planet in the skies. It would prove once and for all that the power over life and death was firmly rooted in G’d’s domain not in a domain which He had delegated to the planetary system. When we read in Job 34,20: “some die suddenly, in the middle of the night people are in turmoil and pass on,” the expression יגועשו used in the verse in Job is similar in meaning to Psalms 18,8 ותגעש ותרעש הארץ, “then the earth quaked and rocked.” The word ויעבורו “and pass on” in that verse in Job referred to the Israelites  to whom Pharaoh had said: “rise and leave my people, etc.” The last words in that same verse in Job: “even great men are removed -not by human hands,” are a reference to the Egyptians who up until that moment had exerted fear upon the Israelites, an emotion which evaporated as if it had never existed without human force accounting for this.
      According to Shemot Rabbah 18,2 the meaning of the word כחצות  is that midnight would have a dual function; death as a form of retribution for the Egyptians, and justice and righteousness for the long suffering Israelites.
     אני יוצא בתוך מצרים, “I will go out amongst Egypt,” Onkelos translates these words as “I will reveal Myself.” Our sages quote Micah 1,3 on this verse “G’d will leave His abode and He will come down and stride on the heights of the earth.” Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 2,1 suggests that G’d will switch application of one of His attributes for another i.e. He will exit from one attribute and switch to another, in this instance the attribute of Justice.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ומת כל בכור, “and every firstborn will die.” The meaning is “regardless of whether he is the firstborn of the male (who provided the sperm) or if he is the firstborn of the female.” The curious wording in the Midrash Hagadol means that if one man impregnated 10 women all of whom had previously not given birth, the males born as a result are considered as “firstborn (of) the women.” If the situation is reversed, and a woman gives birth to ten males each by sperm of another male, then such “firstborn” are considered as “firstborn (of) men.” This is what Assaph means in Psalms 78,51: “He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruits of their vigor in the tents of Cham.” We have another verse in Psalms 105,36  where the firstborn are also described as “the first fruit of their vigor.” It appears that the firstborn of “males” are described as ראשית לכל אונם, whereas the firstborn of women are described as ראשית אונים באהלי חם. The reason is that woman is traditionally associated with the word אהל, “tent.” Compare Judges 6,8 הם ומקניהם יעלו ואהליהם, “they and their cattle ascended together with their “tents,” i.e. with their women.
     מבכור פרעה אשר יושב על כסאו עד בכור השפחה, “from the firstborn of Pharaoh who would sit on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant, etc.” The Torah first mentioned the most aristocratic firstborn and concluded with the most lowly born firstborn who performed the menial task of rotating the millstone so that these convicts should not say that their deity had protected them against this ultimate punishment. Later on, (12,29) when the Torah reports what happened, this lowly born firstborn is described as the “firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon.” It all amounts to the same thing. [This presumes the question that seeing these slaves could not have enslaved the Israelites, why should they now become victims. Ed.]
      However, I have heard a reason given for the Torah changing the description of the people at the low end of the social scale being that male slaves used to be employed by day to rotate the millstones whereas at night they were brought back to the dungeons. Seeing that when Moses was prophesying what would happen it was daytime, he used the metaphor of the firstborn rotating the millstone. However, seeing the actual happening took place at night, the Torah switched metaphors and referred to the captive in the dungeon, the place where he died.
     וכל בכור בהמה, “and the firstborn of every domestic animal.” If man sinned, what did the animals do that they too had to pay the penalty? The reason the firstborn animals had to die was because the Egyptians had made deities of them. When G’d exacts retribution from a nation, He commences by punishing their livestock first (compare Mechilta Pisscha 13). Our sages Bereshit Rabbah 96,5 explain that just as the worshipers are punished so are those being worshipped.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, “not a dog will whet his tongue.” Looking at the plain meaning of the text the Torah appears to compare the plague of the dying of the firstborn to dogs. This is to teach us that at the time wicked people suffer damage the righteous are saved from suffering such damage. This concept is spelled out in Psalms 91,6 “a thousand shall fall on your left and ten thousand on your right, but it shall not reach you.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: “what does the whetting of a dog’s tongue have to do with the plague of the dying of the firstborn?” It is a well known fact that the dog is a totally materialistically oriented animal which is never satiated. Isaiah 56,11 confirmed this when he said: “moreover the dogs are greedy; they never know satiety.” The greed of the destroyer (Satan) is similarly never satiated. Proverbs 30,15 describes him as הב, הב, “constantly demanding: “give! give!” Seeing that the animal which died of natural causes as well as the one which was torn by wild beasts (נבלה וטרפה) died due to the power of said “destroyer,” the Torah commanded to throw such carcasses to the dogs (compare Exodus 22,30) so that two species of the same category should meet. This is the mystical dimension of our verse here. Seeing that it is the nature of the dog to constantly attack and cause damage, it was appropriate that just as the celestial destroyer (Satan, the angel of death) did not attack the Jewish firstborn so its terrestrial counterpart would not make any threatening noises either. The tongue is characteristic of the original serpent which inflicted its damage upon the world and upon man by the indiscriminate use of its tongue. This is why the tongue of the dog is singled out by the Torah in this connection.    The most concentrated power of the destroyer is emanated to it by the attribute of Justice which killed all the firstborn of Egypt. This attribute is at its most powerful at midnight. This is why the dying of the firstborn had to occur at midnight. The Torah informs you here by inference that the dogs used to bark halfway through the second משמרת, “watch” (out of a total of three) of the night. In other words, it was customary for the dogs to bark at midnight. This was the time when the angel of death would normally reap its harvest in Egypt. Baba Kama 60 states that when the dogs wail it is a sign that the angel of death has arrived at that time. On the other hand, when the dogs make happy sounds it is proof that the prophet Elijah has arrived in that town (in the absence of bitches). We have a further statement in Berachot 50 that the night watch is to be divided into three sections. During the first watch the donkey brays, a sign of the attribute of Mercy, kindness. (The donkey was never mentioned by name until the advent of Avraham who represents the attribute of loving kindness). During the second watch the dogs bark; this is an allusion to the presence of the attribute of Justice. During the third watch a wife engages in intimate talk with her husband and the infant suckles at the breast of its mother. This is an allusion that this is the time G’d arranges the livelihood for every creature at this hour.   Solomon alluded to this in his famous poem אשת חיל (Proverbs 31,10-31). He wrote (verse 15) “she rose when it is still night and supplied provisions for her household and the daily fare for her maids.” The “infant” mentioned in Berachot is a reference to the universe at large, i.e. G’d’s “infant.” The “breast of its mother” is a reference to the conversation between wife and husband. Our verse here tells us that at the same hour when the dogs were barking at the Egyptians, not a single one barked at an Israelite. The Torah added: “in order that you shall know that Hashem will have differentiated between Egypt and Israel.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   צא אתה וכל העם אשר ברגלך , “leave! You and all the people that follow you.” Moses predicted that prior to his and Israel leaving the land of Egypt Pharaoh himself would have to issue the order to do so. Our verse tells us that when this point would be reached the Israelites would cease being subjects of human masters, i.e. Pharaoh, and begin to become subjects of a higher power, i.e. G’d. This is the reason why this verse is invoked to help women about to become mothers who experience difficulty in giving birth. The power of this verse is very strong. The baby struggling to exit from its mother’s womb is considered like a prisoner in a cell in need to be released from its prison in order to enter the world and study Torah. [If I understand it correctly, the whole verse is part of the name of G’d just as the whole Torah is an elongated name of G’d. By isolating this name (verse) and invoking it on behalf of the baby and its mother G’d is likely to respond to the difficulty experienced by both parties concerned. Ed.]
  
  Verse 9
  
  . לא ישמע אליכם פרעה, “Pharaoh is not going to listen to you.” G’d meant that Pharaoh would not even be moved by this warning until the plague would strike him personally.
     למען רבות מופתי, “in order to multiply My miracles.” This was a reference to the dying of the firstborn. The reason G’d used the plural, i.e. מופתי, was to include the splitting of the Sea of Reeds which was still to follow.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ומשה ואהרן עשו את כל המופתים האלה, “Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles.” This refers to the ten plagues which have been enumerated thus far. They have been summarized under the letters דצ'ך עד'ש באח"ב  in the chronological order in which they occurred. They are actually divided into four groups consisting respectively of the four basic raw materials the earth is made of. Blood and Frogs are basically related to water. Actually, seeing that earth had been the most recently created raw material it should have been struck first. Seeing that the earth “drinks” water, G’d decided to produce first plagues which emanated from the water. When water is struck by a plague then indirectly all the four raw materials suffer. The fish in the water which really are an independent detail died as a result of their habitat being stricken. Lice and the wild beasts were manifestations of the earth being struck, the earth being “stronger” (more substantive) than the water. The Torah had reported that earth itself was ruined by the wild beasts roaming all over (8,20). Seeing that Pharaoh remained obstinate, G’d also brought upon him plagues originating in the atmosphere, plagues which attacked people’s bodies. The pestilence attacked primarily the animals, whereas the boils originating in the element fire attacked the humans. The hail and locusts originated in the atmosphere, “air.” The locusts attacked vegetation whereas darkness originated in the atmosphere. The loss of life, i.e. the loss of נשמת רוח חיים occurred as a result of the plague of מכות בכורות.    When the Torah wrote that Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles, how do we reconcile this with the fact that neither Moses nor Aaron had done anything to bring about the plague of wild beasts, the plague of pestilence, or the dying of the firstborn? The word כל, both here and elsewhere does not really mean “all, each one,” but means “most.” The expression “inclining the hand” occurs in connection with seven of the ten plagues; only the three plagues just mentioned did not involve such use of either Moses’ or Aaron’s hand. Even after all the ten plagues had occurred Pharaoh was still not humbled so that G’d was obliged to continue to strengthen his heart as we know from Pharaoh’s pursuit of the Israelites (14,8).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן. “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron.” Even though it appears from the wording of the verse that G’d’s words were addressed to both Moses and Aaron, Moses was the principal recipient of G’d’s words. When the Torah writes in Exodus 20,12: “honor your father and your mother,” the father is the principal subject in that commandment. Seeing that Aaron was involved in performing the miracles the Torah included his name amongst those addressed.
     בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt.” Outside the metropolis, seeing the city was full of abominations preventing a revelation of G’d’s word there. When the Torah has in mind the metropolis, it often adds the word עיר, such as when Moses told Pharaoh that he would leave the עיר, prior to praying to G’d (9,29). In order to reconcile this with the oft quoted statement by our sages that the Shechinah dwelled in Egypt, our sages explained that as long as the land of Israel had not been chosen as the exclusive domain for the Shechinah, all countries were potentially equally fit to receive a communication from G’d by word of mouth (Mechilta 85). After the land of Israel was chosen, all other countries were no longer suited for G’d to address people there. As long as the Temple had not been erected in Jerusalem, the whole city of Jerusalem was fit to receive such communication from G’d. After the Temple had been built even the city itself was no longer a vehicle for such communication by G’d. Only the holy precincts of the Temple qualified for this as we know from Psalms 132,14: “This is My resting-place for all time; here I will dwell, for I desire it.” By the same token, as long as Aaron had not been chosen to be a priest every Israelite was potentially fit to become a priest. As long as David had not been crowned king, any Israelite could have qualified as king as we know from Exodus 19,6: “you shall be for Me a Kingdom of priests, etc.” After the appointment of David as king, all other Israelites were automatically excluded from qualifying for that position. Even while G’d’s word was communicated outside the borders of Israel this occurred only in a place which was pure or situated on a river. This is based on Daniel 8,2: ”and here I was beside the Ulai river.” We have a similar statement by Ezekiel 1,1 who described himself as on the banks of the river Chidekel when receiving a communication from G’d. In Daniel 10,4, Daniel describes himself as on the banks of the river Tigris when receiving a vision by an angel who addressed him.
      Shemot Rabbah 15,5 quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as saying that Israel was on a very high level if G’d agreed to manifest Himself in a place full of impurity and abominations for the sake of this people. He explained this phenomenon by means of a parable. A priest had been given some Terumah, a tithe which is holy and not accessible to laymen. This Terumah had fallen into a graveyard (a place inaccessible to a priest by law). The priest pondered his problem saying that he was certainly not permitted to defile himself by entering the cemetery. On the other hand, he was desperately dependent on that Terumah so that he could not forego it. He decided that it was preferable for him to temporarily defile himself and subsequently to purify himself than to die from starvation by foregoing this Terumah. The Jewish people are G’d’s Terumah (compare Jeremiah 2,3): “Israel is holy, the first of G’d’s harvest.” The Jewish people’s present situation was that they were in a vast cemetery (compare 12,30: “there was not a single house which did not contain a dead body”). If G’d would not contaminate Himself briefly in order to salvage the Jewish people, He would have to forego their existence permanently. Hence He decided to temporarily relax His rule and reveal Himself in a place not normally suitable for such a revelation in order to secure the continued existence of His Terumah, i.e. the Jewish people. After G’d had taken the Israelites out of Egypt, He said to Aaron: “please perform rites of purification for Me.” This is the meaning of Leviticus 16,33 and 16,16: “he shall provide atonement for the Sanctuary,” or “he shall provide atonement upon the Tent of Meeting and the altar.”
  
  Verse 2
  
   החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, “this month shall be for you the beginning of the months, etc.” It is significant that at this juncture G’d did not instruct Moses and Aaron to relay the content of this message to the Jewish people. Surely the word לכם, “for you,” implied that the fixing of the new moon was a commandment applicable to each and every Israelite! Failure of G’d to issue the customary instruction: “say to all the Israelites, etc.,” therefore indicated that the determining of the new moon was something reserved for the elders of the people, a court of experts, and was not something incumbent on the individual Jew. This is why these instructions were addressed to both Moses and Aaron in their capacity as the experts at the time. The word לכם, in this instance means: “to the likes of you, to trained experts.”    The word החודש הזה is a reference to the month of Nissan. The Torah calls it ראשון, “the first,” both here and again in verse 18. Seeing that the month of Tishrei is the first month in the compilation of years [something we have in common with the rest of mankind, Ed.] the Torah had to add the word לכם, “for you,” to show that Nissan is unique to the Jewish people as the first in our list of months. The implication is that we count these months as a symbol of the month in which we attained our freedom as a nation. It follows that wherever mention is made of the month of Tishrei, the Torah refers to it as the seventh month. This means it is the seventh following Nissan. Incidentally, this is the reason that the Torah has no names for the various months, but refers to them as a ordinal numbers, i.e. “second,” “third,” etc. By doing so the memory of the redemption from Egypt is constantly invoked when we read about any of the festivals which occur during certain months of the year.    The names of the months such as Nissan, Iyar, Sivan, etc., have been introduced only after the Jewish people were exiled in Babylon (Talmud Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1,2). The reason the Jewish people adopted this change was that we have a prophetic announcement (Jeremiah 16,14-15) “assuredly, a time is coming —declares the Lord — when it shall no longer be said: ‘as the Lord lives Who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt,’ but rather, ‘as the Lord lives Who brought the Israelites out of the northland, and out of all the lands to which He had banished them.’” This verse caused the Jews to adopt the names of Babylonian months after they were redeemed from there. Again, you find that the names of the months provide us with a memory of redemption, albeit a partial redemption unlike that from the land of Egypt. We learn from all this that the Torah itself did not give specific names to the months just as it did not assign specific names to the days of the week as is customary amongst the Gentile nations. We refer to the days of the week by their proximity or otherwise to the Sabbath, i.e. “the first day after Sabbath,” “the second day after Sabbath,” etc. We do this in order to maintain the centrality of the Sabbath in our calendar. This is the plain meaning of Exodus 20,8: “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The Torah demands that we remember the Sabbath on a daily basis.
      When the Torah writes here: “this month shall be for you the head of the months,” the meaning is not that we must watch carefully if the new moon is clearly visible and that we are to establish the new moon or extend the last month according to the sighting of the new moon. Determining the need for an extra month does not depend on the sighting of the moon but on calculations. 
  Rabbeinu Chananel also states clearly [Torah Shlemah by Rabbi M. Kasher pages 46-48] that we base our calendar on astronomical calculations rather than the sighting of the moon. For proof of this, consider the fact that during the Israelites’ wanderings in the desert for 40 years when their encampment was totally enveloped by the ענני הכבוד, G’d’s clouds of distinction, neither the people nor their leaders were able to sight the moon. They did not even see the sun by day either but depended totally on the pillar of cloud or fire to light the way for them. This is confirmed by Nechemyah 9,19: “You in Your abundant compassion did not abandon them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud did not depart from them to lead them on the way by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to give them light. in the way where to go.” How would the Israelites have been able to fix the date of the new moon unless they had based themselves on their astronomical calculations? Clearly, the principal method of determining the new moon is based on calculations. 
  We have an old-standing tradition that 5 of the 12 months of the year always have 30 days whereas 5 other months always have 29 days. The remaining 2 months fluctuate between 29 and 30 days respectively. In some years both of these months have 30 days, in some years both have 29 days, and in some years one of them has 29 days whereas the other month has 30 days. The two months which are subject to these variations are Cheshvan and Kislev. We have another tradition that the first day of Tishrei is New Year’s day, and that according to a ruling handed down by Moses from Sinai each “month” (lunar orbit) consists of 29 days, 12 hours and 793 parts [the hour is divided into 1080 equal parts] (Rosh Hashanah 25). All this is based on Chronicles I 12,33: “of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times to determine how Israel should act; their chiefs were two hundred, and all their kinsmen followed them.” No other matter requires as much knowledge and insight as determining the times of the calendar, the dates of the festivals based on comparison with the seasons determined by the solar calendar.   Of course, if the new moon has been sighted everybody knows that a new month has begun, etc. It is easy then to calculate the tenth of the month to determine the day of Yom Kippur and the 15th of the month to determine the first day of Sukkot, etc.
   The sages needed to know what calculations are required in order to inform the people ahead of time what to expect and in order to check whether sightings of the new moon which had been claimed were in fact possible according to their charts. It is this aspect which the verse from Chronicles dealing with the Issacharites deals with.
      You will note that already during the time of David and Yonathan calculations formed the basis of the determination of the new moon as David said to Yonathan (Samuel I 20,5) “tomorrow, on the new moon I will sit beside the king, etc.” If the new moon had been determined merely by sighting, how did David know it would be observed on the morrow? Perhaps there would not be a sighting of the new moon by then? It is clear then that the date was determined by calculation if sightings failed to confirm these calculations. In fact, from that episode in Samuel I it is clear that already at that time the sages arranged for two consecutive days of new moon being observed seeing that we read in verses 24-27 of the same chapter: “The new moon came and the king sat down to partake of the meal...but David’s place remained vacant....That day however Saul said nothing....But on the day after the new moon, the second day, David’s place was vacant again, etc.” It is clearly impossible to say that the day described as “the second day” refers to another new moon the following month and that this is why they called it החודש השני. Saul asked Yonathan (verse 27) “why did not the son of Yishai come to the meal yesterday or the day before?” The story goes on: “Yonathan rose from his seat angrily and he did not eat on the second day of the new moon.” Clearly the date of the new moon was determined by means of calculations. This system was in effect for 1100 years from the time of Moses until the time of Antignos from Socho who, together with Shimon Hatzadik, was the leader of the Jewish people around the time Ezra and his colleagues came to Eretz Yisrael from Babylon. (Moses died in 2488 after the creation of Adam whereas Antignos lived around 3460 years after the creation of Adam.) Two of Antignos’ students, Tzadok and Beissus, were the ones who misunderstood their teacher’s meaning when he exhorted his students not to serve G’d like a servant who serves a human master for the sake of a reward, feeling entitled to it. Antignos urged his students to relate to the service of G’d as does a servant who volunteers to serve his master out of love and not out of a desire for reward. These two students thought that there was no system of reward and punishment in Judaism as a result of which they forsook the path of Torah. A by-product of their heresy was that they raised questions against the system of determining the time of the new moon, claiming that the principal mitzvah in observing the commandment of sanctifying the new moon was the sighting of it, not the calculations on paper. Such a new thesis forced the leading rabbis of that time to respond and to prove to these heretics that their calculations were accurate and more reliable than sightings so that Rabban Gamliel came out publicly saying not to be too concerned about whether an actual sighting had taken place. He claimed to have had a tradition from his grandfather that the month (lunar orbit) is never shorter than 29 days 12 hours and 793 parts. 
  These words of Rabban Gamliel prove that he did not base his calendar on sightings but on astronomical calculations.    We have an explicit Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 25) which states that “if both the elders of the court and the entire nation had clearly seen the new moon but it became night while the elders examined witnesses who testified to the sighting of the new moon before the elders were able to pronounce the new moon on the day just concluded, they would declare the month to have had 30 days.” This proves that the elders did not rely principally on the sighting. Had they done so, how could they have added another day to the month seeing not only the witnesses but they themselves had sighted the new moon on the previous night? Clearly, if they decided to make that month one of thirty days in spite of the sighting, they must have based themselves on their calculations.    I can bring you even more compelling evidence. The Mishnah at the end of the second chapter in Rosh Hashanah records that two witnesses appeared claiming to have sighted the new moon at its appropriate time, i.e. the night between the 29th and the 30th of the month. They also claimed that on the following night, i.e. the night of the 31st, the moon had not appeared in the sky. Rabban Gamliel accepted their testimony. If Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues had been basing their declarations of the new moon only on sightings, how could he have accepted such testimony which contradicts all we know about the behaviour of the moon? Surely, the fact that the moon did not appear on the following night meant that the witnesses had lied in the first place! Clearly, Rabban Gamliel relied on his calculations in the first instance and when these proved that the new moon had been due to appear when it did he accepted the visual evidence that it had indeed been sighted on the appropriate night.     As to the statement of the sages (folio 24) that Rabban Gamliel had a reproduction of the sky on the wall of his study which he employed to instruct laymen, the meaning is that he wanted to convince the supporters of Tzadok and Beissus  of his absolute competence in astronomical matters from month to month. He wanted to show them beforehand in which manner and at what angle sightings of the moon after the end of the present month would occur. When these students noticed that Rabban Gamliel had correctly predicted where and when in the sky sightings of the new moon would occur, he managed to discredit Tzadok ad Beissus who had tried to undermine the authority of the Jewish Supreme Court. As a result, the allegations against the calendar calculations of the leading elders of the Jewish people ceased. Nonetheless, the practice of encouraging people to come forward as witnesses to new-moon sightings continued but primarily as a reminder of an established custom, not as something of halachic necessity.    It is unanimously agreed that the authority to determine calendar adjustments is vested in the hands of the Jewish Supreme Court or its equivalent as something handed down from the time of Moses, provided such court is composed of the most knowledgeable and G’d-fearing people of their generation  This is the law which G’d commanded to Moses in our verse here. The words החודש הזה לכם, may therefore be translated as “you have authority to delegate the adjustments which may have to be made to this month.” Thus far the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel. This authority delegated by G’d to the Rabbinical authorities is of such fundamental significance that we read in Sanhedrin 42 that if the Jewish people had not been granted the opportunity to perform any other commandment except to recite the benediction over the new moon once a month and to thereby welcome the eternal presence of the Shechinah, this would be deemed sufficient for them. They base this on the wording החודש הזה, here and זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I wish to exalt Him” in Exodus 15,2. 
  What this Midrash is trying to tell us is that the verse here is an explanation of the peculiarly worded text of the benediction recited when blessing the new moon. It is an allusion to כנסת ישראל, the Jewish people as a spiritual concept, so called as it is a crown, sanctified and the exclusive property of the people of Israel, who are referred to as עמוסי בטן, (Isaiah 46,3) “transported by G’d on His arms ever since their inception” (in the house of Lavan). Seeing that he who utters this benediction finds himself in the presence of the Shechinah, he must recite it while standing (not while seated). This ensures that he is conscious of the necessary awe when in the presence of G’d.
      Reciting the benediction over the new moon is equivalent to testifying to the fact that G’d created the universe and all that is in it. This is the principal pillar of our religious faith. Seeing the moon renews itself month after month makes it easy to understand that G’d created one universe after another. Some unidentified sages have said that the black colour we observe on part of the moon serves as a reminder of the Israelites who are in exile and who count their months based on the lunar orbits. Concerning this phenomenon Solomon said (Song of Songs 6,10) יפה כלבנה, ברה כחמה, ”beautiful as the moon, brilliant as the sun.” G’d granted beauty to the moon and brilliance to the sun. The reason is that the moon resembles woman’s lower physiognomy in that it is activated by the male. The moon similarly receives its input from the sun. This is also the meaning of the statement in Ketuvot 59: “woman exists for the sake of beauty” [rather than for the performance of menial labour. Ed.]. Speaking of the sun, however, Solomon used the term  ברה, as its light is clear, distinct. Seeing that Solomon used different adjectives in describing moon and sun it is clear that the moon lacks brilliance. You need not be surprised at the choice of metaphors by Solomon as the Shechinah which accompanies the Jewish people in their exile  and which reflects the strength of the moon is also feeling the pain of the Jewish people in their troubles. We know this from Isaiah 63,9: “In all their troubles He was troubled.”
      Shemot Rabbah 15,26 approaches our verse from a different angle saying that the words: “this month is yours, etc.,” describe G’d’s promise to the Jewish people even before He took them out of Egypt that Jewish sovereignty would not exceed thirty generations corresponding to the number of days in a month.   I have already written on this subject when I commented on Genesis 38,30: “he called his name Zerach.” 
  Another part of that same Midrash understands the opening words of the verse as meaning that in this world the Jewish people would count according to the moon, i.e. that the moon is given to the Jewish people as a gift in order that they can count their months by means of it. The moon is considered as superior to the sun as it is visible by day and by night, suggesting that the Jewish people have an existence both in this world and in the world to come. The descendants of Esau, however, count in this world by means of the orbits of the sun which has been described in the Torah (Genesis 1,16) as “the great luminary.” In the future, however, this great luminary will be made subservient to those who will be called “small,” by G’d, (compare Jeremiah 49,15) “For I will make you smallest among nations, etc.” [The prophet addresses Edom, the spiritual descendant of Esau]. At that time the (previously) small luminary, i.e. the Jewish people, will become big, the nation whom G’d calls big as we read in Deuteronomy 4,8 “and which is a great nation such as this, etc.” The descendants of those who count according to the sun’s orbits will eventually be judged by means of the sun,  i.e. they will be burned by the fiery heat of the sun as we know from Malachi 3,19.    The entire matter can be understood by means of a parable. A king got engaged to a lady and wrote her a marriage settlement in which he gave her a few relatively minor gifts. Once the marriage was consummated, he wrote her a contract bequeathing to her very large gifts. The relationship between G’d and the Jewish people is somewhat similar. In this world G’d got “engaged” to the Jewish people as we know from Hoseah 2,21: “I  will espouse you forever.” At that stage of our relationship with G’d He gave us only the moon, as we read in our verse “this moon is for you.” However, in the days of the messiah there will occur the consummation of our relationship with G’d. We know this from Isaiah 54,5 “for He who is your mate is the One Who has made you. The Lord G’d of Hosts is His name.” When that time arrives G’d will hand over to Israel all that is spelled out in the second marital agreement.  According to Shemot Rabbah end of chapter 15, this is the meaning of Daniel 12,3 “and the knowledgeable will be radiant like the brightness of the expanse of the sky.”   We find an interesting halachah in Tractate Sofrim 19,10 as well as in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9,2) that one does not recite the benediction over the new moon except on the night following the Sabbath when one is still in a state of “fragrance,” i.e. surrounded by the joyful aura of the Sabbath and wearing Sabbath garments. When reciting this benediction one is to stand at attention facing the moon and to jump up and down three times  reciting the formula: “blessed be your Creator, blessed be the One Who sanctifies you. Just as I jump in your direction without being able to touch you (with harmful intent) so those who wish to harm me may jump without achieving their aim. May fear and trepidation overcome all those; since Your arm is mighty may they be struck dumb as stone” (Exodus 15,15).
  
  Verse 3
  
   בעשור לחדש הזה ויקחו להם, “on the tenth of this month they shall take for themselves, etc.” The instruction was that the lamb should be taken or purchased on the tenth to be sacrificed on the fourteenth. Our verse teaches that a sacrificial animal be checked for blemishes for four days prior to being offered as a sacrifice. This is why it had to be “taken” i.e. set aside four days earlier.
     שה לבית אבות שה לבית, “one lamb per family”, or if the family comprised many people “one lamb per household.”
  
  Verse 4
  
     ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה, “but if the household is too small for one lamb,” i.e. if there would be leftovers from that lamb due to an insufficient number of people sharing it.
     ולקח הוא ושכנו, “then an individual and his neighbour shall take” (a lamb between them). The Torah is concerned with each Israelite’s financial resources. This concern is expressed on four separate occasions, the first one being the Passover legislation. Seeing that leftovers of this lamb had to be burned (could not be saved for the next day), the Torah demonstrated its concern for each Israelite’s financial position even before legislating (verse 10) what was to be done with the leftovers, by allowing two biologically unrelated Israelites to share such a lamb.    The second instance in which the Torah displays similar concern for our pocketbooks is in Leviticus 7,24 where it states that the fat of an animal which had died (of natural causes) and the fat of an animal that had been torn to death may be put to any use (other than your eating it).    A third such instance is found in Deut. 14,21 where the carcass of an animal which died by a cause other than by ritual slaughter may be sold to Gentiles or given as a gift to resident non-Jewish strangers. The fourth instance of legislation designed to ease the financial burden on Israelites is found in Leviticus 14,36 and deals with the contents of a house about to be declared ritually impure. Although it was clear that the priest would condemn the house to be torn down and its contents to be destroyed, as long as the priest has not made his declaration the Torah permits the owner to remove such contents to save them from being destroyed.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ולקחו מן הדם, “they are to take from its blood,” Nachmanides, in exploring the rationale of this legislation, writes that seeing the zodiac sign of the lamb is at the peak of its power during the month of Nissan as it is the sign symbolising growing vegetation, G’d ordered the lamb to be slaughtered during this month to demonstrate that this animal that they considered their symbol of success could not even protect itself, much less those who worshipped it. Moreover, the death of the lambs proved that the Exodus of the Jewish people did not occur thanks to the mazzal of the lamb (whom the Israelites had served also) but that it had been orchestrated by a higher power, by Hashem.
  
  Verse 8
  
   צלי אש ומצות, “roasted on the fire together with unleavened bread.” The expression צלי אש used by the Torah here can mean either that the meat is roasted over coals inside a stove or that it is barbecued with a rotating spit over an open fire. The Torah excluded a kind of “roasting” which involved water. Boiling the meat in the ordinary fashion was most certainly out of the question. This is why the verse specifically tells us that even the kind of roasting involving  water was not permissible (verse 9). The repetition of the words כי אם צלי אש meant that it was not to be roasted in a pot. This was exceptional as other meat-offerings were allowed to be prepared for eating in such pots (Zevachim 91). When the sages (Chulin 132) said that the sections of an animal sacrifice given to the priest may be consumed after they have been roasted (apparently excluding boiling), this is based on the word למשחה, “for a distinction,” in Numbers 18,8 and means that seeing kings prefer this method of preparing meat, the priests are  allowed to prepare it in that way. However, if they prefer to boil the meat they are at liberty to do so.    This appears to raise the problem of Deut. 16, 6-7 where the Torah writes: “there you will slaughter the Passover in the evening when the sun sets on the date (anniversary) you left Egypt. You will boil it and eat it in a place that the Lord your G’d will choose, etc.” There appears to be a contradiction here. Our sages dispose of this by saying that in Deut. the Torah does not refer to “boiling” involving water but “boiling it on actual fire” similar to what we find in connection with the famous Passover celebration during the reign of King Yoshiyahu. Chronicles II 35,13 reports: ויבשלו הפסח באש כמשפט, “they roasted the Passover on fire according to law.” This is clear evidence that the expression בשל, normally translated as “boiling,” need not refer to preparation of food in a pot with water, but is simply a description of making food fit to be eaten. Sometimes this means using different kinds of pots such as are mentioned in that same verse in Chronicles we have quoted; other times it means preparation involving only fire. The author quotes the Spanish word sazonas to describe the meaning of Genesis 40,10 in which the Torah speaks of grapes which had ripened. “Ripening” is a form of “boiling” or “cooking,” i.e. becoming fit to eat. When the Torah emphasises here צלי אש, it excludes the use of a container for preparing this meat.
      A Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 15,13): the symbolic significance of insisting that the Passover be prepared over the fire was to remind the people that G’d had saved Avraham from the fire of Nimrod’s furnace. The symbolic meaning of the unleavened bread to be consumed simultaneously with the meat of the Passover was a reminder of the three cakes of unleavened dough that Sarah baked for the three angels who visited Avraham and told him on that date that Sarah would give birth to Yitzchak within a year. The symbolic meaning of the bitter herbs to be consumed as part of that meal is to remind us that just as the descendants of Avraham had been persecuted in Egypt, so they in turn would persecute the descendants of Esau. The symbolic meaning of the command not to leave over any part of the edible meat until morning is a reminder that not a single soul of the Egyptian firstborns survived that memorable night. The symbolic meaning of “with girded loins and your shoes on your feet” (verse 11), was to depict people who are eager to be on their way to a new destination. 
  It is a fact that as far as the substance of the Passover is concerned the legislation recorded here was to remain in effect for all future generations also, but the details such as girded loins and smearing blood on the doorpost were only required during the Exodus in Egypt.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ועברתי בארץ מצרים, “and I will go through the land of Egypt, etc.” This whole paragraph is meant to be something that Moses and Aaron were to tell the Israelites. We would therefore have expected the Torah to write at this point ועבר בארץ מצרים, “and He will go through the land of Egypt,” rather than “and I will go through the land of Egypt.” The unusual change in syntax here prompted our sages the Haggadah shel Pessach to say that the emphasis on the ending תי, after the ועבר which we would have expected teaches that G’d meant that He personally and not any agent of His would execute all the firstborns. They phrase it as אני ולא מלאך, אני ולא שרף, אני ולא השליח, אני ה', “I and not an angel; I and not a category of agent known as Saraph; I and not someone whom I usually delegate such a task to; I, all by Myself.” When G’d killed an army of 185,000 Assyrians (Kings II 19,35) many hundreds of years later on the anniversary of that date, He employed an angel to carry out His decree. This time He did not delegate the task.  והכתי כל בכור, “I will smite every firstborn;” again we have the emphasis on “I, not a saraph.” Not only the dying but the smiting, the plague resulting in death will be inflicted by Me personally. I will not act like a king who delegates unpleasant duties to be performed by underlings. The “saraph” mentioned by our sages are the kind of angels that burned the soldiers sent to capture Elijah and whom he commanded to be burned (compare Kings II 1,10).    ובכל אלוהי מצרים אעשה שפטים, “and against all the deities of Egypt I will carry out judgments.” Again G’d employs the pronoun “I” to emphasise that He would not employ any delegate such as the angel Mattatron who normally is in charge of matters pertaining to the terrestrial part of the universe. The meaning of the word “Mattaron” transliterated is מורה דרך, someone teaching the way. A messenger is called Mentor in Greek.   'אני ה', “I the Eternal.” I and no one but I. G’d emphasizes His uniqueness, indicating that the reason He will do all this by Himself is to remind us that there is No On like Him. Nachmanides writes that the emphasis on the words אני ה' is that inasmuch as G’d is supreme and unique there is no one who could interfere with what He sets out to do. Nachmanides wants to explain that had G’d employed any assistants in this plague then the plague would have occurred as an extension of His “intensified,” מתוחה, attribute of Justice. If this had been the case His delegates would not have been able to distinguish between Jewish and Egyptian firstborns seeing that from the vantage point of that attribute they had not deserved to be saved. This is why G’d had no choice but to carry out this plague unassisted without delegates. The aspect of G’d which carried out this plague was the Shechinah which is comprised of a mixture of the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. This is the meaning of what the sages referred to as “not by means of a messenger.” In other words, G’d performed the plague all by Himself. This is reflected in the use of the word אנכי for the name of G’d in connection with this plague. That term is an allusion to the Shechinah.  We refer, of course, to the warning: הנה אנכי הורג את בכורך (Exodus 4,23) “Here I am going to kill your firstborn.” G’d used the same attribute describing Himself there as He had  with Yaakov in Genesis 46,4 when He told him that He (His Shechinah) would accompany him down to Egypt and would also accompany him on the way back from there. G’d had already used that name אנכי describing Himself in Genesis 15,14 when He told Avraham about the distant future when his descendants would be enslaved prior to their redemption. It meant already at that time that the attribute which would exact retribution from the nation enslaving Avraham’s descendants would be the one known as אנכי. This is also what is meant in 12,27 “when He smote the Egyptians and He saved our houses.”
      Rashi, quoting Mechilta, explains the meaning of “on all the deities of Egypt I shall execute judgments” as that if these idols were made of wood, the wood would rot, whereas if they had been made of metal the metal would melt” [seeing that one cannot kill what has never been alive, the Mechilta wanted to illustrate what the words “judgments” when applied to idols could possibly mean. Ed.]   When the Torah gets around to reporting the carrying out of this plague in verse 29, the killing of the firstborn humans and animals is mentioned whereas there is no mention of the destruction of the idols. The reason is that the Egyptians had been alerted to the dying of the firstborn during that night and they therefore found out about it during the night seeing they were checking if this disaster was actually happening. They did not find out about the destruction of their idols until the morning when they visited their temples. We find that something similar occurred after the Philistines had captured the Holy Ark (Samuel I 5,3). We read there: ”Early the next day, the people of Ashdod found Dagon lying face down on the ground in front of the Ark of the Lord.” In the following verse we are told: “after they had picked up Dagon and put him back in his place the next morning they again found him lying prone on the ground in front of the Ark of the Lord. The head and both hands of Dagon had been cut off, lying on the threshold. Only Dagon’s trunk was left intact.” This is when it dawned on the Philistines that the plague inflicted on them as well as on their deities had been caused by the G’d of heaven. This is what the prophet Jeremiah 10,11 had in mind when he said: “Thus shall you say to them: ‘Let the gods, who did not make heaven and earth, perish from the earth and from under the heaven.’”
  
  Verse 13
  
  . וראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עליכם, “when I see the blood I shall pass over you.” It was not the blood itself which would keep the plague away; nor was it the absence of the blood which would cause the plague to strike. He who had complete faith in the Lord and no longer feared Pharaoh and his decrees and had demonstrated this by publicly slaughtering an Egyptian deity and smearing its blood on his door posts and lintel had thereby demonstrated that he was a righteous individual and deserved to be spared.
      Mechilta Parshat 7, commenting on this verse, asks why the Torah should write that G‘d had “to see” the blood seeing that He sees everything even in the dark without having to pass over these houses. We have at least two verses in Scripture testifying to this, i.e. Daniel 2,22: “He knows all that goes on in the dark;” and Psalms 139,12: “darkness is not dark for You.” In view of this what news does the Torah tell us when it writes: “it will be when I see, etc.?” They answer that G’d’s memory of the blood of the binding of Yitzchak will be “triggered” by the sight. At that time (after Avraham had sacrificed the ram Genesis 22,14) he had called that site: “The eternal G’d will see.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you will eat unleavened bread for seven days.” The Torah commanded that unleavened bread be eaten for the seven days of the Matzot festival and that the first and last day be observed as “holy convocations,’ i.e. that on those days there is a work prohibition. The first day is holy as it commemorates the beginning of the redemption, the last day as it represents its conclusion. You are aware already that the seven days symbolise the six directions plus G’d all of whom partake in G’d’s and Israel’s joy. The involvement of G’d and His emanations in this joy is the reason we have been warned in Nechemyah concerning the need to rejoice on a festival viz.: “Go eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord.  Do not be sad for the rejoicing in the Lord is the source of your strength.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ושמרתם את המצות, “guard the unleavened bread (flour) from the time it is being harvested (against it becoming moist).” You are to watch it again at the time of kneading the dough so that it will not become chametz (leavened).  Our sages (Mechilta 9)  read the word המצות as if it had both been spelled with the vowel patach under the letter מ, and had again been spelled with the vowel chirik under the letter מ. The message is that just as one does not let a commandment (mitzvah) become soured through procrastinating in its performance, so one must not allow the dough for the unleavened bread to stand around too long for the same reason.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   משכו וקחו לכם, “draw forth or purchase for yourselves.”  A Midrash writes that “as a result of your drawing forth the lamb to perform My commandment, I (G’d) in turn will draw forth your enemies to the Sea of Reeds and drown them therein. The same merit will also result (eventually) in My drowning the army of Siserah in the river Kishon by drawing them forth to their destruction.” (Judges 4,7). An alternate approach:  Seeing that the descent of your forefathers to Egypt was set in motion by משיכה, i.e. (Genesis 37,28) “they (the Midianites) drew forth and pulled up Joseph from the pit” and it has been said concerning them (Isaiah 5,18) “ah, those who haul sins with cords of falsehood,” the punishment when it comes was described by using the same verb, i.e. (Isaiah, Nechemyah 9,30) ותמשוך עליהם שנים רבות....ותתנם ביד עמי הארצות,  “You dragged on within them (bore with them) for many years.....so You delivered them into the hands of the peoples of the land.” On the one hand, Israel has been called עם ממושך וממורט, “a people thrust forth and away” when they are sinful, (Isaiah 18,2) whereas when they return in penitence they are described as משכני אחריך נרוצה, ”draw me after You, let us run” (Song of Songs 1,4). We find the verb משך applied to the Jewish people also in Hoseah 11,4: בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה, “I drew them with human ties, with cords of love.”
     למשפחותיכם, “according to your families.” This wording teaches that one is obligated to assemble one’s relatives around him in order to celebrate festivals together. Similarly, G’d has assured us that when the redemption will occur there will be a mutual drawing together of family members as the prophet (Jeremiah 30,25) has said: “at that time — declares the Lord — I will be G’d to all the clans of Israel, and they shall all be My people.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וראה את הדם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות, and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two upright door-posts, etc.” Seeing that Israel was the vehicle by means of which G’d’s greatness was demonstrated at the time of the Exodus, they were commanded to perform a number of very visible acts in connection with this commandment. All the acts in question were designed to discredit the wicked king and the faulty religious orientation of the Egyptians. The public nature of this commandment was to instill in the Egyptians a belief in G’d when they would see how their deity had been debased. The Israelites were ordered to slaughter (publicly) the lamb, (Egyptian deity) to roast it openly on the fire (not conceal it in a pot). Even passers-by would not only observe the preparation of this meat but if they were too far away to see it they would smell its fragrance. The lamb’s blood was to be displayed openly on the door of every Jewish dwelling. This was a warning that the attribute of Justice had been extended fully against the Egyptians. This has been spelled out in Amos 9,1: “strike the capitals so that the thresholds quake and  make an end of the first of them all.” This is the plain meaning of our verse.
      A Kabbalistic approach to our verse: This verse comprises an allusion to the letters in the Holy Name of G’d and it has been mentioned earlier in reverse order (the order in which one builds) i.e. “the two upright doorposts and the lintel” (verse 7).  Here the final stage of a building, the roof, or in this instance the lintel, has been mentioned first. This affords you an opportunity to understand the mystical dimension of Proverbs 8,34: “happy is the man who listens to Me; who comes to My gates early daily; waiting at the doorposts of My gates.” It also affords us an opportunity to understand what Rav Chisda said in Berachot 8 that a person should make a point of entering through two doors to the  Synagogue. The Talmud finds it difficult to accept this at face value and concludes that what Rav Chisda meant was that one should step sufficiently far inside the Synagogue before commencing one’s prayer so that one could have walked through at least two doors. If one is framed between two doors and the two doors in their appearance resemble the letters  in the name of G’d then G’d views Himself as it were and will not harm the individual who by his presence helps make up His name. The word אות, or לאות in verse 23 must be understood as “letter,” or “letters.” The mystical meaning both here and in the statement of Rav Chisda is that if one surrounds oneself with the appropriate symbols portraying G’d’s Holy Name this acts as protection against the attribute of Justice  [the lintel is considered as a ו and the two upright posts as two letters ה , respectively].   ופסח ה' על הפתח, “and G’d will skip that entrance” ולא יתן למשחית לבא and will not allow the destroyer to enter through it, seeing he has sealed it with His seal. According to the aforesaid there were four altars corresponding to the four letters in the tetragrammaton. This corresponds to what we have been taught in Mechilta Pisscha section 6 that our forefathers in Egypt had 4 altars. They were: the lintel, the two upright posts and the threshold. The threshold was considered a “small and round vessel.” The four cups of wine we drink at the Seder celebration symbolise these four altars. The first cup, the one drunk during kiddush symbolised the letter י which is holy. The second cup is drunk as a memento of the haggadah, the story of all the miracles, and symbolises the letter ה  from which all the miracles emanated. The third cup is drunk in connection with grace corresponding to the letter ו which is reminiscent of השמים, heaven, in the verse ואתה תשמע השמים, “and You are listening in heaven” (Kings I 8,32). This is the source of all our food. as G’d said in Exodus 16,4: “here I will make bread rain down for you from heaven.” The fourth cup over which we recite the verse שפוך חמתך אל הגויים, “pour out Your wrath against the nations which refuse to acknowledge you, etc.,” symbolises the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton which is a clear reference to the attribute of Justice.
      It is also possible to simply view blood as something symbolising either life or death in our verse. It spelled death for our enemies, i.e. the Egyptian firstborn, and life, i.e. survival for the Israelites. We know from Leviticus 17,11 that blood is the life-blood of man and beast. Seeing that for the Egyptians it had become a symbol of death, i.e. that they would be deprived of that vital blood, the Israelites had to symbolise that in their houses blood would be a symbol of life rather than death. The Torah therefore said that where the symbol of such blood was visible the angel of death here called המשחית, “the destroyer,” would have no access. We must not understand the משחית here in the usual sense, seeing that G’d personally performed the killing of the Egyptian firstborn as we explained at length. Moreover, the Torah wrote ופסח ה', that G’d personally would “pass over” the houses of the Jewish people displaying the blood of the Passover lamb. At that hour, G’d would not permit the angel of death to enter the פתח, entrance of any Jewish home even to carry out its normal duties unrelated to the firstborn.     The matter can be compared to Samuel II 24,16 where we are told that G’d stayed the hand of the angel of death (while He made a pestilence rage) saying to him: “enough! Stay your hand.” The message of our verse is that although G’d personally carried out the slaying of the firstborn the angel of death was in attendance together with its variegated powers. All of its powers are derived from the attribute of Justice. It is similar to a king moving from one place to another taking vengeance of his enemies. The king does not travel unattended but has his entourage which is schooled in this task with him. This entourage was not allowed to do anything on its own on that fateful night even to people who had previously been slated to be their victims on that night. G’d personally denied them their usual function on that night. On that night G’d wanted to carry out His vengeance on all the Egyptian firstborn personally. This is why the angel of death was not allowed to kill anyone else amongst the Egyptians on that night either.     On the other hand, no decree had been issued to the angel of death not to kill any Jew, seeing that G’d was not going to do it and it would not have interfered with G’d’s plans. The Jewish firstborn therefore were not in danger from G’d but they were in danger from the angel of death. Had these Jews not displayed the sign of the blood they could have fallen victim to destructive forces activated by the angel of death. It was therefore necessary that they display the blood not because G’d needed to see it but so that the angel of death who had not received a blanket prohibition not to be active on that night would see it and respect it. This is the meaning of the words אל בתיכם, “into your houses.”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   וה' הכה כל בכור בארץ מצרים, “and G’d slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, etc.” G’d carried out His retribution on the Egyptians according to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, tit for tat, the punishment being fitted to the crime committed. This is why the 10 plagues were summed up in the abbreviated form of דצ'ך עד'ש באח'ב. The Egyptians’ principal source of faith was the dependability of the river Nile as their water supply, as the lifeline. It irrigated all their fields and they had made the Israelites slave in order to draw the water from the river. G’d therefore turned the river into blood. Seeing that the Egyptians used to awaken their Jewish slaves in the middle of the night and impose most onerous duties on them, the river was told to produce frogs in swarms which would invade the Egyptian houses and cause misery and revulsion for the Egyptians. The frogs even invaded the entrails of the Egyptians causing them distress (Shemot Rabbah 10,6). Seeing that the Egyptians had prevented the Israelites from bathing and washing themselves, the third plague, כנים, lice, was meant to demonstrate to the Egyptians what it means to be denied water to wash yourself and for one’s body to be infested with lice and other insects The Egyptians would demand from their Jewish slaves to go out into the forest and hunt wild animals for them, a dangerous undertaking. They experienced what it means to be surrounded  by wild animals who do not respect civilization when G’d let loose the fourth plague, the invasion of their cities by wild beasts. The Egyptians had forced the Israelites to look after their livestock. G’d therefore afflicted the livestock with pestilence so that they would realize they had had no right to force the Israelites to perform such duties. The Egyptians had made the Israelites carry hot water for them to their bath houses. In retaliation, G’d made their skin break out in boils to remind them that they had not had the right to impose these kinds of duties on the Israelites. In retaliation for the Egyptians stoning Israelites, G’d brought on the plague of hailstones. In retribution for the Egyptians having forced the Israelites to work their vineyards, G’d made the locust ruin the vineyards. Seeing the Egyptians frequently put innocent Israelites in dark prisons G’d brought on the plague of darkness. Seeing they entertained plans of killing the Israelites who have been described as G’d’s firstborn (4,22), G’d punished them by killing their firstborn instead. [The various accusations leveled against the Egyptians by our author are all supported by Midrashim. Ed.]
      Tanchuma Bo 4 writes: “praised be the Lord, the King of Kings, who brought all these plagues on Pharaoh and his army in a manner similar to human kings when they go to war. Kings first try to deny their opponents their water supply. G’d similarly commenced His judgments by denying Pharaoh and his people the use of their source of water. Many Egyptians started dying from thirst during those seven days. This is the true meaning of (Exodus 7,24) “for they were unable to drink from the waters of the river.”  Kings usually follow up by creating deafening noises to frighten their opponents as described in Nachum 3,2: “galloping steed and bounding chariot”. These sounds frighten those who are exposed to them. G’d did this when He orchestrated the plague of frogs  which were very vociferous whistling, etc. Next a king usually employs archers who shoot their arrows at the enemy. G’d used the lice to have a similar effect on the Egyptians bitten by them.” The Midrash continues to describe how the various plagues corresponded to what occurs in warfare between armies on earth.    All the plagues G’d brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt He will bring upon the Edomites at the time the final redemption is at hand. We base this on Isaiah 23,5: “When the Egyptians heard it they quailed as when they heard about Tyre.” Every time the word צור is spelled defectively in Scripture such as here (צר) it is a reference to the kingdom of Edom and not to Tyre. There was blood in Egypt; there will be blood when G’d smites Edom (Yoel 3,3). [The author continues quoting the Tanchuma on this subject. Ed.]
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  . ותחזק מצרים על העם, “Egypt imposed itself strongly on the people, etc.”  After they had been struck by ten plagues they were forced to dismiss them against their will. Not only that, but the Israelites also took all the Egyptians’ money. This is the meaning of verse 36: “they emptied out Egypt.” This has been confirmed by Midrash Mishley (27,2). When Solomon speaks (Proverbs 27,17) about “as iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the wit of his friend,” the words “iron sharpens iron” refer to Moses the righteous and Pharaoh the wicked respectively. They were opposing each other with words. When Moses entered Pharaoh’s palace, Pharaoh asked him: “who has sent you?” Moses answered: “the G’d of the Hebrews has sent me to you.” Pharaoh countered: “what did he tell you to say?” Moses: “let go of My people so that they will serve Me.” Pharaoh: “Is there then a deity in the world whom I did not know? By all that’s holy, all the deities in the world have sent me letters but your God has not sent me any letter at all.” Seeing that he did not find the name of the G’d of the Hebrews recorded anywhere, he continued: “did I not tell you that I do not know of such a god?” He then sent for his wise men and asked them if they had ever heard the name of a god of the Hebrews. His sages answered that they had indeed heard that once there was a such a god descended from primeval wise kings as referred to in Isaiah 19,11: “utter fools are the nobles of Tzoan, the sages of Pharaoh have made absurd predictions.” Thereupon Pharaoh said to his wise men: “you are the fools. You call yourselves wise and me the son of the wise! I will dispose of your so-called wisdom.” Pharaoh based himself on Isaiah 29,14 “and the wisdom of its wise men shall fail.” Moses countered: “you claim that you do not know the god of the Hebrews. In the end you will get to know Him. You said that you will not dismiss the Israelites. In the end you will most certainly dismiss them against your will instead of willingly.” Let me illustrate what happened by means of a parable. The present situation is comparable  to a king who had said to his servant; “go and bring me a certain fish from the market.” The servant went and brought back a smelly fish. Thereupon the king decreed a choice of either of three  penalties on this negligent servant. 1) He suggested that the servant himself eat that fish. 2) If he did not like this he could be whipped with a hundred lashes. 3) As a third alternative he was willing to accept 100 silver pieces as payment of a financial fine. The servant started to eat the fish. Before he had finished eating it (forcing himself) he said that he would rather submit to 100 lashes of the whip. By the time he had absorbed 50 lashes he volunteered to pay the fine instead of being whipped some more. This is precisely what G’d did to the Egyptians. They absorbed the plagues, then they did let the Israelites go, and on top of it all they paid the financial penalty when the Israelites took their money. What caused them to suffer all these degradations?  Their obstinacy in refusing to acknowledge the existence of G’d.  Pharaoh’s obstinacy was countered by Moses’ obstinacy. This is what Solomon had in mind when he spoke of iron sharpening iron.
  
  Verse 34
  
  . טרם יחמץ, “before it could become leavened.”  Something similar will occur in the future. This is what Hoseah 7,4 meant when he said: “who desists from the kneading of the dough to its leavening.”
     משארותם, their kneading bowls.” This is a reference to the leftovers of the previous night’s meal of unleaveneed bread and bitter herbs.(Rashi). Others say it refers to the leftovers of the passover lamb. The Torah had instructed: “do not leave over from it until the morning.”
     על שכמם, “on their shoulder.” They had many animals (which could have served as beasts of burden) as the Torah wrote in verse 38 “and much livestock.” They carried the dough personally to demonstrate their love for the fulfillment of G’d’s commandment.
  
  Verse 35
  
   כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלות, “silver trinkets, gold trinkets and garments.” What is mentioned later is more valuable. Gold is mentioned after silver as it is more valuable. The garments were mentioned last as they were the most valuable items, [if only because they were of immediate use. Ed.] (based on Mechilta). We have a parallel in Genesis 12,1 where G’d tells Avraham to leave 1) your country, 2) your birthplace, 3) your parental home. The last-mentioned one was closest to him, hence the most valuable association.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   כשש מאות אלף רגלי הגברים, “approximately six hundred thousand men on foot.” The wording indicates that there were not quite 600,000 such men seeing the Torah does not give a precise count of how many there were or by how many the number was short of 600,000. It would appear that they were only one man short of that number. The Torah did not want to spell out the number 600,000 when in fact they were short by one.
   I have found this explanation in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 39. According to the wording there “when G’d realized that they were short by only a single man to make up the required number, He took the place of the missing man thus completing the required quorum. In this manner G’d fulfilled what He said to Yaakov in Genesis 46,4 “I am also going to bring you up out of there.”
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   וגם צדה לא עשו להם, “nor had they made provisions for themselves.” The verse is a compliment to the Jewish people who believed in G’d and Moses His servant (14,31). They did not ask how they could be expected to move into the great and terrible desert without even having made provisions for themselves. 
  This was the ultimate expression of faith in G’d. G’d praised them for this act of faith still over 800 years later when Jeremiah publicly recited G’d’s appreciation of that act by the Israelites in Jeremiah 2,2,  when he was told to say in G’d’s name: “I accounted to you as a favor the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me into the wilderness, into a land not sown.”
  
  Verse 40
  
   ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים, “and the habitation of the Children of Israel during which they dwelled in Egypt, etc.” We find three separate sets of numbers for the ending of the exile and subsequent departure from Egypt. They are either 400 years, 430 years,  or 210 years. The 400 years are calculated from the time Avraham’s descendants became strangers and experienced various problems either within the land of Canaan or outside of it. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 15,13: “they will serve them or even oppress them for 400 years.” These 400 years include both periods of being strangers and periods of being slaves. The 430 years are calculated since the birth of Yitzchack. [This is hard to understand though it appears in various manuscripts. Ed.] The 210 years refer to the length of the Jews’ stay in Egypt proper.    You will note that the Bible also gives three dates for the ending of the exile in the future (Daniel). The dates mentioned there are 1150 (years) 1290 (years) 1335 (years). We read in Daniel 8,13-14: “Then I heard a holy being speaking, and another holy being said to whoever it was who was speaking, ‘how long will what was seen in the vision last, the regular offerings be forsaken because of transgression, the sanctuary be surrendered and the heavenly host be trampled?’ He answered me: ‘for twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.’” The days and nights were calculated separately so that the number corresponds to the number 1150 mentioned earlier. “Days and nights” are years. We also have a verse (Daniel 12,11) “from the time the regular offering is abolished, and an appalling abomination is set up, it will be a thousand and two hundred and ninety days.” Immediately afterwards it is written: “happy the man who waits and reaches one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.” The reason G’d mentioned three different “ends” of the exile in Egypt all of which corresponded to he truth was to make it easier for us to bear the long exile we find ourselves in nowadays. We must believe that the three separate dates given in the Book of Daniel are also all true, though we have not yet figured out precisely how to understand each number. We may be certain of one thing. If we deserve it the redemption will occur on the earliest of the three dates mentioned, if not on the middle one or the last one. It is impossible for the redemption to occur later than the last date described in Daniel. Thus wrote Rabbeinu Chananel.
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  . וכל ערל לא יאכל בו, “and no uncircumcised male must eat of it” (the Passover lamb). This verse proves that Moses circumcised all the Israelites before they left Egypt. Concerning this circumcision our sages (Mechilta 8) state that G’d gave the Jewish people two commandments by the merit of which they were redeemed. They were the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover. Ezekiel immortalised this when he wrote: ואעבור עליך ואראך מתבוססת בדמיך ואמר לך בדמיך חיי, ואומר לך בדמיך חיי, “then I saw you wallowing in your blood; I said to you: “live because of your blood!” I said to you: “live through your blood!” (Ezekiel 16,6) This is why the Torah writes immediately after the prohibition of uncircumcised males participating in the eating of the Passover that “all the Israelites did as Hashem had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did” (verse 50). Earlier,  in verse 28  when the Torah had also stated that the Israelites did what they had been commanded by Moses and Aaron, the word “all” could not be written as many of them at the time were ritually unclean and could not have eaten the Passover on that account. We have further evidence that the Israelites who participated in the Exodus had all been circumcised in Joshua 5,5 “for all the Israelites who left Egypt had been circumcised.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור, “G’d spoke to Moses for him to communicate.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word לאמור means that Moses was to relay the instructions received from G’d to the people. Alternatively, the word could mean that in addition to what the Torah has  spelled out clearly for all to read and understand there are hidden meanings to be deciphered by those who apply themselves to Torah-study in depth. The נגלה, the revealed part, are the details of the commandment. The נסתר, the mystical, hidden aspect of this portion, is that which not everybody can grasp even if he tries. There have always been aspects of Torah not accessible to the average person. This is what David said (Psalms 62,12) “G’d has said one thing; yet I have heard two.” A single communication may contain more than one message. Solomon echoed the same sentiment when he said: “a word spoken properly is like golden apples set in silver” (Proverbs 25,11). In this verse Solomon compared the matters which are revealed to silver, whereas matters concealed he likened to gold, i.e. they had first been overlaid, made invisible by silver.
      The meaning of our verse as well as most verses which commence in a similar form is: G’d told Moses the commandment and implied that he should tell the Israelites about it. In addition, לאמור, he told Moses to reveal to the people the more profound aspects of the commandment, aspects which do not meet the eye of the reader.
      Nachmanides writes in his commentary on Exodus 6,10 (where the verse commences in the same manner as here) “the word אמירה refers to a complete utterance, meaning that an אמירה נראית, ‘a superficial utterance’” is not sufficient. [Nachmanides tries to justify why sometimes G’d added “say to the Children of Israel,” whereas other times He contents Himself with the word לאמור alone. Ed] Seeing that the quality of G’d’s communications to Moses was so superior and clearer than His communications to lesser prophets, G’d was able to say to Moses: “make the matter clear to your listeners the Jewish people.” Other prophets (Numbers 12,8) with whom G’d Himself spoke in riddles were not able to clarify matters to the people in the degree Moses was able to clarify it for them.
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words וידבר ה' אל משה reflect the inner force,  the concealed force, the word לאמור is a reference to the fact that this force had become manifest by means of the Shechinah. This is the meaning of the words in Exodus 24,12 אשר כתבתי להורותם, “which I wrote to teach them.” The word להורתם is written defective, without the letter ו which should be part of the plural ending, thus making it similar to Song of Songs 3,4 ואל חדר הורתי, “into the bedroom of my parents.” This is merely a euphemism for the acquisition of information reserved for the intimates of G’d.    You are aware already that the expression דבור is a deeper form of communication than אמירה. Whereas  אמירה describes the oral Torah, דבור describes the written Torah [with its multifaceted ways of interpretations. Ed.] The experts of Kabbalah were thoroughly familiar with this. This is what prompted Eicha Rabbah to translate the words בצע אמרתו In Lamentations 2,17 as בזע פרפורין שלו, “He tore His purple curtain (allowed the Temple curtain to be destroyed).” [The standard translation of the words is: “He carried out His decree.” Ed.] We have to ask ourselves what made the author of this Midrash translate these words in this fashion? The word אמרא, as cloak, i.e. or better “a fringed garment,” is well known. In this instance the word פרפורין may be understood as a euphemism for the edge of such a cloak. Our sages understood the verse in Lamentations as explaining the reason why the Temple was destroyed. First the Jews had despised the תורת ה' צבאות  (Isaiah 5,24). This was a reference to the written Torah. Then  (same verse)  ואת קדוש ישראל נאצו, “and the Holy One of Israel they spurned.” This is a reference to the oral Torah.    To get back to our verse here. The word ויאמר or לאמור is derived from אמרא, the edge of a cloak a person wears on his left side. We have a verse in Samuel I 28,14 illustrating this: “he is wrapped in a cloak.” We also have a verse symbolically depicting G’d Himself as wrapped in such a cloak, i.e. עוטה אור כשלמה, “He wraps light around Himself as a man would wrap a cloak around himself” (Psalms 104,2). The cloak referred to in that verse is the attribute of Justice. On the other hand, the word דבור, and therefore וידבר, when employed by the Torah is derived from the word דבורה, the bee, which though providing honey, i.e. sweetness, also harbors a deadly sting. The bee therefore symbolizes an attribute of G’d which combines both the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. The oral Torah is emanated from that attribute, seeing it is a derivative of the written Torah and the written Torah itself is based on the combination of the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy.
  
  Verse 2
  
   קדש לי כל בכור פטר כל רחם, “sanctify for Me every firstborn, the first issue of every womb.” The wording we would have expected here is קדש לי כל בכור בבני ישראל באדם ובבהמה, “sanctify for Me every Jewish firstborn amongst humans and domestic beast,” seeing this would be the logical way of thanking G’d for sparing the firstborn Jews and their livestock. After all, the Egyptian firstborn killed included firstborn of father and mother. Why then does the Torah restrict this legislation to the first issue of a womb, i.e. the firstborn of the mother? In fact, in Egypt not only biological firstborns were smitten but, in the absence of an actual firstborn, the oldest in the house. Why else would there not have been a single house without a dead body on that night?   The reason the Torah did not command sanctification of the firstborn of the father is simply that there always exists some slight degree of doubt about the paternity of a child whereas no such doubt exists concerning its maternity. The same rule applies to the firstborn of the livestock as we read in verse 12: “you shall set apart every first issue of the womb to G’d and of every first issue that is dropped by the livestock that belong to you, the males to Hashem.” As a result of this legislation we find that Isaiah 49,15 draws a comparison between G’d’s love for Israel to a father’s love for his son when he said: “can a woman forget her baby or disown the child in her womb?” The prophet suggests that it is impossible for a mother not to have pity on her child. He did not say: “can a father forget his son?”     My teacher Rabbi Shlomoh (Rashba) of blessed memory commented that this verse in Isaiah wants to teach us two things. 1) Contrary to the doubt about paternity we mentioned earlier, there is no doubt about G’d considering Himself the father of the Jewish people [Hoseah 2,1 describing the Jewish people as the children of the living G’d. Ed.] seeing the prophet continues “even if the mother might forget her child G’d would never forget Israel.” This thought is confirmed by Eytan in Psalms 89, 27-28 “You are my Father, my G’d, the Rock of my deliverance;” (G’d responds) “I too will appoint him first-born.” 2) just as it is impossible for a mother to exchange her son for another so it is impossible for G’d to exchange the Jewish nation for another. The prophet (G’d) promised: “also these will not be forgotten.” Whereas G’d may “forget” the sin of the golden calf which the Israelites had addressed as “these are your gods O Israel” (Exodus 32,4), G’d will nonetheless not forget the Jewish people as His own as He would not forget their attitude at Mount Sinai when He had introduced Himself to the Jewish people with the words: “I am the Lord your G’d” (20,2). 
      Our sages in the Midrash  (Shemot Rabbah 18,3) confirmed this sentiment when they stated that the plague of the killing of the firstborn in Egypt included the females from the palace of Pharaoh with the exception of Pharaoh’s firstborn daughter Batya, the one who had saved Moses at the time. Moses himself had acted as her counsel of defense at the heavenly court. This is one of the meanings of: “she saw him that he was good” (Exodus 2,2). Solomon (Proverbs 31,18) said concerning this Batya that what made her “good” was ”she sees her business thrive, her light never goes out at night.” The “light” of which Solomon spoke was Batya’s soul, and the “night” was the night during which G’d smote the firstborn.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . כי בחוזק יד הוציא ה' אתכם מזה ולא יאכל חמץ, “for with a strong hand G’d removed you from this (place) and therefore chametz may not be eaten.”  What does the eating of חמץ have to do with the “strong hand” which G’d employed at the time of the Exodus? The verse simply wants to tell us that חמץ is a symbol of the attribute of Justice. Seeing that it was necessary for Israel to invoke G’d’s attribute of Justice against the Egyptians in order for themt to be redeemed, G’d forbade them the consumption of חמץ at the time when we commemorate the Exodus so that we would steer clear of putting our faith in the attribute of Justice as an attribute which acts on its own. Were we to do this we would be guilty of heresy. It would have been easy to conclude that G’d invoked only the attribute of Justice as both He and His heavenly tribunal co-operated in the downfall of the Egyptians. Compare Rashi (based on ancient manuscript of Tanchuma Bo 17). This is also why when G’d created the world the Torah first writes: “at the beginning G’d created heaven and earth” (Genesis 1,1), whereas later (Genesis 2,4) the Torah speaks of: “on the day the Lord G’d made earth and heaven.” [The second formulation includes G’d’s heavenly tribunal. Ed.] This is also the deeper meaning of Isaiah 48,13: “also My hand founded earth, and My right hand spread out the skies.” G’d’s “hand” and G’d’s “right hand” are mentioned separately. Also the word אף is an indication that some other force cooperated with G’d at a certain stage after the beginning. It indicates that not only the “hand” was involved in the creation. It was therefore necessary at this juncture for the Torah to tell us that also ה' was involved in the Exodus, not only the יד, i.e. the attribute of Justice. To remind us of this for all future time, the consumption of חמץ is forbidden on these seven days on which we commemorate the Exodus and the fact that it involved the downfall of our oppressors. This is the mystical dimension of the prohibition of eating חמץ. This explains why the Torah reserves the karet penalty for anyone who deliberately violates this commandment. Eating חמץ on Passover is equivalent to a serious act of heresy, denial of Jewish history; as such the person who does so has read himself out of his people, so to speak. This is why G’d removes him from the Jewish people at death, (12,15) i.e. in compliance with the sinner’s wishes 
     זכור את היום הזה, “to remember this day.” Remembering the day we came out of Egypt is a positive commandment which is applicable daily all year round (hence the infinitive). Our sages  (Berachot 12) say that the words “in order that you may remember the day you left Egypt כל ימי חייך, as long as you live,” are a reference to the nights, hence the word כל,”the entire.” This is why we recite the portion dealing with ציצית which is a commandment not applicable at night, in our nightly recital of the קריאת שמע. The last verse in that paragraph speaks of the Exodus and the need to remember it. The words כל ימי are therefore best translated as “the whole days, etc.” instead of as “all the days, etc.” Our sages elaborate (folio 21) further that after the קריאת שמע at night we are to recite the paragraph commencing with the words אמת ואמונה, “true and trustworthy,” whereas in the morning the parallel paragraph commences with the words אמת ויציב, “true and firm.” In order to remember the Exodus by day and by night we must relate to these two aspects of it., i.e. to the attribute of Justice as well as to the attribute of Mercy, both of whom were invoked to orchestrate the Exodus/redemption. The words חוזק יד  refer to the attribute of Justice, whereas the words הוציא ה' refer to the attribute of Mercy. When Moses prayed after the sin of the golden calf (Exodus 32,11), he referred to both of these attributes when he said  אשר הוצאת מארץ מצרים בכח גדול וביד החזקה,“whom You took out of the land of Egypt with great force and a strong hand.” The point Moses made was that G’d had not only invoked “the strong hand”, i.e. Justice,” but also ”great force,” i.e. the attribute of Mercy.
  
  Verse 4
  
    בחודש האביב, “in the month of spring.” The Torah deetrmined here that the festival of Passover must always occur in the spring, i.e. the time of the barley harvest [in those parts of the world. Ed.]; the stalk of the barley is known as אביב, derived from the word אב, “father.” It is so called as it “begets” the kernels of grain we calll wheat. It is well known that all the festivals mentioned in the Torah are related to certain seasons. Shavuot, Pentecost, is to occur during the season when wheat is harvested as the Torah writes: “and the festival of cutting when you reap the first of your labors” (Exodus 23,16). Tabernacles is to occur as a harvest festival, “the time of ingathering,” i.e. at the end of the summer. This is also the reason the sages decreed that when concluding the benediction dealing with the respective pilgrimage festivals we sign with the words: “Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.” We might have expected the formula to be “Who sanctifies Israel and the festivals,” paraphrasing the wording in the Torah where these festivals are all called מועדי ה' “the festivals of the Lord.” The reason the sages changed the formula was to remind us that the dates of these festivals are all dependent on certain seasons. Another reason we call the month of Nissan “spring” is because spring is the “father” of the 12 months in the calendar. It is also dominated by the zodiac sign of the ram, the “father” of all the twelve zodiac signs.
      According to Mechilta (Pisscha 16)  the month of spring is the one in which מוציא אסירים בכושרות, “G’d releases prisoners when they are in chains.” (Psalms 68,7) The word בכושרות may be understood as “in a suitable (כשר) month.” Rabbi Yochanan understands the word as a combination of בכי ושירות, “weeping and  songs of jubilation.” On the one hand, there was not a single Egyptian house in which there was not at least one dead, causing weeping, whereas on the other hand, the Israelites broke out in joyful song as described in Psalms 118,15 קול רנה וישועה באהלי צדיקים, “the tents of the righteous resound with the joyous shouts of deliverance.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  'והיה כי יביאך ה', “It will be when the Lord brings you, etc.”  This is already the commencement of the next paragraph which starts in verse 11. The first time the word יביאך is spelled plene, with the letter י in the middle; the second time, (verse 11) that letter י is missing. The first arrival in the land of Israel took place under the leadership of Joshua who fought ten wars (battles) before taking full possession. They were: Jericho, Ai, Giveon, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglonah, Chevronah, Dvirah, Mey Marom. (they appear in Joshua 6,20; 8,24; 10,8; 10,28; 10,29; 10,31; 10,34; 10,38; 11,1) The letter י then is an allusion to these “ten=י wars.”  אשר נשבע לאבותיך, “which He had promised to your forefathers on oath.” The oath had been given to the patriarchs as the prophet  said in Micah 7,20: “which You have sworn to our forefathers in days of yore.” The second time reference is made  to the Holy Land, the word יבאך is spelled defectively, with the letter י in the centre missing. This is an allusion to Israel being gathered in from exile when no wars of conquest will be needed for them to resettle in the land. The repeated mention of G’d’s oath in that verse is also a reminder that the wonderful predictions  and words of comfort by our prophets consoling us about our misfortunes and promising a better future will all be fulfilled. In verse eleven we find the additional words ונתנה לך, “and He will give it to you.” The message is that at that time the land will become a permanent gift to us never again to be taken away from us. The Torah speaks of a period which we have never experienced up until this date.  אל ארץ הכנעני, “to the land of the Canaanite, etc.” The land of Israel is here described as “the land of the Canaanite, seeing that Canaan was a cursed slave and it is legally impossible for such a slave to have title to any land. A slave can never take over property that belongs or belonged to his master. Seeing that the land of Israel by rights was given to the Jewish people, in the absence of the Jewish people G’d had to give it (temporarily) to such a cursed slave nation in order to ensure they could not establish legal title to that land while Israel was not around. It was similar to a king who has a minor son and who temporarily hands over his country to a regent pending his son becoming of age.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   מצות יאכל את שבעת הימים,“unleavened bread shall be eaten during the duration of these seven days.” The expression את שבעת הימים is the same as if the Torah had written בשבעת הימים “on these seven days.” We find something similar in Chronicles II 30,22  ויאכלו את זבחי המועד שבעת ימים, “they ate of the sacrifices of the festival during the seven days.” Our sages there mention that the word את is meant to include the last eight hours of the 14th of the month, or if they were outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael that they observed an eight’s day of Passover. [Rabbi Chavell, basing himself on Torat Chayim, claims that the fact that apparently matzah was permitted already two hours before noon on the fourteenth of Nissan is proof that chametz was already forbidden. Ed.]
  
  Verse 8
  
  . בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, “on account of ‘this’ G’d has done for me.” The plain meaning of the verse is that “seeing that G’d has done all this for me,  I will serve Him, etc.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The verse tells us that the fact that I was able to leave Egypt was all for the sake of His glory and His Name. It is somewhat similar to what Moses exclaimed in the song after crossing the Sea of Reeds: זה קלי ואנוהו, a complimentary reference to the שכינה including G’d’s Highest Presence. The meaning is that the שכינה in Israel is not merely something needed for the ordinary Israelite, but it is a phenomenon necessary even in celestial circles. This is what Joshua had in mind when he said (Joshua 7,9, after the Israelites’ humiliating defeat at Ai) “and what are You going to do בעבור שמך הגדול in order to bolster Your great name?” When the Torah immediately carries on (verse 9) by writing “this shall be a sign on your hand and a remembrance between your eyes,” the idea is that the concept the Torah has revealed to us here must be commemorated by us in a tangible form, i.e. by means of the phylacteries. The word  והיה is an instruction to ensure that this will be realised. We have something similar in Genesis 41,47 ותעש הארץ which Onkelos translates as וכנשו “they are to gather in.” In our situation the Torah means: “He has gathered me up for the sake of His  attributes.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  . הוציאך ה' ממצרים, “G’d has taken you out of Egypt.”  In verse 14 the Torah writes: “G’d has taken us out of Egypt. This is to teach us that the redemption of the fathers was the redemption of the sons, the next and subsequent generations. This is precisely what we say annually in the Haggadah shel Pessach “He, G’d, did not only redeem our ancestors but He redeemed us, this very generation, also at the same time together with them.” We cite the verse Deut 6,23 in support of this where Moses, quoting the fathers of later generations, said: “and He took us out of there in order to bring us, to give us the land which He had sworn to our forefathers.”
  
  Verse 10
  
   ושמרת את החוקה הזאת למועדה מימים ימימה, “You shall observe this decree at its designated time from year to year.” The words מימים ימימה mean “annually.” We find the expression מימים ימימה used in the sense of “years” also in Samuel I 1,3 where it describes Elkanah’s annual pilgrimage to the Temple at Shiloh. The same expression is also found in Judges 21,19 where it describes an annual pilgrimage to Shiloh being used to provide the surviving members of the tribe of Binyamin with Jewish girls for marriage. A third time the same expression is used is in connection with the annual pilgrimage to (the grave of?) Yiphtach’s daughter to commemorate what had happened to her (Judges 11,40). 
  Rabbeinu Chananel writes that although the Torah has warned many times about observance of the Passover, this verse is not one of these occasions and it comes to tell us only that commencing with that year the date and season of the Passover festival are to be constant. This is again proof that the date was calculated and that sighting the new moon was not the crucial issue in determining the time of the festival.
      A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata) based on the word למועדה: ”there are designated periods when a person is to wear phylacteries and there are designated periods when he is not to wear such phylacteries.” The Sabbaths and festivals are exempt from the requirement of phylacteries seeing that the days themselves are an אות, “sign, reminder” of the historical facts the phylacteries are to remind us of. The repetition מימים ימימה refers to the day as opposed to the night. This teaches that we are not to wear phylacteries at night. An alternative meaning: the words מימים ימימה teach that we are to examine the phylacteries once a year (every twelve months) to ensure that they are in good condition. This is based on the use of the word ימים in Leviticus 25,29 ימים תהיה גאולתו, “it (the house) may be redeemed until the end of twelve months.” Just as the word ימים represents a deadline in that instance it also signifies a deadline in our verse.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . והעברת כל פטר רחם לה', “you will transfer every firstborn of the womb to Hashem.” The Torah employs the term העברה in this instance to indicate that the status of being something secular has been removed from such firstborn seeing it had already been designated as sacred while inside the רחם אמו, the womb of its mother.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . וכל פטר חמור, “and every firstborn donkey, etc.” This legislation is restricted to the donkey, the only impure domestic animal whose firstborn male issue is not of secular status (as opposed to horses and camels, also widely considered as domestic beasts). Pessikta Zutrata on our verse explains that the reason is that the Egyptians have been compared to donkeys by the prophet Ezekiel (23,20) who wrote “their flesh (male organ) is the flesh of donkeys.” An additional reason is the tradition that even the poorest of the Israelites left Egypt with ninety donkeys’ loads of silver and gold. To commemorate the immense wealth the Israelites took out of Egypt the Torah legislated that the beasts which carried that wealth be treated as in a class by themselves. The firstborn males of such donkeys needed to be redeemed before they could be used for profane purposes. Equating donkeys with Egyptians reminds one of the plague of the dying of the firstborn Egyptians.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   והיה לאות על ידכה, “it shall be a sign on your hand.” According to the plain meaning of the text the letter ה which the Torah appended here at the end of the word ידכה is an allusion to the five “houses,” capsules, in which the respective scriptural verses in the phylacteries are “housed.” [the phylacteries worn on the head have four such housings, the ones worn on the arm has one]. The phylacteries worn on the arm are called אות, sign,  as the Torah wrote “it shall be a sign for you on your hand” (verse 9), whereas the phylacteries worn on the head are called זכרון, “remembrance,” as we know from the same verse.    You should appreciate that something which is described as אות is meant to be remembered on an ongoing basis, hence the description of זכרון as well as the description אות for describing the phylacteries and their purpose. This is why our sages (Menachot 36) ruled that one is to put on the phylacteries of the hand before the phylacteries of the head so that the אות will become a זכרון. We follow the sequence in which these two phylacteries are mentioned in the Torah.   ולטוטפת בין עיניך, “and as ornaments between your eyes.” When removing the phylacteries they are removed in the reverse order of how they were put on. If one were to first take off the phylacteries of his arm just as he had put them on first, how could the phylacteries on the head still serve as זכרון seeing we have explained that there could not be a זכרון unless there was an אות which the זכרון would commemorate? This is why the אות aspect of the phylacteries must be both first and last.    Our sages in Menachot 36 explained it as follows: “when removing the phylacteries the one on the head must be removed first as the Torah speaks of והיו לטוטפת בין עיניך, they shall be as ornaments between your eyes. As long as they are between your eyes, i.e. plural, two, they are ornaments. As long as the phylacteries of the head are between your eyes the phylacteries are an ornament. Leaving them all by themselves deprives them of being fit to be described as “ornaments.”
      A Midrashic approach (based on Menachot 37): the letter ה at the end of the word ידכה means that the phylacteries are to worn on the “weaker” hand [a play on words יד כהה, “the weak hand”], the left arm. Generally speaking a man’s left arm is not as strong as his right arm.
      A Kabbalistic approach:  The additional letter ה at the end of the word ידכה was “borrowed” from the tetragram, i.e. from the last letter ה in the name י-ה-ו-ה. It symbolizes the attribute of Justice as practiced in the terrestrial world. It is the type of wisdom given to Solomon [who asked to be a competent judge for the people of Israel] in the dream when G’d allowed him to make a wish (Kings I 3,9). He spoke of his wish to possess a לב שומע, “a heart which is able to listen.” This is the reason that the phylacteries of the arm are to be worn on the left arm, the arm closest to the heart. The attribute which Solomon wished for is also known as כלה. The text of the phylacteries of the hand is written on a single roll of parchment and has a single housing, as opposed to the four “housings” of the phylacteries on the head. There is a mystical dimension to this in Song of Songs 4,9 where the same Solomon describes this attribute as אחתי כלה, usually translated as “my own, my bride.” The closeness to the point of a shared identity between Israel (Solomon) and the attribute of wisdom is alluded to by the word כלה as כלולה ב'לב, “included in the 32 paths of בינה, the ways to acquire wisdom.” [the oldest kabbalistic text, the ספר היצירה, is based on this concept. Ed.] The attribute כלה granted to Solomon enables the student to make a useful combination of these 32 paths of understanding, insight.    In order to teach that this letter ה at the end of the word ידכה has symbolic significance, the paragraph והיה כי יביאך contains five letters ה each of which is equipped with a תג, [a crown on top of a letter, usually reserved for the letters  ש ע ט נ ז ג ץ You will not find these תגים on the corresponding letters in the Torah scroll. They are written only in the parchment which is part of the phylacteries of the hand. Ed.]  The respective letters with these “crowns” are: the ה in ונתנה לך; the two letters ה in הקשה, the ה in ויהרוג, and the ה in ידכה. All of the words in question which have this ”decorated” letter ה are references to G’d’s attribute of Justice.    Having put on the phylacteries on the arm, one proceeds to put on the phylacteries of the head. The phylactery of the head is divided into four housings closely stuck together and containing the four paragraphs of the Torah in which the subject of phylacteries is mentioned in separate housings, each on its own parchment. They are in the sequence: 1) קדש לי כל בכור, 2) והיה כי יביאך, 3) שמע, 4) והיה אם שמוע. The paragraph קדש לי כל בכור corresponds to the emanation (attribute) חכמה, which is also known as ראשית, i.e. ראשית חכמה יראת ה'  (Psalms 111). The word קדש, “sanctify” is a clear allusion to this. We have other verses containing the word קדש which are always understood as a reference to his attribute of חכמה.     The second paragraph והיה כי יביאך, which deals with the Exodus is understood to refer to the attribute בינה, The attributes חכמה,בינה,גדולה,גבורה were prominently involved in the Exodus and are therefore represented in the phylacteries. This is reflected also in the four-armed letter ש [as opposed to the usual three-armed ש. Ed.] which is embossed on the housing of the phylactery of the head. The emanation (attribute) תפארת is represented by the phylacteries themselves rather than by the Torah sections written inside them. All this is part of the mystical dimension of what the Talmud says in Berachot 6 that “G’d Himself puts on phylacteries.” The emanations (attributes) נצח והוד are represented by the respective “heads” of the letter שין which is embossed on the phylactery of the head. The three “extremities” רישי'ן i.e. ראשין (upper ends of the letter ש), symbolise the three emanations נצח הוד יסוד. (in the usual three-armed ש).  The additional arm and its head is considered the קשר, the “connection“ to the lowest emanation מלכות which links the emanations (attributes) to the terrestrial world the one known as אחרונה, “the last one, the hindmost one. This is also the mystical dimension of G’d saying to Moses (Exodus 33,23) וראית את אחורי “you will only see the hindmost aspect of Me.” What G’d did show Moses was the קשר של תפילין, the “knot, tie” of the phylacteries, i.e. the point at which G’d the transcendent becomes immanent, i.e. manifest, in the terrestrial part of His universe. (Berachot 7).   Seeing that the straps of the phylacteries  surround the head of the wearer this is perceived as an allusion to the continuous link between the manifest part of G’d’s largesse all the way to that point of the קשר. In view of the fact that the straps at the same time extend down to the level of one’s navel, it is an allusion to the fact that at the other end these emanations extend till the קו האמצעי, emanation תפארת, the central emanation (dividing line between what is perceived on the left and what is perceived on the right of the diagram of these 10 emanations) Seeing that these straps have to be black, a decree dating back to Moses for which we have not been told a reason, this is proof of the profound mystical meaning concealed within the whole commandment of the phylacteries and its details. The reason the second phylactery has to be placed on the head is that this is the seat of the power of the soul. Whatever has been written inside the phylactery on the head has also been written inside the phylactery of the hand, except that it has been written on a single piece of parchment and in an undivided housing. This is to teach that the lowest emanation מלכות, also known as אחרונה, is contained within it, and that it on the other hand contains all the higher attributes (emanations). The קשר, i.e. the shape of the knot in the strap symbolizes the צדיק; the reason it is worn on the left arm is that in that way it is opposite the right side of G’d whom we are to face at all times.   You must appreciate that the commandment of phylacteries are really two separate commandments though they (both) are part of the same syndrome. The proof that they are two commandments lies in the fact that they are not interdependent as are for instance the ארבעה מינים, the four plants on Tabernacles. When the Etrog is missing for instance, one cannot recite a benediction over the remaining 3 plants and vice versa. In the case of the phylacteries, however, absence of either the phylactery of the head or the phylactery of the arm does not prevent one from putting on the other  (Menachot 38) and reciting a benediction over performance of the commandment. Moreover, seeing that both phylacteries represent the same idea, one must not engage in conversation between putting on the one and the other. This is what is meant in Sotah 44 that if one engages in conversation between putting on one phylactery and the other,  this rates as the kind of sin on account of which a soldier is sent home rather than participating in an expansionist war [to protect him from the angel of death who is always around in places of danger waiting to pounce on the guilty. Ed.]
      Seeing that both phylacteries represent the same idea it would have been logical to assume that halachah would treat them as interdependent on one another just as they do the Lulav and the Etrog. The fact that nonetheless they are treated differently halachically has been explained in terms of the Talmud Berachot saying that G’d Himself puts on phylacteries. The source of this statement is explained in the Sefer Habahir of Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKanah in the form of a parable. The matter is compared to a king who owns a precious ornament which he sometimes wears on his head and on other occasions he wears it on his arm. This is the reason that the two phylacteries cannot be treated as if they were interdependent since we try to emulate G’d and how He treats His phylacteries. You may also conclude from the above that putting on the phylactery on the left arm is an allusion to the attribute of Justice which receives its input from the left.   In this respect there is a parallel with the Etrog which is also held in the left hand. 
  On the other hand, I have seen an opinion expressed by a prominent Kabbalist according to which the holding of the Etrog in the left hand and the putting on of the phylactery on the left arm cannot be compared. He claims that the fact that the Etrog is held in the left hand is because the left hand is appropriate for this seeing that the right hand holds the other three plants which have been tied together. The reason the phylactery of the hand is worn on the left arm, however, is in order for it to be opposite the right side of G’d. It has been said of G’d מימינו אש דת למו, “with His right hand He presented the fiery Torah to them.” (Deut. 33,2). The scholar in question quotes as further support for his view Psalms 45,10: ”the consort stands on your right hand decked in gold of Ophir.”   You will note that the phylactery of the head contains G’d’s name 21 times so that between the two phylacteries G’d’s name appears 42 times corresponding to the 42-lettered name of G’d. 
  Some people, examining the subject of the phylacteries still further, believe that just as the Shechinah is portrayed as resting on the four animals based on two cherubs depicted in Ezekiel’s visions in Ezekiel chapter 1 and chapter 10, so the phylacteries are a symbol of the Shechinah resting on the Israelites who put on the phylacteries which contain four sections of the Torah on its two major organs (heart and brain). The brain and the heart are perceived as flanking such a person from two opposite sides, as we read in Exodus 25,19 (in connection with the lid of the Holy Ark) כרוב אחד מקצה מזה וכרוב אחד מקצה מזה, “one cherub at one extreme and one cherub at the end from the other extreme.” Our sages (Menachot 43) say that whoever has phylacteries on his head, on his arm and fringes, ציצית, on his garment can be certain that he will not commit a sin (major one) as we have been assured in Kohelet 4,12 that “the threefold thread will not easily be severed.” Rabbi Shimon ben Levi in Menachot 44 states that anyone who regularly wears phylacteries will live long as we have a verse (Isaiah 38,16). Those who have the name א-ד-נ-י on them (on their bodies) and whose insides are filled with that spirit ‘You will add more life to me.’”
  
  
  Verse 17
  
     'מצרף לכסף וכור לזהב ובוחן לבות ה', “the crucible is for silver, the furnace for gold, but G’d examines the hearts.” (Proverbs 17,3)
   In this verse Solomon warns man to refine his thoughts and to improve his character traits. Seeing that the heart is the most important one of our organs and all other organs depend on it and it is situated at the center of the body, it governs the other parts of the body, guides them and inspires them with its energy. All other organs of the body are subservient to the heart. Symbolically speaking, the heart is comparable to the king of a country who resides in its center, supervises all the more peripheral parts of the country, and who issues decrees telling his subjects how to conduct themselves.    Seeing that all other organs depend on the heart for their continued existence, G’d, who is the source of life to all His creatures is also referred to as “heart.” This is the meaning of Psalms 73,26: “the Rock of my heart and the Lord is forever my portion.” Just as the human heart exercises its power and influence on other organs of the body so G’d exerts influence on all parts of His universe to the farthest corners of it. This is confirmed in Exodus 8,18: “for I the Lord am active in the midst of the earth.”   Similarly, the most important element in relating to Torah and how one observes it is the heart. The entire written Torah is bracketed between the letters of the word לב, heart, i.e. between the letter  in ב-ראשית at the beginning and the letter ל in ישרא-ל at the end. This symbolizes that the Torah itself was taken from the attribute (emanation) חכמה which has לב, 32 paths, (as we pointed out earlier in our discussion of the symbolisms of the phylacteries). Seeing that all man’s actions are so inextricably intertwined with the heart, Solomon warns that the character traits of the heart are of the utmost importance and he warns that all the thoughts man considers as private, i.e. secrets of his heart, are in fact known to G’d as if they were public, seeing that He examines every heart to determine whose heart is good and whose is not. This then is the meaning of the verse we quoted at the beginning of our commentary. Just as the silversmith and the goldsmith must examine the purity of the silver and gold he works with and wants to fashion into jewelry by using the tools used by the jeweler to refine silver and gold respectively, so G’d employs His own tools to examine the purity of man’s hearts. In language familiar to the silversmith and goldsmith these tools are known as crucible and furnace respectively. We learn from this verse that when the heart is good it is comparable to pure silver or pure gold. Eventually, such a good heart will result in the owner performing good deeds. Conversely, if the heart is defective, the owner will commit sins sooner or later just as impure silver will not stand up for long when put to the use for which it had been intended.    The expression בוחן לבות, “He examines hearts,” also includes a reference by Solomon to the day of judgment on which G’d decides who is to participate in the resurrection. Solomon speaks of people who fall into the category of בינונים, being neither wicked nor righteous; their merits and debits are in balance and G’d needs to find if such people, or their souls had been guilty of severe sins which would preclude them from participating in a future life on earth. If, during their life on earth, these people had not committed heretical sins involving their bodies such as deliberately failing to put on phylacteries, they will be inscribed as צדיקים גמורים, perfectly righteous people whose participation in eternal life is assured, seeing we accept the view of the school of Hillel (Rosh Hashanah 17). That school interpreted the words ורב חסד in Exodus 34,6 to mean that when engaged in judging, G’d has a tendency, an inclination, to find according to the principles of the attribute of Mercy. If however, amongst the sins of such a בינוני there are heretical sins committed with his body, it is impossible for such a soul to escape at least a temporary abode in gehinom, in purgatory, even according to the lenient view taken by the school of Hillel. The crucibles and furnaces mentioned by Solomon are the period in gehinom during which such souls are being cleansed of the stains on their souls. The word כור is a reference to the fires of Hades, the instrument which removes all dross. Proof that Solomon speaks of the בינונים, the people whose sins and merits were in balance, is the expression בוחן, “examines.” The righteous and the wicked do not need such an examination; G’d knows immediately which category they belong to. The former qualified for immediate eternal life whereas the latter have already forfeited it.    Another concept which is included in Solomon’s description of בוחן לבות, is that G’d makes such hearts submit to tests. Not only does He not examine them for His own benefit, but He subjects them to tests to demonstrate to their peers that these people deserve the fate that awaits them. If such people are found worthy of an hereafter the fact has to be demonstrated to their peers. The scriptural verse relating to this is Zecharyah 13,9: “and I will smelt them as one smelts silver and test them as one tests gold.” it is well known that G’d only tests the righteous as David said in Psalms 11,5: “the Lord seeks out the righteous man to test him.” The matter can best be understood by a parable. A potter who sells his wares does not demonstrate the worth and quality of his inferior products but he demonstrates the quality of his finest products.” These tests and examinations are not needed to demonstrate anything to G’d Who know it all. He knows what goes on in the heart of each of His creatures. This is why Solomon speaks of G’d being an “Examiner of hearts.” He confirms this also in Proverbs 15,11: “Hell and destruction are in front of G‘d; how much more the hearts of men.” The logic of this verse is simple. If G’d can see what goes on within the bowels of the earth, how could He fail to be aware of what goes on in the hearts of men above the earth? After all the heart is the abode of G’d’s own soul, the part of man which has been emanated from the celestial regions! If, in spite of all these considerations, G’d does subject men to tests it can only be in order to demonstrate to other creatures who are unable  to look into a person’s heart and can judge only by what their eyes behold. We know that man is limited in his perceptions to what his eyes behold from Samuel I 16,7: “man sees only what is visible, but the Lord sees into the heart.” Once the righteous has been tested and his potential goodness has become manifest so that he was able to translate pure thoughts and intentions into actions, such actions are a sanctification of the name of the Lord. This was the type of test G’d subjected Avraham to when the Torah wrote (Genesis 22,1) “and G’d tested Avraham.” The whole purpose of the test was to demonstrate the quality of Avraham’s service to G’d to those around him. When G’d said to Avraham at the conclusion of the test:: “for now I know that you are G’d-fearing, etc.,” the meaning is that “now G’d had been able to demonstrate to one and all how G’d-fearing Avraham was.”   When the Jewish people left Egypt and G’d performed innumerable miracles for them in the desert, most of these miracles were designed to  be tests. When G’d split the sea for them to enter into, He did not show them a path which led from one side to the other; rather He split the sea a little at a time, keeping them anxious all the time, wondering if G’d would continue to dry out that path until they came to the other bank. The Israelites saw the sea in front of them all the time they were traversing it. This is what David meant when he said (Psalms 114,3) “the sea saw and fled.” Something similar occurred with the manna. G’d never supplied more than enough for one day or one day plus the Sabbath  (Exodus 16,4). Desert travelers would normally carry a supply of several weeks’ provisions with them. G’d acted as He did in order to instill the habit of faith in the people. The meaning of faith is to make oneself dependent on G’d’s largesse. He wanted to know if they were going to criticize His way of doing things. This is why when Pharaoh finally released the Israelites G’d made them travel through the desert. This was all designed to test if their hearts were pure, if they trusted G’d or felt they knew better than He what was good for them (Yuma 67). G’d could have let the people travel a closer route through civilized parts of the world, through the land of the Philistines, However, He wanted to strengthen their faith in Him through letting them travel through inhospitable country and looking after them.
  ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם ולא נחם אלוה-ים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא, כי אמר אלוה-ים פן ינחם העם בראותם מלחמה ושבו מצרימה. “It was when Pharaoh sent off the Children of Israel that G’d did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although it was near, for G’d said: ‘perhaps the people will reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt.’” The words: “perhaps the people will reconsider” are hard to understand; do we not believe that there is no such thing as the word “perhaps” in G’d’s vocabulary? Does He not know all in advance? Clearly G’d knew for certain how the Israelites would react when they saw they had to fight the Philistines! The meaning of the words פן ינחם העם, therefore must be: “so that the people will not reconsider.” Indeed our sages (Eiruvin 96) are on record that wherever the expression פן or the word ואל, occurs in the Bible the meaning is “so that not.” Example: (Genesis 3,22) ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and now so that he will not also stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life, etc.” G’d meant it was not appropriate to give Adam an opportunity to take from the fruit of the tree of life and to nullify G’d’s decree that he had become mortal by eating from it. Similarly, here: G‘d led the people through the desert instead of through the land of the Philistines in order not to grant them an opportunity to regret having left Egypt.
     בראותם מלחמה, “when they would see warfare.” Even though they experienced warfare in the desert such as when the Amalekites attacked them a few weeks after the Exodus, the fight against Amalek did not evoke a desire to return to Egypt. After all, Israel had not been called upon by G’d to invade (or traverse) a neighbouring country, something they would have found hard to justify. [I suppose the peace-treaty between Avraham- Yitzchak- Avimelech was still in effect anyway. Ed.] The Amalekites had attacked them in No-man’s land without provocation. The Amalekites by definition were attacking G’d through attacking His people; they had heard about all the miracles G’d had performed for the Israelites when He struck down the Egyptians. They were not willing to allow the G’d of Israel to have a monopoly of power on this earth. We have a comment by the Midrash (Mechilta Beshalach Petichata [introduction]) that if, seeing that after the Israelites had taken a devious and difficult route through the desert they nevertheless said (Numbers 14,4) in the second year of their journey: “let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt,” imagine what would have happened if they would have had to confront the Philistines at the beginning of their journey on the way to the land of the Canaanites.
      Rabbeinu Chananel wrote that G’d had a different reason for leading the Israelites through the desert. He needed an excuse for demonstrating miracles for the people. Had G’d led the Jewish people by the most direct route and had influenced the Philistines to let them travel through their country unmolested, this would have been such a minor miracle that it would not have impressed the people with an appreciation of how G’d had exerted Himself on their behalf. G’d’s desire to demonstrate His power and ability to triumph over what appeared to be insurmountable difficulties made it necessary for Him to lead the people through an inhospitable desert. By leading the people through the desert G’d forced Himself to come up with the heavenly manna as the solution to their food problems, with the extraction of water from a rock and the traveling well as the solution to their water problems, with the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire as the solution to problems of an inhospitable climate, etc., etc. The further the Israelites traveled from civilization the greater were the miracles required to keep them alive and well.   It is characteristic of G’d’s השגחה פרטית, benevolent providence for the righteous, that He performs miracles within miracles. We find, for instance, that when Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah were thrown into a fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar because they refused to accept him as a deity and to bow before his golden image, G’d could have saved them by the simple expedient of extinguishing the fire in that furnace (Daniel 3,27). Instead,  G’d’ troubled Himself not only to allow these men to walk around within that flaming kiln as if they and their garments were totally oblivious to the infernal heat, but He visibly increased the heat and the fire within that kiln; He showed Nebuchadnezzar a vision of three unbound men enjoying themselves within that flaming kiln totally unperturbed by what Nebuchadnezzar thought he had accomplished. Nebuchadnezzar was enabled to look through opaque thick walls, another miracle. When G’d saved Daniel from the den of lions (Daniel 6,23), He also could have done so by means of lesser miracles such as simply killing the lions in that den. Instead, G’d chose to leave the lions alive but to prevent them from harming Daniel. In other words, the miracle within the miracle was that G’d interfered with the lions’ instincts in order to demonstrate His power.     We find something similar in the Book of Judges when Gideon was commanded to fight the Midianites. Seeing that the Midianites were described as “as numerous as the sand of the sea,” (Judges 7,12) G’d could have allowed ten or twenty thousand men to fight them and their victory would surely have been credited to G’d seeing that even such a number of men would have been greatly outnumbered by their opponents. However, G’d chose to allow only three hundred men to go to war against Midian thus increasing the miracle and as a result His reputation. The prophet states that G’d wanted to ensure that no Israelite would be able to take credit for the victory (Judges 7,2). Actually, in response to the call that the faint-hearted Israelites should return home, ten thousand remained after twenty-two thousand had departed. G’d told Gideon specifically that the remaining ten thousand men were still far too numerous to fight against Midian! (7,4). They were to be tested by the manner in which they would lap up water to drink from a pond or river. The people who lapped up water like a dog were chosen as soldiers in G’d’s army, whereas those that drank like human beings, i.e. bringing the water to their mouths instead were sent home! (7,7).
      This was characteristic of the way G’d dealt with the Israelites in the desert. They were to be raised gradually to a level of trust and faith in G’d so that they would be ready to receive the Torah. This is why G’d parted the waters of the Sea of Reeds only a little at a time. This is why even at Marah where G’d had showed Moses how to make sweet water which had become bitter sweet again, G’d went to the trouble of first miraculously making that water bitter and then performing a second miracle all in order to teach the Israelites a lesson in faith (compare Mechilta Parshah 1 on Exodus 15,22, opinion of Rabbi Joshua). G’d followed the same principle when making a daily miracle in raining down manna from the heaven when He could have contented Himself with the performance of such a miracle once a week or even once a month. When the Israelites had still questioned G’d’s providence even after the miracle at Marah, the attack by Amalek which followed promptly was also a miracle designed to teach the Israelites the lesson that faith was needed to survive. [seeing the Israelites had been wrapped in the clouds of glory, it required a miracle for Amalek to locate them. Ed.] The lesson at that time was that failure to study Torah when one has the time leads to all kinds of disasters.    Solomon refers to this need for faith in Proverbs 22,19 when he says: “so that you may put your trust in the Lord, I have instructed you today, even you.” Solomon is telling his readers that whatever they have read so far in his book is meant to be of help to them in strengthening this vital element of Judaism within them. By saying “you too,” he invites the reader to attain the same level of faith in G’d that he himself felt he had acquired.
      A Midrashic approach: The Torah in its opening words of this portion wants to remind us that the very mouth who had said: “I will not dismiss the Children of Israel,” and “I will certainly not let the children go with you,” was the same man who was forced at the end to beg them to leave his country. Nonetheless, G’d rewarded the Egyptians even for this reluctant utterance by their king when the Torah commanded the Jewish people (Deut. 23,8) “do not despise the Egyptian for you were a stranger in their land.” The same mouth which had said: “ G’d is the righteous one and I and my people are the sinners,” was rewarded by the  Torah in being accorded a funeral, as we  know from Exodus 15,12 נטית ימינך תבלעמו ארץ, “when You inclined Your right hand the earth swallowed him, “ [although they had been drowned in the sea. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
  .וחמושים עלו בני ישראל , “the Israelites were armed when they came out of Egypt.”  The plain meaning of the words is that when the Israelites left Egypt they were like the vanguard of an army preparing for battle. This was contrary to the rule that the Jewish people are not like the Gentile nations in that they have to make only the first motions of doing things in a regular manner before miraculous forces intervene to help them. (Compare Nachmanides on Numbers 13,2). For instance, we find that although G’d commanded Joshua (Joshua 8,2) to prepare an ambush against the people of Ai, we could ask that if the people of Israel, and especially their leader Joshua, were such experts in invoking miracles to help them, why did they need to lay an ambush, something perfectly natural? The answer is that G’d wants us to do whatever is possible in a natural way, following accepted norms. Anything beyond that we have to leave to celestial forces. Solomon confirms this principle in Proverbs 21,31: “the horse is readied for the day of battle; but victory comes from the Lord.” In other words, men have to do their share before G’d will do His share. This is why it was essential that the Israelites take weapons with them when they left Egypt.
      A Midrashic approach: (Tanchuma Beshalach 1) The word חמושים means “one out of five.” Four fifths of the Jewish people died during the plague of darkness so as not to give the Egyptians the satisfaction of knowing that these Israelites had not been found worthy of redemption. Some say that the word חמושים refers to one in fifty Israelites only being redeemed. Some even claim that only one out of 500 Israelites was found worthy of redemption.
      It may pay to make the following calculation. In 14,7 the Torah speaks of שלישים being on each of the chariots which pursued the Israelites. Some say this means that for every Israelite at least three Egyptians were in pursuit. Others claim that thirty Egyptians were in pursuit of each Israelite. Still others (all using the word שלישים) argue that 300 Egyptians pursued each Israelite (on each chariot?). The commentators who understood the word חמושים as referring to the number five also consider the word שלישים as referring to the number three. Those who consider the word חמושים as a reference to five hundred, obviously are the ones who also considered the word שלישים as referring to three hundred. The words על כלו at the end of 14,7 are understood as referring to “each Israelite,” not to “each chariot” According to the first opinion then there had been three million male adult Israelites in the service of the Egyptians prior to the plague of darkness. Assuming three hundred Egyptians pursued each Israelite the number of Egyptians drowned at the sea would have amounted to nine hundred million as they had thought that three million Jews had left their country (not knowing that most had died). In fact we do find a Midrash Hagadol according to which when G’d descended to Egypt nine hundred million angels of destruction descended with Him. Most of the sages are agreed that the Egyptians who went in pursuit of the Israelites numbered ninety million regardless of whether they held that one out of five Israelites left Egypt or one out o fifty or one out of five hundred. They all arrived at the number by combining it with the word שלישים. It is agreed that G’d dispatched nine hundred million destructive angels against that force, i.e. one angel against one thousand Egyptians. This is the meaning of this Midrash. You will observe that the word chamushim though read as if it were spelled  חמושים, is actually spelled without the letter ו, i.e. חמשים “fifty.” This teaches that Torah which was given to the Jewish people on the fiftieth day after the Exodus was the purpose for which they left the bondage and Egypt. (compare Zohar volume 2 page 46). Furthermore, there is the fact that the Exodus has been mentioned in the written Torah a total of fifty times.
  
  Verse 19
  
  .  ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף, “Moses took the remains of Joseph, etc.” While the Israelites were still preoccupied with material concerns such as demanding silver and gold from the Egyptians, Moses was preoccupied with nobler matters, needs of the soul, by performing the commandment of seeing to it that Joseph would eventually be interred in Eretz Yisrael. This was in accordance with Proverbs 10,8 quoted in Sotah 13, that “he whose heart is wise accepts commands.” Joseph had acquired the merit of having brought his father Yaakov to burial in Eretz Yisrael; as a result he received the distinction of having his own remains taken out of Egypt by someone greater than him, by Moses. In return for having performed this commandment Moses himself was interred by someone greater than he himself, by the Almighty personally, as we know from Deut. 34,6: “He (G’d) buried him in the valley, etc.” I have discussed this matter in connection with Joseph’s death (Genesis 50,28). We have also found a Bereshit Rabbah 87,10 that Moses needed to take Joseph with him as otherwise he could not have split the Sea of Reeds. This miracle occurred as a compensation for Joseph who at the time had fled from the presence of his master Potiphar’s wife, placing himself in a most embarrassing situation by leaving his garments inside the house (Genesis 39,12). The Torah describes his departure there as וינס ויצא החוצה, “he fled-and went outside.” We find the same word וינס applied to the motion of the Sea when G’d (Moses) parted it (Psalms 114,3 ) הים ראה וינס, “the Sea saw and fled.” What did the Sea see which made it retreat? “It saw the remains of Joseph.” We find another similarity of expression between what happened to the brothers and Joseph and to something which happened at the Sea. In Genesis 50,21 when Joseph tries to calm his brothers’ fears that now that Yaakov was dead he would revenge himself on them, וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם, “he comforted them and spoke to their heart.” A the splitting of the Sea we find the expression  (Exodus 15,8) בלב ים, “in the heart of the Sea.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וה' הולך לפניהם יומם, “and G’d would walk in front of them by day, etc.” Seeing that the term “walking” cannot truly be applied to G’d, the plain meaning of this verse is that the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night which had taken up position in front of the Jewish people to show them the way, served as a sign for them that G’d in His capacity as Hashem was accompanying them every step of the way. These two pillars acted as their eyes in the desert and as protection against the dangers lurking in the desert. When the Torah quotes G’d (Exodus 19,4) saying: “I carried you on the wings of eagles,” the reference is to these pillars of cloud and fire mentioned in our verse. Seeing that these pillars were designed to save the Israelites, they became the instruments by means of which the Egyptians were judged, as we read in 14,24: “He looked down upon the  camp of Egypt through a pillar of fire and cloud and He confounded the camp of Egypt.” This prompted our sages (Mechilta 14,29)  to comment on the words והמים להם חמה, “the waters of the Sea were for them (the Israelites) a wall, chomah,” to change the vowel pattern and to add that for the Egyptians these same waters proved to be a cheymah, i.e. an expression of G’d’s anger at them. Midrash Tehillim, 22,2 quotes a similar interpretation when explaining  the verse א-לי א-לי למה עזבתני, the Midrash says that what was “light” for Israel (King Chizkiyahu) proved to be destructive fire for Sancheriv, King of Assyria. It is described graphically there that the prophet Isaiah and King Chizkiyahu sat down in the Holy Temple and that a fire erupted between them which consumed Sancheriv and his army.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words (especially the letter ו introducing the word י-ה-ו-ה at the beginning of a verse), are an allusion to G’d acting in unison with His heavenly tribunal. G’d resided within the pillar of cloud which traveled ahead of the Israelites by day, whereas His heavenly tribunal has its abode within the pillar of fire and traveled ahead of the camp of the Israelites at night. This is the meaning of “He and His heavenly tribunal,” i.e. the Shechinah and the attribute of Mercy. This is also the meaning of such expressions as (Isaiah 63, 12) זרוע תפארתו, as well as the word ימינך in 15,6. In all those instances the same instrument G’d employed to save the Jewish people He employed to simultaneously destroy its adversaries. This is the mystical dimension of the line in the Haggadah shel Pessach בנגפו את מצרים ואת בתינו הציל, “when He smote Egypt while saving our houses.” The verse  (Numbers 14,14) כי עין בעין נראה אתה ה' ועננך עמד עליהם וגו', “that You Hashem appeared eye to eye Your cloud stands over them, etc.” is to be understood in the same way.
     ללכת יומם ולילה, “to travel by day and by night.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verse tells us that the Israelites were so eager to arrive at the destination where they would receive the Torah on the fiftieth day that they traveled both by day and by night. This was in contrast with other travelers who are tired by nightfall so that they interrupt their journey even when they are in inhospitable surroundings.
      A Midrashic approach: They traveled by day and by night as the Torah they were to receive was something that applied and was to be studied both by day and by night (compare Joshua 1,8). 
      A kabbalistic approach: The reason the Torah wrote ללכת יומם ולילה, was to tell us that they strove to emulate the two attributes called “day” and “night.” The whole line is to inform us that these two attributes were ever-present. If the Torah had wanted to describe their mode of  travel, i.e. that the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire respectively traveled both by day and at night the wording would have been ללכת ביום ובלילה. The reason they traveled both by day and by night was to get them used to accept these two attributes as facts of life. [Rabbi Chavell refers to a commentary by Nachmanides at the beginning of the third chapter of Job in this connection]. As a result of the above-mentioned  considerations the Israelites were forced to travel by day and by night.     The meaning of the words לנחותם הדרך is precisely this, i.e. to teach them a way of life, not as we might think, “to show them the route.” The words להאיר להם, normally translated as “to provide physical light for them by both day and night,” [which are superfluous as we all know that this was their purpose, Ed.], must therefore be understood in spiritual terms, i.e. ‘to enlighten them” through the attributes called “day” and the attribute called “night.”’    In order to understand the whole concept better, consider Proverbs 24,21 ירא את ה' בני ומלך, ”Fear the Lord my son and King;” The Israelites were praised  by Jeremiah (2,2) who said to them that G’d still remembered “the devotion of your youth, your love as a כלולותיך (pl) bride, when you followed Me in the wilderness.” The prophet mentioned two separate qualities (attributes)  when mentioning כלולות, i.e. יום and לילה. The choice of the word כלולות which is a doubling of כל, means that these two attributes are interdependent, do not exist one without the other. The prophet referred to two good attributes of the Jewish people which enabled G’d to redeem them at the time. One of the most important aspects of the Exodus was the honour and glory the Israelites experienced in the manner in which they were redeemed.   An additional reason for the Torah describing the Exodus as if the Jewish people were traveling both by day and by night, was to give Pharaoh the impression that they were fleeing. This in turn would persuade him to mount  pursuit. Coupled with the fact that his spies told him that the Israelites were moving very erratically, turning around at Baal Tzefon, he became convinced that he would prevail against them. This gave G’d a chance to drown the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds. It was a perfect illustration of what Chanah said in her prayer (Samuel I 2,3) “by Him actions are calculated.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  . לא ימיש עמוד ענן יומם, “the pillar of cloud would not depart by day, etc.” The reason the Torah repeats this is to teach that the two pillars were complementary to each other as explained by the sages in Shabbat 23.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . וישובו ויחנו פי החירות, “they turned around and encamped at Pi Hachirot. G’d ordered the Israelites to turn around  facing Egypt at Pithom renamed Pi Hachirot, seeing that this was the place where they had become free (from slave labour) according to Rashi. The Torah added the words “in front of Baal Tzefon,” as a further means of identification because that idol had survived destruction. All of these details were important to help Pharaoh persuade himself that the Israelites were worth pursuing. When the Torah reports that G’d said to Moses: “I will strengthen the heart of Pharaoh so that he will pursue them” (verse 4), He referred to three causes which would determine Pharaoh’s course of action. 1) Their non-stop day and night travel which would persuade Pharaoh that they were in fact escaping, not following his instructions. 2) Their turnabout convinced Pharaoh that the people were completely lost in the desert. 3) that they should make camp near Baal Tzefon which would give Pharaoh the impression that this deity had impeded the Israelites’ ability to journey forward. The term ”בעל something or other,“ is usually associated with a deity such as  בעל זבוב, אלוהי עקרן, בעל פעור, and others. G’d allowed this deity to survive in order to mislead Pharaoh. This is an illustration of Job 12,23: “He causes nations to deceive themselves resulting in their destruction.” The additional words (verse 3) נכחו תחנו על הים, ”opposite it you are to make camp,” was to give Pharaoh the impression that this deity had used the desert to encircle the Israelites, to make them prisoner. This verse contains an allusion to what the Israelites would observe later at the sea. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ויעשו כן, “they did so.” The Torah compliments the Israelites for obeying what seemed an irrational command, i.e. making camp facing their erstwhile enemies and masters. They could have questioned such an order but did not do so. (Rashi).
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויגד למלך מצרים, “The king of Egypt had been informed, etc.” Seeing that  the end of the three days which was the period of time Moses had said they would be gone had passed and they had not returned, Pharaoh was told that obviously they had fled. Pharaoh had sent along spies. When, after non-stop marches, the Israelites made camp on the eve of the 17th-18th of Nissan, these spies returned to the capital and reported to Pharaoh on the Israelites’ movements. The Egyptians organised their pursuit, mobilising their forces on the 19th and the 20th, catching up with the Israelites at Pi Hachirot by nightfall on the twentieth. The night of the 20th-21st there was a stand off, i.e. the two camps did not come closer together (verse 20).     A Midrashic approach: The words “Pharaoh was told” mean that the prophecy (decree) made to Avraham in Genesis 15,13 that his descendants would be slaves in a country where they were strangers for 400 years had not been fulfilled as only 210 years had elapsed since the time the Israelites had come to Egypt. It therefore became clear to him that the people had fled.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויקח שש מאות רכב, “He took six hundred chariots, etc.” Rashi queries where these chariots, or better their horses came from seeing that the Torah had told us in 9,3-6 that all the domestic beasts of Egypt died during the plague of pestilence. Moreover, the Israelites had said that they would take all their livestock with them (10,26) so that Pharaoh could not have requisitioned animals belonging to the Israelites. Rashi, i.e. Mechilta, concludes that these animals must have belonged to the people described in 9,20 as having feared the word of G’d, i.e. the warning preceding the plague, and who had therefore taken their livestock indoors. This would demonstrate that G’d-fearing Egyptians could become a source of trouble for the Jews. It teaches the truth of  what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is quoted as saying in Massechet Sofrim chapter 15 that the best of the Egyptians were killed at the Sea and that the best of the snakes ought still to have their heads smashed. The statement is traced to our verse here. The meaning of the statement is that only in time of war is it permissible to kill such Egyptians seeing that by making war against you they have revealed their true attitude. Under such conditions we may apply the advice or instruction of Sanhedrin 72 that when someone signals that he is going to kill us we may take preemptive action and kill him first. During times of peace, however, it is not permissible to kill such people. We know this because even the seven Canaanite nations concerning whom the Torah demanded that we exterminate males, females and children (Deut. 20,16) unless they vacate the land of Canaan, were given an offer to emigrate before the Jewish people went to war against them.     On the other hand, when the hostility of such nations or individuals is directed against G’d Himself, such as the hostility of the Egyptians, it is permitted to kill such people even in times of peace (with the Jewish people) as this is considered a holy war, a war on behalf of G’d. Once the Egyptians had observed the killing of the firstborn, a punishment performed by G’d personally, not by agents of His who operate within nature all the time, their intent in pursuing the Jewish people was clearly directed against G’d. This is what prompted G’d to say to Moses (14,14): “G’d will fight on your behalf, you just remain silent.” G’d had become  obligated to drown those people.
     ושלישים על כלו, “with captains on all of them.” As per Onkelos, i.e. skilled warriors on each chariot. An alternative meaning could be that Pharaoh divided his army into three groups; this would account for the fact that we read about three separate parts of Pharaoh’s army drowning. The Torah mentions separately: “all the army of Pharaoh who had entered the Sea behind the Israelites” (14,28); in 15,4 the Torah speaks of the chariots being drowned in the Sea; in 15,19 the Torah adds that Pharaoh’s horse and its riders with its chariots had entered the Sea, etc.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ופרעה הקריב, “and Pharaoh had approached.”  The unusual, transitive form of the verb instead of the intransitive קרב, tells us that Pharaoh had “sacrificed himself” (compare Rashi).     A Midrashic approach (Mechilta Beshalach 2) The word הקריב means that he became the architect of his own destruction because he offered a sacrifice to Baal Tzefon when he saw the Israelites encamped in front of that idol and he believed that the idol’s power had prevented the Israelites from continuing their flight. An alternative explanation: the intransitive form הקריב, “brought close,” means that Pharaoh’s conduct brought Israel closer to G’d, i.e. made them repent so that they would be worthy of being saved. This is in line with what the Talmud Sanhedrin 97 said about Haman, i.e. that G’d orchestrated the threat of an anti-Semite such as Haman in order to cause the Jews of his time to return to Him in penitence. This latter comment explains why the Torah continues with
     'וישאו בני ישראל את עיניהם...ויצעקו בני ישראל אל ה', “the Children of Israel raised their eyes....and they cried out to Hashem.” The Torah tells us that they fell back on a tried remedy, i.e. prayer,  which had helped their forefathers in times of distress. We know that Avraham prayed from Genesis 19,27 where the Torah describes him as rising early in the morning “to the place, etc.” The words “to the place” are a euphemism for someone directing his prayer to G’d. We find similarly that Yitzchak was praying in Genesis 24,43 where the Torah describes him as coming from a שיחה, i.e. a prayer-session. We find that the Torah describes Yaakov as having prayed at the place where he had the dream of the ladder (Genesis 8,11). The reason the Jewish people have been compared to a worm (Isaiah 41,14 “do not fear worm Yaakov, etc.”) is that just as a worm has no strength of its own other than that of its mouth with which it is able to defeat the mighty cedars, so the strength of the Jewish people is their mouth, i.e. the power of their prayers. Prayer is something soft which has the power to break something hard. The Gentiles have been compared to cedars as we know from Ezekiel 31,3: “here Assyria used to be a cedar in Lebanon,” etc., etc. In verse 12 the prophet describes how this magnificent tree was cut down.”  Psalms 29,8  also describes the forests being stripped bare (by the worms). Israel’s victories are due to prayer and Torah. We base this on Deut. 4,29: “when you will seek out the Lord your G’d from there (your state of distress) you will find Him.” We have a similar message in Psalms 20,8: “they (call) on chariots, they (call) on horses, but we call on the name of the Lord our G’d.” 
     והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, “and behold Egypt was traveling behind them.” According to the rules of grammar we would have expected a plural form here, i.e. נוסעים. According to the plain meaning the use by the Torah of the singular נוסע is meant to describe that all the Egyptians were united in this hostile pursuit of the Israelites.
     According to a Midrashic approach the use of the word נוסע indicates that the Israelites became aware of the guardian angel of Egypt pursuing them from his celestial domain and that he was about to assist the terrestrial Egyptians. The name of this celestial representative of Egypt was עזא. I have found this name in a Midrash called VaYosha: “Azza is the name of the guardian angel of Egypt.”
  
  Verse 11
  
   המבלי אין קברים במצרים , “are there perhaps not sufficient graves in Egypt?” Nachmanides wonders aloud how it is possible that people who raise their hands and voices in prayer to G’d for help could at one and the same time become guilty of such sarcastic comments as the ones attributed to them here by the Torah? Moreover, how could they say at the same time: “it is better for us to have to serve the Egyptians in  Egypt than to die in the desert?” In view of his formidable question our sages’ statement (Mechilta section 2) that at that time there were four groups of Israelites each of whom responded differently to their dilemma is proven correct. Group number one engaged in prayer. This group is referred to in our text as בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel  cried out in prayer to Hashem.” These were the elite of the people. They had been described as “raising their eyes...and crying out to G’d.” The second group denied that Moses was indeed G’d’s prophet and did not choose to pray for salvation. Concerning this group the psalmist wrote (Psalms 106,7) “they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.”
      A different wording of this event is presented by the same section of the Mechilta on the words (verse 13 התיצבו, “stand firm”). There were four groups. The first group preferred death to captivity or death at the hands of the Egyptians. They wanted to drown themselves in the sea. This was the group to whom Moses said: “stand firm! Behold the salvation which will emanate from Hashem!” This was the group about which the psalmist had said that they rebelled. The second group wanted to return to Egypt. Concerning this group the Torah (Moses) gave the assurance that the Israelites would never again see the Egyptians pose a threat to them as they did at that moment (verse 13). The third group wanted to join battle with the Egyptians. Moses told them not to bother, that “Hashem will fight on your behalf.” The fourth group were those who relied on praying to G’d as we read: “The Children of Israel cried out (prayed) to Hashem.” Moses told them to be silent (verse 14).    Onkelos translates the word ויצעקו as וזעיקו, that their outcry was one of accusation. [We find in Mechilta that these people complained that not only did they already mourn the 80% of their brethren who had died during the plague of darkness, but now even they were threatened; this is why they said it would have been better for them to have remained in Egypt in the first place. Ed]. We have the expression זעקה in that sense in Samuel II 13,19 when Tamar yelled after having been raped by her half-brother Amnon. The expression ויזעק also occurs in Judges 4,10 when it describes Barak as issuing a call for mobilisation of several tribes. We also find the expression in Nechemyah 9,9 “You heard their outcry at the Sea of Reeds.” Our sages understood it as an expression of prayer as I explained already.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ה' ילחם לכם, “Hashem will fight on your behalf!”  It is known in kabbalistic circles that the attribute of Justice fights wars and dries out the sea. Why then did Moses mention the attribute Hashem in this verse? It was to teach that even in the execution of this great miracle the attribute of Hashem was also involved. At first glance it appears as if the attribute of Justice was stretched out over the Egyptians from one end of the sky to the other (figuratively speaking) and was bent on their total destruction as we know from verse 28 that “not one of them survived.” Nonetheless we find an involvement of the attribute of Mercy such as the fact that these people were interred (compare 15,12 תבלעמו ארץ), i.e. that the earth covered their remains. They did not simply disintegrate as did the people who died during the deluge.” Whenever the Torah speaks of G’d’s “right hand,” such as in Exodus 15,6 this is a reference to the attribute of Mercy. What was true in the past will also hold true in the future after the final war of Gog and Magog of which we are told that “G’d goes out and battles all these nations assembled against the Jewish people” (compare Zecharyah 14,3). No doubt that verse speaks of the attribute of Justice. In spite of this, we find  even there an involvement of the attribute of Mercy as the prophet describes in detail the interment of the remains of the fallen Gentiles in that war (Ezekiel 39,11). “It will be on that day that I (Hashem) shall assign to Gog a burial, etc. etc.”
      The Midrashic approach on the words: “G’d will fight on your behalf, you be silent,” is: seeing that although G’d personally killed all the Egyptians’ firstborn they still pursue you, it is clear that they mean to attack Me, not you. Hence I will fight them, not you. It is not your battle at all.   ואתם תחרישו, and you must remain silent so that the attribute of Justice will not unload itself upon you, seeing you have been just as sinful as they, having worshipped idols, etc.
  
  Verse 15
  
    מה תצעק אלי, “why are you crying out to Me?” According to the plain meaning of these words the word אלי means that the matter does not depend on G’d at all but on Israel.   דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו, “speak firmly to the Children of Israel and they will march forward.” G’d hinted that as soon as the Israelites would move forward the sea would part for them to let them through. They only needed to demonstrate a little faith by moving forward.
     A kabbalistic approach: The word אלי in this verse is equivalent to the word לי which we find in connection with Terumah, the gift intended for G’d, i.e. the donations for the Tabernacle. We read in the ספר הבהיר of Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah (item 103 edition of Margulies) that the words ויקחו לי תרומה should be understood as ויקחו ל-י תרומה, “they are to take a gift intended for the י.” The idea is that every prayer must be addressed exclusively to the י, to Hashem. It is in this sense that G’d said to Moses: ”speak to the Children of Israel ויסעו they are to journey from below to above and the sea will part as a result.” They were to call on their reserves of faith and elevate themselves to the level י. Whereas the address for their attention was G’d in His capacity as the attribute of Mercy, the attribute they wanted Him to activate was His attribute of Justice. Moses did as G’d said and informed them of the great miracle which was about to occur whereupon the Israelites started marching forward.    In Sotah 37 we are told that the tribe of Yehudah sanctified the name of the Lord by being the first one to enter the sea. Midrash Tehillim 114 on the words היתה יהודה לקדשו, “Yehudah became His holy one,” deduces this from these words of the psalmist. This is also what is meant by the words: “the sea saw and fled” (Psalms 114,3). What did the sea see? It observed Nachshon ben Aminadav, the prince of the tribe of Yehudah, enter it, followed by the other tribes who drew encouragement from Nachshon’s behaviour. In fact, they now each wanted to be first to wade through the bed of the sea. According to Psalms 68,28: “there is little Binyamin who rules them.” The word רדם in this verse which means “rules them,” should be  read as two words, i.e. רד ים, “descended into the sea.” According to that tradition the brother tribes Yehudah, Naftali, and Zevulun stoned the Binyaminites for having arrogated to themselves the right to be the first ones to enter the sea. This is based on Psalms 68,28 where the Midrash understands the word רגמתם, as “they stoned them.” The Midrash claims that the reason that the prince of Yehudah was called נחשון, was in recognition of his pre-empting the other Israelites in descending into the sea, i.e. he was a נחשול, “a gale smiting the sea.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ואתה הרם את מטך ונטה את ידך, “as for you, raise your staff and incline your hand.” We must not understand this verse as an instruction to Moses to raise his staff above the sea. After all, the Torah does not report Moses as raising his staff over the sea. He only raised his hand over the sea (verse 21). The meaning of the words “raise your staff” is that Moses was to divest himself of the staff. You find confirmation of this in Shemot Rabbah 21,9 where the Midrash quotes the Egyptians as saying that Moses’ entire strength lay in his staff, that he was unable to do anything without it. There were also some Israelites who did not believe that Moses would be able to perform such a miracle without the aid of his staff. G’d therefore told him to get rid of the staff and to perform the miracle with his hand. This is why we read subsequently that the people had faith in G’d and His servant Moses, seeing that he had been able to perform such a miracle merely with his hand (verse 31). Whereas previously the Torah had stated that the people did have faith in Moses (4,31), this faith had been shaken in the interval. It was therefore necessary for the Torah to write in connection with the splitting of the Sea  that their faith in Moses had been completely restored.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
    ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה, “and one did not come close to the other all night long.” The Israelites had begun their descent into the sea during the night. When the Torah (verse 19) had reported that the angel of G’d had moved from before the people to behind the people, this was at the beginning of the night. The meaning of all this is that the attribute of Justice described there as מלאך האלו-הים as well as in some other instances in the Bible, is not described as מלאך אלו-הים, but as מלאך האלו-הים.   Nachmanides says that it is possible that the word מלאך in this case is not a possessive but an explanation. In other words, the Torah explains that the agent (angel) mentioned now moved to the rear of the Jewish people in a pillar of fire so that in addition to the pillar of fire now at their rear the pillar of cloud which used to be in front during the day also moved to the rear at this time so that two pillars separated the Egyptians from the Israelites. When the morning watch commenced the Egyptians became victims of G’d’s judgment. The word אשמורת הבוקר is an allusion to this. Onkelos translates this word as והוה במטרת צפרא, an allusion to the agent Mattatron who has been entrusted by G’d to run the universe along the lines of natural laws.
      The order of the various forces was as follows: 1) The camp of Israel was in front; 2) behind it and close to them the pillar of fire. 3) behind the pillar of fire was the pillar of cloud. 4) behind the pillar of cloud came the camp of the Egyptians. This means that two separate columns divided the Israelites from the Egyptians. The words ויהי הענן והחשך mean that the Israelites had light as the pillar of fire which was positioned immediately behind them provided light for them, i.e. ויאר את הלילה, it lit up the night; the Egyptians did not benefit from this light as the pillar of cloud was positioned between them and the pillar of fire. The words “they did not approach one another” mean that they could not approach one another due to the two columns (pillars) separating the two camps from one another. 
  Nonetheless, the Egyptians could see the Israelites as they saw the pillar of fire through the pillar of cloud. When one sits in the dark one can see light even if the light is distant. Israel, however, could not see the Egyptians  as people bathed in light cannot see those who sit surrounded by darkness. It was therefore most important for the pillar of fire  which normally had traveled in front of the Israelites to have taken up a position behind them. Had it continued to be in front of them and to light up the way for them like on the preceding nights the Israelites would have been invisible to the Egyptians and they therefore would not have followed them.
      A Midrashic view of the words: “they did not approach each other all night long,” i.e. “the celestial beings did not engage in song.” In chapter 42 of Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer we find the comment: “do not read as if it said ולא קרא זה אל זה  but  ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה, a play on words such as וקרא זה אל זה ואמר קדוש, “each one called to the other saying: “holy, holy holy.”
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויבקעו המים, “the waters were split.”  The meaning is “the waters remained split after separating.” The splitting of the waters occurred first, followed by the strong easterly wind which was designed to get rid of the wetness of the bed of the sea enabling it to become dry land, חרבה. This process was parallel to the one described in 16,20: “it became worm-eaten and stank.” The meaning there is also that after it (the manna) had begun to stink, worms began to eat from the foul-smelling mass.
      A Midrashic approach based on Mechilta: the words “the waters split” (instead of the sea split) mean that the waters throughout the universe split at that time. The reason we must understand the words in that way is because had it been a local phenomenon only the Torah should have written ויבקעו מימיו, “its waters split.”   There is another dimension to the splitting of the sea which will make you understand that it was essential that all the water in the world be split at that time and that a total change in the behaviour of natural law occur at that time. Our sages (Avot 5,3) have accepted as axiomatic that at the time when this miracle occurred there occurred altogether ten miracles simultaneously. All of these miracles may be derived from the wording of this paragraph. 1) The first one is that the waters were split (into a number of fissures, separate paths) as is evident from the simple reading of the text. 2) after the waters were split they became like a “hat,” like the shape of a roof stretched out from the top, with normal water to the left and to the right. The path was in the center. This is the meaning of the words והמים להם חומה מימינם ומשמאלם, “and the waters were a wall for them to their right and to their left.” 3) the ground under the sea did not remain like the river bed of rivers which run dry in the summer, etc. i.e. muddy, but turned into solid dry ground. This is why the Torah wrote: “they walked on dry land” (verse 29). 4) the path traveled by the Egyptians had remained wet, like mud, loam. This is what is meant by “they were mired in the Sea of Reeds” (15,4). The word טביעה is always a reference to someone sinking into mud. We have another example of this in Psalms 69,3: טבעתי ביון מצולה ואין מעמד, “I am sinking in the slimy deep and find no foothold.” Jeremiah 38,6 means the same thing. This disaster which struck the Egyptians was a great miracle and this is why it is considered one of the ten miracles which were performed for the Israelites at the sea. Chabakuk 3,15 describes graphically how G’d performed this miracle saying: “You will make Your steeds tread the sea, stirring the mighty waters.” 5) the fifth miracle was the fact that all these waters froze (solidified). This is the meaning of the words “the deep froze (congealed)” (15,8). The word is taken from Job 10,10 וכגבינה תקפיאני, “You congealed me like cheese.” The water became hard as stone. This is spelled out in 15,5: “they went down into the depths like a stone. The Torah means that just as the depths are hard as stones so the waters became hard as stone. This causes one to break one’s head on impact as mentioned by David in Psalms 74,13: “who smashed the head of the monsters in the water.” Unless the water had become hard as stone this is hard to understand. 6) the waters did not solidify into one giant chunk such as an iceberg, but into many smaller blocks. This is the meaning of the wordsנצבו כמו נד , “they stood arranged like a wall” (15,8). The waters were arranged like blocks of stone one upon the other forming a wall. David explained the term in greater detail when he said (Psalms 74,13) “it was You who smashed into pieces the sea with Your might.” 7) the sea parted into 12 parts to provide 12 lanes, one each for the tribes. This is based on the word זה in זה אל-י ואנוהו “this is my Lord and I wish to exalt Him.” The numerical value of the word זה=12 (15,2). David also speaks of G’d having divided the sea into numerous sections (Psalms 136,10). 8) “the waters even when congealed remained transparent like glass,” so that the “bricks” we just mentioned were like clear bricks so that members of one tribe could see the members of the next tribe in the adjoining lane. This is the meaning of the words קפאו תהומות בלב ים, “the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea” (15,8). The word appears also in Zecharyah 14,6 where it appears to mean “freezing time,” neither cold nor sunshine, a suspension of normal changes from night to day. [The author understands it also there as relating to the transparency of  ice. Ed.] 9) G’d extracted sweet waters for drinking by the Israelites from the salty sea water. This is the meaning of the word נוזלים, (15,8) where Moses describes this sweet water as dripping forth from the blocks of frozen sea-water. The expression נוזלים occurs in Song of Songs 4,15 as an attribute of מים חיים, pure spring-water gushing forth from the mountains of Lebanon. 10) This sweet water froze again as soon as the Israelites had made use of it for their needs. This explains the peculiar sequence in 15,8: “straight as a wall stood the running water, the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea.” The verse tells us that something which had been dripping, running, subsequently froze in the middle of the sea. This concludes the list of the ten miracles G’d performed at the Sea.
      You should realize that the three verses (14,19-21) each consist of 72 letters amounting to a total of 216 letters. Each of these verses therefore is an allusion to the great 72-lettered name of G’d. The 72-lettered name of G’d represents the fourth attribute (emanation) of חסד, “loving kindness.” 
  When you arrange the three verses instead of sequentially, above one another, the second one in reverse order, each vertical column will give you a three-lettered name of G’d. Examples: when you place the word ויסע (verse 19) above the word הלילה in the second verse but above the word ויט in verse 21, then the vertical reading from the top down of the first letter will be והו. The second name would be ילי. The 37th such acrostic spells אני (compare Rashi on Sukkah 45A).  Each unit of three letters is a name of G’d. The middle row, i.e. verse 20 which would be arranged backwards instead of forwards, represents the attribute (emanation) גבורה, whereas verse 21 which is arranged from right to left again represents the attribute (emanation) תפארת. Each unit of three letters which is a name of G’d, together forms the 72-lettered name of G’d when you put them end to end in the order I just described. The number three, which appears in 72 such names of G’d, is representative of the three “celestial patriarchs,” a concept parallel to the three terrestrial patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov.
  Although the Torah does not spell out either in the command or in the report of the crossing that the sea which the Israelites crossed was the Sea of Reeds, it is clear from Moses’ song of thanksgiving (15,,4) that if the Egyptians drowned in that sea this must have been the sea that the Israelites crossed. Furthermore, we read immediately afterwards that Moses made the Israelites journey from the “Sea of Reeds” (15,22). This sea is called ים האחרון by G’d when He showed Moses the territory of the land of Israel in Deut. 34,2. The reason it is so called [i.e. the word סוף which also means “end”, i.e. אחרון= “last, final” Ed.] is that it is the furthest boundary of the land of Israel. David also refers to it by the name ים סוף in Psalms 106,9: “He sent His blast against ים סוף, it became dry.” However, there is also an attribute of G’d which is known as ים, as David mentions elsewhere in verse 7 of that Psalm. It appears that he meant that this attribute called ים was invoked by G’d in order to make the Israelites able to cross the ים. When we understand the word ים as having two meanings, then we can also understand Psalms 106 7 וימרו על-ים בים-סוף,  as “they rebelled against the attribute of G’d called ים at the Sea of Reeds.” [According to the Zohar, the word סוף ים is a name for the “highest, the most distant  sea,” a spiritual concept.] (The author does not mention the word Zohar, as it was not at his disposal. Ed.)
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ויבאו בני ישראל בתוך הים ביבשה, ”the Children of Israel came into the sea when it was dry land.” The plain meaning of these words is that the place which had previously been sea was now dry land.
      A Midrashic view: (Shemot Rabbah 21,10) “if they came into the sea, why does the Torah write: “they came unto dry land?” If they came unto dry land why does the Torah call it “sea?” The verse teaches that the sea was not split for them until they had set foot in it while it was still sea up to the level of the nostrils (to demonstrate their faith). Immediately after they had done this the sea was converted to dry land. Rabbi Nehorai said: “a Jewish mother holding her son by her hand would wade into the sea while her son was crying. His mother took an apple or pomegranate out of the sea and gave it to her son to stop him crying. He based himself on Psalms 106,9: “He led them through the deep as through a wilderness.” The reason the psalmist draws this comparison with the desert is to tell you that just as the Israelites were not short of anything while G’d led them through the desert, they were not short of anything when He led them through the sea. This is confirmed by Deut. 2,7: “for forty years  your G’d was with you; you did not lack a thing.” Just as they lacked nothing there, they lacked nothing in the depths of the sea.
     והמים להם חומה מימינם ומשמאלם, “and the waters were a wall for them to their right and to their left.” This proves that the path was in the centre seeing there was water on both sides as well as above them 
      A Midrash understands the word והמים as a reference to Torah which has also been compared to water. The meaning would be that because of the Torah which the Israelites were about to receive and which they would be eager to receive, this Torah now acted as a shield for them to their right and to their left. At the same time, this Torah would be an instrument of destruction for the Egyptians. This is the reason the word חומה, “wall,” is spelled defective, i.e. without the letter ו is so that it can be read חמה, “anger.” What proved a protective wall for the Israelites represented a few hours later G’d’s anger and the death of the Egyptians. The words מימינם ומשמאלם may also be understood as references to the merit of Torah and phylacteries respectively. The Torah is described as “the right side of G’d,” i.e. מימינו אש דת למו, (Deut. 33, 2). The phylacteries which are worn on our left arm  provide the merit thanks to which the waters formed a wall on the left of the Israelites.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויסר את אופן מרכבותיו, “He (G’d) removed the wheels of their chariots.” According to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that G’d looked down upon the Egyptians through the pillar of fire, the heat of that fire burned every wooden part of the Egyptians’ chariots. As a result they lost all their effectiveness. 
   A scientific approach: “the word אופן is the same as גלגל, “wheel.” We find in Ezekiel 10,13 that the אופנים are equated with גלגלים. In that context neither אופן or גלגל is a physical wheel; it is a reference to celestial forces which cause the orbits of planets, etc., i.e. “the wheels which make the universe go round.” G’d removed one of such “wheels” [hence the singular, Ed] so that the Egyptians were stymied.    Targum Yonathan ben Uziel on Ezekiel 1,15  translates the word אופן in  והנה אופן אחד בארץ, as “גלגלא,” wheel. The author quotes additional verses on the word אופן. The point that he makes is it that just as we have a rule (Shemot Rabbah 21,5) that G’d does not punish a nation here on earth until He has first dealt with its celestial representative, so here too, the physical chariots did not disintegrate until after G’d had dealt a blow to their celestial counterparts. Hence the Torah used the word אופן to describe His interference with the Egyptians’ celestial assistants. Immediately afterwards the wheels of their chariots on the terrestrial plane moved only “with extreme sluggishness.“ According to the Midrash the specific planet, i.e. its orbit, was the planet Mars under whose auspices wars are fought. The word אופן is spelled defective with the letter ו missing so that we have the word אפן. The numerical value of the three letters of אפן equals 131, i.e. the same as סמא'ל, Satan, the angel of death. In other words, removal of the letter ו from the Egyptians’ chariots spelled death for them. You will observe that the forces represented by the chariots, both terrestrial and celestial, are already alluded to in their respective names.   This is important so that we should not confuse the issue by thinking that the Egyptians’ mazzal, horoscope, had decreed this death upon them at that time. The Egyptians mazzal, i.e. the name of the celestial representative of Egypt is עזא as we have explained on a previous occasion (end of verse 10) when we discussed who was journeying in the lead behind the Israelites. There is a play on words there as the guardian angel or “celestial representative” of a nation is named similarly to the nation it represents as we know from Genesis 12,6 “והכנעני אז בארץ;” compare what we wrote there.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   לפנות בוקר לאיתנו, “towards morning, to its original state.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word לאיתנו, means “to its original power.” The word appears in a similar sense in Numbers 24,21 where it means  “a strong dwelling.” 
      A Midrashic approach (Mechilta): the word לאיתנו means the same as לתנאו, “to its (contractual) condition.” Genesis 1,9 where the Torah writes ותראה היבשה, “so that the dry land shall become visible,” hints at the same thing, i.e. the dry land shall become visible in the water. [It would appear that when the universe was described prior to the earth becoming visible as והארץ היתה תהו ובהו at the very beginning of Genesis, this was a temporary condition which was reversed on the third day. Ed.]
      According to another Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5,4) G’d had made an agreement with the water at the time of creation  that it would submit to being split when the Israelites would need to cross it on foot. This tradition is based on Isaiah 45,12: “it was I Who made the earth... My own hands stretched out the heavens and commanded their host. As soon as the heavens had been stretched across the firmament and all their hosts, I commanded the sea to split on account of the Israelites. I commanded sun and moon to obey Joshua’s command (Joshua 10,12) to temporarily arrest their orbits, etc. I commanded heaven and earth to remain silent when Moses would begin his speech in Deut. 32,1 and I commanded the ravens to carry bread and meat to the prophet Elijah (Kings I 17,8). I commanded the fire (heat) not to harm Chanayah, Mishael, and Azaryah (Daniel 3,27). I ordered the lions not to harm Daniel (Daniel 6,23). I ordered the whale to spit out Jonah (Jonah 2,11).” Thus far the Midrash. This Midrash is at pains to prove that all the miracles which interfere with the normal functioning of the universe which have been activated by various prophets or by G’d directly, had been provided for within the framework of the six days of creation during which G’d established the laws of nature. There has never been something which could be termed “a new act of creation” after G’d had completed the universe on the eve of the first Sabbath.   This is also the whole point of the Mishnah in Avot 5,6 which tells of the 10 miracles for which G’d laid the basis at dusk on the first Sabbath eve. When the Mishnah speaks about Bileam’s (talking) ass having been created during the last few minutes prior to the commencement of the first Sabbath, this means that at that time G’d had made provision for this miraculous phenomenon to occur when needed. The same applies to the earth swallowing Korach and supporters at Moses’ command (Numbers 16,31). When the sages spoke about the ten miracles having been נבראו, “created” at that time, they meant that the creative power for these phenomena to materialize at one time or another was part of the process of the six days of G’d’s creative activity at that time. in other words: “the miracle itself was part of nature,” though only G’d and His inert creatures involved were aware of it. That which the sages referred to as a תנאי, “a condition” which G’d imposed on such creatures of His as the water, etc., was in fact a condition that such “miracles” would be part of what is טבע, “nature,” according to G’d’s definition of this term. When we speak of something “supernatural” occurring, this is a subjective truth applicable only to the beholder of that phenomenon, not to its Creator. Whenever such miracles occur this does not mean that G’d made a sudden revision in His plans for the world and was forced to adopt measures He had not previously thought of, but that the time had arrived at that moment to activate plans He had made already during the six days of creation.
     ומצרים נסים לקראתו, “and the Egyptians were fleeing towards it.” We would have expected the Torah to write that the Egyptians were fleeing מפניו, “on its account,” or “from it.” However, the meaning of the words is that they were fleeing on account of the sea in order to escape it. The water kept coming at them in spite of their attempts to run away from it. This is what the Torah means when it wrote: ”G’d poured the Egyptians into the sea.” Our sages understood this verse as “He poured them into the sea as one pours meat into a pot.”
  
  Verse 28
  
   הבאים אחריהם בים, “who were coming behind them in the sea.” The rule for writing a Sefer Torah stipulates that six words must be written at the beginning of a page. The easy way to remember these six words is by their respective first letters, הי'ה שמ'ו. The words in question are ב-ראשית, י-הודה (אתה יודוך)-באים (אחריהם) ש-מור ושמעת מ-וצא (שפתיך) ו-אעידה (בם) .ה- It is possible that the reason that just these six words need to be written at the beginning of a page is that they contain an allusion to a renewal of the whole process of creation which the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt represented. G’d was “riding in the highest heaven, בערבות.” The two words formed by the acrostic of the six words we mentioned are taken from Psalms 68,5: שירו לאלו-הים זמרו שמו סלו לרוכב בערבות ביה שמו ועלזו לפניו, “Sing to G’d, chant Hymns in His name; extol Him Who rides the clouds.” It is interesting to observe how the allusion in the letter ה of the acrostic בי''ה ties in with what Moses sang in his song עזי וזמרת יה. This is why he repeated the words מי כמוכה ה' twice. The letter ה in the word ביה in Psalms (68,5) and the extra letter ה at the end of the word כמוכ-ה (15,11) allude to the first and last letter ה in the tetragram respectively. The first one is at the same time the last one in the list of the ten emanations, a reference to the attribute of Justice, referred to in מי כמוכה באלם, i.e. a defective spelling of אלהים in 15,11. Moses referred to the מלאך האלו-הים who had taken up position behind the Israelites. We have discussed this in detail on 14,19. He is referred to here also as הבאים אחריהם בים, meaning that G’d’s salvation of the Israelites at the sea occurred by means of that attribute, that angel.    According to our sages in Menachot 29 the word ב-הבראם in Genesis 2,4 is equivalent to the Torah having written ב-ה בראם, that G’d created the universe with the letter ה of the tetragrammaton. Another explanation is that the re-arrangement of the word בהבראם results in the word באברהם, meaning that the merit of Avraham (in the future) was responsible for G’d creating the world. [Just as the eventual existence of Yaakov was the reason G’d saved Avraham from Nimrod’s furnace (compare Isaiah 29,22) although Yaakov had not yet been born, so G’d found it worthwhile to create the world in order for a human being of Avraham’s caliber to come into existence. Ed.] You will find that in the previously mentioned six words of the Torah which must always be written at the beginning of a page, the second letter in each of the first five of these words when read as an acrostic forms the name אברהם. The sixth word, i.e. ואעידה is used to symbolize the 6 directions in the universe, i.e. north, south, east, west, up, and down. In other words: these six directions came into existence due to the merit of Avraham. The entire concept is a brilliant illustration of the words of the psalmist (Psalms 89,3) עולם חסד יבנה, that the whole universe was founded on the concept of חסד, i.e. Avraham’s outstanding virtue.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה, “Israel saw (experienced) the great hand, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word יד is a euphemism for retribution. We had numerous examples of this, the first one being Exodus 9,3: “here the hand of G’d will be extended against your livestock, etc.”
      According to the Midrash (Mechilta Beshalach 6) the words את היד הגדולה are the source for the sages claiming that while G’d performed 10 plagues in Egypt, He performed 50 plagues by the Sea of Reeds (opinion of Rabbi Yossi Haglili mentioned in Haggadah shel Pessach). Seeing that in connection with the ten plagues we find that the sorcerers acknowledged the “finger” of G’d at work, it stands to reason that when G’d’s hand is mentioned as having become manifest that five times as many plagues must have occurred. 
      A kabbalistic approach to the words את היד הגדולה: this is a reference to the second letter ה in the tetragram. It is the “weak” attribute of Justice which operates on earth and is best known as the emanation מלכות. It orchestrated the splitting of the sea and this is the reason why we recite in our prayers: מלכותך ראו בניך בוקע ים לפני משה זה אלי ענו הודו והמליכו, “Your emanation מלכות Your Children have seen at work as it split the sea in front of Moses; this is my G’d; answer, give thanks and enthrone Him!” This line in our prayers is an allusion to the verse זה א-לי ואנוהו. We are aware that after the Israelites had crossed the sea they sang a song of thanksgiving.    The meaning of the additional adjective הגדולה, “the great one,” when the Torah described G’d’s hand, is that in its capacity of being “great,” i.e. enlarged, it  (the attribute of Justice) draws also on the attribute חסד, i.e. loving kindness, Mercy. This is also the reason that in the context of the שירה, this hand is described as ימינך, “Your right hand.”
      It is important to understand the translation of Onkelos  who renders את היד הגדולה, as ית גבורתא ידא רבתא, seeing that he adds the word גבורתא to his translation. He wanted to illustrate that the attribute of Justice which is part of the hand was what administered the punishment, whereas the attribute of Mercy which was co-opted was not in order to soften the Egyptians’ punishment but in order to save the Israelites.    Nachmanides writes as follows in his commentary on this verse:  According to דרך האמת  we have to conclude that what is known as היד הגדולה was revealed to the Israelites while they were at the sea. This is a reference to the manifestation of G’d’s attribute of Justice at work against Egypt. The expression is not dissimilar to Deut. 4,36: “and on earth He has shown you His great fire.” This is a reference to His right hand which smashed the enemy (15,15,6). At that point this fire was described as G’d’s “arm” of which the prophet wrote (Isaiah 51,9) עורי עורי לבשי עוז זרוע ה’, ”Awake, awake! Put on the strength of Your arm O Lord;” “are not You the One who dried out the sea. Nothing is concealed from You” (verse 10). We have explained the words לבשי עז in our commentary on Genesis 49,24 מידי אביר יעקב.
     וייראו העם ויאמינו, “The people were afraid and they believed.” Fear and Faith are the cornerstones of the entire Torah. Rabbeinu Chananel writes in this connection that faith may be divided into four parts. 1) Faith in the Lord; this is meant when we read in Chronicles II 20,20 (King Yehoshaphat speaking)  “Trust firmly in the Lord your G’d and you will stand firm.” 2) Faith in the prophets. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote here “they believed in G’d and in His servant Moses.” In order to demonstrate this faith in G’d’s prophets we are obligated to obey the prophets’ instructions. 3) one must have faith in the existence of life after death on earth. This is part of the belief in reward and punishment for performance of the commandments of the Torah. David referred to this when he said (Psalms 27,13) “Had I not had the assurance that I would enjoy the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, etc.” 4) The belief in the coming of the Messiah. This too is an important cornerstone of Torah philosophy. This is confirmed in Isaiah 28,16: “Assuredly, thus said the Lord G’d; ‘Behold I will found in Zion, stone by stone, a tower of precious cornerstones exceedingly firm; he who trusts need not fear.” Everybody who has faith will will be credited with many merits. We know this already from Avraham who was the source of all the faithful. G’d credited him for his trust when the Torah wrote (Genesis 15,6) “he had faith in G’d and He (G’d) considered this as an act of righteousness on his part.” Amongst other advantages accruing to the faithful is the promise that they will experience a return to Gan Eden as we have been told by Isaiah 26,2: “open the gates, and let a righteous nation enter; a nation that keps faith.” This is a reference to life in the hereafter. We have a further verse in Chabakuk 2,4: “the just will live by his faith.”     Anyone who does not have faith in these cornerstones of Judaism belongs to the group of people of whom Eliphaz said in Job 15,22: “he is never sure he will come back from the dark; a sword stares him in the face.” Such people will not share in the life in the hereafter nor will they take part in the redemption. We base this on Ezekiel 20,38: “I will remove from you those that rebel and transgress against Me.” It is also written in Psalms 31,24: “the Lord guards the faithful but more than requites him who acts arrogantly.” The meaning is that whereas G’d protects those that have faith, He will punish the faithless because the root of their lack of faith is their arrogance. They will not participate in the life of the future as it is written (Chabakuk 2,4) “the haughtiness  is blown up, not upright; but the righteous will live by his faith.” Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel
      Seeing that faith is the foundation of the whole Torah, our sages have decreed the response אמן on numerous occasions within the prayer service in order for the participants to express their faith in what the reader proclaims. The word אמן is rooted in the expression אמונה, “faith, loyalty.” The word also means that he who says it acknowledges and agrees with the statements concerning which he says אמן. Our sages laid so much stress on this verbal  response that we find a statement in Nazir 15 that “he who answers with the word אמן is greater than he who uttered the words to which אמן is the response.” 
  In order to explain this apparently baffling statement, we must remember that he who answers אמן when he heard the benediction read by the Chazzan in fact acknowledges that the real source of the blessing is G’d, not the Chazzan or priest, and that by saying אמן he validates the Chazzan’z statement. It is similar to sealing a document with a signature. Until it was sealed it lacked legal status. Even if we grant that the Chazzan was the first witness to this document, until it had been countersigned by a second witness it was not valid    Our sages have written at length about the manner in which the word  אמן is to be enunciated. They said that it must not be spoken in clipped tones, not in a hurry, it must not be spoken so that the last letter is not clearly audible but one must take his time over saying that word. They were so concerned with ensuring that we take these rules seriously that they threatened that if someone said the word before having heard the whole benediction (an “orphaned אמן”), that such a person or his children might themselves become orphans. They have similarly threatened heavenly retaliation for other infractions of the rules about the proper enunciation and timing of saying the word אמן. Ben Azzai promised long life to those who make a point of saying the word אמן by taking their time over it (compare Berachot 16 on all this). [The author proceeds to explain some of the defective ways of pronouncing אמן. I decided to omit this. Ed.]
      I have so far explained the word אמן in terms of it being rooted in the word אמונה. Apart from the fact that the word symbolises תפארת and כבוד, there is an additional mystical dimension to this word. It contains within itself a “panorama” of the ten emanations including both the tetragrammaton and its substitute (א-ד-נ-י) seeing it commences with the letter א, which symbolizes the highest of these emanations, i.e. כתר. This emanation is the source  of all the blessings up until the letter מ which symbolises תשובה, repentance, as well as the fact that G’d is מלך העולם the King of the universe. [A king, by definition is masculine. Ed.]The letter ן which adjoins the letter מ alludes to the fact that G’d combines within Himself both the masculine and feminine attributes. The allusion is found in the fact that the letter נ appears sometimes as כפופה, “bent over”, suggesting something feminine, and sometimes upright, at the end of a word, suggesting something masculine. As soon as the path of the blessings (which emanated at the top of the emanations כתר), had  reached the level of  the letter ן and what it represents, it expands to the world of disembodied spirits, after which it descends to our terrestrial universe. Seeing the blessing had commenced its descent from the region represented by the letter א and had continued from there much as the waters from a natural spring continue to flow downwards, irrigating all the areas which are in need of irrigation on their way, so the person responding with the word אמן  has the gates of Gan Eden opened for him. This is the meaning of Isaiah 26,2: “open the gates and let a righteous nation enter, a nation that keeps faith.” The word is spelled אמונים, and the sages suggest that it be read אמנים instead, without the letter ו, i.e. suggesting that those who respond with the word אמן have demonstrated their faith, אמונה. In other words the reward for faith follows in its footsteps (Isaiah 40,10).   The word אמן is an acrostic consisting of the respective first letters of the words אל מלך נאמן, “G’d is a faithful and dependable G’d.”  
  It is noteworthy that the word נאמן contains both types of the letter נ which we mentioned before, i.e. the “bent” one and the “straight” one  (in the words of Rashi on Genesis 21,34 “that the verse did not intend to put the lid on information (conceal it), but on the contrary to reveal information).” The “straight” ן in the word אמן embodies both the masculine and the feminine element seeing that the bent נ represents the feminine element and the upright ן the masculine element, there was room for only one such letter in the acrostic.
   You should also remember that the letter א is called אמן (compare Zohar) as the emanation חכמה is also known as אמון. This is the mystical dimension of Proverbs 8,30 ואהיה אצלו אמון, “I was with him keeping faith.” [The reference is to Torah whose wisdom has been used by G’d in creating the universe. Ed.] חכמה and כתר are in fact inseparable, seeing that this is the domain where blessing originates,  based on Psalms 134,2 שאו ידיכם קודש וברכו את ה', “lift your hands towards the sanctuary and bless the Lord.” The psalmist addresses the חכמה, as קדש. As a result  the statement that he who responds with the word אמן is greater even than the one inviting such a response makes perfect sense.   All this is applicable outside the confines of the Holy Temple. In the Temple itself the formula אמן was not used (Berachot 63). The reason was that within the precincts of the Temple the priests would pronounce the tetragrammaton in accordance with its spelling, not as a כנוי, i.e. as א-ד-נ-י, as was the case outside the holy precincts. Seeing that the first two letters of the tetragrammaton, i.e. the letters י-ה symbolized the source from which the blessing emanates there was no point in adding the word אמן which does so only indirectly, i.e. by means of the letter א which symbolized the כנוי.     When someone consciously repeats the word אמן he will acquire two worlds as indicated by David at the end of Psalm 72 וברוך שם כבודו לעולם וימלא כבודו את כל הארץ אמן ואמן, “Blessed is His glorious name forever; His glory fills the universe, Amen, Amen.” We find the same theme repeated at the end of  Psalm 89 ברוך ה' לעולם אמן ואמן, “Blessed be the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.” Anyone saying אמן in this fashion has truly honoured the Lord. Concerning such people we are told in Samuel I 2,30  (in the name of G’d) “for I honor those who honor Me.”   People who are negligent in saying the word אמן properly and with the proper thoughts are guilty of blaspheming the name of the Lord. Concerning such people G’d said: ובוזי יקלו, (end of the verse quoted from Samuel). According to our tradition such people are consigned to the lowest of the seven sections of gehinom, a section from which there is no escape. That part of gehinom is known as ארץ עיפתה in Job 10,22. [We know of seven different names for gehinom; each one describes a different layer. compare Eruvin 19 and Sotah 10. Ed.]. The author identifies ארץ עיפתה with שאול תחתית (Deut. 32,22), i.e. “the lowest depths” from which there is no return. Apparently, the word שאול is one compartment and תחתית is the name of another such compartment. This must be the meaning of Proverbs 15,11: 'שאול ואבדון נגד ה', “hell and destruction are in front of G’d.” Anyone descending to that level will not ascend again. Concerning people who make light of the saying of אמן, Jeremiah 2,13 said: “they have abandoned Me, the source of living waters.” In other words, by failing to say Amen, or worse, they have deprived themselves of the source of life. Wherein consists their penalty? The prophet continues: “they dig for themselves broken cisterns, cisterns which are unable to hold water.” The repetition by the prophet of the word בארות, cisterns, is an allusion to the twofold penalty these people are going to experience. Whatever G’d does is based on the principle of “measure for measure,” whether it pertains to the handing out of reward or to the decreeing of punishment. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל, “Then Moses and the Children of Israel sang, etc.” The word ישיר is a present tense. Mechilta (Shirah, section two) points out that the Torah did not write שר which would have been the appropriate past tense. The tense used by the Torah here is proof that the resurrection of the dead in the future is a Biblical promise.
      The Mechilta also mentions that the word אז is sometimes used in the future tense and sometimes in the past tense. Examples of the word occurring in the past tense are Genesis 4,26, Exodus 4,26, Numbers 21,17, Joshua 10,12 and others. At the same time there are numerous examples of the word אז referring to future events such as in Isaiah 60,5 אז תראי ונהרת, Isaiah 58,8 אז יבקע כשחר אורך, Isaiah 35,6 אז ידלג כאיל and many others. Moses reasoned that since he had used the word  אזwhen he had criticised G’d’s apparent indifference to Pharaoh’s additional decrees worsening the condition of the Jewish slaves (Exodus 4,10), it was now up to him to make amends by using the same word in exalting Him. The word אז, i.e. 1+7, is an allusion to  the Unique One who reigns supreme above the seven heavens.    According to a Midrash Tanchuma on Genesis 4,26 the Israelites reasoned that seeing that word had been used when G’d punished mankind for the first time collectively when He caused one third of the dry land mass to be inundated in response to the idolatry introduced by the generation of Enosh, it was appropriate to use the same word at a time when G’d’s sovereignty on earth had been demonstrated by means of the water which had been made to retreat even from its own habitat.    The words  משה ובני ישראל לאמור, teach that Moses and the Children of Israel had the good fortune to personally use this formula of exalting G’d, i.e. praising the attribute called זאת לה'. This was like the bride who applauds her husband the King and says: שיר השירים אשר לשלמה.  [This mystical approach is based on the apparent redundancy otherwise of the extra words את השירה הזאת. Ed.] The author promises to deal with this in greater detail in Numbers 21,19.
     ויאמרו לאמור, “they said as follows:” the reason the word אמירה is repeated here is to make it parallel the previous duplication of the word שירה. One look at the entire song will convince you that repeating words is the salient feature of the syntax of this entire song. It is impossible not to notice that either the same words are repeated or that the same meanings are expressed in different verbs and adjectives.   We find something similar in Hallel, i.e. the combination of psalms arranged by our sages to be recited on festivals. Examples are: Psalms 118,5 מן המצר קראתי י-ה ענני במרחב י-ה, all the way till  verse 24. David repeats himself albeit using different words. The few lines in which David did not repeat himself (from verse 21-24) the sages have ordered us to repeat verbatim in order to maintain the rhythm of the whole chapter. The reason these praises of G’d are repeated altogether is to show that when G’d orchestrated this event there were forces within forces at work. Moses praised both the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice which combined to achieve the results which triggered this whole song of thanksgiving. As an example of the truth of this statement simply look at the words אשירה לה' “I will sing to Hashem” (the attribute of Mercy), followed by עזי וזמרת י-ה, “my strength and might is י-ה,” i.e. the attribute of Justice. When Moses adds in verse three ה' שמו, that His name is Hashem;” there is no dichotomy. Even though on occasion it appears as if two different powers are at work this is not so. Two forces, both part of the same power, are at work. This theme of alternating references to the attribute of Justice on the one hand and the attribute of Mercy on the other recurs again and again such as in verse six  where the word ימינך refers to the attribute of Justice whereas the words מי כמוכה באלם ה' are clearly addressed to the attribute of Mercy. In verse seventeen the words עד יעבור עמך ה' are clearly addressed to the attribute of Mercy, i.e. Hashem, whereas the words מקדש  א-ד-י-נ clearly speak of the attribute of Justice.    Another approach to the words ויאמרו לאמור: “they enunciated every word clearly.” This would be analogous to Exodus 17,4 ויצעק משה  אל ה' לאמור, “Moses cried out to G‘d saying, etc.” What need was there for the word לאמור, seeing surely Moses did not mean for G’d to pass along what he said to anyone else? It meant that he formulated his words very precisely. Similarly, here. The Israelites formulated every word precisely. This verse contains the important lesson that when praying we must formulate every word very clearly so as not to leave room for misunderstanding. I have found support for this in Mechilta Shirah, section one, where Rabbi Nechemyah is quoted as saying that the Holy Spirit rested on all the Children of Israel at that time; This enabled them to recite the שירה as if it were the קריאת שמע which every normal person recites by carefully enunciating every word.
      A Midrashic approach: the word ויאמרו refers to infants reciting the שירה. The word לאמור is a reference to the unborn children within the wombs of their mothers. This is in line with Sotah 30 where we are told: “how did the Israelites recite the שירה?” Answer; a slightly older infant while he was lying on his mother’s knees; a still younger infant while he was nursing at his mother’s breast. As soon as the infant lying on his mother’s knees became aware of the presence of the Shechinah he raised his neck, whereas the suckling infant let go of his mother’s nipple and both recited: זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d let me exalt Him.” The Midrash is based on Psalms 8,3 מפי עוללים ויונקים, “from the mouths of infants and sucklings.” Even embryos in the wombs of their mothers said the שירה as we know from Psalms 68,27: “in assemblies bless G’d, the Lord, O you who are the fountain of Israel.” [The words ברכו...ממקור were a call to unborn babies. compare Midrash Tehillim there. Ed.]
     כי גאה גאה, “for He has triumphed gloriously;” seeing that amongst all the animals none is as arrogant in its posture as the horse, and therefore anyone riding it is even more arrogant, the Torah described here that G’d surpasses both horses and rider in His exalted position.
      A Midrashic (ancient Tanchuma manuscript) view: of the two words גאה גאה: there are four creatures which are known for their arrogance; the lion amongst the free-roaming beasts; the ox amongst the domestic beasts, the eagle amongst the birds; man surpasses them all in arrogance. The reason for this is that G’d gave man dominion over all the other creatures in the terrestrial universe when He said (Genesis 1,28) “and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things which move on earth.” What did G’d do? He had likenesses of all these four “arrogant” creatures made as part of His throne as we know from Ezekiel I,10: “Each of them had a human face at the front; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left; each of them had the face of an eagle at the back.“ The reason for this was that G’d had said: “seeing these creatures display arrogance and consider themselves as superior I have to demonstrate My superiority to them.” This is why we read here that the Jewish people acknowledged this when they described G’d as superior to all who deem themselves superior.
      A further comment in Mechilta (Shirah, 2): the words כי גאה גאה are a reminder that anyone who dares act arrogantly in the knowledge that there is a G’d who is superior to him will be punished. A number of examples are listed there. 1) The Egyptians expressed their arrogance by boasting of their unfailing water supply, the river Nile. Hence G’d punished them through water. The generation of the deluge boasted that they did not need rain (a symbol of blessing from heaven) as they depended on the mist rising from the earth (compare Genesis 2,6). As a result of this boast G’d punished them by water (40 days unceasing rain, plus the opening of subterranean sources of water gushing forth, Genesis 7,11). The people of Sodom, etc., boasted of their wealth and the gold and silver they had amassed. They were so arrogant that they legislated against anyone staying in their cities overnight so that they should not have to share their wealth with any traveler. As a result of this insufferable behavior G’d wiped out both them and their belongings. This is the meaning of Job 28,4: “they open up a shaft far from where men live, in places forgotten by wayfarers, destitute of men, far removed.” We also read in Job 12,5: ”in the thought of the complacent; there is contempt for calamity; it is ready for those whose foot slips.”  Ezekiel 16,49 describes the sin of the people of Sodom in the following words: “only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; yet she did not support the poor and the needy.” Pharaoh boasted of the might of his chariots as we read in 13,14: “he took 600 choice chariots.” As a result of his reliance and boast of the invincibility of these chariots, G’d punished him by means of these very chariots as we read in 15,4. Siserah also was proud of his iron chariots (horse-drawn tanks), as reported in Judges 4,13. G’d punished him by means of these chariots as we know from Judges 5,20. Samson who had boasted of getting what was “good in his eyes,” was punished by being deprived of his eyesight (Judges 14,3 and 16,1). He had committed a sin at Azzah by sleeping with a harlot (Judges 16,1). He was taken prisoner at Azzah and humbled (Judges 16,21). Avshalom used to boast of his hair only to be eventually caught by it which led to his violent death (Samuel II 18,9). Sancheriv, King of Assyria used to boast of his chariots  (Isaiah 37,24). In the end G’d sent an angel to destroy his entire military encampment (Kings II 19,35). Nebuchadnezzar had also boasted saying that he would ascend to the clouds and match the Most High (Isaiah 14,14). G’d dealt with him by consigning him to the deepest part of gehinom (Isaiah 14,15). He said to him: “you elevated yourself above mankind, I will separate you from mankind by placing you far below” (Compare Daniel 4,22). The Torah wrote in our verse גאה גאה to teach us this lesson.
     סוס ורוכבו רמה בים, “He flung horse and its rider into the sea.” The Torah describes them all in the singular as in G’d’s eyes they were no more of a challenge to Him than a single horse and rider. We find this thought repeated in Deut. 20,1 where the Torah speaks about Israel going to war against its enemies. The Israelites are not to be afraid of the enemy’s cavalry any more than they would be of a single horse and its rider. 
   The expression סוס ורוכבו, “horse and its rider,” describes the inseparable relationship between the warrior and his steed. Keeping this in mind, Moses said of G’d: רמה בים, “He flung them upwards into the sea,” to portray that their making war had been an act of rebellion against G’d who is high up in heaven. This is also why the Torah says: ירה בים, “He poured out into the sea,” (verse 4) to reflect that “what goes up must come down again,” i.e. that the arrogance of the Egyptians was suitably rewarded. Shemot Rabbah, 23,14  quotes the rider as saying to his horse: “yesterday I dragged you towards the river Nile but you did not follow me; now you are dragging me towards the sea?” The horse answered its rider: רמה בים, i.e. ראה מה בים, “I can see the Supreme One (G’d) in the sea.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
   עזי וזמרת י-ה, “G’d’s might and vengeance was my salvation.” When Moses referred to G’d by the term עזי, he paraphrased what is written in Psalms 68,29: צוך אלו-היך עזך, “your G’d has ordained might for you.” The words זמרת י-ה are related to Samuel II 23,1 ונעים זמירות ישראל, “the favorite of the songs of Israel.” This term also occurs in Psalms, 47,7 זמרו לאלו-הים זמרו, “Sing, O sing to G’d; O sing.”   ויהי לי לישועה, “G’d became my salvation.” The reason the redemption from Egypt is always referred to as ישועה, is because it was followed by another exile. The redemption of the future which will not be followed by another exile, will become known as ישועות, (plural). This is why we have David (Psalms 53,7) express his hope for מי יתן מציון ישועות ישראל, “O that the deliverance  of Israel might come from Zion!” On another occasion the final redemption is called תשועת עולמים, in Isaiah 45,17: ישראל נושע בה' תשועת עולמים, “But Israel has won through the Lord triumph everlasting.” In a parallel sense the “song” Moses sang at the Sea of Reeds is known as שירה, “a song (feminine),” whereas the song that will be sung after the final redemption will be known as שיר, “a song (masculine),” reflecting the permanent nature of that redemption; compare Isaiah 26,1 ביום ההוא יושר השיר הזה,”On that day this song which will be sung will be masculine.”
     זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I want to exalt Him.”  According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of ואנוהו is “I wish to build a residence for Him.” This is why Moses continues in verse 13 speaking about נוה קדשך, “Your holy abode.” The Holy Temple has also been called נוה in  Jeremiah 31,22.
      A Midrashic (Mechilta Shirah 3) approach to our verse: The word אנוהו refers to exalting G’d’s name before all the other nations. The point is to get the nations of the world to acknowledge that there is no G’d comparable to the Lord our G’d. Whereas previously such statements had a somewhat hollow ring, at the Sea of Reeds such a statement had been vindicated for all the world to see. Our sages (Mechilta Beshalach 2) also confirmed this when they said that any lowly maid saw visions at the Sea of Reeds which even the prophet Ezekiel had not been granted. The words אלו-הי אבי וארוממנהו mean that “I want to aggrandize the Lord who has already been the G’d of my father.” 
  
  Verse 3
  
    ה' איש מלחמה, “Hashem is a master of war.” Seeing that Moses had told the people earlier that “Hashem will fight on your behalf,” they now confirmed to him: “G’d is a master of war.” In order to prevent someone making the mistake of thinking G’d employs conventional weapons when He carries on warfare, they added ה' שמו, “His name is Hashem.” It suffices for G’d to invoke His name and He does not have to engage in tiring and bothersome activity to prevail over His adversaries. We have a parallel line in Jeremiah 32,18: “O great and mighty G’d whose name is the Lord of Hosts.” When Jeremiah describes G’d as the Creator of the universe in Jeremiah 33,2, he also writes: “the Lord Who is shaping it (the universe) to bring it about, Whose name is “the Lord.” [Just as creating the universe did not entail toil and fatigue, neither will restoration of the Jewish state.]   A different approach: the word ואנוהו may be understood as אני והוא, meaning אדמה לו, “I wish to emulate Him.” The idea is similar to that expressed in Deut. 28,9 והלכת בדרכיו, “and you go in His ways.” Our sages (Shabbat 133) elaborated on this: “just as He displays patience and is long-suffering (man’s errors) so you shall be patient and long-suffering. Just as He clothes the naked so you shall clothe the naked. Just as He buries the dead, so you shall bury the dead.” The point of this Midrash is to demonstrate that just as G’d was involved in our redemption He is also part of our exile experience, suffering alongside with us. Proof that He participated in our exile is provided by the assurance in Genesis  46,4: “I will go down with you to Egypt.” Our sages used this verse to say that the Shechinah was exiled together with the Jewish people (Megillah 29). We also have a verse in Exodus 1,1 that G’d kept His promise when the Torah wrote the extra word את in that verse to show that G’d had gone down to Egypt together with Yaakov and his family. When we read in Exodus 12,37 that “the Israelites journeyed from Raamses, etc., this is followed in 14,19 where the Torah writes that “an angel of G’d traveled with them.” This illustrates that the Shechinah left Egypt together with them. When David wrote in Psalms 60,7 הושיעה ימינך וענני, “deliver with Your right hand and answer me,” this is a clear indication that G’d, i.e. the Shechinah, was itself in need of salvation.   The word ואנוהו, i.e. אני והוא is an allusion to both the Israelites and the Shechinah. They shared the exile experience first and now are ready to celebrate the redemption together also. When Ezekiel 1,1 describes his first experience as a prophet and says ואני בתוך הגולה, “and I was in the midst of exile,” the introductory letter ו is a reference to the Shechinah which shared the exile experience with the Jewish people. When Jeremiah 40,1 speaks of והוא אסור באזקים, “and He is bound in fetters,” the extraneous word והוא is a reference to the Shechinah. 
  Having explained all this to you, you need no longer ask about the formula אני והו הושיעה נא which we recite on Hoshanah Rabbah. Had it not been for the fact that the reference is to the Shechinah which is perceived as being in exile and therefore cannot be addressed in our prayers, the wording ought to have been: אני ואותך הושיעה נא. At the same time, there can be no greater ray of hope concerning our own eventual redemption than the knowledge that the Shechinah shares our fate while we are in exile.    Another reason why the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah both refer to the Shechinah in the third person in the verses we have quoted. Speaking of G’d’s attributes in the third person is a reminder of the relative inaccessibility of G’d  who by definition is beyond our capacity to fully comprehend. However much G’d has revealed Himself both at Mount Sinai and through His Torah, there will always be elements of His essence which will escape our understanding at least while we are alive on this earth. The juxtaposition of the formula אני והוא הושיעה נא instead of אני ואותך הושיעה נא, is designed to remind us that although G’d is wrapped in mystery this does not make Him inaccessible to our prayers and our entreaties. Part of G’d’s mystique is that even the angels do not know His location, as we say in the Shabbat קדושה prayer that they ask each other (and Israel) איה מקום כבודו,  “where is the site of His glory?” This is why we adopted the formula used by Ezekiel 3,12: ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו, “blessed be the glory of Hashem from His place (wherever that may be).” These concepts are best illustrated by the benedictions we recite in our עמידה prayer every day where our sages formulated each one so that it contains both a direct approach to G’d and an indirect approach. At the commencement of each benediction or request we approach G’d directly such  as in שמע קולנו, “listen to our prayer, or in רפאנו ה' ונרפא, “heal us O Lord and we shall truly be cured.” On the other hand, we conclude these benedictions by affirming G’d in the third person instead, i.e. שומע תפלה, “the One who listens to prayer,” or רופא חולי עמו ישראל, “the One who heals the sick of His people Israel.” [The author continues with a list of verses all designed to make the same point. I have omitted same in the interest of brevity. Ed.]
      You may be interested to know that the numerical value of the words אני והו is the same as אנא י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. 78. The word אנא =52, i.e. twice the numerical value of the tetragram, i.e. 26. This would account for the formula אנא הושיעה נא, The words אנא ה' represent the numerical value of the letters in the tetragrammaton three times, (78) suggesting that our appeal to that attribute is addressed to three time frames, the past, the present, and the future. 
  We also have a tradition that these “names” appear as the three-lettered fractions of the 72-lettered name of G’d as arrived at by positioning the words of the three verses (Exodus 14,19-21) in a certain order [as the author discussed there. Ed.]
      A kabbalistic approach to the words זה א-לי ואנוהו. The word זה (as well as the word זאת) is a name of the Shechinah.  Examples are 13,8 בעבור זה עשה לי, “He did it for me on account of זה.” In Genesis 49,28 we read וזאת אשר דבר להם. In Leviticus 26,44 we read: ואף גם זאת בהיותם בארץ אויביהם; these verses demonstrate that the Shechinah is with the Jewish people in all the exiles. This is why we read in Exodus 13.19 that “the angel of G’d journeyed with the Israelites,” as this presence orchestrated the salvation. This is also the meaning of the line in Exodus 23,21 -which is both promise and warning- כי שמי בקרבו, “for it (the angel, i.e. Shechinah) contains My name.” This “name” is  what David referred to in Psalms 114,7 as  אדון חולי ארץ, “the Lord who was present at the beginnings of the earth.” These considerations prompted Moses to mention עזי וזמרת י-ה, referring to G’d by His name י-ה, something totally uncharacteristic of Moses. Even though we do find that after the battle against Amalek Moses did mention that name of G’d (Exodus 17,16) where he spoke of כי יד על כס י-ה, we need to remember that in that context Moses made the point that G’d’s name as י-ה is incomplete just as the word כס for throne is incomplete and should have been כסא. While an Amalek exists in this universe, G’d, i.e. His name and His Kingdom, cannot be complete.    The reason that Moses did mention that name is because it represents the attribute of Justice. This is also why David uses this name in Psalms 130,3 where he says אם עונות תשמור י-ה מי יעמוד, “if she will keep track of sins (the attribute of Justice) who can possibly survive?” The word תשמור in that line is not a masculine second person future, but a feminine third person future, i.e. an indirect reference to the feminine attribute of Justice. In Psalms 118,18 David discusses the same theme when he writes that the attribute י-ה, though it had disciplined him severely, had not delivered him to the angel of death.” Again the name י-ה appears as the attribute of Justice. We find the same in Psalm 94,12.    In Bereshit Rabbah 92,1 the author emphasizes that David does not mention the tetragrammaton when speaking of the afflictions endured by those whom the Lord disciplines, but he rather refers to the source of these afflictions as י-ה. Here too the word תיסרנו should not be understood as “You discipline him,” but as “whom the attribute י-ה disciplines.” We may picture someone as standing in front of a judge who pronounces judgment upon him. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah. 
      I have found in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 118,14 that whereas in this world G’d is exalted only in His capacity as the two-lettered name י-ה, in the world of the future He will be exalted in His capacity as a six-lettered name. This is the meaning of Isaiah 26,14 כי ביה יהוה צור עולמים “that in the eternal life the Rock will be called י-ה י-ה-ו-ה.” I believe that the message of this Midrash is that whereas the present world was created by G’d in His capacity as י-ה, i.e. as the attribute of Justice, the world to come will represent a world created by the attribute of Mercy, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה. Seeing that at that time there will neither be a יצר הרע, an evil urge, nor death, the function of the attribute of Justice will be severely curtailed and the world will be based almost exclusively on the attribute of Mercy.    There is another short passage in Shemot Rabbah 19,6 which may be understood along similar lines. The author, quoting G’d, says: “in the past I and My court used to walk ahead of you as described in Exodus 14,21. In the future, however, I will be walking all by Myself;” as we read in Isaiah 52,12: “for the Lord    (י-ה-ו-ה) is marching before you, the G’d of Israel is your rear guard.” The G’d of Israel is identical with the “G’d of Yaakov.” This is the same attribute.    When Moses spoke both of אלי and of אלו-הי אבי separately, the reference to the אלו-הי אבי was to the G’d of his tribe, the tribe of Levi (seeing that Levi represented the attribute of Justice both when he killed the males of Shechem and when he carried out the execution of the Jews who had worshipped the golden calf).   וארוממנהו, “and I wish to declare Him supreme.” This is a veiled reference to the time when G’d can be called by His full Name as the world will have recognised His full potential in the affairs of man. Moses follows with   ה' איש מלחמה ה' שמו, “eventually G’d’s attribute of Mercy will be permanently in the ascendancy.” The unique nature of G’d consists of the fact that He will link the beginning to the end, the start of a development to its successful completion. He can do this as He is eternal and has foreseen the final outcome already at the beginning of its development. You will find this concept confirmed in the Sefer Yetzirah 1,4: הבן בחכמה וחכם בבינה העמד דבר על בוריו והשב יוצר על מכונו, “[if I understand it correctly. Ed.] when approached with wisdom and understanding it will be seen that though initially man could not decipher how G’d’s plan for the universe was going to work out, eventually it will be demonstrated as having been the logical result of the premises it is built on.”
  
  Verse 4
  
   מרכבות פרעה וחילו, “Pharaoh’s chariots and his army.” The  “chariots of Pharaoh” are the 600 chariots mentioned in 14,7. The word חילו, “his army,” refers to the שלישים who were manning these chariots. In view of this we would have expected the Torah to have written the following sequence: “He flung into the sea the chariots of Pharaoh and his army whereas his choicest captains drowned in it.” It is possible that the correct interpretation of the verse is: “seeing that the fate of Pharaoh’s chariots had already been determined in the celestial tribunal, they and their captains were bound to drown in the sea.”    Mechilta Beshalach 4 comments on our verse as follows: man is measured by the same yardstick he himself had applied to others. Seeing that Pharaoh had decreed that every Jewish male baby be thrown into the sea, his own chariots and his army were flung into the sea. He had instructed the midwives to look at the birthstool (Exodus 1,16) prior to male babies being born alive; in retaliation many of his soldiers went down in the sea like a stone (אבן).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  'ימינך ה', Your right hand O Lord, etc.” It is an accepted rule that every one of G’d’s attributes contains within it an element of its opposing attribute. As a result the attribute of Justice is “clothed” in the attribute of Mercy. This idea appears to be expressed by the words נאדרי בכח “is glorified by strength.” The word is derived from אדרת, “mantle, cover,” the power of the mercy contained in that mantle over the attribute of Justice was responsible for the Israelites escaping the fate of the Egyptians. The latter were drowned by the essence of the attribute of Justice whereas the Israelites were saved by its periphery, the mantle of Mercy. Some Midrashim (Tehillim 18) phrased it thus: The word “Your right hand smashed the enemy,” suggests that G’d’s other hand saved the Israelites.
  
  Verse 7
  
  . תהרוס קמיך, “You destroy Your opponents.” The reason Moses employed the word הריסה, a word applicable to the destruction of buildings, may have been to demonstrate that whereas the Egyptians had forced the Israelites to build, G’d now tore down the very people for whom these buildings had been constructed. This would be another illustration of “measure  for measure.” This is precisely what impressed Yitro when he said (Exodus 18,11) “by the very matter with which they had sinned.” Gentiles were impressed by how G’d made the punishment fit the crime. Moses said קמיך instead of קמינו, “those who oppose You,” instead of “those who oppose us.” Moses thereby equated people who attack Israel with an attack against G’d Himself i.e. the Shechinah which protects Israel. David followed in Moses’ footsteps when he said (Psalms 83,3) “for Your enemies rage, Your foes assert themselves.” People who attack G’d’s people by definition attack G’d .
  
  Verse 8
  
   נערמו מים, “the waters piled up in a heap.” The plain meaning corresponds to the translation by Onkelos חכימו מיא, “that the waters acted intelligently.” The waters are given credit for arranging themselves in a tall column in order to permit the liberated Israelites to find a path through them and to pour the Egyptians into them immediately after the Israelites had completed crossing when they would again resume their original shape, etc.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the word נערמו is similar to the pile of ashes which formed a huge pile on the altar from the burned parts of the sacrifices, a pile which would be cleaned off regularly (compare Numbers 4,13). This would mean exactly the reverse of displaying intelligence as Onkelos understood it. In fact, it would mean that due to the waters’ whole orderly behaviour having been upset, it appeared unable to act in any kind of orderly manner. This was the result of the input from the attribute of Mercy having ceased to reach the waters due to the prevalence of the attribute of Justice at that time. The very words נערמו מים instead of נערמו מי המים are an allusion to the confused state the waters were in. Had they acted intelligently the Torah would have described their behaviour as that of the מי המים, “the waters of the body of water,” or “the waters of the sea.” 
      You should also appreciate that the very word מים is an allusion to the attribute of Mercy. The reason that the waters split, i.e. lost their cohesion, was that they failed to receive the input from the very attribute that enabled them to act as a constructive force. The celestial agent responsible for  water (שרו של מים) is one of the disembodied forces as we can prove from the Jerusalem Targum which translates the words קפאו תהומות בלב ים, as בגו פלגס דימא רבא, “they froze inside the high seas of the great ocean [“great ocean” is presumably a reference to this celestial agent in charge of the waters. Ed.].
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   מי כמכה באלים ה' מי כמכה נאדר בקדש, “Who is like You amongst the heavenly powers, who is like You majestic in holiness!” The additional letter ה both times at the end of the word כמך is an allusion to the attribute of Justice; the first one refers to the “weaker” attribute of Justice, this is why the letter כ at the beginning is weak,” i.e. without dagesh. This attribute is merely a conduit having received its input from the “strong” attribute of Justice. This is why the second word כמכה is spelled with the dagesh in the first letter as it describes the original attribute of Justice, not its delegate. It originates in the region Moses described as קדש.
    נורא תהלות, “awesome in splendour.” All G’d’s creatures are afraid to proclaim His praises as they are afraid to do so inadequately. David echoed this sentiment in Psalms 65,2 when he said  לך דומיה תהלה, “vis-a-vis You o G’d silence is the essence of praise.” This is so because who can be arrogant enough to presume to praise the Lord adequately?    Praise may be offered in one of three ways. 1) Excessive praise. Exaggeration demeans. 2) adequate praise. 3) inadequate praise; this reveals lack of perception by the one who offers the praise.  When applied to G’d, the first two ways amount to a lie when applied to someone praising the Lord. This leaves only the third possibility of praising the Lord inadequately. Seeing this is so David explains that silence is best. We have a similar though differently worded statement by David in 106,2: “who can tell the mighty acts of the Lord?” A third statement in Scripture making a similar point is found in Nechemyah 9,5: “exalted though it is (His glorious name) beyond every blessing and praise.” Jerusalem Talmud Berachot at the beginning of chapter 9 writes לך דומיה תהלה סמא דכולא משתוקא, “as to You, silence is praise, seeing that in the final analysis there is only silence.” Just as if one praises the beauty of an exquisite pearl one invariably fails to do justice to its beauty, so when attempting to praise the Lord one invariably will fall short of one’s objective.
      Nachmanides writes as follows about the words נורא תהלות: “seeing that the nations of the world put their trust in that which is fraudulent and tortuous, Moses made the point that G’d is awesome, entitled to all the praises with which He is being extolled.”  עושה פלא, “working wonders.” Moses referred to the miracle that the same wind which had dried out the sea, etc., also accomplished the reversal. One might have expected G’d to employ separate agents for separate objectives. The same רוח אפיך which had caused the waters to pile up in a wall, etc. (verse 8) was active in making the waters cover the Egyptians with the waters of the sea as spelled out by Moses in verse 10. 
  Had G’d employed two different winds for this purpose, the Torah (Moses) would have referred to His performing נפלאות, “wonders” (pl) instead of פלא, a single miracle. The entire phenomenon of the splitting of the sea and everything connected with it is described by Moses here as a single miracle, פלא.     You are aware already that the types of miracles which are visible phenomena are known as נפלאות, seeing that they are phenomena which, though they have been revealed, originate in causes, i.e. in a power that is hidden from us. The very word פלא means something which is at one and the same time visible and concealed. The source of the concealed power is the letter א in that word. The emanation חכמה is derived from the א. This is why Elihu says (Job 33,33) אאלפך ,”l will teach you (wisdom).” [He referred to the letter א as being the source of that wisdom. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (based on Midrash Tehillim 106): Rabbi Yudan said that the words נורא תהלות mean ‘You are more awesome than any of the praises of You could describe.’ When one praises a king of flesh and blood his subjects will call him “a hero, a strong man” even if he is physically weak and lacking in courage. The reverse is true of G’d. However much one praises Him, and however exaggerated these praises may sound they still fail to do justice to His grandeur.
  
  Verse 12
  
   נטית ימיך תבלעמו ארץ, “when You inclined Your right hand the earth swallowed them.” Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 17 use this verse to prove that the Egyptians were granted burial in the earth. This was in recognition of their having accompanied Yaakov on the long journey to the land of Canaan at the time he was buried. Mechilta Shirah section 9 adds: ”the word ימין or ימינך when referring to G’d always refers to an oath G‘d has sworn. We know this from Isaiah 62,8: ‘The Lord has sworn with His right hand.’ The meaning of all this is that whereas the sea had spat out the bodies of the Egyptians who had been drowned in it, the earth refused to accept these bodies remembering G’d had cursed it for accepting Hevel’s body at the time (Genesis 4,11). It continued in its refusal until G’d swore an oath that He would not demand an accounting from earth for accepting these bodies. This accounts for the words נטית ימינך תבלעמו ארץ, ‘after You gave a signal with Your right hand the earth swallowed them.’”
     נחית בחסדך, “You guided in Your love, etc.” The Israelites had three merits to their credit which helped them become redeemed. 1) the merit of performing deeds of kindness to one another. 2) the merit of Torah; 3) the merit of the sacrificial offerings. The word בחסדך in our verse alludes to the deeds of loving kindness performed by one Israelite for another in return for which You G’d repaid them with kindness.” In Deut. 30,14 the Torah refers to all three of these merits when we read כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו, “for the matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to observe it.” The word בפיך, “in your mouth,” refers to Torah; the word ובלבבך refers to sacrificial service of which G’d said  (Deut. 11,13) “you shall serve Him with your whole heart;” the word לעשותו, “to do it,” refers to deeds of loving kindness. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   שמעו עמים ירגזון, “when the nations heard they became agitated.” Moses mentioned the various nations here in four sections to describe the four directions on earth where these nations had their habitat. Palestine, Edom, Moav, and Canaan are merely representatives of the four directions. The name פלשת includes all nations residing in the West; the name Edom includes all nations south of the Holy Land. The name Moav includes all the peoples residing east of Eretz Yisrael; the name Canaan includes all the nations north of where Moses sang this song. The phenomenon of the sea splitting was felt by all these nations. 
  According to the Midrash, the reason why the Philistine inhabitants are specifically mentioned is because they had cause to be particularly fearful at that time, being that the Philistines had killed 200,000 members of the tribe of Ephrayim who had made an ill-fated attempt at fleeing from Egypt 30 years prior to the Exodus, having calculated that the decree of 400 years was at an end. They marched to the land of the Philistines on their route to the Holy Land but were killed to a man by the Philistines. This is why the Philistines were now afraid of the Jewish G’d’s retribution. The Edomites were afraid that the Israelites would now revenge themselves on their ancestor Esau’s behavior against Yaakov. The Moabites trembled remembering the feud between the shepherds of Avraham and the shepherds of Lot. The inhabitants of Canaan had special reason to be afraid as they had simply appropriated to themselves lands belonging Yaakov and his family.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “May fear and terror befall them, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word אימתה, “fear,” refers to the nations close by whereas the word פחד refers to those nations who lived further away. The people living a considerable distance from the Sea of Reeds, i.e. the people of Jericho, admitted 40 years later (Joshua 2,10) that they had heard about G’d having dried out the sea in order to let the Israelites pass, something that still left them afraid. The word אימתה is basically the same as אימה, the letter ת being an addition much as we find in Psalms 44,27: קומה עזרתה לנו, where the letter ת is also a poetical license taken by the author. 
      A Kabbalistic approach: the word אימתה is equivalent to אימת ה', a fear of G’d derived from the attribute פחד. Moses’ prayer was that this attribute should be stretched taut over all the Israelites’ enemies. The letter ה at the end of the word is taken from the last letter of the tetragrammaton so that when you read the sequence  אימת ה' ופחד, the reference is to the attribute of G’d as represented always by the Shechinah (symbolized by the Holy Ark in the Tabernacle). The fact that this Holy Ark was fear-inspiring is documented in Samuel I 4,17 after the Holy Ark had been captured by the Philistines and it caused terror and panic amongst them and their deities until they voluntarily returned it to Israel. You will find a clear allusion to all this when you note that the capture of the Ark is described there as  נלקחה instead of as נלקח, seeing the word ארון is masculine. The letter ה at the end then is not a sign of the noun being feminine, but refers to this attribute of Justice which is an integral part of the Ark and which spread  fear and terror when in the  hands of the wrong people.     Proof of the attribute of Justice being an integral part of the Holy Ark is the fact that frequently  when the Torah speaks of the Ark, the Ark is simply called ה'. Examples are: Numbers 10,36: ובנחה יאמר שובה ה', “when it came to rest, he would say: ‘reside tranquilly O Hashem.’” The word ובנחה is a contraction of ובנח ה' ”when G’d came to rest.” The subject under discussion in Numbers is the Ark being returned to the Tabernacle after the Israelites had made camp. We find something similar when the Israelites broke camp (Numbers 10,35). At that point the Torah writes that Moses would instruct קומה ה' ויפוצו אויביך, “rise O Lord and let Your enemies scatter.” Clearly he was addressing the attribute of G’d linked to the Holy Ark. The word קומה is a contraction of קום ה' just as שובה is a contraction of 'שוב ה'.    Furthermore, the letter ה at the respective end of the words קומה and שובה are feminine endings of a verb addressing a feminine noun, i.e. the Shechinah, an attribute of G’d which is viewed as feminine (as indicated by the word itself). This is all part of the proof that Moses did not just address the Ark [though the Ark was capable of supporting both itself and those who carried it. Ed.] but that he addressed the Shechinah, the attribute of Justice we discussed earlier. Support for our theory is found also in the way the Targum translates the words in Exodus 33,14 פני ילכון.  The wording is שכנתי תהך, “My Shechinah will go.” This is the feminine form for “walking, traveling.” The masculine equivalent would have been יהך.    The Shechinah, which is viewed as the “signature” of the structure, receives its input from the attribute גבורה also known as פחד. This is why Moses said תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, as if he had said: “may the fear of the Shechinah which receives its power from the attribute פחד fall upon them.”
     'עד יעבור עמך ה', “until Your people O Hashem cross over.” Moses refers here to the Israelites crossing the river Arnon (Deut. 2,24). When he continued עד יעבור עם זו קנית, “until this nation whom You have acquired will cross,” he referred to the Israelites crossing the river Jordan (compare Pessikta Zutrata) This is why we are told specifically that when the Ark entered the waters of the Jordan, that the water piled up north of the river to afford the Israelites passage on a dry river bed (Joshua 3,16 and 17).
     עם זו קנית, “this nation You have acquired.” Why did the Torah change from calling the Jewish people עם זו גאלת, in verse 13  to עם זו קנית? As long as Moses had spoken about the status of the Jewish people at the crossing of the Sea of Reeds when they had not yet accepted the Torah he described them as the nation whom “G’d had redeemed.” When he speaks about future events, events which would occur after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he speaks of the people G’d had acquired.
      A Midrashic approach (Mechilta Shirah section 9) to the words  עם זו קנית: G’d is described as having acquired four things. 1) “Israel,” as we know from the words עם זו קנית.” 2) “The Torah,” as we know from ה' קנני ראשית דרכו (the Torah speaking in Proverbs 8,22) “The Lord has acquired me at the beginning of His way.” 3) “Heaven and Earth” as we know from Genesis 14,22 קונה שמים וארץ “who owns heaven and earth.” 4) “The Holy Temple,” as we know from Psalms 78,54 הר זה קנתה ימינו “His right hand has acquired this Mountain.” It is therefore appropriate that Israel which has been called an acquisition of G’d should receive the Torah which has also been described as G’d’s acquisition. The whole world which is also an acquisition of G’d owes its continued existence to the merit of Torah. It is furthermore appropriate for Israel who are G’d’s acquisition to build the Temple which is also G’d’s acquisition. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  . תביאמו ותטעמו, “You will bring them and plant them, etc.” By excluding mention of himself in this verse, Moses prophesied that he would not enter the land of Israel (Mechilta Shirah section 10). As to his words מכון לשבתך פעלת, “You have made the foundation of Your dwelling-place,” these words are a continuation of the words בהר נחלתך, “on the mount of Your heritage.” The meaning of the whole verse is: “on the mount of Your heritage down here on earth You have established the foundation of a dwelling-place which corresponds to Your dwelling in the heaven.” Moses referred to that dwelling-place with the words מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך, a reference to the Sanctuary in the heavens. This is the reason that you find the tone-sign zakef gadol on the word מקדש, “Sanctuary.” The letter ק in the word מקדש is spelled with the dagesh chazak tone-sign in the letter to indicate the תוקף, “the strength” represented by that Sanctuary. This is because it is a “Sanctuary of Sanctuaries,” the crown of the Sanctuary on earth. Whereas in connection with the Sanctuary on earth Moses speaks of a פעולה, a physical activity, something appropriate for the terrestrial regions, no such activity is mentioned in connection with the Sanctuary in heaven. However, he did say כוננו ידיך, “Your hands have established it,” a reference to the ten emanations (i.e. the ten fingers on the two hands).
  
  Verse 18
  
   ה' ימלך לעולם ועד, “the Lord will rule forever.” The plain meaning of the text is that just as G’d had demonstrated His supremacy over all of mankind and the forces of nature at this time by saving the deserving and punishing the guilty, may He continue to do so in each and every generation. The same idea has been expressed by David in Psalms 146,10: “The Lord will reign forever, your G’d, O Zion, for all generations, Hallelujah.” The word ימלך is written defective, without the letter ו to teach us that  G’d does not approach His subjects with great demands by demanding an exhausting sort of service from them. (Avodah Zarah 3). The prophet Micha 6,3 has already publicly remonstrated with his people showing that G’d’s demands of His people (and on mankind) are quite minimal. He asked: “My people! What wrong have I done you? What hardship have I caused you?” 
      A Kabbalistic approach: after Israel had watched the emanation מלכות split the sea and they had offered their praises to G’d and His Kingdom, they concluded their praises by invoking the tetragram just as they had used that attribute at the beginning of the song when they sang אשירה לי-ה-ו-ה.    Onkelos translates the word ימלך as if it were present tense; i.e. “G’d’s kingdom endures forever.” We find the same in Psalms 10,16: “The Lord is king forever and ever; the nations will perish from His land.” [Whenever G’d’s kingdom is expressed in the present tense some of our commentators are concerned that the reader who in his lifetime sees no evidence of G’d exerting His power may find such terminology bothersome. This is especially so if, as here, the grammar clearly speaks of the future. Ed.] Perhaps what prompted Onkelos to translate the word ימלך as a present tense instead of as a future tense is that Moses and the people of Israel had in mind G’d in His capacity as representing מלכות, kingdom, sovereignty. This is why they thought it appropriate to conclude the song with that theme. This then was in contrast to the opening of the song when  they emphasized the tetragrammaton, at the conclusion they emphasized the מלכות aspect of G’d. 
  When we look at the missing letter ו in the word ימלך, the idea may have been to impress upon us that the King, i.e. מלך, is the essence of any kingdom. It is in the nature of a king to exert different degrees of his influence and power on the affairs of state at different times depending on his judgment of which is more appropriate.    It is also possible that what Onkelos had in mind was that in G’d’s thinking all the “times,” be they past, present or future, are all one, i.e. as if they were the present, seeing that He had preceded the very concept of time and He will be in existence long ”after” the concept of time has ceased to exist.
      It is important to remember that the entire song consists of 18 verses; perhaps the number 18 is to symbolize the number of vertebrae in our backbone (Berachot 28) which will be renewed at the time of the resurrection and at which time we will recite such a song of thanksgiving for having been resurrected. This also gives even deeper meaning to the statement by our sages in Sanhedrin 91 that the reason that the Torah does not insert Moses’ song by referring to it as אז שר משה, “at that time Moses  sang,” instead of writing אז ישיר משה, “then Moses will sing.” The Torah wanted to provide us with an allusion to the eventual resurrection. You will find a parallel wording when Isaiah 26,1 speaks of the song of thanksgiving to be sung in the future after the final redemption. He writes: “In that day, this song shall be sung in the land of Yehudah: ‘ours is a mighty city; He makes victory our inner and outer wall. Open the gates, and let a righteous nation enter, a nation that keeps faith, etc., etc.”.....This song concludes with the words  יחיו מתיך, “Your dead will come alive.” Isaiah too composed 18 verses to make up that song of the future Just as Moses made reference to עזי וזמרת י-ה, so Isaiah mentions in that song the words בטחו בה' עדי עד כי בי-ה ה' צור עולמים, adding the tetragrammaton to the two-lettered name of G’d י-ה which had been in use prior to that final redemption. All of this was to hint of additional spiritual attainments which would be achieved at that time. At that time G’d’s name will be complete and His throne will be whole (compare Tanchuma Ki Tetze 8).
  
  Verse 19
  
  . כי בא סוס פרעה, “for  Pharaoh’s cavalry came, etc.” The Torah now goes back to the beginning of the שירה  as if the opening line had read אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל את השירה הזאת כאשר בא סוס פרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו בים, “then Moses and the Children of Israel sang a song when Pharaoh, his cavalry, and its riders went into the sea and G’d brought the waters of the sea upon them whereas the Israelites walked on dry ground.” The verse teaches that the Israelites sang the song while still crossing.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ותקח מרים הנביאה, “Miriam the prophetess took, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason the Torah added the words “sister of Aaron,”  — something we were well aware of — was to ensure that the three siblings Moses, Aaron, and Miriam should all have their names associated with this song. Another reason is connected with good form. It is customary that when the name of a person is introduced we relate it to his or her oldest  brother as we find in Genesis 36,22: “the sister of Lotan was Timnah.” It is also possible that Aaron was mentioned in order for her to obtain permission to use the percussion instrument drum, seeing a drum is an instrument connected with the planet (zodiac sign) Jupiter. Each of the planets had a musical instrument which was specifically associated with that planet, the drum being that associated with Jupiter. We have a verse in Job 29,14 צדק לבשתי וילבשני, “I clothed myself in righteousness and it robed me.” This verse is understood to refer to Aaron’s priestly garments. The word צדק then appears both as meaning “Jupiter” and as meaning “Aaron.” Miriam had to obtain Aaron’s permission to use the drum. You are aware that Psalm 150 contains 10 “hallelujahs” of G’d but only nine musical instruments corresponding to nine celestial bodies — horn, harp, lyre, timbrel, dance (מחול), lute, pipe, cymbals, loud-clashing cymbals. [More on this subject on Exodus 32,19.] The words אהרון את התוף are a clear allusion that there was a conceptual linkage between Aaron and the instrument called תוף.
      A Midrashic approach (Sotah 12-13): the Torah links Miriam as a prophetess to her brother Aaron rather than to her brother Moses. The Torah’s message is that she demonstrated her prophetic gift while she was a sister of Aaron, before Moses had been born. In fact, her prophecy concerned Moses. She predicted that  her mother would give birth to the redeemer of the Jewish people.
      We need to understand why the prophetic spirit was entrusted to a woman rather than to a man. Actually, there is hardly anything surprising in this; after all woman is as much part of the species as is man. Did not the Torah refer to both of them as אדם in Genesis 5,2? Our sages (Megillah 14) claim that Sarah was not inferior to Miriam in her prophetic qualities seeing the Torah refers to her as יסכה (Genesis 11,29) which means means that she saw things with her Holy Spirit. Shemot Rabbah 1,1 claims that the word in Genesis 21,12 where G’d told Avraham to listen to all that Sarah would tell him prove that as a prophet Avraham was junior to Sarah. This is the view of the Midrash. The fact is that the Torah itself does not mention prophecy in connection with a woman until Miriam. The reason that this is the time the matter of Miriam’s prophecy was revealed is either to teach us that she possessed this gift prior to Moses’ birth or because the Torah wanted to wait with telling us this until the Shechinah itself had been exiled. The Torah wanted to allude to the statement we have already quoted that the quality of the prophetic visions granted even to women at the bottom of the social register at the time of the crossing of the sea surpassed that of the visions granted to the great prophet Ezekiel. Hence the Torah saw fit to record that not only Miriam but all her colleagues broke out in song and dance praising the Lord. The Midrash (Mechilta Shirah 3) means that Miriam and her colleagues broke out in that song spontaneously; they did not paraphrase the words Moses had composed but composed their own.
      There are numerous other fundamental aspects of Torah which have been taught to the people by women. One such fundamental concept is the spelling out of the existence of spiritual life after death which Abigail mentioned to David when she explained to him that by not taking revenge on her wicked husband Naval he would merit to be accorded special status in that hereafter (See Samuel I 25,29 where participation in the hereafter is called והיתה אדוני צרורה בצרור החיים את ה' אלו-היך, “and may the soul of my lord be joined to the bundle of life in the care of the Lord”). Another major contribution about fundamentals of our faith was provided by Chanah (mother of the prophet Samuel) when she referred to the resurrection in her prayer of thanksgiving after Samuel had been born and she brought him to the High Priest Eli (Samuel I 2,6); compare Rosh Hashanah 17. The fundamental belief in transmigration of souls was taught by the woman from Tekoah (Samuel II 14,14) when she told David  that “G’d would not take away life from a person in such a way that nothing remains, etc.” All of these examples I mention to show that woman is not to regarded as a mere subsidiary to the male. She is a mainstay of the tenets of Judaism in a number of spheres. [Perhaps the fact that the author enumerates only examples connected with life and earth is due to the fact that it is woman’s domain to bring forth life on earth. Ed.] Our sages in Megillah 14 have taught that there were a total of seven women-prophetesses: Sarah, Miriam, Chanah, Devorah, Chuldah, Avigail and Esther. The number corresponds to the seven attributes which are of a passive nature (חסד, גבורה, תפארת, נצח, הוד, יסוד, מלכות).
     בתופים ובמחולות, “with drums and dances.” The women mentioned here were extremely wise as we mentioned earlier. They had experienced visions not granted to the greatest prophets bar Moses. Some of them were motivated by pure motives, others had unacceptable motives. The ones who engaged in dancing had unacceptable motives as the “dance” as a musical instrument  was the one associated with the planet Mars, a symbol of warfare, violence. The negative impact of that “instrument” became evident at the time of the golden calf where the Torah reports the woshippers as indulging in מחולות, (Exodus 34,19). I will have more to say on that subject in my commentary on that verse.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויצאו אל מדבר שור, “they went out to the wilderness of Shur.” The reason that wilderness was called שור was because it was the place where the Jewish people yearned to see further revelations of the emanation חכמה, such as had been granted to them during the crossing of the sea. The name ישורון  was bestowed on the Jewish people in recognition of these insights which had been granted to them. The word is also reminiscent of Bileam’s blessing in Numbers 23,9  ומגבעות אשורנו, “and I can see them from the tops of hills.” At that time the Israelites were on a spiritual high, ascending higher and higher. The wilderness of Shur is identical with the wilderness איתם, of which we read in Numbers 33,8: “they set out from Pi Hachirot, and passed through the sea into the wilderness; and they made a three-days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham.” They camped at Marah.
      A Midrashic view cited in Shemot Rabbah 24,4: “This was a place where the Israelites were anxious to place flags in rows upon rows. Another explanation: the desert of Shur is a euphemism for the Jewish people prior to their receiving the Torah. As long as the Torah had not been given the entire world was comparable to a wilderness. Once the Torah was given it was transformed into “Shur” i.e. a (protective) wall. Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Seymon quoted G’d as saying that in the future He would do the same for Zion. Whereas in Isaiah 64,9 Zion was described as a wilderness, it would become a protective wall as prophesied in Zecharyah 2,9 “I shall become a wall of fire (for Zion) surrounding it and I will glory inside it.”
     וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר, “they walked for three days through the desert.” I have already mentioned at the beginning of my commentary on this portion that every occurrence that took place in the desert was in the nature of a trial. There has never been a reported march of a nation numbering three million souls plus through the desert without their being supplied with a drop of water especially at a hot time of year. According to our sages  (see our comment on 13,17) when the Israelites arrived at Marah the waters they found there had first been sweet, water fit to drink. These waters turned bitter, bracken, to intensify the trial they were undergoing. This is best reflected in the Torah itself writing “there He subjected them to a test” (verse 25). When Moses prayed and G’d showed him how to sweeten the water by throwing some bitter piece of wood into it, this was all part of the same trial. The very irrationality of bitter wood turning bitter water into sweet water was designed to underline that the whole experience was designed to test the Israelites’ dependence on G’d’s goodwill.    In discussing this matter, Rabbi Nathan in Mechilta Vayissa section 1, says that the wood G’d showed Moses is called <i>Hardefani</i>, a tree growing by the banks of a river, and the fruit of which is a deadly poison for any man who eats from it. On the other hand, Rabbi Eleazar Hamodai claims that the tree was the olive tree. A third opinion offered holds that it was the root of the fig tree. In any event, the common denominator of all these traditions is that the wood was bitter and could not have sweetened the water by natural means. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, reflecting on this phenomenon (and others) was prompted to exclaim: “how wondrous are Your works O Lord, so much more wonderful than anything designed by man.” When Elisha told his disciples (Kings II 2,20 ) “bring me a new dish and put salt in it,” he added matter which would make the water even less palatable than before in order to turn the water into drinking water. This too was an example of a miracle within a miracle.
      Rabbeinu Chananel writes that when the Torah writes that the Israelites marched through the desert for three days, this does not mean that they actually walked for three days. It means that they covered a distance that would normally be a three days’ march in a single day.
     וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר ולא מצאו מים, “they walked in the desert for three days without finding water.” The water which they had drawn from amongst the rocks in the Sea of Reeds had been exhausted at that time. The commentators described in Baba Kama 82 as דורשי רשומות in commenting on this verse say that the word מים in this verse is a simile for Torah as we know that when the prophet Isaiah 55,1 invited the people with the words: ”let every thirsty person come and drink water,” he did not refer to physical water, but to the equally life-sustaining Torah. The fact that the Israelites went without water for three days prompted the sages under the leadership of Ezra to introduce Torah-reading in the synagogue at least every three days (the Monday and Thursday readings).
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . שם שם לו חוק ומשפט, “there He established for it (the Jewish people) statute and social legislation.”  According to the plain meaning of the text Moses (at the instruction of G’d) laid down some ground rules for the Israelites’ conduct while they journeyed in the desert. Moses occupied the de facto position of king, lawgiver. He rebuked the people and told them how to treat their wives and children. He also established rules how to relate to other nations with whom the Israelites could expect to come in contact during their trek to the land of Canaan. They would have to engage in trade relations with surrounding nations.
      Some commentators say that he taught them details about the vegetation they would encounter in the desert, which plants had therapeutic value, which were poisonous, etc., etc. The word חק applied to phenomena which were known only empirically, whereas the word משפט applies to knowledge of the inner workings and the why and wherefore of the phenomena in question.
     ושם נסהו, “and there He tested it” “It” refers to the various plants which were unfamiliar to the people. This is why Moses added (verse 26): “if you will surely listen to the instructions of the Lord your G’d...for I am your healer.” In view of the new-found knowledge about nature’s remedies, etc. the people might have considered themselves as self-sufficient, less dependent on G’d. Moses therefore warned them that in the final analysis not their familiarity with what nature had to offer would ensure their well being but their obedience to G’d. These were the considerations which prompted Chizkiyah King of Yehudah to hide the medical textbooks as the people had come to believe that cures to illnesses were to be found there rather than by faith in the Lord and observance of His commandments (compare  Pessachim 56 where the sages of his time are recorded as having approved of Chizkiyah’s measure).
      A Midrashic approach: the words חק ומשפט refer to the legislation preceding the Torah which G’d revealed at Marah, notably certain aspects of the Sabbath legislation and the laws of the red heifer (known as חוקים as they cannot be arrived at by means of human logic) as well as laws about litigation which the Torah here mentioned under the heading משפטים. Sanhedrin 56  lists 10 laws which were revealed at Marah.
      If you will read this paragraph carefully you will note that at this point of their wanderings the celestial force ruling the deserts began to actively try and interfere with the Israelites’ obedience to G’d and Moses. The obstacles to a smooth journey which this שר המדבר, the celestial agent in charge of the desert, placed in the path of a smooth journey of the Israelites led to their complaints against Moses and indirectly against G’d. In the ספר הבהיר by Rabbi Nechunyah Hakanah the matter is described in the following words: “Satan said to the Israelites: ‘although these bitter waters which have now become sweet are sufficient for you for the moment, as you progress deeper and deeper into the desert you will not even find enough water to wash your faces.’” Another comment found in connection with the bitter waters turning sweet, on the words “He taught them about a certain wood” teaches that this was the tree of life (from Gan Eden) which surrounded the bitter waters. When Satan became aware of the presence of that tree he removed it in order to confuse the Israelites and to lead them into sin As a result, וילונו העם, the people complained. This was followed immediately by Moses crying out to G’d (verse 25), and He showed him an alternative wood to sweeten the water.” In other words, G’d intervened and weakened the power of Satan. He did so by providing the Israelites with the legislation mentioned so that performance of these commandments would fortify them against temptation by the Satan. Had G’d not weakened the power of Satan at that time the Israelites could not have prevailed against him. This is the reason the Torah condensed all this into the few words: “there He gave them certain laws and there He had tested them.” The manifest presence of Satan at that time and at that place had made it necessary for Moses to engage in prayer to secure G’d’s assistance. The very words שם שם לו are an allusion to the presence there of סמאל, Satan (similarity of pronunciation of these letters). Bileam alludes to this in Numbers 24,23: אוי מי יחיה משמו, “who will survive when He imposes these!”
  
  Verse 26
  
  'ויאמר אם שמוע תשמעו לקול ה', “He said if you will truly hearken to the voice of the Lord, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses meant that if the Israelites were truly going to observe G’d’s laws then neither disease caused by internal  causes such as the intake of rotten food, nor by external causes would befall them. The reason that Moses mentions “the voice of G‘d” in this instance  is because he already alludes to the Ten Commandments which would be given to them by the ‘voice’ of G’d which they were going to hear at Mount Sinai. In Deut. 4,12 Moses reminded the people that they had heard קול דבריו, “the voice of His words.” He continues to break down the commandments into their constituent parts, i.e. rational ones, laws involving faith, and laws that are statutes, not accessible to our understanding.    והישר בעיניו תעשה, “and you will do what is right in His eyes.” These are the social laws, laws accessible to our logic. Nechemyah 9,13 refers to these laws by saying: ותתן להם משפטים ישרים, “You have given them laws which are “right, fair.”  והאזנת למצותיו, “and you will give ear to His laws.” These are the commandments whose  performance demonstrates faith; they are commandments which no sane person would have invented by himself. One needs an ear in tune with G’d’s instructions in this matter. Proverbs 15,31 speaks of “He whose ear heeds the discipline of life.”   ושמרת כל חקיו, “and you will observe all His statutes.” This is a reference to all those laws which defy our logic to find reasons for them. The Torah promises that if in spite of our total inability to understand the reasons for these laws we observe them meticulously, we will be spared all the diseases and sicknesses other nations are suffering from at intervals. There was no need to tell us that we would not be stricken with the plagues G’d inflicted upon the Egyptians with which we are familiar from having watched the Egyptians. G’d promises that even ordinary sickness will not affect the Jewish people if they observe the חקים.   כי אני ה' רופאך, “for I the Lord, am your healer.” “I will preserve your good health so that you will not become a victim of natural diseases at all.” 
  Nachmanides writes: “Since when does someone ‘reward’ his servant by ‘promising’ that if he carries out his duties he will merely not fall victim to disease or other afflictions? None of the other promises by G’d are of this type at all. G’d usually promises  long life, fertility, success in agriculture, etc., i.e. promises of positive developments, not promises of negative developments not occurring!   This “promise” therefore is not a promise at all; rather it is a warning of what could happen if the people did not obey the statutes. It is an implied threat that what did happen to the Egyptians could happen to a Jewish people who rebel against G’d’s commandments. Deut. 28,60 is more specific in this respect, Moses saying: “He will bring back upon you all the sufferings of Egypt of which you were terrified, etc.”    The words: “for I, the Lord, am your healer,” are a promise  that G’d is able to remove all ordinary sickness from afflicting the people just as He had demonstrated that He healed the bitter waters at Marah. Thus far Nachmanides.
      A Kabbalistic approach: The word ויאמר refers to the emanation (attribute) Tiferet. The word לקול is a reference to kenesset Yisrael, (the spiritual concept of the Jewish people). It is the “glory” of which we have been warned  כי אם שמוע תשמע בקולו (Exodus 33,22) “to listen to the voice of that spiritual concept (called כבוד).” The meaning of the whole verse then is: “if you will hearken to that voice in that you will observe the Lord’s various commandments, i.e. the commandments issued by the attribute תפארת, I will not afflict you with any of the afflictions with which I afflicted the Egyptians because My attribute כבוד will act as your healer.” 
      In the Sefer Habahir of Rabbi Nechunyah Hakanah (items 163-4) our verse is understood thus: “The verse is aimed at the evil urge within us, seeing that the Israelites’ complaints against Moses and G’d about which we read just before were inspired by the evil urge. G’d says that ‘if you will surely hearken to the voice of the Lord your G’d (instead of to the voice of Satan, the evil urge), and you will observe His commandments instead of the urgings of Satan, all His statutes, and not just part of His statutes and part of Satan’s urgings, then I will keep away from you all manner of disease, etc.”  What precisely is meant by “the spirit of the evil urge?” Let me explain by means of a parable. A king had appointed officials in charge of his Kingdom and the economic health of his country. Different officials were placed in charge of different government departments. One official was in charge of the treasury, another one in charge of the supply of stones for building, a third one in charge of exotic foods and fruit. It was found that the official in charge of exotic fruit and food enjoyed great popularity, everyone flocked to him to buy the wares he had to offer. When the official in charge of the building materials saw that he had hardly any customers, he engaged agents to destroy poor people’s houses so that they would need to buy stones to repair the damage to their homes. He did not order that the houses which had firm foundations be torn down as his agents were not able to do that without giving themselves away. Not only that, he reasoned that in the time it would take his agents to tear down one solidly built house they could destroy twenty shacks in the same amount of time. He would then attract twenty customers instead of merely one. By resorting to this stratagem he hoped to attain the same popularity as a supplier of essential products as had his competitor the official selling exotic fruit and foods. This is the meaning of the verse in Jeremiah 1,14: “for evil will originate from צפון, from the north.” According to commentators this means that Satan has permission to cause destruction only in the “northern spheres,” i.e. in spheres already prone to destruction. In terms of the evil urge, this means that only spiritually weak people are legitimate targets for Satan. The way to fortify oneself against the attempts of Satan to undermine one’s well being is to observe כל חקיו, “all of G’d’s statutes.” By doing this G’d will ward off any attempt by Satan to undermine one’s piety and faith in Him. If Satan were to find a person weaken even a single time it is as if he opened a door for him to enter. After that, it will be much harder to expel him from an area to which he felt he had been freely admitted.    What is the meaning of the words: “for I the Lord am your healer?” How can such words be appropriate to people who have not been previously afflicted by any disease? We must understand the words to mean that when Satan gets ready to attack such a person G’d will use preventive medicine to ward off such an attack. Thus far Sefer Habahir. 
  I have heard further that the numerical value of the acrostic describing the ten plagues i.e. דצ'ך עד'ש באח'ב amounts to 501. This is the numerical value of the word אשר in the line אשר שמתי במצרים in our verse.
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויבאו אילמה ושם שתים עשרה עינות מים ושבעים תמרים, “they arrived at Eylim and there they found twelve springs of water and seventy date-palms.” According to the plain meaning of the text the fact that the Torah relates these details shows that the waters were sweet as otherwise the date-palms could not have survived there. As a result of this oasis being pleasant, the Israelites stayed there a little while longer. The Torah alludes to this with the words “they camped there by the water.” The climatic conditions at this time of year were such that these waters would be cool and refreshing. Jeremiah comments on such conditions when he writes (‎Jeremiah 18,14) “Does one forsake Lebanon snow from the mountainous rocks? Does one abandon cool water flowing from afar?”
      A Midrashic approach (Mechilta Yayissa section 1) on the words “12 springs of water and seventy date-palms.” Rabbi Eliezer Hamodai said that from the day G’d had created the universe He had created 12 springs of water corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel. He had also planted 70 date-palms corresponding to the seventy elders of the Jewish people. The meaning of this Midrash is that after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds the Israelites had not encountered such a good camping place as this one at Eylim. Just as they had experienced a miracle at the sea when G’d sweetened the salt-water of the sea so that they could drink from it while crossing, and He provided 12 lanes for the different tribes to cross in, so this type of miracle was re-enacted at Eylim. Its waters were sweet and flowing; there were 12 separate springs so that each tribe could have its own water supply. The seventy date-palms corresponded to the seventy elders each of whom was accorded honour in his own right.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words “they came to Eylim where there were twelve springs of water and seventy date-palms“ mean that when the Israelites now arrived at this site they attained a certain spiritual level called “elohim” (play on the word אלימה with the letters re-arranged). The 12 fountains are a simile for 12 angels, three from each of the four directions. Each group of three angels was accompanied by an army of minor angels so that between them all they represented the מחנה שכינה, the camp of the Divine presence supported at four corners with its celestial entourage.    The seventy date-palms represent the seventy angels who surround the throne of G’d’s glory and who are assigned, one each, as the celestial representatives of the 70 nations of the world. You find this confirmed in the Sefer Habahir items 165-6. The author there asks: “what was the significance of the twelve fountains?  First G’d gave the Israelites 12 fountains. These were exchanged later when the Jewish people crossed the Jordan into the twelve stones Joshua erected there (Joshua 4,9). The reason is that originally the Torah was likened to life-giving water seeing the Torah, i.e. its bearers were on the move, just like the waters issuing from fountains are on the move, their waters constantly flowing. Once the Israelites crossed the Jordan and began to conquer the Holy Land Torah found a permanent home, was stationary.   As far as the 70 date-palms are concerned, this is a symbol for seventy different קומות, conduits, by means of which G’d dispenses His largess. These draw their input from twelve of the “simple” letters in the alpha-bet. Just as these waters are ordinary waters (of terrestrial origin), so the seventy nations are essentially terrestrial in nature. Whence do we know that a date-palm may be equated with a קומה? We base this on Song of Songs 7,8 זאת קומתך דמתה לתמר, “such is your stature, likened to a towering palm tree.” Not only that but there are 70 different species of palm trees; this is meant by our verse speaking about seventy palm trees. The words ושבעים תמרים mean that each one was different from the other and the fruit they produced were different from one another, each tasting differently. So far Sefer Habahir. [Levush Orah by R' Mordechai Jaffe, in his super-commentary on Rashi, and Menachem Rekanati explain many of these concepts in greater depth. Ed.] It is important to remember that each date-palm had been assigned its task in nature and each had to contribute according to its specific task. It was not in order for them to be grafted one to another to produce new mutations. The entire phenomenon is reminiscent of Yaakov and his twelve sons and the seventy descendants who arrived in Egypt. They were likened to towering palm trees due to their spiritual stature. At the same time they drew their inspiration from Yaakov’s twelve sons who in turn drew theirs from their patriarch-father. The 12 tribes were divided into four camps of three tribes each, encamped in the four directions of the globe enclosing (protecting) the encampment of the Shechinah. This made them carriers of the Divine Presence, Shechinah. This is all reflected in the fact that the patriarch Yaakov himself was called א-ל אלו-הי ישראל, (Genesis 33,20) which line is explained in Megillah 18 as “who called him א-ל? None other than the אלו-הי ישראל, the G’d of Israel.” All of the foregoing only serves the purpose of giving us an inkling of the spiritual stature of our patriarchs.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השני, “on the fifteenth day of the second month, etc.” this was the month of Iyar; the verse teaches by inference that the dough the Israelites had slung over their shoulders (Exodus 12,39) and which had turned into unleavened cakes had lasted them for a whole month. On the night of the 15-16th of Iyar they still ate from that, whereas on the 16th of Iyar during the day the first installment of manna descended from heaven. In that particular year the 16th of Iyar occurred on Sunday (first day after the Sabbath). This is why the Torah (verse 22) writes that on the sixth day they collected a double-portion. It was the sixth day after  the manna had started to descend (compare Mechilta Yayissa section 1).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  'מי יתן מותנו ביד ה' “who would give that we had died by the hand of the Lord, etc.!”  They referred to the three days of darkness during which most of the Israelites had died, (compare Rabbeinu Chananel).
  
  Verse 4
  
   הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים, “I am about to make bread rain down for you from heaven.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word לחם is appropriate because the people would make bread out of the manna though the manna itself was not bread. 
  It is well to remember that the manna consisted of small grain-like crystals which were collected individually. This is why the expression לקיטה, “gleanings,” was an appropriate description for the manner in which it was collected.   ולקטו דבר יום ביומו, “they would gather it on a daily basis;” it looked like granules covered by a husk, more or less globular in appearance. This is what the Torah means when it described it (verse 14) as דק מחוספס, “fine, peeled.” The word מחוספס is similar in meaning to קלוף, derived from מחשוף הלבן, (the letter ש andס  are often interchangeable, compare Genesis 30,37). Onkelos also translates it in this sense, i.e. דעדק מקלף דעדק. The meaning of the second word דק in verse 14 is דעדק i.e.: “white as chalk.” It fell in heaps. Onkelos has translated Exodus 8,10 חמרים, as דגורין. The manna was white like frost, and sweet. A later verse sums up all its qualities in one expression when the Torah compares it to זרע גד לבן, “white coriander seed tasting like wafers with honey” (verse 31).    Perhaps the repetition of the letter ס, (60) in the word מחוספס is what prompted Rabbi Eleazar Hamodai in Mechilta Vayissa section 1 to suggest that the layer of manna was more than 60 sa'ah high. He made a comparison to what the Torah wrote in connection with the deluge, In Genesis 7,11 the Torah spoke about the ארבות השמים נפתחו, “the windows of heaven being opened (in order to release all that rain). In connection with the manna, Assaph, a contemporary of that event, speaks in Psalm 78,23 of the “doors of heaven being opened.” In both instances Scripture uses the expression פתח, “opened.” In Yuma 76 the Talmud describes that the manna descended during the night while the people were asleep so that they would be able to find it all ready for them when they awoke in the morning. They would find their livelihood had already been provided for them. During the period when the Temple was being built (Taanit 23) something analogous took place. Rain fell only on the nights of Tuesday to Wednesday and on Friday nights. This was designed to ensure the rain did not interfere with the Israelites’ normal activities. During the reign of King Chizkiyah G’d was also active on behalf of the people as in his prayer Chizkiyah said: “I am unable to kill, to pursue the enemy, or even to sing a song of praise. All I am able to do is lie down and sleep and leave my problems in Your hands.” G’d replied: “I am going to look after things.” This is the meaning of Kings II 19,35: ”on that night an angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the Assyrian camp, and the following morning they were all dead corpses.” This has all been explained in the introduction to Eichah Rabbati chapter 30. 
  There is a single verse in Psalms 127,2 which sums it all up: “He provides as much for His loved ones while they sleep.” The psalmist teaches that what all the people who rise early and stay up late (beginning of same verse) achieve only after expending much energy and not even enjoying the bread they eat, the Jewish people (who observe G’d’s commandments) find that G’d provides for them without any effort on their part. In other words, those people’s toil and fatigue was really all in vain.    What is the meaning of the words ועינו כעין הבדולח “its appearance was like the color of bedolach” in Numbers 11,7 where we are given another aspect of the appearance of the manna? This is an indication that the color of the manna was of an extraordinary nature, similar to the diamond known as perla as described in Exodus 28,18. It is a derivative of a supernatural light described by Ezekiel 1,24. On the breastplate of the High Priest the precious stone called יהלום had the name of the tribe Zevulun engraved upon it. This stone emitted this light. It is recorded in a book by R' David Kimchi called Sefer Michlol under the root בדולח. The manna descended in the form of a fine drizzle, similar to what is meant by Psalms 147,16-17: “He scatters frost like ashes, He tosses down hail like crumbs.” This is why David explained in Psalms 78,23: “He commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven, and rained manna upon them to eat, giving them heavenly grain.” This teaches that the origin of the (color) light of the manna was supernatural which prompted David to describe it as “heavenly grain.” David mentioned further that G’d opened the doors of heaven in order to cause it to rain down from those regions because concerning this supernatural light we have been told in Ezekiel 1,1: “the heavens opened and I beheld visions of the Divine.”    You will note that this paragraph which acquaints us with the manna contains the word מן five times. This corresponds to the five occasions that the word אור, “light,” is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Book of Genesis (Genesis 1,1-5). This teaches that the manna is a derivative of G’d’s first physical creation, of the original light which was withdrawn after Adam sinned. Just as the light was created on the first day, so the manna was released on the first day (compare what we wrote on verse 1).    In interpreting the meaning of Psalms 78,25  לחם אבירים אכל איש, “each man ate a hero’s meal,” our sages (Yuma 75) comment that the reference is to the kind of food which the angels consume (view of Rabbi Akiva). Rabbi Yishmael countered saying that the angels do not consume any material food at all. He based himself on Moses who had said that during the forty days he had been in heaven, in the domain of the angels, he had neither eaten bread nor drunk water. The idea was that when in celestial regions one conducts oneself like celestial beings whereas when the angels visited earth, i.e. Avraham or Lot, the Torah reports them as partaking of the food offered to them by earthly beings (compare Deut. 9,9 and Genesis 18,8 as well as 19,3). Rabbi Yishmael understood the meaning of the word אבירים as food which was totally absorbed by the organs of those who ate it, there being no need to excrete any of it. [The word אבירים is equated with אברים, organs, human tissue.] As a result of this discussion  our sages in Yuma found that the numerical value of the word מחספס is 248, i.e. the number of bones in the human skeleton. This is the background to the claim that people eating an exclusive manna diet did not ever have to excrete any of their food intake. We have a further comment in Bamidbar Rabbah 7,4 on Numbers 14,11 “how long will this people spurn Me and how long will they not have faith in Me after the all the miracles I have performed ‘within them?’” The word בקרבו, “inside it” is a reference to all the manna dissolving in their tissue instead of in their entrails.
      Nachmanides writes as follows concerning the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael about the angels’ eating habits. “It is well known that the continued existence of the angels is dependent on the זיו השכינה, “the brilliance of the Divine Presence” as explained by Shemot Rabbah 32,4 in connection with Nechemyah 9,6 ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive” [the “host of heaven” mentioned in that verse, Ed.]. The Midrash takes its cue from Exodus 23,21 where G’d speaks of the angel He will send with the Jewish people as “My name is בקרבו, inside it.” [We have the same word as we have in Numbers 14 11. In other words, what the manna did for the Jewish people, G’d’s name did for the angels, i.e. it kept them alive. Ed.]   Nachmanides quotes Kohelet 11,7 “sweet is the light” as a source for the assumption that the angels feed on the brilliance of the Presence of the Shechinah. [I suppose the reason is that since “light” cannot be “sweet” in the culinary sense of the word, it represents something equivalent to the sweetness of food in the terrestrial regions. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides Rabbi Akiva holds that the source of food for the angels and the Jews in the desert was one and the same. He therefore concluded that manna was a derivative of “light,” seeing the angels being disembodied beings do not consume three-dimensional food, however refined. Rabbi Yishmael’s objection concerned consumption of actual light as distinct from derivatives of light. He disagreed that the Israelites had become capable of feeding on actual light. [In fact had they been able to, Moses’ feat of going without food for forty days in the celestial regions would not have been so impressive. Ed.] 
  Rabbi Yishmael holds that seeing the Israelites had been granted visions of the brilliance of the Shechinah at the sea, they had qualified ever since for this food that the angels partake of. Thus far Nachmanides.
      I believe we may have to pay closer attention to the wording we see in our paragraph i.e. “this is the word of G’d: ‘collect from it on a daily basis’” this indicates a linkage with the words: “this is my G’d and I want to exalt Him” (which the Israelites had said while at the sea). Ever since then they had been able to refer to G’d as “this,” the Israelites had become worthy of eating the same kind of “food” as do the angels. It is important to appreciate that inasmuch as the manna was definitely physical food it nonetheless enabled the derivative of the supernatural light to survive in terrestrial surroundings. G’d supplied this food to the people who received His Torah in order to refine their abstract intelligence and enable it to attain deeper spiritual insights into the mysteries of the Torah. It is not strange that physical food can have this effect. We have evidence of this on several occasions. Not only that. Our sages speak of physical food which G’d will feed disembodied spirits (human) in the hereafter when He will provide the flesh of the Leviathan which He has stored for this purpose (compare our commentary on Genesis 1,21). Unless such food could enhance the spirits of the departed souls, what would be the point in our sages telling us about such meals in the heavenly regions? Perhaps we are to assume that the creatures such as the Leviathan and the bird called בר יוכני are themselves derivatives of this original light, and that this is the reason they would be able to survive in this world until needed to provide food for the righteous in a future when life on earth will be different from today. Let us examine the creation of Leviathan and Bar Yuchni and what we know about them. Both these creatures  were created on the fifth day of creation. Baba Batra 74, basing itself on  the plural in the words התנינם הגדולים, states that one of them was to serve as food for the righteous in the hereafter. The same applies to the  בהמות בהררי אלף, “the beasts on a thousand mountains,” (a reference to what is known as שור הבור, designated for consumption by the righteous (their souls) in the future. It has been described in Psalms as “of a thousand mountains” to reflect Psalms 105,8 דבר צוה לאלף דור, “something G’d has commanded to come true after 1000 generations,” (in the hereafter). According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer this tremendous ox consumes the grass on 1000 hills daily. By night the grass grows again so as not to denude the environment. The beast exists in anticipation of the righteous in the world to come when G’d will feed its meat to them. On the other hand, the point of all this is may well be that there are creatures on this earth whose remains can serve as physical food for the bodies of the righteous in a period described by Isaiah 11,9 as a time when “the earth will be filled with knowledge of the Lord like water which covers the oceans.” At that time we, (terrestrial man spiritually refined), will be able to consume such food. No doubt, the meat of these creatures is the kind of refined food which resembles that of the manna and which had a spiritualizing effect on those who consumed it. 
      A Midrashic approach. The words: “Here I will make it rain down for you bread from heaven” are an expression of G’d’s fondness of the Jewish people; He was so fond of them that He changed the laws of nature on their account. Normally, dew descends from the sky and the vegetation providing food grows from the earth. This time the bread came down from heaven and the dew rose towards the sky.
     ויצא העם ולקטו, “let the people go out and collect it.” They would go out of the camp into the desert.   דבר יום ביומו, “on a daily basis;” because G’d would create it anew every single day just as He does with the livelihood of mankind. This insight prompted Rabbi Eliezer Hamodai to say that anyone who has enough food for the day and asks “what will I eat tomorrow? has thereby displayed a deficiency in his faith in G’d.” Let us put his words into their proper perspective. He who asks the question concerning where his food for the next day will come from has demonstrated that he only believes what his eyes can see, what is already under his control, at his disposal. The main ingredient of having faith in the Lord is to consider that which one cannot see as part of reality. A believing person is convinced of G’d’s mercy, of the fact that the same G’d who has created this very day and what it brings also created the means to provide for His creatures on this day and on subsequent days.
      We have been told in Yuma 76 that the disciples asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai why G’d did not simply provide a year’s supply of manna at one time? The Rabbi answered his students that G’d wanted to teach the Jewish people that they are dependent upon His goodwill every day of the year. If they would reflect on the fact that maybe on the morrow there would be no manna and they and their families would face starvation they would turn to their father in heaven in supplication. Another reason given why the manna descended only one day’s supply at a time was so that they would eat it while it was fresh. A third reason given is that by receiving only one day’s supply at a time they would be saved the trouble of carrying their food supply with them all the time.    The following folio (75) in the Talmud also relates that the manna displayed different properties for different categories of people. The righteous would eat it in the form of bread; the average Israelite would prepare it into cakes. The wicked would grind it in a mortar or other utensil described in Numbers 11,7-9 (compare our comments there). The righteous would find it at their doorsteps; the average Israelite would  leave his tent and collect it a little further away; the wicked would have to leave camp to search for it and to collect it. This explains the various verses describing all this in Numbers chapter 11. When Assaph, a contemporary of these events, described the manna in Psalm 78,27, he describes things in a similar manner: “He rained it upon them like dust;” a reference to the righteous. “He made it fall upon inside his camp;” (a reference to the average Israelite); “around his dwelling place;” (this was a reference to the wicked).
      A kabbalistic approach: The word ממטיר in the verse “here I will make it rain from the heaven,” is similar to משמרת, the attribute of Mercy which is a recipient of largesse from heaven. [which the Targum renders as מטרת (similar to מטר, rain.) The word מטרת is reminiscent of Mattatron, the angel in charge of running the universe on behalf of G’d]. Concerning this attribute Solomon wrote in Proverbs 31,14: ”She (this attribute) rises when it is still night and supplies provisions for her household and statutes for her maid-servants.”    The meaning of the word הנני is intransitive, whereas the word ממטיר is transitive, referring to the Shechinah. In other words: “The Lord will instruct the attribute Shechinah which provides the פרנסה for all creatures on earth to make manna rain down from השמים, ‘heaven.’” There was actually no need for the Torah to mention that the manna would come from השמים, seeing that rain always comes from “heaven.” If the Torah nonetheless made special mention of the words מן השמים, “from the heaven,” the intention is to tell us that this manna comes from an attribute known as השמים, or רחמים. I believe that this is the meaning of Job 39,27: “does  the eagle soar at your command?” Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 20,4 say that G’d said to Job: “if I were to either direct the Shechinah to settle on the Holy Ark or to remove itself from there by your command? You would then be greater than Aaron!” Verse 29 in Job continues with the words “‘from there he (the eagle) spies out his food, his eyes see it from afar.” These words closely parallel what Solomon said in Proverbs 31,14: “from afar she brings her bread.” Both verses tell us that the livelihood (food) for G’d’s creatures on earth is provided by the attribute Shechinah. In Song of Songs 5,2 Solomon calls the same attribute אחותי רעיתי, “my sister (beloved), my dove.” Our sages comment on this expression in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,3 by saying that the sacrifices were offered to this attribute as this is the spiritual region from which parnassah, livelihood, emanates. It is the region from which all blessings flow to earth. It becomes active during the last of the three watches the night is divided into. In other words, the manna fell during the final hours of the night. (Berachot 3 discusses the three watches of the night). The three watches represent the three (emanations) attributes גדולה גבורה,,תפארת in that order. Our sages (on that folio) provided us with a reminder of the three watches by telling us how to recognize them. During the first watch the donkeys bray; during the second watch the dogs bark; during the third watch the infants suckle at the breasts of their mothers.    All of the above helps you understand that the origin of the manna was in those regions reserved for mercy, regions in which the original light is at home, and that this is what the words מן השמים allude to. The word השמים has been used by Solomon in the same sense in his prayer on the occasion of the opening of the Holy Temple (Kings I 8,32). He said ואתה תשמע השמים, instead of ואתה תשמע בשמים. The former means “You, the שמים will hear” (respond to prayer), instead of “You will hear in the heavens.” Psalms 78,24 continues with ודגן שמים נתן למו, “giving them heavenly grain.” When we read in Numbers 11,9: “and when the dew descended on the camp at night the manna would descend upon it,” the Torah makes the point that whereas the manna was received at night it was not collected until the daylight hours in accordance with G’d’s promise of “bread in the morning to satisfy” (Exodus 16,8).
     למען אנסנו הילך בתורותי אם לו, “so that I can test them whether they will follow My teaching or not.” The verse teaches that anyone who has ample food supplies, a comfortable lifestyle, is obligated to devote his time to Torah-study. This is what G’d had in mind when He said: “to test them if they follow My Torah or if not.” This is also the reason the Torah provided that the Levites and Priests be given various tithes and other gifts from the farmers so as to leave them free to devote themselves to Torah as we know from Chronicles II 31,4: “so that they might devote themselves to the Teaching of the Lord.” The sages have seen fit  to introduce similar contributions to be made to support non-priest Torah scholars, basing themselves on Proverbs 31,14: “she is like the merchant ships; she brings food from afar.”
      Remember that the principal test G’d subjects His creatures to is designed to strengthen their faith in the fact that He provides for those loyal to Him and that He punishes those who willfully transgress His laws. These tests and trials are not designed in order for G’d to find out who has faith in Him and who does not; He is well aware of that, being familiar with the workings of the hearts of all His creatures. He conducts these trials in order to demonstrate to the world, i.e. to His creatures, that He is indeed aware of all this. This is why the righteous are being tested as we know from Psalms 11,5: “The Lord tests the righteous man” in order that it will become common knowledge that the righteous has displayed faith in Him, has passed the test. We find that G’d tests not only the wealthy but also the poor by means of reward and punishment. He tests the wealthy in order to find out how they use their wealth, if they are generous in giving charity, etc. He tests the poor by giving him a chance to accept his poverty without losing his faith in G’d and his reverence for G’d. It is understood  that the reason man’s body is equipped with a soul is to test whether he will allow his body to accept the counsel of his soul or whether he will use his body to stifle the urgings of his soul and to behave like an animal which is interested only in physical matters. Every human being who passes these tests thereby adds to the greatness of G’d’s name on earth. People will recognize  by means of the responses to G’d’s tests by their peers that He does indeed operate a system of reward and punishment applicable both to life on earth and to life in the hereafter. The amount of reward or punishment depends on man’s actions (Avot 3,15).
  
  Verse 5
  
   והיה ביום הששי והכינו, “it will be on the sixth day  when they prepare, etc.” This was the sixth day after the manna had started falling, as well as the sixth day of the week. It had begun to fall on the first day of the week as we explained on verse 1.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   בשמוע את תלונותיכם על ה' ונחנו מה, “that He has heard your complaints against G’d, and what are we?” Moses made reference to the “glory” of G’d, i.e 'כבוד ה', the attribute of Justice. This terminology is found also in Exodus 24,17 ומראה כבוד ה' כאש אוכלת, “and the appearance of the glory of G’d was like a consuming fire,” where it is clear that it refers to the attribute of Justice. This is also the reason that the name of G’d is alluded to here backwards, (in the acrostic of the words ה' ונחנו מה). Whenever the letters in the name of G’d appear in a reverse order this is an allusion to the attribute of Justice (compare our commentary on Exodus 3,1).
  
  Verse 8
  
   בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבקר לשובע, “when the Lord will give you in the evening meat to eat, and bread in the morning to the full.” According to the plain meaning of the text  the verse reflects the fact that most people eat twice a day, in the evening and in the morning. This is why G’d did not supply a whole day’s food in the morning. Our sages in their commentary on the word תשבו in Leviticus 23,42 have already pointed out that the meaning of the word is “similar to normal dwelling,” i.e. that we are to eat in the Sukkah once in the morning and once in the evening (Sukkah 27).
      A Midrashic approach: one may read the words together as follows: בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבוקר, “in the evening to eat meat and bread in the morning.” This is a hint that G’d granted the meat with a “dark face,” i.e. unwillingly, when it was night, whereas He supplied the bread with a  lit up face, i.e. willingly, when it was daylight. The Israelites had been perfectly entitled to ask for the bread. After all, one cannot survive without basic food. By giving them the manna in the morning, G’d left them enough time during the day to prepare it. By giving them the meat in the evening, He did not leave them time to prepare it so that they could eat it at supper time.
      A kabbalistic approach: we read the words together as follows: בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבוקר, “the parnassah was divided into two times of the day, the evening and the day. The evening corresponded to the attribute of Justice, the morning to the attribute of Mercy. The verse tells us that provision of meat is reserved for the evenings whereas provision of bread is reserved for the mornings. When the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3) describes the daily activities of G’d during the twelve hours of the day, Rabbi Yehudah assigned the third section of three hours as devoted to G’d providing sustenance for all His creatures. In the words of the Talmud this included the needs of the horns of the beasts known as Re-emim, as well as the requirements of fleas’ eggs in order for them to hatch. It appears therefore that Rabbi Yehudah refers to the provision of meat, not bread. Why did this occur during the day? This is perfectly in order as the third section of three hours commences immediately after noon, a period called by the Torah “evening” as we know from the time when the Passover lamb is to be slaughtered. The Torah (Numbers 9,11) speaks of preparing the Passover בין הערבים, literally “between the evenings,” suggesting that there are two periods called “evening” (compare also Leviticus 23,5 and Nachmanides’ comment on Exodus 12,6). The first evening is composed of the period immediately following noon, whereas the second “evening” ends with sunset. The first “evening” is allocated to the slaughtering of the Passover lamb, whereas the second “evening” is the period during which the Passover may be consumed until midnight. The meat was allocated to the Jewish people between these two periods of “evening,” whereas the manna became available to them in the morning as a gift from the attribute of Mercy. The fact that the manna could be eaten “as is,” without further preparation, signaled that it had been given to the Jewish people wholeheartedly rather than reluctantly.
     'לא עלינו תלונותיכם כי על ה', “your complaints are not directed at us but at the Lord.” This verse teaches us that anyone who quarrels with a prophet or even with an accredited Torah authority is compared to someone who quarrels with the Shechinah. This type of complaint by the Israelites was not an isolated instance but occurred already  in 16,2 and in 17,2.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . שמעתי את תלונות בני ישראל, “I have heard the complaints of the Children of Israel, etc.” Our sages in Pessikta zutrata on this verse said that G’d refers to the Israelites as “Children of Israel,” a complimentary title, in spite of the fact that they had uttered complaints. What is the meaning of the word לאמור here after the words דבר אל בני ישראל? The message in the repetition is that Moses was to address the Israelites twice; once in a friendly tone, concerning their complaint about not having bread, and in a sterner tone concerning their demands for more than necessities, i.e. meat. Whereas the word וידבר refers to stern talk, the use of the word לאמור, denotes a friendly tone. We have proof of this in Genesis 42,30 דבר האיש אדוני הארץ אתנו קשות, “the man, the ruler of the land spoke with us harsh words.” The Talmud in Makkot 11 states that the word דבר already implies קשות, tough talk.
     ובבוקר תשבעו לחם וידעתם כי אני ה' אלו-היכם, “and in the morning you will be satisfied with bread and you will know that I am the Lord your G’d.” You will bless My name for supplying your food. This is the first indication of the legislation we read about in Deut. 8,10: “you will eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your G’d.” Our verse prompted our sages (Berachot 48) to conclude that Moses formulated the first benediction in the ברכת המזון prayer after meals at the time when the manna descended. Whereas thanking G’d for the food one has eaten is a Biblical requirement, reciting the benediction prior to eating is a Rabbinical law. The Rabbis arrived at the logic of this by an “a fortiori,” קל וחומר, saying that if one needs to thank the Lord after one has already had one’s fill, how much more must one do so prior to eating for having found food available at a time when one is  hungry! 
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויהי בערב ותעל השלו...ובבוקר היתה שכבת הטל, “it happened in the evening that the quails ascended,....and in the morning there was a layer of dew, etc.” Both the quail and the manna appeared for the first time on a Sunday (compare our comment on verse 1 and 5). The quails formed a daily diet of the Israelites for 40 years (based on Tossaphot Erchin 15 on the word התאוו). As long as the Israelites had the manna they also had the quails. Concerning verse 38: “the Israelites ate the manna for 40 years,” (where no such particulars are given for the quails), we must assume that the same applied to the supply of quails which became available every evening. The reason the Torah only refers to the continued supply of the manna for 40 years is that seeing it was heavenly food it required a daily supernatural miracle during all those years. The availability of the quails by comparison, was a much less impressive miracle, not having required that something out of the ordinary be “manufactured” in the celestial regions. Making the quails available is described by the Torah as a more or less natural phenomenon in Numbers 11,31 when the Torah reported: “a wind went out from Hashem and blew quails from the sea and spread them over the camp.” 
  The fact that the quails were something extant in the terrestrial part of the world is the reason the Torah did not apply to its becoming available the word ותהי, which always refers to the coming into existence of something new (a derivative of what we previously described as the אור עליון, a light in the celestial regions), but wrote only ותעל, the same word used to describe the sudden manifestation of the frogs (Exodus 8,2). When describing the major miracle of the arrival of the manna from the celestial regions the Torah considered it appropriate to use wording normally reserved for the six days of G’d’s creative activity, i.e. היתה, “it had come into existence.” When the original light materialised the Torah also described this by using the verb הוה, by writing יהי אור, ויהי אור.
      A Midrashic approach (Mechilta Vayissa section 3): “how exactly did the manna descend? First a north wind descended and cleared away all the dust on the earth; afterwards a layer of dew descended smoothing out the surface of the earth. Following this, the manna descended on to this layer of dew. Please note that the Torah does not speak of the manna ascending, i.e. ויעל המן, but the Torah writes ותעל שכבת הטל, “the layer of dew ascended” (verse 14). This teaches that a layer of dew descended form heaven in order to cover the manna, i.e. it ascended on to the layer of manna which had fallen immediately before. As a result the manna was protected from below and from above. 
  When we keep this in mind we can understand why the sages demanded (Pesachim 30) that when placing the two challot on the Sabbath table we must place a serviette or other base both below and above the bread to symbolize how it was in the desert with the manna. Rashi explains the words ותעל שכבת הטל to mean that when the dew was lying above the manna facing the sun, it suddenly became visible; this is the meaning of the words והנה על פני המדבר דק מחספס, “and here!, on the face of the desert something fine and exposed.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . מן הוא, “it is a portion (of food)!” The word is derived from מנה, a gift.” we find the word in Samuel I 1,8 מנה אחת אפים, “a double-portion (of gifts).” Here too the arrival of the manna was a gift for Moses (who had not even had to ask G’d for it). The Torah had to explain this as the Israelites did not know what to make of this new phenomenon. Seeing that they did not know what it was they named it “a gift” (from heaven). Rabbeinu Chananel writes: the words מן הוא mean מאין הוא “where does it come from,” as they did not know its origin.
  
  Verse 16
  
   זה הדבר אשר צוה ה': לקטו ממנו איש לפי אכלו, “this is the thing G’d has commanded: “gather from it, each person according to how much he can eat.” Our sages in Mechilta Vayissa section 4 explained  that Moses said to the people: “do not be afraid that Nachshon ben Aminadav and other powerful men will come and gather so much of it that hardly any of it will be left for the poor; each Israelite will have as much as he can eat.” What was the quantity that every Israelite could eat (or, better, required)? “One omer per head.” The meaning of this statement in the text is that if one ate an omer of manna per day one maintained one’s health. If one ate less it would be injurious to one’s health, and if one ate more than an omer it would also be injurious to one’s health. As to the words מספר נפשותיכם איש לאשר באהלו, “according to the number of persons in each man’s tent you will take,” these words refer to one’s wife whose proper place is within the tent. We know this from Sarah who is described as being inside the tent (Genesis 18,9) and we have a verse in Psalms 45,14 “that the true honor of the king’s daughter is reflected by the fact that she remains indoors.”   One of the halachic messages of this verse is that a husband/father is obligated to look after the requirements of his wife and children while they are minors. This is why the Torah speaks of “the number of your souls (persons).” This is the way Rabbeinu Chananel explains the wording of our verse.
      This verse contains two extremely significant themes, each one of which has ramifications in the terrestrial as well as the celestial spheres. The themes are: 1) the significance of the letters in our alpha-bet (22); 2) the subject of parnassah (livelihood). There is nothing in this world which is not rooted in some letter or letters of the א-ב. Neither is there anything in either the terrestrial or the celestial spheres which does not require continued input by a heavenly force in order to survive. We call this input פרנסה. Anyone or anything which is not self-sustaining is in need of פרנסה, benevolent, life-sustaining input by G’d. Our sages in Berachot 4 told us about the value of reciting Psalm 145 three times daily by promising that he who recites it three times daily is assured of life in the hereafter. They have revealed to us that the principal features of the Psalm are that it is organised according to the letters of the א-ב, each line starting with a different letter; secondly, it deals with the fact that G’d provides פרנסה, i.e. the line starting with פותח את ידך ומשביע לכל-חי רצון, “You give it open-handedly, feeding every creature to its heart’s content.” Our verse here also includes both of these themes seeing it contains all the 22 letters of the א-ב, and it also has as its theme that G‘d provides פרנסה. This led the sages (Mechilta Vayissa section 2) to say that the Torah was given only to the people who depended on the manna as their daily food, i.e. who depended on their פרנסה coming directly from Hashem. It is appropriate then that one recites the paragraph dealing with G’d providing the manna  at least once daily to help stave off famine, etc., in our world.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וילקטו אותו בבקר בבקר, “they collected it morning after morning.” Had the word בקר been written only once it would have meant two hours after sunrise. The repetition of the word בקר means that it could be collected until he end of four hours after sunrise. After that time the words: “when the sun was hot it would melt” would apply. Anyone who had failed to collect the manna by that time had to receive it as a charitable gift from people who had collected their share on time. A great miracle occurred in connection with the manna. Just as it was the function of the prophet to reveal to people matters otherwise concealed from them, so the manna served as a source of information (Yuma 75). If someone’s slave had fled and was found in some other household, and the householder claimed that the first owner had sold the slave to him, whereas the first householder claimed that the slave in question had fled from him, the number of omers of manna in the two households would reveal who had spoken the truth. If the first household wound up with an extra omer of manna it was evident that the slave had escaped from that household and had not been sold. If an extra portion of manna was found in the second household however, it was proof that the owner of that household had bought the slave, that he had not run away from the first household. The same would apply to a woman who had run away from her husband. If she were to claim that her husband had kicked her out and she would demand her כתובה, financial settlement, whereas her husband declared her guilty of the kind of infidelity by which she forfeits her כתובה, the presence or absence of an extra portion of manna would help to determine whose claim was true. Moses would announce that on the following morning when the husband went out to collect the daily manna ration for the family the truth would become evident. This is how the sages in Yuma 75 describe the judicial help which the manna represented. They base this on the wording of Numbers 11,7 that the manna כזרע גד הוא, “was like the seed of gad;” the Hebrew word גד being similar to מגיד, “telling, revealing.” It revealed many matters which had previously been hidden.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   שבתון שבת קודש לה' מחר, “a rest day, a holy Sabbath for the Lord tomorrow.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason why the word Sabbath is repeated is because there are two distinct aspects to each and every Sabbath. One is to do with the עומר, which will be dealt with in verse 29, the other with the special מוסף offering which was offered in the Temple on every Sabbath accompanied by the recital of a special hymn (Psalm 92) sung by the Levites on that occasion.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the combination of the words שבתון שבת קודש לה' מחר mean that the Sabbath on the day following Moses’ announcement would be parallel to the Sabbath observed in the celestial regions. 
  
  Verse 24
  
   ורמה לא היתה בו, “and no worms had developed on it.” This verse is an allusion to our tradition that on the Sabbath the corpses are not being disturbed by worms (compare Torah Shleimah note 132). The expression ורמה occurs only twice in the whole Bible, once here and the other time in Job 21,26 ורמה תכסה עליהם, “and  worms cover them.” The verse in Job describes the state of corpses during the six days of the week; our verse describes the state of corpses on the Sabbath.
  
  Verse 25
  
    אכלהו היום כי שבת היום לה' לא תמצאוהו בשדה, “Eat it today, for today is the Sabbath for Hashem; you will not find it in the field.” Mechilta Vayissa section 4 understands the emphasis on the word היום, today, in our verse to mean that whereas in this terrestrial universe you will not find the manna on the Sabbath, in the hereafter you will be able to find it, i.e. you will be able to locate the source from which it had emanated. This is a reference to the אור העליון, the celestial light, we have discussed already.   The word היום, today, occurs three times in our verse. This is an allusion to the halachah that we are to eat three meals on the Sabbath. (Shabbat 117). 
  Let me reveal to you a secret which our sages the Kabbalists have discovered to be part of that legislation to consume three meals on the Sabbath: The first meal, the one to be consumed at night, corresponds to the attribute (commandment) שמור, to observe the negative commandments of the Sabbath, work prohibitions, etc. This attribute (emanation) is better known as מלכות, [the emanation which is the connection between the world of disembodied creatures and our own world, עולם העשיה, Ed.]  Kabbalists have introduced the custom of going out of one’s house at the onset of the Sabbath to welcome the כלה שבת מלכתא, the bride “queen Sabbath,” with the words באי כלה, באי כלה, “welcome O bride, welcome O bride.” [In our countries we turn around at the end of the לכה דודי hymn in order to symbolize the same thought. Ed.] This is why Moses first said [even before mentioning the word Sabbath, Ed.] אכלהו היום, “eat it this day.” The word אכלהו contains the word כלה, a hint that we are to relate to the Sabbath as a groom relates to the bride, i.e. he sanctifies her by giving her a gift. The second meal, the Sabbath morning meal, is an allusion to the emanation יסוד, the one immediately above that of מלכות, also known as שבת הגדול. The principal sanctification of the Sabbath occurs by day and that is why that קדוש is generally known as קדושא רבא, (compare Pesachim 105 and 106). These considerations also account for the fact that in the daily evening prayer we recite the introductory paragraph before the קריאת שמע commencing with the words אהבת עולם,  whereas the parallel paragraph before the קריאת שמע in the morning commences with the words אהבה רבה to indicate the greater importance of what is done by day (compare Berachot 11). It is well known that night is the period reserved primarily for שמור, passive observance, whereas day is reserved for זכור, active observance. This consideration prompted Moses to say in our verse כי שבת היום לה'. The third meal which is to be consumed after the מנחה prayer represents the conclusion of the day. It is an allusion to ראשית, i.e. the mainstay of all constructive activities, בנין, and its head,  in the language of Kabbalists [a reference to the entire “structure” of the universe both physical and meta-physical. Ed.] To signify this Moses said: היום לא תמצאוהו, the word לא is similar to the word אין, as in Job 28,12 והחכמה מ-”אין" תמצא, “as to ‘wisdom’ it can only be found in a domain called “אין” (more on this on 17,7). The spiritual significance of the three meals on the Sabbath proceeds from the lowest emanation to the next higher one יסוד, etc. and from there to the next higher one, הוד. One ascends spiritually in accordance with consumption of these three meals in the right spirit. When you keep this in mind you will have an inkling of the spiritually elevating phenomenon called Sabbath and the importance of eating three meals on that day.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  . ראו כי ה' נתן לכם השבת, “See that Hashem has given you the Sabbath.” We find a comment in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 92, where the author asks about the significance of the word ראו in our verse. What precisely did the people of Israel “see” in this gift of the Sabbath? Rabbi Yossi quotes: “behold this pearl which He has given to you.”  Rabbi Yitzchak says that it is a reference to the fact that everything connected with the Sabbath is repeated, i.e. has more than one dimension. The usual omer, measure of manna per person, was doubled. The Torah wrote in verse 22 “two omers for everyone.” The daily communal sacrifice consisted of two sheep instead of one sheep (Numbers 28,9).  The penalty for desecrating the Sabbath is worded doubly, i.e. מות יומת (Exodus 31,14). The reward for observing the Sabbath is also worded twofold; Isaiah 58,13 writes: “If you call the Sabbath ‘delight,’ the Lord’s holy day ‘honoured,’ etc., etc.” The exhortation to observe the Sabbath is also couched in two words זכור ושמור, (compare Exodus 20,8 and Deut. 5,12). The hymn to be sung on the Sabbath is called by that name twice, i.e. מזמור שיר ליום השבת, (Psalms 92). When we examine the way Kohelet refers to the “vanities” of this world when he lists the word הבל or הבלים a total of seven times (Kohelet 1,2), these expressions are perceived as applying to the first 7 days of the universe. Solomon related to these days as follows: “what was created on the first day? Heaven and Earth. What will be their end? Look at Isaiah 51,6 who writes: “raise your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath; though the heavens should melt away like smoke and the earth wear out like a garment, etc., etc.” Solomon proceeds to find similar negative phenomena regarding everything that has been created up to and including the sixth day.  Every creature created on any day was doomed sooner or later, hence הבל הבלים, it was all vanity; none of it would endure. When he came to evaluating the Sabbath, Solomon tried to find something negative but could not. The reason he could not do so was that the Sabbath is all sanctity and rest. Rabbi Yitzchak said that finally, Solomon observed that when a person desecrates the Sabbath he forfeits his life; then he exclaimed: הכל הבל, “everything is vanity, i.e. there is nothing on earth which does not have a potentially deadly ending!” This gives us a total of seven vanities.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . למשמרת לדורותיכם, to be kept throughout your generations.” The word משמרת, “safekeeping, memento,” occurs three times in connection with the manna. The first time the Torah writes למשמרת לדורותיכם in our verse here. Seeing the Torah adds the words “in order that they see the bread  which I have fed them,” this is intended for the generation who actually were sustained by this bread. The second time (in verse 33) the wording is לפני ה' למשמרת לדורותיכם, “in front of G’d as a memorial throughout your generations.” This is a reference to the generations who would live in the land of Israel in the future. Thirdly, the Torah writes in verse 34 לפני העדות למשמרת, “before the Holy Ark as a memorial.” This is a reference to the latter years of the Holy Temple when King Yoshiyahu hid both the bottle of manna and the staff of Aaron to ensure it would not fall into the hands of the enemy if and when Jerusalem would be destroyed  (compare Horiot 12). At that time the bottle containing the anointing oil (for Kings of Davidic descent) was also hidden to prevent it being applied to someone else. All of this happened when the High Priest Chilkiyah found an “opened” Torah scroll in the Sanctuary. (It was open at the verse describing the Israelites going into exile Deut. 28,36). He interpreted this as a bad omen and hid the Holy Ark, the tablets with the Ten Commandments and the items we have already listed. Also the box in which the Philistines had sent a gift to the G’d of Israel at the time when they returned the Holy Ark in the days of the Judges (Samuel I 6,8) was hidden at that time. We have a record of this in Chronicles II 35,3: “He (King Yoshiyahu) said to the Levites, consecrated to the Lord, who taught all Israel, ‘put the Holy Ark in the House that Solomon son of David, King of Israel built;’” Rabbi Eleazar said that there are textural indications that the staff of Aaron and the bottle of manna were to be treated on a similar basis as in each case the Torah used words such as משמרת, דורות, which suggest that these items should be kept where the Holy Ark was being kept. Hence when it came time to hide the one, the other items would be hidden in the same place.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויאמר משה אל אהרן קח צנצנת אחת, “Moses said to Aaron: ‘take one bottle, etc.,’” note that the Torah did not say that “Moses took a bottle and placed it there.” (although G’d had told Moses about this and Aaron had not yet been anointed High Priest). We find at a later stage that Moses was offering sacrifices  and that he even offered the incense until Aaron had been appointed.
      It is possible to explain this apparent discrepancy  by seeing in this statement an allusion to an assurance that the descendants of Aaron, the priests of the future, would enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, would  not have to live on a day-to-day basis as had the generation who had to subsist on the daily allocation of manna. Their parnassah would be governed by what we read in Chronicles Ii 31,4-5 where King Chizkiyah ordered “the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to deliver the portions to the priests and Levites so that they might devote themselves to Teaching of the Lord. When the word spread, the Israelites brought large quantities of grain, wine, oil, honey and all kinds of agricultural  produce and tithes in large amounts.”    Moses first mentioned: “deposit it  before the Lord.” This was a hint that the provision of a livelihood for the Torah scholars in each and every generation is something left to the Almighty. It is “so to speak” placed at G’d’s disposal. This is why he added the words “for your generations,” as G’d is the One who will endure during all these generations. It was necessary to provide us with an allusion to the fact that the Torah is the source of celestial wisdom, and that wisdom is to be found in celestial regions, in spiritually higher regions (compare Kohelet 7,12). It is the source of true blessings and true life. David referred to this when he said (Psalm 134,2) “lift your hands toward the Sanctuary and bless the Lord.” It is appropriate therefore that physical life on earth, i.e. parnassah, should be linked to Torah which supplies the life of the soul, spiritual life.    Afterwards the Torah reports לפני העדות, that Aaron placed the bottle containing manna in front of the Holy Ark (verse 34). This was much later, as at this time the Holy Ark did not exist yet. This is the reason the Torah had to mention in between “as G’d had commanded Moses.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: “Aaron placed it (the bottle) in front of the Ark as a memorial as G’d had commanded Moses.” However, the Torah wanted to make the point that the parnassah of Torah scholars is always under the exclusive care and protection of G’d Himself as G’d had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai when He had said to him: פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים, “carve for yourself two stone-tablets” (Exodus 34,1). The word “for yourself,” meant that the splinters from the stones out of which Moses carved the tablets remained his personal property. According to Shemot Rabbah 46,2 this became the source of Moses’ personal wealth.
      According to Pessikta Zutrata the words קח צנצנת אחת, “take one bottle, etc.” are one of ten items which were created at dusk just before the first Sabbath (Avot 5,6). When G’d told Moses to take a צנצנת, Moses did not know what material that bottle was to be made of. He arrived at the correct material by deducing it from the meaning of the word, i.e. it is something cold, i.e. צונן, something that keeps its contents cool, preserves its contents indefinitely in earth. It must therefore be an earthen vessel. We have a verse in Jeremiah 32,14 where the prophet is told specifically by G’d to put certain documents in an earthen jar so that the documents would last a long time. The same thing applies to aged wine when it has been aged in earthen jars. In fact it ages well only in those kinds of jars. This then is the meaning of the words (verse 33) והנח אותו לפני ה' למשמרת, “and place it before Hashem as a safekeeping.” Jeremiah took out these documents from an earthen jar, saying to the people: “O generation, behold, the word of the Lord! Have I been like a desert to Israel, or like a land of gloom?” (Jeremiah 2,31). He said to the people: “why are you not busy with the Torah?” They responded by asking: “if we study Torah how will we live?” When hearing this Jeremiah took out the bottle of manna and said to the people: “take a look! your forefathers were in the desert and they busied themselves studying Torah; where did their livelihood come from?  If you will busy yourselves with studying Torah G’d will provide your livelihood just as He provided it for your forefathers. Why do My people say: ‘we have broken loose, we will not come to You any more?’” 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  . ובני ישראל אכלו את המן ארבעים שנה, “and the Children of Israel ate the manna for forty years.” At first glance there could not have been forty whole years as the first month after the Exodus they did not have any manna. It did not start descending until the middle of Iyar and the dough they had taken out of Egypt had lasted them for a month. If the report of the Torah is correct the manna should not have stopped until the middle of Iyar after Moses’ death, i.e. more than a month after the Israelites crossed the Jordan. We have a report in Joshua 5,11-12. that on the morrow of the Passover i.e. on the sixteenth of Nissan they ate from the produce of the land both unleavened bread and parched grain! The verse continues by reporting that on the day the Israelites ate from that produce the manna ceased. We are forced to understand the words “for forty years” in our verse as an approximate figure. In order to make certain that we do not misunderstand and believe that the manna was eaten for a full forty years, the Torah repeats giving further details by saying “they ate the manna until they came to an inhabited land, the edge of the land of Canaan.” You will find that this information corresponds exactly to what is written in Joshua 5,12: “on that same day, when they ate of the produce of the land, the manna ceased. The Israelites got no more manna.” According to our tradition the manna fell from the 15th of Iyar in the first year of the people’s  wanderings and ceased falling the day after Moses died on the seventh day of Adar. For the next 38 days when the Israelites were already under the authority of Joshua no manna fell. The first thirty days were observed as mourning for Moses. They were followed by three days of preparing to cross the Jordan (Joshua 1,10) after which they crossed the Jordan on the 10th of Nissan. This was followed by the male Israelites born since the Exodus being circumcised at Gilgal (Joshua 5,9).
      According to Rashi (verse 35), however, the number “forty years“ is to be considered as a full forty years. He explains the words in two ways. 1) The dough the Israelites took with them out of Egypt tasted like manna. 2) The manna which fell on the day Moses died miraculously lasted them until the 16th of Nissan, the day after the Passover observance in Gilgal. The Torah was correct in saying then that “they ate the manna for forty years.”
  
  Verse 36
  
   והעומר עשירית האיפה הוא, “the omer was equivalent to one tenth of the measure known as eyphah.” Rashi in Kidushin 15 explains that 1 איפה =3 סאין, which in turn =6 קבין, which are equivalent to 4 לוגין, each לוג equaling 6 eggs; this means that the daily ration of manna per Israelite was equivalent to a quantity equaling 43,2 eggs. Based on this fact the sages determined that a dough of that amount is subject to the provisions of challah; this is also the maximum amount of dough to be prepared in one lot for baking matzot for Passover.    The reason that the Torah waited until the end of the whole paragraph to tell us the amount of manna G’d assigned to each person daily instead of telling us this when we were told that each person found he had collected 1 omer per head (household member) in verse 16, is because the Torah did not want to interrupt the train of thought we are to entertain when reading about the manna and what is connected with it. If you will examine the paragraph you will find that there were actually three logical points at which this information would have been pertinent. If the Torah deliberately refrained from using any of these opportunities it clearly had a reason for this.    It is also possible that the Torah reserved mentioning this information in order to link it to what follows, i.e. the events at Refidim. It is a well known psychological fact that when a person enjoys material blessings in abundance he becomes less meticulous in serving the Lord and he develops a certain laxity in his approach to Mitzvah-performance, just as he can afford to be lax in his concern for his daily bread. He will not be likely to develop this laxity if he is only just able to feed himself and his family as he is constantly aware of the need of G’d’s goodwill on a daily basis and will make an effort to remain in G’d’s good graces. The Torah tells us that the Israelites became delinquent in their Mitzvah-performance although their daily ration was not so abundant that they could have been expected to develop laxity. As a result of this unwarranted laxity, Amalek (17,8) attacked them. The name רפידים is equated by our sages with רפה, weak, i.e. their Torah-observance weakened. This is the conceptual linkage between this new paragraph and the story about the manna preceding it.   The Torah could have described the amount of manna the Israelites received daily in terms other than “1 tenth of an eiphah.” Why did it choose to mention that it was “1 tenth“ of something? Perhaps the reason for mentioning “1 tenth” is the same as the fact that מעשר, “the tithe” which the farmer has to give to the Levite is “1 tenth.” The Israelites, while in the desert were considered as “sacred bodies,” something akin to angels with bodies. When they would consume this delicate heavenly food their thoughts may have concentrated on the “tenth” emanation and all the holy concepts involved in such contemplations. Perhaps the best example is Exodus 24,11: “they beheld (a vision) of G’d and they ate and they drank.” Perhaps their very eating of such celestial food as the manna is what enabled those אצילי בני ישראל, the most noble group of Israelites, to become privy to such visions at such a time. When we couple this with the proximity to the הר האלו-הים, the mountain of G’d, Sinai, around which all this took place it is not really so remarkable at all. They joined the select elite of which Isaiah said יילכו ולא ייעפו, “they keep walking without becoming fatigued.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ומטך אשר הכית בו את היאור, “and your staff, the one with which you smote the river Nile, etc.” At that time the staff became an instrument of afflictions; But this time — קח בידך והכית בו, “take in your hand and strike with it” — the same staff will become instrumental in producing blessings, i.e. water. The rock will turn into a lake as described in Psalms 114,8.
      A Midrashic approach: (Pessikta Zutrata) there are three things each of which can serve as instrument of disaster or as instrument of bliss. They are: the staff of Moses, the incense, and the Holy Ark. We have evidence that incense was instrumental in halting disaster from Numbers 17,12: “Aaron put on the incense in the midst of the congregation and made expiation for the people....until the plague was checked.” On the other hand, the same incense (even inside the Sanctuary) brought death upon Nadav and Avihu, the two older sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,1). The Holy Ark became the cause of death of Uzza and the people of Beit Shemesh  as we read in Samuel I 6,19, and it could be a source of blessing (Samuel II 6,11) to Oved Edom Hagitti as we read there: “and the Ark remained in the house of Oved-Edom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed Oved-Edom and his whole household.” The staff of Moses which consisted of a material known as sanpiryon, smote the river Nile, brought plagues on the Egyptians. But it also produced water from the rock at Refidim, renamed Massa u-merivah. Thus far the Midrash. 
  You should take note of the fact that no person (prophet) other than Moses ever performed any miracle with that staff. Seeing that this staff was the instrument of the first of the miracles, it was entrusted to Moses, the first of the prophets. Even Joshua who received this staff from Moses never used it to perform miracles with. He only used a staff called כידון, such as when G’d said to him: “lower the כידון which is in your hand in the direction of Ai” (Joshua 8,18).    The reason for this is that the staff in the hand of a ruler is a symbol of his authority and power as we know from Ezekiel 19,14: מטה עז שבט למשול, “a strong rod is a scepter to rule.” Kidon, on the other hand, is not a symbol of power, authority, etc. Every warrior carries one with him when going into war. 
  The difference between the staff of Moses and a כידון is similar to the difference between Moses’ level of prophecy and the level of the prophetic power of Joshua. As is common knowledge, the numerical value of the word והמטה, is the same as the numerical value of the letters in the name of G’d א-ד-נ-י, i.e. 65. The numerical value of the word וכידון is the same as the numerical value of the word המלאך, i.e. 96. The prophecy of Moses was one that did not require an intermediary such as a מלאך in order to be translated into reality. Joshua’s level of prophecy was of the level that required the assistance of the angel who returned to the Jewish people after the death of Moses. Moses had opposed his presence in Exodus 33,2 where G’d had proposed that the angel accompany the people instead of His own פנים, Essence, and 33,15 where he had refused to be satisfied with that level of divine presence. As mentioned, after Moses’ death this angel reappears in Joshua 5,14 saying עתה באתי “now I have come.” The difference between the two levels of prophecy is like the difference between heaven and earth. One is active, the other is passive, a mere recipient. This is why as long as Moses was alive the Israelites were able to eat heavenly bread as G’d had said: “here I am going to make it rain bread from heaven for you” (16,4). Once Moses had died and the people came under the leadership of Joshua they ate bread which had been produced on earth as we know from Joshua 5,11. Once we appreciate this we understand why Moses appointed Joshua to fight the terrestrial battle against Amalek while he himself fought the battle against the celestial representative of Amalek in the “higher” regions. He tried to defeat Amalek and uproot him from earth once and for all. Our sages (Baba Batra 75) illustrated the difference between the power of Moses’ prophecy and that of Joshua as the difference between “the face of the sun and the face of the moon.” The meaning of this statement is that Moses’ prophecy was of the “active” type whereas the prophecy of Joshua was of a “passive” nature.” The sun is an active luminary whereas the moon is a passive luminary.
  
  Verse 6
  
   הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב, “here I shall stand in front of you there by the Chorev (mountain).” This rock at Refidim was the same rock which we encounter almost 40 years later at Kadesh. This was also the source of the well of Miriam which traveled with the Israelites through the desert during all those years (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 1,2). The very word הנני used by G’d prior to the rock erupting in a well was the same as that used by G’d prior to releasing the manna from heaven. Just as the manna became a daily feature for the remainder of their trek through the desert until Moses’ death, so the well which appeared here for the first time became the Israelites’ constant companion at least until the death of Miriam. Furthermore, just as the giving of the manna had been preceded by a revelation of G’d’s glory (16,7), so the miracle of the rock erupting as a well was also preceded by a revelation of the glory of G’d seeing it was an ongoing  miracle just as was that of the manna (compare Nachmanides).
     והכית בצור, “strike at the rock!” the Torah did not say that Moses was to strike “on the rock,” i.e. על הצור. This proves that the staff was made of an extremely hard material, <i>sanpiryon</i>. It would not be broken on impact with the rock.
  
  Verse 7
  
   היש ה' בקרבנו אם אין, “if the Lord is in our midst or not?” Actually instead of the word אם אין, “if nothing,” we would have expected the expression אם לא, “if not?” This is the way the Torah expresses such alternatives in 16,4 for instance, where G’d had explained that the daily manna ration was designed to test whether the Israelites had faith in Him “or not.” The Torah was concerned to allude to the attribute אין, which is also known as יראה, an attribute second to which is the one called יש, or in more familiar terms חכמה (compare commentary on 16,24). This is the reason you find the name ה' immediately next to the word יש to show you how closely these two attributes are associated with one another. Yaakov had first realized this after his dream with the ladder when he awoke and said אכן יש ה' במקום הזה, (Genesis 28,16). This is the attribute Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 8,21 להנחיל אוהבי יש “and to let those who love Me inherit יש.” You have learned already that the two emanations (attributes) חכמה and יראה cannot really be separated from one another. The teachers of the Mishnah have already alluded to this when they said  (Avot 3,17) “where there is no יראה there can also not be any חכמה, and where there is no חכמה, there cannot be any יראה. The two attributes are inseparably intertwined with one another. Israel’s sin at Refidim was that they tried to separate חכמה and יראה. This is a sin of a heretical nature. This is why they were punished immediately by the attack of Amalek who represents heresy of the worst kind.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   בחר לנו אנשים, “choose men for us!” The Amalekites were expert astrologers (compare Rashi; our edition מכשפים, sorcerers). Moses meant that Joshua should select men who according to their horoscopes would not die during the current year, something Moses was aware of due to his own knowledge of astrology. The two armies facing each other would all consist of soldiers who according to their respective horoscopes would not die during that year. As a result of these considerations neither army inflicted fatal casualties on the other during this encounter. This is what is meant when the Torah reports the outcome of the battle as: “Joshua weakened Amalek and his people by the sword.” The Torah carefully refrained from mentioning that the Israelites actually killed any of the Amalekites.  When Moses said to Joshua “choose for us,” he compared Joshua to himself  and did not say: “choose for me!” Mechilta Amalek section 1 uses this phrase to teach: “the honor of your student should be as dear to you as your own honor.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ומזה אחד, “and from this (side) one.” This verse illustrates that when Moses spread out his hands toward heaven in prayer while he was on top of the hill, Aaron stood on his right and Chur on his left. When one raises one’s ten fingers one receives the power of divine support between these fingers. This is an example of what is called the קו האמצעי, by means of which the prophetic power sought by the supplicant is received via the Seraphim (angels) which are above him. [According to Remak (Rabbi Moshe Cordovero) this “line” is the central conduit of celestial input into the terrestrial world. Ed] We find elsewhere also that the deputy of the High Priest would be positioned on his right whereas the next lower ranking dignitary the אב בית דין would be positioned on his left (Yuma 37). Moses followed this pattern. Nonetheless, the infusion of celestial input occurs directly via the one who carries on the battle, i.e. Moses against the spiritual head of Amalek.
     ויהי ידיו אמונה, “his hands remained faithful.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verse tells us that as long as both Aaron and Chur supported Moses’ hands they remained strong. The use of the term אמונה in this sense is borrowed from Isaiah 22,23, ותקעתיו יתד במקום נאמן, “I will fix him a peg in a firm place.” At the beginning of the battle, when Moses raised his hands the Israelites were in the ascendancy. When Moses lowered his hands, (against his will) this had immediate repercussions on the progress of the battle. According to our sages (Sefer Habahir item 138) it is forbidden for medical reasons to maintain a standing posture with hands outstretched toward heaven for more than three hours. It is quite possible therefore, that Moses did not lower his hand because of physical fatigue but in deference to this halachah. In either event, it became necessary for Aaron and Chur to support Moses’ hands.
      A Midrashic approach on the words ויהי ידיו אמונה: Moses based his prayer on the faith the patriarchs had always displayed in their relationship with G’d, a faith which G’d had acknowledged. He had lauded Avraham for his faith in Genesis 15,6). He had lauded Yitzchak for his faith in Genesis 24,62  (based on the words עד בא, because the Torah writes: ויצחק בא מבוא,  whereas He had lauded Yaakov’s אמונה based on the word השמש, in Genesis 32,32 ויזרח לו השמש,”the sun shone for him.” Thus far the Midrash. I believe that the meaning of all this is that Amalek had relied on Esau his patriarch who had received his blessing from the spiritual power of Yitzchak his father. This power was the attribute גבורה, an attribute identical with the attribute of Justice. Amalek (his spiritual representative) hoped to be able to exploit this attribute to overcome Israel. This is why Moses had to outmaneuver the celestial representative of Amalek in order for the Israelites on earth to prevail in this armed conflict. He therefore mentioned all three patriarchs in his prayer. He was “the son” of Yaakov, representing the principle that החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק, “that a three-plied cord will not easily come apart.” Amalek, i.e. Esau did not have such a three-plied cord to call on.     Our sages (Mechilta Amalek section 1) also commented that the words עד בא השמש, “until sunset,” allude to a peculiarity in that battle. Normally, other kingdoms engage in battle only until midday. This evil Kingdom of Amalek engaged in fighting both in the early morning and in the evening. Tanchuma Beshalach 28 adds that on that day the sun stood still for the sake of Moses. This is why the Torah added the words: “until the sun set.” The Amalekites  were able to calculate what hour of day it was by means of astronomical calculations. What did Moses do in order to confuse them? He arrested the orbits of both sun and moon and thereby interfered with their calculations. The Midrash bases itself on the words: והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו; we also have a verse in Chabakuk 3,10, רום ידיהו נשא, followed by the words שמש ירח עמד זבולה. In other words: the prophet mentions the raising of the hands with the arrest of the sun’s and the moon’s orbit. Thus far Tanchuma.
      A Kabbalistic approach: Moses’ raising his hands was a matter of his concentrating on his ten fingers being pointed at what is called רום השמים. The קו האמצעי the central line in the emanations, which we discussed earlier, is known as רום with the vowel shuruk. This is alluded to in the words ירים משה ידו. He did something similar to what the priests do when they raise their hands in the priestly blessing. By concentrating on the number ten they also concentrate on the ten emanations and the source of blessing that flows from that region to disembodied spirits. At such a time the power of any force opposing such prayers is checked and its influence halted (at least temporarily). At such moments the Israelite soldiers would be victorious. The words וגבר ישראל, “Israel had the ‘upper’ hand,” was therefore something closely linked to Moses’ continued ability or willingness to raise his fingers and concentrate on the number ten. Whenever Moses’ concentration flagged, the accusing finger of the celestial representative of Amalek made itself felt and the Israelites retreated. Moses was compelled to lower his hands from time to time as it is not admissible to interfere with opposing spiritual forces to such an extent that one neutralizes them altogether. G’d has not created forces in the universe in order for them to be totally ineffective. This is what the prophet Isaiah 45,18 also had in mind when he said of G’d creating the earth כי לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה, “He did not create it a waste, but formed it for habitation.” This statement includes all the phenomena G’d has created, not just those that we appreciate or are fond of. Consider the matter as if in order to have balance in the world the forces of evil have a role assigned to them and it is not up to any man to totally deny them unless the premise for their existence has been removed, i.e. unless all people are good all the time. [I have taken the liberty to paraphrase the author’s words. Ed.] “The Midrash expressed this by saying that it is forbidden to stand with outstretched hands in prayer for more than three hours.”
      The Torah speaks of Moses’ hands in the singular instead of in the plural when it writes: ויהי ידיו אמונה, when in reality it should have written ויהיו ידיו אמונה. Actually, the word ויהי does not refer to the hands, but to Moses as a person. It is as if the Torah had written: ויהי משה פורש ידיו להמשיך כח אל ה'א האחרונה היא מדת הדין הנלחמת לישראל הנקראת אמונה, “Moses spread out his hands in order to draw upon the power of the last letter ה in the tetragram, the attribute of Justice, urging it to fight on behalf of Israel, the attribute also known as Emunah.” We encounter the word אמונה in that context in Psalms 92,3 ואמונתך בלילות, “and your אמונה at night.” This is also why our sages said that whoever has not recited the paragraph commencing with the words אמת ואמונה at night, or the paragraph commencing with the words אמת ויציב in the morning, has not fulfilled his duty. The reason such omission is considered very negligent is that one must mention these respective attributes of G’d every day at the appropriate time, i.e. when that attribute is usually active (compare Berachot 12).    I believe further that the words ויהי ידיו include the concept that the priest when blessing the people should form the letters of the tetragrammaton with his hands. It is as if the vowel under the first letter in the word ויהי is a chirik instead of a patach. The priest’s hands should be straight and pointing upwards while he concentrates with all his power. He should not join his two hands together. This is part of the meaning of the word אמונה. The reason that he is to hold his fingers in such a position is so that the blessing will flow unto each finger separately. In order that at the base of his hands the letters of the tetragrammaton should not become mixed up with one another he must make sure that he holds his fingers in the assigned position. In the Sefer Habahir item 139-40 you will find that the author was asked  by his students to whom raising of the hands during the priestly blessing is addressed. Answer: to the attribute רום. The source quoted is Chabakuk 3,10 נתן תהום קולו רום ידינו נשא. This verse makes it plain that the raising of the hands is aimed at the attribute רום השמים. When there are found amongst the Jewish people learned men, familiar with the mystical dimensions of the various names of G’d, and they raise their hands in prayer they are answered immediately. This is what Isaiah 58,9 referred to when he said: אז תקרא וה’ יענה תשוע ויאמר הנני אם תסיר מתוכך מוטה שלח אצבע ודבר און, “then you will call upon the Lord and He will answer. When you cry He will say: ‘Here I am, if you banish the yoke from your midst, the menacing finger and evil speech.’” The message of the prophet is that the cry to G’d must reflect the concept alluded to in the word אז, i.e. “The Lord who rides the seven heavens.” It is not sufficient to appeal only to the attribute represented by the letter א, but one must also address oneself to the letters attached to the א. They represent the emanations, attributes which occupy a pivotal role in G’d’s Kingdom. They are seven in number. This was the reason Moses commenced his song with the word אז, indicating that he did not mean to bypass those seven attributes, emanations. Thus far the Sefer Habahir.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויחלוש יהושע, “Joshua weakened, etc.” The word “he weakened,” is testimony that G’d does not totally destroy and make ineffective the forces of the horoscope, and that He does not force nature not to pursue its assigned tasks unless there is an overwhelming and urgent need for this. The reason that He does not destroy the system is simply that he Himself created it. Why should G’d uproot His own handiwork? Nonetheless, G’d from time to time “outwits” the system in order to save someone whom He wants to save; He continues to operate His system of reward and punishment without destroying the system of the laws of nature in the process. The word ויחלש in our verse conveys precisely this thought. The Torah did not say that Joshua “killed.” What occurred was that G’d saved Israel from the onslaught of Amalek without destroying the system of forces based on astrology.   This is what Bereshit Rabbah 44,12 had in mind when it explained what G’d said to Avram in Genesis 15 where Avram complained that according to his knowledge of the laws of nature he could not father children. G’d took him “outside,” i.e. showed him that  while it was true that the laws of nature, i.e. the sky and the constellations it displayed, did indeed presage that as Avram he could have children, this did not mean that the same rules applied if his name were not (going to remain) Avram. Instead of interfering with His system of the stars and what they portend, G’d would interfere with Avram’s name and rename him. In this way He would “outsmart” nature. 
      The word ויחלש may also mean that Joshua weakened certain forces in the celestial domain which had threatened Israel. The Torah does not say that Joshua dealt a weakening blow לעמלק, “to Amalek,” but it says that Joshua weakened את עמלק. The word את as usual includes something additional; in this instance it means that Joshua also dealt a blow to the celestial patron of Amalek, weakening him also. Joshua accomplished the latter either by his own prayer or by Moses raising his hands in supplication. At any rate, the celestial patron of Amalek not only desisted from supporting his people on earth against Israel, but he even turned against his terrestrial charges, weakening them.
  
  Verse 14
  
  . כי מחה אמחה, “for I will utterly wipe out, etc.” The first word מחה refers to the elimination of Amalek’s patron in the celestial spheres, the second i.e. אמחה, refers to the wiping out of the forces and influence of Amalek on earth. This reflects what our sages have said (Devarim Rabbah 1,19) that prior to destroying a nation on earth G’d always first deals with its patron in the celestial spheres. They base this on Isaiah 34,5: ”For My sword shall be drunk in the heaven,” followed by: “it shall come down upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed.”    A Midrashic view: The words כי מחה refer to what G’d does to Amalek in this life; the word אמחה refers to what G’d will do to Amalek in the hereafter (Mechilta Amalek section 2). The words מתחת השמים are a reference to Lamentations 3,66 where Jeremiah prayed: “Oh, pursue them in wrath and destroy them from beneath the heavens of the Lord.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויאמר כי יד על כס י-ה, He said: ‘for there is a hand against the throne of G’d, etc.” The word ויאמר, reverts back to Moses who said what follows. The words כי יד indicate that what follows is in the nature of an oath. People used to place a hand on some object before swearing an oath. Moses uses the expression here as a simile for an oath. We have other examples of this such as Deut. 32,40 “for I shall raise My hand to heaven,” etc.; another example of the same simile being used in lieu of a direct oath is found in Numbers 14,30, G’d saying: “about which I have raised My hand.”
      According to the plain meaning of the text the verse has G’d saying as an assurance to any future King of Israel that he is to fight a war on G’d’s behalf against Amalek. This war would be distinguished by the fact that any loot collected in such a war was out of bounds to any Israelite and would be exclusively G’d’s property. This is why Saul, King of Israel, was punished for allowing the people to retain part of the loot from his campaign against Amalek (compare Samuel I 16, 14-27). This stain on the character of the Israelites (Saul and descendants) continued until the time of Mordechai when the Jews took revenge on their enemies without touching any part of the loot (Esther 9,16).  Saul was punished measure for measure. Seeing that the Torah had made the wholeness of G’d’s throne dependent on the war against Amalek being waged by the Israelites, G’d deprived Saul of his own kingdom for failing to heed His instructions to the letter. He did not leave much of a name behind, both he and Yonathan his eldest being slain in battle. Mordechai had appreciated this lesson of history and this is why he exhorted all the Jews that on the day they would confront their enemies and defend their lives they were not to touch any of the possessions of the people against whom they would fight. Haman was a descendant of Amalek. The Torah had warned to “wipe out the memory of Amalek“ (Deut. 25,19), i.e. not to retain anything which ever belonged to that people.    We find that also concerning the battle against Amalek in the future the prophet Micah 4,13 warns: “and you will crush many peoples; you will devote their riches to the Lord, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.” 
      A Midrashic approach: (based on Tanchuma Ki Tetze 11) The Torah did not write כי יד על כסא י-ה but כי יד על כס י-ה. G’d swore an oath that He would not consider His throne as whole; neither would He consider His name as whole until He had avenged Himself from the descendants of Amalek. These words of the Midrash have been elaborated on by the Kabbalists.
      A kabbalistic approach: The “hand” mentioned in this verse is the ongoing war against Amalek; it is a reference to the attribute of Justice of the celestial regions. The verse reveals to us that there are forces at work even in the celestial regions which aim at disputing G’d’s sovereignty. The battle in the celestial regions is aimed at G’d’s throne, i.e. as long as it is in progress His throne is not “whole.” The name י-ה represents G’d’s incomplete name here on earth, i.e. the attribute of Justice in the terrestrial domain. On earth, the fight against G’d and His representative the Jewish people, is aimed at preventing His name from becoming the four-lettered tetragram. I have explained this in connection with 15,2 עזי וזמרת י-ה. Moses explains that the attribute which is aimed at G’d’s throne is the same as that which fights against the tetragram becoming sovereign in our domain. The battle is an ongoing battle from generation to generation. Moses prays that G’d would punish Amalek in the celestial spheres with the strong attribute of Justice in order to subsequently wipe out this people in our terrestrial world. This can occur only when Amalek on earth can no longer draw on support from its patron in the celestial regions. While there remains a patron of Amalek in the heavens G’d’s throne is, as it were, defective, i.e. כס and not כסא.   Now to the meaning of the Midrash which had linked G’d’s name and His throne. The words השם and הכסא in the Midrash are a symbol of seven attributes alluded to in the last two letters ו-ה in the tetragrammaton. They represent the “throne” of what is in the celestial spheres. Alternatively, the words כי יד על כס י-ה mean that Amalek attacked with his “hand” על כס י-ה, i.e. the two last letters in the tetragrammaton, the letters ו-ה. These letters serve as the throne for the first two letters in the tetragrammaton, the letters י-ה, i.e. the three letters כסא which represent G’d’s throne. Seeing that this is so G’d is engaged in an ongoing battle with Amalek.    I believe that this is also the mystical dimension of the words אלוף עלוה in Genesis 36,40. The same person’s name is spelled as אלוף עליה in Chronicles I 1,51 by Moses himself. [According to Baba Batra 15 the author of the Book of Chronicles was Ezra. Perhaps the part of Chronicles preceding Moses’ death was recorded by Moses himself. Ed.]  The letter י was substituted for the letter ו by Moses in order for the name of this descendant of Esau/Amalek to reflect the attack on G’d by the descendants of Esau/Amalek, i.e. על יה “against G’d.” Even the name of this Aluph, leader, reflected his program in life, i.e. to “dethrone” G’d. This would be similar to what we read in Psalms 2,2 על י-ה-ו-ה ועל משיחו, “against the Lord (tetragrammaton) and against His anointed.”    Another message concealed in the word כס as opposed to כסא may be an allusion to the seven clouds which surround G’d’s throne, כסא (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 4). This is based on Job 26,9: מאחז פני-כסה פרשז עליו עננו, “He shuts off the view of His throne, spreading cloud over it.” The letter ז added at the end of the word פרש in that verse is an allusion to the number of clouds surrounding the throne of G’d i.e. “seven.” When the Israelites carry out the Lord’s will the clouds open up in the shape of the letter כ; when they do not carry out the Lord’s will these clouds close around the throne of G’d in the shape of the letter ס. It may be similar to Lamentations 3,44 סכותה בענן, “You have screened yourself off with a cloud, so that no prayer may pass through.” This is also the meaning of Exodus 24,15 ויכס הענן את ההר, “the cloud enveloped the mountain (Mount Sinai),” or ויכס הענן את אהל מועד, “the cloud enveloped the Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 40,34).     You are already aware that there were seven clouds which surrounded the camp of the Israelites in the desert.
   I have seen a text by one of the Kabbalists in which he wrote: “know that the throne of G’d’s glory confers blessing and power on seventy angels who surround that throne and who represent the seventy nations on earth other than the Jewish people. They are these nations’ patrons. They are guiding their fates and Amalek who is descended from Esau exercises exceptional power seeing he represents the power of Esau his ancestor and all the while he drew his inspiration and power from the blessing bestowed upon him by Yitzchak his ancestor and Esau’s father. This power was the power of the attribute of Justice, Yitzchak’s predominating attribute. This whole concept is hinted at in the word ויחלש which the Torah uses describing the outcome of the encounter between Joshua and his army and the forces under the command of Amalek. The word ויחלש rather than ויהרוג as a reference to the defeat inflicted on Amalek indicates that the Torah did not describe the military encounter with these words but the spiritual encounter between the two peoples in the celestial spheres. Concerning that encounter the Torah reports that the power of the representative of Amalek-Esau had been greatly weakened. Once that had occurred the military forces of the Israelites were able to inflict fatal casualties on their enemies just as in any battle.   Amalek was one of the seventy nations. His celestial representative was also one of seventy. When the Amalekites on earth, his charges, sinned by attacking the Jewish people unprovoked, G’d punished their celestial representative by withdrawing some of his power. He did this by removing him from being so close to His throne. The result of this weakening of the celestial patron of Amalek was that henceforth his people’s fate would be governed by the horoscopes only, their representative at the heavenly throne having no intercessionary power on behalf. of the people he represents. This is the meaning of the oath we read here that יד על כס י-ה, that Amalek’s celestial representative henceforth has access only to the כס, as distinct from the כסא. [In plain language, it was not G’d’s throne which had been undermined but Amalek’s access to it. Ed.] The absence of the letter א from the word כסא means that as far as Amalek was concerned it was denied access to that part of G’d’s throne and all the advantages  that such access entailed. Similarly, Amalek lost access to the letters ו and ה in the four-lettered name of G’d. In the future, when there will be no more Amalek and hence no need to allow Amalek or the likes of him access to the four-lettered name of G’d, these two letters will become freely accessible to people on earth. This is the meaning of ה' אחד ושמו אחד, that “both the Lord and His name will be indistinguishable from one another.” [The author proceeds to quote numerous verses from Scripture depicting the idyllic situation of when G’d will rule supreme after the forces opposing Him have been disposed of. I am content to conclude with the last cited verses from Ovadiah 21 and Zecharyah 14,9 respectively: “For liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be the Lord’s.” “On that day the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one Lord with one name.” Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  מרפא לשון עץ חיים וסלף בה שבר ברוח, “a healing tongue is a tree of life, but a crooked one causes a broken spirit.” (Proverbs 15,4). 
  In this verse Solomon informed us of the tremendous usefulness of the power of speech. The tongue, i.e. the words spoken by the tongue, are the remedy capable of healing the mentally sick and depressed. Curing a sick mind by means of the right words is a greater medical achievement than curing by means of organic or inorganic medicines. Whenever one employs external agents it is doubtful if they will accomplish their purpose. Even when these medicines remove the disease or sickness  they do not add to one’s life span. Using one’s power of speech to effect a cure does not result in a doubtful cure but its effect is usually prompt and beyond question. Such a cure has the potential of increasing the patient’s life span. It is like a tree of life to which life is attached.    If one uses the power of speech in a negative way, i.e. one abuses this power, the result is a broken spirit. Just as a cure effected by judicious use of the power of words is the most effective cure, so malicious use of the power of words is apt to inflict deeper psychological harm on a person than any other cause of disease or sickness. This is why our sages said (Baba Metzia 59) that if someone publicly shames another person he forfeits his entitlement to life in the hereafter. 
  This kind of mental anguish and sickness is far more serious than a bodily dysfunction as it is likely to result in a broken spirit. Proverbs 18,14  states: “a man’s spirit can sustain him during sickness, but who can lift up a dejected spirit?” The meaning of this verse is that the spirit, i.e. the soul, is able to relieve the sickness of the body to an extent as it sustains the sick body by itself going without food or drink for many days and offering solace to the body. When the mind is sick however, who can sustain it? Who will offer it solace or comfort?     Furthermore, just as there are physical afflictions so there are mental diseases. The latter are more serious and harder to combat than diseases of the body. Most people suffering mental disease are victims of sins committed or are the result of such a person (mind) having believed in the wrong values. This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 2,16: “to deliver you from the alien woman, from the strange woman  whose talk is smooth.” He continues about this “strange woman” in Proverbs 5,3 “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey;” Solomon compares  beliefs in the wrong values as equivalent to an alien woman who destroys her victim in the end.” This is why Solomon said: “but in the  end  she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword” (Proverbs 5,4). Another verse dealing with the same subject is Proverbs 5,5: “her feet go down to death, her steps support she'ol.” By having provided man with the ability to speak and to communicate his thoughts to others, G’d has also given man a decisive advantage over all other creatures. He enabled us to heal people whose minds are sick and to bring them close to the protective wings of G’d’s presence, the Shechinah (compare Ruth 2,12). Being under these protective wings of the Shechinah means to enjoy true and everlasting life. Avraham possessed this attribute of being able to heal spirits and this enabled him to attract so many people to the one and only G’d (compare Sotah 10). All of this he achieved by healing people through judicious use of his tongue. When the sages describe that he had a pearl around his neck which conferred a cure upon people they meant the power of speech (compare Baba Batra 16). We are told that the single pearl which hung around Avraham’s neck had the effect that any sick person who looked at it would be cured instantly. When Avraham died G’d took this pearl and made it part of the planet sun. The Midrash obviously needs elucidation as it is a euphemism expressing a certain idea. The author compared Avraham’s attribute which enabled him to gain converts to monotheism to the sun and its ability to illuminate matters that were previously concealed. The mention of Avraham’s neck in this connection is to be understood as the source of the “pearl” being in his throat, the source of verbalising one’s thoughts. What the author of the Midrash meant was that anyone suffering from spiritual dejection who listened to Avraham’s words would be cured.    When Avraham died he did not leave behind him any person  or creature capable of teaching the Divinity of G’d and His uniqueness other than the planet sun; this is why G’d removed this “pearl” and hung it around the “sun in its orbit.” This is confirmed by Psalms 19,2: “the heavens proclaim G’d’s glory,” and this is also the meaning of the words מרפא לשון עץ חיים which we quoted from Proverbs as the introduction to this essay. The healing power demonstrated by the judicious use Avraham made of his tongue was the reason that so many of the people with whom he came into contact adopted his belief in monotheism. These were the people referred to in Genesis 12,5 as ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “and the people whom they had converted to monotheism while in Charan.”    The healing power of Moses’ tongue was demonstrated in verse 8 of our chapter when the Torah reports Moses as telling his father-in-law about all the miracles G’d had performed on behalf of the Jewish people. Yitro converted to Judaism after hearing his son-in-law describe what had transpired since he had left him. He abandoned his prestigious position in Midian as the High Priest, wealth, and his many children, and went into the desert in order to place himself under the protective wings of G’d’s Shechinah as soon as he hard Moses tell him what had happened since he had returned to Egypt at the time.
   וישמע יתרו כהן מדין חותן משה את כל אשר עשה אלו-הים למשה ולישראל עמו כי הוציא ה' את ישראל ממצרים, “Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard all that G’d had done for Moses and His people Israel, that the Lord had taken Israel out of Egypt.” Concerning this entire portion there are conflicting opinions amongst  our sages (Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua Hamoda'i in Zevachim 116) as to when Yitro arrived in the desert at the encampment of the Israelites. Some say he arrived prior to the giving of the Torah; others say that he arrived after the giving of the Torah. Each group of sages can cite evidence which appears to support its view.    The sages who claim that Yitro arrived only after the giving of the Torah refer to the words in verse 5 which describe the location where Yitro found the Israelites as “where it was encamped at the Mountain of G’d.” The words אשר חונה שם in that verse mean “where it was still encamped.” We know that Moses and the Israelites remained encamped at Mount Sinai for approximately an entire year. This makes it likely that Yitro arrived there after the Torah had been given (6 days after the Israelites’ arrival at that site). Furthermore, Moses’ words in 28,16: “and I make known to them the statutes of G’d and His social laws,” appear to presuppose that Moses had already been given the Torah. A third indication that Yitro arrived after the giving of the Torah is found at the end of our portion where Moses reluctantly sees his father-in-law off when the latter returns home. We read there (19,27) “Moses sent off his father-in-law and he went to his land.” Had the Torah not been given already, it is hardly conceivable that Moses would not have detained his father-in-law at least until after that event!  However, if we accept the view that Yitro had arrived only after the giving of the Torah it seems peculiar that Moses should have told him only about what transpired in Egypt and at the Exodus without mentioning the revelation at Mount Sinai with a single syllable! At the very least Moses should have mentioned that the entire nation had been found worthy to hear the words of G’d directly out of the fiery spectacle which occurred at Mount Sinai. Moreover, if Yitro acknowledged the might of G’d based on matters which he had heard second-hand, i.e. the plagues and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds and the drowning of the Egyptians  so that he was moved to exclaim: “now I know  that the Lord is greater than any god,” would he not have been even more impressed when he heard about the revelation which had occurred much more recently and had demonstrated the existence and involvement of G’d in the affairs of man? Keeping this in mind we can understand the view of the sages that Yitro must have arrived at the encampment of the Jewish people prior to the giving of the Torah. When we accept the latter view the sequence of the Torah’s report of events is in chronological order also. These words reflect the opinion of Nachmanides.    Such a view explains the fact that Moses did not mention the revelation at Mount Sinai; he could not have done so as it had not happened yet. As to the argument that the words אשר הוא חונה שם הר האלו-הים indicate that Yitro found the people there after the revelation, these words do not necessarily mean that Moses was encamped at the Mountain of G’d. Actually, at that time the Israelites were at Refidim which is located between Eylim and Sinai. The “mountain of G’d” was a term with which Yitro was familiar ever since Moses had told him of his appointment as leader of the Jewish people which had taken place at that mountain. The mountain was so named because it was going to be the location where the Israelites would perform service to the Lord, as mentioned already in Exodus 3,12. This service was the justification G’d cited to Moses for liberating an as yet not worthy Jewish people. The Torah tells us about the great stature of Yitro who did not wait for the revelation at Mount Sinai before coming to join the Jewish people and to convert to Judaism. As to Moses telling his father-in-law that he was instructing the people in G’d’s statutes and social laws, these were not the laws of the Torah, but the legislation which G’d had already revealed as we have been told in connection with what transpired at Marah 16,25 “there He taught them decrees and ordinances.”     As to the third argument that at the end of the Parshah we read that Moses saw off his father-in-law when he returned to his own land,  it is well to remember that the Torah does not say that וישב יתרו למקומו, that “Yitro returned to his place,” i.e. as if nothing had happened. On the contrary, Yitro returned to Midian “his land” in order to convert as many Midianites as he was able to monotheism or to Judaism. At the very least he converted his own family. Mechilta Yitro section 2 writes that Yitro told Moses before his departure that he would go back to Midian and convert his people; it is possible that though he went he never returned, having been unsuccessful. At any rate, this would account for the report in Judges 1,16: “the descendants of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses went up with the Israelites from the city of Palms to the wilderness of Yehudah.”    The portion of Yitro follows immediately after the paragraph dealing with Amalek because the two stories show the diametrically opposite reaction of different Gentiles to the same event. Whereas Amalek used the defeat of the Egyptians in order to take up the fight against G’d and G’d’s people instead, Yitro learned from history and converted to Judaism. Seeing that Amalek was a descendant of Esau, the son of Yitzchak, one could have expected that the events of the Exodus would have evoked a feeling of penitence in these people, the very opposite was the case. Amalek traveled from afar in order to counteract the psychological impact on the majority of mankind when they heard of the miracles G’d had performed and how for the first time in history slaves had been freed.    On the other hand, Yitro, who was related to the Jewish people only through Avraham and Keturah became a convert. The Torah requites the behaviour of both by instructing us to wipe out Amalek and every vestige of his memory (Deut.25,19), whereas  we read in Samuel I 15,6 that when King Saul went to war against Amalek he made sure that the Kenites (descendants of Yitro) would evacuate the city before he attacked it. The reason given for that act of consideration was the fact that their forefathers had acted with kindness vis-a-vis the Jewish people when they  departed from Egypt on their way to the land of Israel.
      It is possible to explain the proximity of these two paragraphs, i.e. the fight against Amalek and the arrival of Yitro followed by the paragraph of the revelation at Mount Sinai, followed in turn by Parshat Mishpatim, in a different way. It is a fact of life that the descendants of Esau are a painful thorn for the Jewish people throughout our history, no less so during the first hostile encounter reported at the end of Parshat Beshalach than at the end of our exile when G’d will bring the final redemption. We have a hint here that just as Israel was successful in its first encounter with Amalek with the help of Moses and Joshua so it will be during the final encounter in the future. During the exile in which we find ourselves nowadays we will be helped by the prophet Elijah, a descendant of the tribe of Levi just like Moses; the second helper will be the Mashiach ben Yoseph, the redeemer from the tribe of Joseph like Joshua who was from the tribe of Ephrayim. (based on a Jewish-Christian theological confrontation involving Nachmanides in his Sefer Hage-ulah page 291 edited by Rabbi Chavell). Just as the first redemption resulted in Yitro converting to Judaism and returning to the fold (his ancestor was Avraham), so, as a result of the final redemption, all the surviving Gentile nations will convert and join Judaism. The reason that the portion of Yitro which contains the account of the giving of the Torah also follows the story of the fight against Amalek and Yitro’s conversion, is that the report of the giving of the Torah is a reminder that eventually the Torah will become the property of all of mankind and G’d’s name and knowledge of Him will be world-wide “like the waters which cover the ocean” (Isaiah 11,9). Following that redemption there will be a יום הדין, a “day of judgment,” a resurrection of the dead. This is why the portion ואלה המשפטים follows the giving of the Torah to signal to us that resurrection and eternal life will be for those who observe the commandments spelled out in that portion. It is worth noting that when Daniel 12,2 refers to that day in the future he mentions the word אלה twice in that verse. The proximity of our portions is to be understood in terms of Isaiah 46,10 מגיד מראשית אחרית “who foretells at the beginning what the end is going to be like.” By commencing פרשת משפטים with the word ואלה, the link between Torah legislation, observance and resurrection as mentioned in Daniel is established.
     כי הוציא ה' את ישראל, “that G’d had taken out Israel.” After Moses had first spoken of G’d as אלו-הים, when he spoke of  עשה אלו-הים, he wanted to introduce Yitro to the tetragrammaton, G’d’s full name. and other attributes. It was important to Moses that Yitro should realize that the Exodus had been orchestrated by this attribute of G‘d. In this Moses merely paraphrased what we have read in 13,16: “for with a strong hand did Hashem take us out of Egypt.” Moses wanted to prevent the misconception that only the חזק יד had been active in orchestrating the Exodus of the Jewish people. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ושם האחד אליעזר, “and the other one’s name was Eliezer.”  The Torah should have written either: “the name of the second one, i.e. השני, or האחר.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the justification for the Torah describing both sons with the adjective “the one,” is that one son was special, exclusive for his father, whereas the other was special, exclusive for his mother. Gershom being the firstborn was special to his mother. Seeing Tzipporah had taken a knife and circumcised her son thus saving (him) or (his father) from death at the hands of the angel (Exodus 4,25) he was special to his mother. Eliezer, on the other hand whose name commemorated the fact that G’d saved Moses’ life when he fled from Pharaoh, was special to his father.
      Another way of understanding the words האחד as applicable to both these sons is that the potential to increase, to multiply, is rooted in the first one. Unless there is one son to start with, other children do not represent an increase. We know from Chronicles I 23,17 that whereas Eliezer himself had only one son, רחביה, his grandsons were very numerous as proved by the words in that verse ובני רחביה רבו למעלה, “the sons of Rechaviah were very numerous.” Berachot 7 interprets that line to mean that eventually more than 600,000 descendants came out of Rechaviah. The Torah mentioned the word האחד to indicate that he was the origin of all those descendants.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Chukat 8): On the words "“and the name of the one was Eliezer,” Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina said that that at the time Moses ascended to heaven he found G’d studying the laws of the red heifer saying that in a certain dispute between two Rabbis, the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer was the correct one.” He (Rabbi Eliezer) had ruled that whereas the calf used in the procedure of עגלה ערופה, “atonement for an unresolved case of murder” (compare Deut. chapter 21) the animal to be killed had to be up to one year old, the heifer to be used in the ceremony of the red heifer had to be up to  two years old. When Moses became aware of G’d “debating the issue before coming to a decision,” he exclaimed “Lord! The entire universe is Yours and you waited until mortals had debated the issue and ruled on it before ruling on the issue Yourself!” G’d answered him by saying that in the future there would arise a certain righteous person by the name of Rabbi Eliezer and he would be the first one to render a ruling on this subject. When Moses heard how highly G’d rated the scholarship of that rabbi he exclaimed that he hoped the Rabbi in question would be one of his descendants. G’d assured him that this would indeed be the case. Hence the description האחד here in our verse. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . ואשתך ושני בניה עמה, “and your wife and her two sons with her.” The Torah should have quoted Yitro as saying to Moses: “and your two sons,” instead of “and her two sons,” just as he said “your wife,” “your father-in-law.” However, we must remember that it is customary for the Torah to describe sons as belonging to their mother such as in Genesis 46,15: “these are the sons of Leah,” whereas daughters are described as “belonging” to their father such as in the same verse “and Dinah his daughter” (compare Nidah 31).
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ויצא משה לקראת חותנו, “Moses went out to meet his father-in-law.” Our sages in Mechilta ask the rhetorical question: “was there anyone who observed that Moses left the camp in order to welcome Yitro and he himself stayed behind? Was there anyone who observed that Aaron left the camp to welcome Yitro and he himself stayed behind?” The wording of the text makes it clear that the entire menfolk went out to welcome Yitro.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . את כל התלאה, “all the hardship, etc.” this was a reference to the waters having turned bitter at Marah, to the Israelites having run out of dough which they had taken with them from Egypt to make into bread; he told him about their having been attacked by Amalek. He added that in spite of all these hardships which they encountered on the way the Lord had saved them in a critical situation each time.
  
  Verse 9
  
  . ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced over the goodness, etc.” The word ויחד is the same as the word חדוה in עז וחדוה במקומו, “strength and joy are in His place” (Chronicles I 16,27). We may also see the word אחדות as intimately related to the word ויחד, “he united.” This meaning would reflect that Yitro had converted and accepted the אחדות, the “Unity” of G’d. He blessed the name of the Lord as we hear in verse 10: “blessed be the Lord who has saved you .”
       The Midrash (Sanhedrin 94) views Yitro’s reaction as expressed by the word ויחד somewhat differently, understanding the root of the word as חדד. Accordingly, Yitro had mixed feelings which expressed themselves in goose-flesh at the news of what had overtaken the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds. The Talmud says that his reaction reflects the truth of the popular saying that a convert displays some sensitivity concerning what befalls his former co-religionists until the tenth generation. Yitro was a tenth generation descendant of Mizrayim the son of Cham, Noach’s youngest son. The Egyptians of his time were his allies. At the same time he himself as a Midianite was also a descendant of Avraham and Keturah (Genesis 25,2) as already mentioned. There had been ten generations between Noach and Avraham. Similarly, there had been ten generations from Cham son of Noach, to Midian son of Avraham. This is the background to the popular saying quoted in the Talmud that the affinity to former associations by a convert is noticeable for ten generations.
  
  Verse 10
  
  . אשר הציל אתכם, “who has saved you.” The Torah mentions two separate acts of “saving.” The first was the Israelites having been saved from being enslaved to the Egyptians. The second was the cessation of their slave labour already during the period of the ten plagues. Alternatively, the words: “who has saved you” may refer to the fact that Moses and Aaron individually had escaped the danger inherent in having confronted Pharaoh for a full year. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  . עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלו-הים כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “now I know that Hashem is greater than any deity for with the matter wherein they sinned He came upon them.” Yitro meant the factor which convinced him of the superiority of Hashem to any other deity was the matching of the punishment to the crime committed. Had the Egyptians not committed sins they would not have been punished for fulfilling G’d’s decree that the Jews be strangers or even bondsmen in Egypt. This had been decreed already in Genesis 15,13. They sinned by adding זדו. They decreed that every male Jewish baby be drowned; hence G’d paid them back by drowning them. G’d had never decreed for any of Avraham’s descendants to be murdered. The word כי  is prelude to recognition that the Egyptians must have sinned. Their punishment by water gave Yitro the clue to the nature of their sin. We find a similar construction in Nechemyah 9,10 כי ידעת כי הזידו עליהם, “for You were aware that they had deliberately sinned against them.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים לאלו-הים, “Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law took burnt offering and meat offering for G’d.” This is the only time when we find the Torah mentioning the attribute אלו-הים in connection with sacrifices. Everyhwere else we have the attribute Hashem in connection with sacrificial offerings to G’d. Yitro had not yet become aware of that dimension of G’d; hence he had to address the attribute he was aware of. Moses tried to educate him in this respect when he told him in verse 8 about what Hashem had done to Pharaoh on account of the Jewish people. Yitro’s motivation in coming, significantly, referred to what אלו-הים had done  for Moses (verse 1).
     עם חותן משה לפני האלו-הים, “with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of G’d.” The words: “in the presence of G’d,” mean “in front of the משכן, residence, of G’d.” Seeing that there  was not yet a Tabernacle, the meaning is “in front of the pillar of cloud or pillar of fire which symbolised G’d’s residence on earth.” The meal described here was prepared in honour of Yitro’s conversion, circumcision, and ritual immersion. There can be no question that this festive meal, just like the meal Yitzchak had eaten prior to bestowing blessings, was designed to enhance the joy of the souls of the participants so that they would be granted Holy Spirit. We have explained on other occasions already that true spiritual joy is dependent on one’s body feeling well. When one’s physical powers are at their best such feelings transfer themselves also to the soul and enhance its ability to feel at its best. This has been documented in Kings II 3,15 by the prophet Elisha who demanded to be entertained by a musician in order to raise his spirit to the level of prophetic insights.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלו-הים, “for the people come to me to seek  G’d.” Moses did not say that the people came to him to seek Hashem.” The reason was that Moses was engaged in dealing with litigation. The attribute of אלו-הים is appropriate in that connection as we know from Deut. 1,17 כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא, “for matters of judgment are reserved for the attribute אלו-הים is why Moses used this attribute when he explained to Yitro what he was doing (and why he remained seated). He said והודעתיו את חוקי האלו-הים ואת תורותיו “I acquaint them with the statutes of אלו-הים and with His teachings.” The meaning of the whole verse is: “they need to stand in line before me for a long time because they inquire concerning so many things.” Some of them ask me to pray on behalf of their sick family members; some want me to locate lost property for them; we find that the expression דרישת אלו-הים is used in Scripture in connection with both of these requests; in Kings II 8,8,  when Chazael wants to know from the prophet Elisha if he would recover from his sickness, he does so saying ודרשת את ה' מאותו לאמור האחיה מחלי זה? “and through him inquire from the Lord: ‘will I recover from this sickness?’” Chazael meant for Elisha to pray on his behalf and to inform him afterwards if his prayer had been answered. Rivkah did the same when the twins were quarreling in her womb and the Torah says ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went to inquire from G’d” (Genesis 25,22). With regard to the restoration of lost objects we read in Samuel I 9,9: “Formerly, in Israel, when a man went to inquire of G’d  he said: “come, let us go to the Seer.” The subject under discussion in that chapter was the lost donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father. Clearly, the prophet was expected to be able to tell the petitioner where to find things he had lost. In addition, Moses explained to Yitro that he functioned as a judge and in that capacity he taught the people the laws of the Lord.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   נבול תבול גם אתה גם העם הזה, “surely you will become weary, both you and this people.” The meaning of the words נבול תבול corresponds to Onkelos’ translation of מלאה תלאה, “you will become worn out, tired.” Yitro meant that it was irresponsible, forbidden even, for Moses to undergo such a strain and to make the people undergo such a strain. Many would stand in line and wait and never get around to have their problems aired before Moses.
      A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata): The word נבול is a euphemism for the leaf of a fig which wilts. The application of the word נבול to leaves is found in Isaiah 34,4: “like a leaf withering on the vine, like shriveled fruit on a fig tree.” The repeated word גם is meant to include both Aaron and the seventy elders.
  
  Verse 19
  
  . היה אתה לעם מול האלו-הים, “be you a representative of the people before G’d.” Yitro meant: “you are to present the people’s prayer  to G’d on their behalf,” as we find in Psalms 88,2 “when I cry out in the night before You.” The psalmist uses the word נגדך.
     והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלו-הים, “and you will bring the matters to G’d.” Yitro acknowledged the first of Moses’ explanations, i.e. that the people ask him to intercede on their behalf. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  . והזהרת אתהם את החקים ואת התורה, “and you will caution them regarding the decrees and the teachings.” Yitro also acknowledged the need for Moses to deal with the second matter he had mentioned personally, i.e. to inform the people of the decrees and the teachings mentioned in verse 16. However, concerning the third matter, i.e. Moses being the adjudicator of every dispute, Yitro did not agree that Moses personally had to deal with such matters. This is why he said to him (verse 18) “this matter is too hard for you (personally)”. He therefore suggested that Moses deputise people to carry out litigations in his place. He stipulated that the people appointed for such a task be אנשי חיל, (an attribute we will discuss in verse 21).
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואתה תחזה, “as for you, you are to discern, etc.” We would have expected Yitro to say: “you shall select,” instead of “you will discern.” In fact, when it came to carrying out Yitro’s advice the Torah reports that Moses ויבחר אנשי חיל, “selected men who were accomplished.” The reason two different words were used for the selection of the appointees is that whereas man sees with his eyes, the exterior, i.e. תחזה, Yitro who was aware of man’s limitations in the matter advised Moses to do the most he could, i.e. judge by appearances. He hoped that Moses would have the prophetic insight, i.e. חזיון, visionary quality, to select the right people. When it came to carrying out the advice the Torah reports that Moses had Divine assistance so that the people he “selected,” were confirmed to possess the attributes Moses had judged that they had.    Another approach to the words: ואתה תחזה. We have stated on another occasion that  the truly righteous person reflects this quality in his face so that even ferocious beasts do not attack him. Similarly, great men such as Yaakov can read facial expressions accurately so that they know what quality of person they face. Here too, Yitro told Moses that he was the kind of individual who could make such judgments based on merely looking at people from the outside. By emphasizing the word ואתה, Yitro meant that he was confident that Moses was able to select the right people without special Divine assistance.	
     מכל העם אנשי חיל, “from amongst all the people men of accomplishment.” The term אנשי חיל is a collective term and presupposes that these people possessed all the individual qualities Yitro had enumerated such as being “G’d-fearing, men of truth, people despising money.” The title אנשי חיל is applied to people who can lead the nation by judging fairly. It is impossible for fair judgment to be dispensed unless those dispensing it possess reverence for G’d and His Torah, despise ill gotten gain such as bribes, and are truthful. Our sages (Sanhedrin 7) have stated that a true judge is someone who in his mind’s eye constantly sees a sword at his neck above, and gehinom opening before him below, he being in the middle. If he merits it he will be saved from both, if not he will be afflicted by both. Judges must also be “men of truth,” meaning they must love truth as a value by itself choosing to side only with truth, refusing to accept arguments based on lies. They must personify the principle expressed in Exodus 23,7 applying to judges (according to Ibn Ezra) “keep your distance from anything deceitful.” They must also be שונאי בצע, i.e. display a disdain for money. This applies to a disdain for their own money, money acquired honestly (‎Sifri on Deut. 1,17).  It goes without saying that they must hate money that was taken from others illegally. (compare Genesis 37,26). The author quotes Scripture to show that the word בצע may mean simply ”money.” An alternative meaning of the word בצע may be  “robbery.” The requirement of the psychological makeup of the personality of a judge would have to be a hatred against anything acquired by means of violence direct or indirect, i.e. the threat of violence.    In order to appreciate how highly these virtues were esteemed by the Torah we need only look at instances of the Torah complimenting outstanding individuals. Noach (Genesis 6,9) was praised for being righteous and perfect (תמים), a contrast to the violence which permeated mankind at the time and resulted in the decree of the deluge. Avraham was praised and instructed to be תמים, (Genesis 17,1). Yaakov was described as תם, (Genesis 25,27) Moses was described as extremely ענו, humble, the opposite of arrogant, demanding. All of this goes to show that the principal quality of a judge is not his intellect but his personal virtue. Just as the trunk of a tree is not its most important component but the fruit it yields, our sages taught us that the meaning of Psalm 111,10  שכל טוב לכל עושיהם, is that not the לומדיהם, the intelligence itself, is the principal value of a clever brain but the use to which he puts such intelligence., i.e. עושיהם (Berachot 17).
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ושפטו את העם בכל עת, “they shall judge the people at all times.” The meaning of the words בכל עת is “at all times convenient to the people.” As long as Moses was the only judge it was obviously impossible for a litigant to get justice when he wanted to. Moses was constantly swamped with petitioners. If Yitro’s advice were accepted this would change.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . בחודש השלישי, “in the third month.” This was the month of Sivan. The words ביום הזה mean that it was the first day of the month. This is the day normally called חדש, such as in Samuel I 20,24  ויהי החדש וישב המלך אל הלחם לאכול, “It was on חדש and the King sat down to eat.” Another example of the word חדש referring to New Moon is found in the same chapter of the Book of Samuel three verses later: We read ויהי ממחרת החדש השני ויפקד מקום דוד, “It was on the second day of the New Moon celebration that David’s seat remained empty.” The verse teaches you amongst other things that they observed two days of New Moon. This is what King Saul referred to when he inquired speaking to his son Yonathan: “why did the son of Yishai not appear either yesterday or today for the meal?” Our sages in Shabbat 86 also state that the words ביום הזה mean that the Israelites arrived in the desert of Sinai on the first day of the month. They base this on the use of the word הזה in our verse here and the expression החדש הזה לכם in Exodus 12,2.
     באו מדבר סיני, “they arrived in the desert Sinai.” This is another word for חורב of which we heard in Exodus 3,1 that Moses came to the mountain of G’d, to Chorev. Concerning this mountain G’d had told Moses at the time: “when I make you take the people out of Egypt you will serve G’d at this mountain.” (Exodus 3,12).
  
  Verse 2
  
    ויסעו מרפידים, “they journeyed from Refidim.” This means that on the day they journeyed from Refidim it was New Moon and they arrived later that day at the desert of Sinai. The words ויבואו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר, mean that they arrived in the desert on that day, resting, but on the second of the month they made camp facing the mountain. This is why the Torah writes ויחן שם ישראל ההר, “Israel encamped facing the mountain.” The reason the word ויחן is in the singular here whereas at all other reports of the Israelites making camp it is in the plural, i.e. ויחנו, is the Torah’s way of complimenting the people for their unity of purpose when preparing to receive the Torah.   A Midrash (mentioned in Torah Shleimah note 28) claims that the reason for the singular of ויחן is that the word ישראל in our verse is a reference to ישראל סבא, the concept of the people of Israel as envisaged in the name Israel the patriarch. The author of that Midrash clearly distinguishes between the Torah speaking of בני ישראל traveling or camping respectively, and ישראל or מחנה ישראל in 12,37 and here. When the word בני in front of ישראל is absent, he understands the reference to be not to the physical people of Israel but to the spiritual entity it or they represent.    The words נגד ההר, a slightly unusual expression, is to be understood as if the Torah had written כנגד ההר, “opposite the mountain.”    According to the plain meaning of the text the words נגד ההר mean “to the east of the mountain” (compare Pessikta Zutrata). Moses was told on that very day (second of the month) “so you shall say to the House of Yaakov and relate to Children of Israel” (verse 3). The Torah mentioned women and men separately as there are many commandments which apply equally to both men and women. G’d continued with: “you have seen what I did to Egypt,” and continued in verse 5 with: “and now, if you will hearken well and observe My covenant, etc.” The people responded to the above (verse 8) “all that the Lord has said we will do.    On the third day of the month Moses ascended the mountain again and informed G’d of the people’s response (end of verse 8). On the fourth of the month G’d told Moses: “go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow” (verse 10). G’d referred to the fourth and fifth of the month. The words: “be ready for the third day” refer to the sixth of the month, i.e. the third day of their sanctification. From the above you observe that the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan. 
  Our sages (Rabbi Akiva) say in Shabbat 86 that the Torah was given on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yossi held that the Torah (Ten Commandments) was given on the seventh of the month. Rava added that both scholars are in agreement that the Torah was given on the Sabbath. When the Torah writes in 20,8 זכור את יום השבת, and the same words are used in 13,3 זכור את היום הזה אשר יצאתם ממצרים, (the word זכור being in the infinitive both times) this serves as the reason for both scholars agreeing that both events occurred on the same day of the week, i.e. on the Sabbath. The matter under dispute between these two scholars was only the day of the week on which the first day of Sivan occurred. Rabbi Yossi held that New Moon was on the preceding Sunday, whereas Rabbi Akiva (and the other scholars) held that New Moon in that year occurred on the Monday. Although there is a rule in the Talmud that when Rabbi Yossi’s opinion differs from his peers his opinion is preferred because he always supplied a good reason for his opinion (compare Gittin 67), in this instance the halachah was fixed according to the opinion of the other scholars, the majority. Accordingly, our tradition is that the Israelites arrived in the desert of Sinai on Monday and encamped in front of Mount Sinai on the second of the month, i.e. on Tuesday after having left their initial resting place in that desert. The fact that the Torah was given on the Sabbath is recorded in our עמידה prayer every Sabbath morning when we say  ישמח משה במתנת חלקו “Moses was full of joy with the portion allotted to him.” He rejoiced that it had been his good fortune to hand over G’d’s Torah to the Jewish people on that memorable Sabbath.
  
  Verse 3
  
   כה תאמר לבית יעקב, “So you shall say to the House of Yaakov.” Moses was to address the women. The word כה means he was to speak to them in Hebrew. The word תאמר means he was to speak to them kindly. The reason G’d told Moses to address the women first was to teach them ethics and general rules of behavior. Furthermore, in order to make the women receptive for further Torah legislation, Moses gave them an overview of the headings and subject matters that the Torah contains. They needed special preparation for all this as their minds function differently from the minds of men, seeing that their daily tasks did not allow them so much free time to think about their spiritual needs as did the minds of the men.    Moreover, a good woman is the main reason Torah has a future. The mother encourages her young son to attend a Torah-academy; seeing she is at home throughout the day she is the one who responds to the various needs, both real and imagined, of her children. She protects them against all kinds of dangers. She does all this so that he will cleave to the path of Torah also when he becomes old (Proverbs 22,6). This is why it is incumbent upon a woman to pray to G’d at the time she lights the Sabbath candles, a commandment which is especially addressed to her, that He may grant her children who will learn Torah and observe its precepts. Any prayer is more likely to evoke a positive response when it is offered at a time when one performs a commandment.    The merit acquired by lighting the Sabbath candles which provide physical light helps her children to become Torah scholars. This is alluded to by Solomon in Proverbs 6,23 כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, that by lighting a candle to provide physical light when one is performing a מצוה, the result will be the spiritual light dispensed by her children who have studied Torah.
     ותגיד לבני ישראל, “and tell the Children of Israel.” He commanded them to both instruct and warn them to observe the commandments as well as to acquaint them with the penalties in store if they would fail to observe G’d’s laws. This is implied in the word תגיד, i.e. the word is derived from גידין, “wormwood,” an extremely bitter vegetable. The word is spelled with the letter י in the middle to remind us of the connection with גידין. There is no other occasion in the whole Bible where the word הגדה, telling, informing, is spelled with the letter י such as here. Compare Joshua 7,19 and Isaiah 58,1 where the word הגד refers to revealing one’s sins. Even in those instances we do not find the letter י. This explains why our sages (Shabbat 87) have seen fit to interpret the word here as they did. 
  
  Verse 4
  
    אתם ראיתם את אשר עשיתי למצרים, “You have seen what I have done to Egypt.” At the outset G’d explains to the Jewish people that the matter of His personal benevolent supervision of their fate is the basic tenet of Judaism and the Torah. When G’d sets out to punish one nation for their sins and to save another nation from them on account of its merits, this is one of the miracles which is part of G’d’s special supervision and of the whole concept of reward and punishment. In order to underline this G’d reminded the Israelites by saying: “Look at what I have done to Egypt.” G’d performed all this in front of the eyes of the Israelites so that they would have visual evidence of His personal involvement in their fate. G’d contrasted what He had done to the Egyptians with what He had done for the Israelites when He continued with: “I have carried you on eagles’ wings and brought You to Me (to this Mountain).” The simile was meant to describe how G’d had protected the Israelites, just as an eagle protects its young.    Mechilta (Bachodesh item 2) describes the simile of the eagle in these words: an eagle, the king of the birds, is not afraid of another bird attacking it from above but is afraid of an arrow from below; therefore the eagle carries its young on its wings whereas other birds carry their young in their claws below their wings as they fear that an eagle might swoop down upon them from above.    The eagle’s reason for carrying its young on its wings is documented in Deut. 32,11 when Moses extols what G’d had done in these words: “He was like an eagle arousing its nest, hovering over its young.” The eagle reasons that it is better for an arrow to pierce it than to pierce its young.  When the Israelites departed from Egypt and entered the Sea of Reeds the Egyptians were pursuing them; at that time G’d arranged for two pillars one of fire and one of cloud to separate them from the Egyptians who were behind. The Egyptians were shooting arrows in the general direction of the camp of the Israelites. These arrows were absorbed by the pillar of cloud  not causing any harm to their targets.
   If, according to this Midrash,  the Torah meant to describe G’d’s love for the Israelites as similar to the love of the eagle for its young, the Torah should have written: here: “I have carried you on the wings of an eagle (sing.).”  Why the word נשרים in the plural? Perhaps the reason the Torah writes נשרים, “eagles,” is to allude to the fact that G’d did not only interpose Himself between the Israelites and the Egyptians as a single pillar but as two pillars, one of cloud and one of fire. The fact is that the Torah reported as soon as the Israelites had journeyed from Raamses (Exodus 12,37), that there traveled with them both a pillar of cloud by day to show them the way and a pillar of fire to light up the night for them. These two pillars took up positions behind the Israelites only after the Egyptians had mounted a pursuit and were in a threatening position (14,19).
  
  Verse 5
  
   והייתם לי סגולה, “you shall be My treasured possession;” any treasure which is hidden is called סגולה, it is the kind of treasure which is most dear and beloved to a king and something which he constantly keeps under his personal control. They are matters which the king does not entrust even to his closest ministers or officials. Kohelet 2,8 speaks of such a situation, i.e. “and the treasure of kings and the provinces.” The reason G’d said  מכל העמים in our verse is to contrast the other nations whose entire fate is being monitored by G’d’s agents rather than by G’d Himself with the Jewish people whose fate is monitored by G’d Himself. The Torah is even more outspoken about the fact that the fate of the 70 nations has been delegated to His agents in Deut. 4,19-20 “which Hashem has apportioned to all the peoples,....but Hashem has taken you and withdrawn you from the crucible of Egypt to be a nation of heritage to Him.”
     כי לי כל הארץ, “for the whole earth is Mine,” and I have not chosen any other nation except you.   A kabbalistic approach: I have already discussed that the word כל is reference to an attribute of G’d in Genesis 1,1 where the terms השמים and הארץ have been discussed.
  
  Verse 6
  
  .  ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, “and you are to be for Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The plain meaning of these words is that “you will be My share.” G’d calls the Jewish people “kings, priests, and holy nation,” at the time they received the Torah in order to make clear that he who wears the כתר תורה, the crown of Torah, also has attained the stature of the other two crowns i.e. priesthood and Royalty. This is the meaning of the statement by the sages in Horiot 13 that the meaning of Proverbs 3,15: “she (wisdom, read Torah) is more precious than rubies.” Seeing that the “crown” of Torah includes the two other crowns it is more precious than rubies. Although the High Priest (crown of priesthood) may enter the Holy of Holies, a great distinction, the crown of Torah is superior even to that distinction. 
      A kabbalistic approach: the meaning of the words ממלכת כהנים is equivalent to writing ממלכת משרתים, “a kingdom of servants of the Lord.” This definition of the Jewish people applies to their role in the terrestrial world. The definition גוי קדוש applies to the function of the Jewish people in the hereafter. Grammatically speaking, the word גוי is a possessive, i.e. “nation of.” This means גוי קדוש should be translated as “a nation belonging to The Holy One.” We have a similar construction in Isaiah 26,2 ויבא גוי צדיק, “the nation belonging to the Righteous One came.” Basically, our verse assures the Jewish people of a dominant role both on earth and beyond.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   כל אשר דבר ה’ נעשה, “all that Hashem has said we shall do.” They gave thanks and accepted for themselves the yoke of Torah and the commandments, doing so willingly [under no physical or psychological pressure. Ed.] Seeing that our sages said (Shabbat 88) that G’d threatened to bring the mountain down on them if they did not accept the Torah, and that they would be buried on the spot, how do we reconcile this verse here which clearly indicates voluntary acceptance of the Torah? Answer: our verse refers to acceptance of the written Torah. The subject discussed in the Talmud Shabbat was the oral Torah. G’d put the Israelites under psychological pressure to accept the oral Torah as well. Seeing that the oral Torah includes the thousands of Rabbinic decrees (by reason of the authority vested by the written Torah in the Rabbis) there was a need to apply such pressure. The written Torah, however was accepted joyfully without the need for any coercion whatsoever.
     וישב משה, “Moses brought back, etc.” There are commentators who claim that the word וישב does not mean that Moses actually presented G’d with the people’s acceptance of the written Torah. The word וישב means that when Moses set out to inform G’d, G’d already continued to give him new instructions  telling him: “Here I will come to you within a thick cloud, etc.” At that point we are to understand the word in verse 10 ויגד משה את דברי העם אל ה’. “Moses informed G’d of the words the people had said.”   It is possible to interpret the words וישב משה, as referring to the people saying נעשה, and the words ויגד משה as meaning that Moses conveyed the people’s demand to hear the words in question from G’d directly instead of merely through Moses as an intermediary. (Mechilta baChodesh end of section 2). If we follow this approach then the word יחדו in our verse does not mean that the people responded “in unison,” but that they said two things at one and the same time. 1) They expressed joyful acceptance of the written Torah. 2) They asked to be addressed by G’d directly. G’d had provided them with an opening for such a request when He had said in verse 5  (condensed) “if you will hearken to MY VOI‎CE, etc. you will be something special.” This is why Moses told G’d, ויגד, that the people wanted to hear His voice, i.e. as a substitute for seeing Him.
  
  Verse 9
  
   בעב הענן, “in the thickness of the cloud.” This is the cloud called ערפל, (20,18, Deut. 4,11). In the former verse the Torah says specifically: אשר שם האלו-הים “in which the attribute אלו-הים was (hidden).” Everybody present could not fail to recognize this as we know from 24,17: “the appearance of the glory of G’d was like consuming fire at the top of the mountain.” The instructions G’d gave to Moses in our verse were: ”I come to you in the thickness of the cloud so that the people will hear (My words) when I speak with you” (so that they themselves will attain the spiritual stature of prophets). Their belief in you will not be predicated on what they hear from others but on what they hear from Me directly. Compare Deut. 4,10: “when G’d said to me: ‘assemble  the people to Me and I will let them hear My words so that they will learn to fear Me, etc.’” Here too, G’d added that the people would forever more believe in Moses. The meaning of these words is that if there were to arise in Moses’ life time a false prophet opposing Moses, the people would not even listen to what he had to say but would deny his legitimacy at once. They would do so because they themselves had attained sufficient prophetic stature to know that everything Moses did or said was divinely inspired. G’d reconfirmed all this to Aaron and Miriam when they dared to compare their level of prophecy and intimacy with G’d to that of Moses (Compare Numbers 12,6-8).  When the people are quoted in Deut. 5,21 as having said at Mount Sinai: “this day we have seen that Hashem will speak to a person and he can live,” they referred to this experience of theirs that if G’d wants it this is possible.” From this experience they drew the conviction that Moses had attained the highest level of prophecy possible.
  
  Verse 10
  
   וקדשתם היום ומחר, “sanctify them today and tomorrow.” The meaning of the “sanctity” is that they were not to indulge in sexual relations with their wives (Pessikta Zutrata). They were also to avoid contact with any ritually impure object or creature. Anyone who consciously refrains from such contact is referred to as קודש, holy.
     וכבסו שמלותם, “and that they wash their garments.”  From the instruction that they were to wash their clothing we derive that they were also to immerse their bodies in a ritual bath. Compare Mechilta (bachodesh section 3) that wherever the Torah mentions the requirement to wash one’s clothing, the need to immerse one’s body in a ritual bath is an automatic corollary.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה, “whether animal or beast  he shall not live.” The word בהמה in our verse does not refer to four-legged animals; it refers to the wicked people who are deemed no better than animals. The Torah tells the Jewish people that regardless of whether the person touching the mountain is an otherwise righteous person or whether he is a wicked person he will not survive touching even the edge (beyond what was fenced off) of the mountain.     When Solomon in Kohelet 3,21 wrote: מי יודע רוח בני האדם העולה היא למעלה ורוח הבהמה היורדת היא למטה לארץ, “who knows the spirit of man  which ascends on high or the spirit of the animal which descends downwards, to earth,” he did not refer to actual animals. He referred to the soul of the sinner which descends just as the “soul” (abstract life-force) of an animal perishes with the body it inhabits, to the soul of the righteous which ascends when the body it had inhabited dies. Solomon’s question (rhetorical if you will) was “while both people are alive on this earth, the sinner and the righteous, how can we know  what is in store for a certain person? Do we humans know who is a צדיק and who is a רשע, i.e. a בהמה?” Solomon teaches that while we are in this world מקרה אחד לכל לצדיק ולרשע כמות זה כן מות זה, “while on earth both the righteous and the wicked appear to share the same fate, i.e. death of the body.” (Kohelet 3,19-20). Verse 21 refers to verse 20 preceding it where death for every creature made of dust is described, thus placing different people on the same level. However, this changes the moment these differing personalities no longer have a body.    The same is true in our verse. In this life it makes no difference whether a person is wicked or righteous, לא יחיה, he will not live forever. The very fact that the comparison between the wicked and the just is limited to לא יחיה, neither of them escaping physical death, is what makes it plain that as soon as death of the body has occurred the fate of the righteous and that of the wicked will become radically different from one another.  Whereas the words לא יחיה apply to the wicked both in this world and in the next, the same words when applied to the righteous refer only to his life on earth, not to his life after the death of his body. Proof is found in the fact that Nadav and Avihu who died for transgressing the commandment not to touch the mountain were nevertheless accorded life in the hereafter. This is why we read about their death on Yom Kippur. [This presupposes, as has been mentioned in several Midrashim, that they had been guilty of death before the day they died but that their death and the manner of their death had been delayed due to a variety of considerations culminating in their bringing incense into the Sanctuary. The words בקרבתם לפני ה’, וימותו “due to their coming close to the presence of G’d they died” (Leviticus 16,1) refer to their touching the mountain. Ed.]
     במשך היובל, “during the long blast of the shofar.” The plain meaning of the verse is that when a long blast of the shofar would be heard this would signal the departure of the Shechinah from Mount Sinai. At that time the rule restricting the Israelites from touching or ascending the mountain would be relaxed. The word היובל is a reference to the ram’s horn, according to Rashi the horn of the ram Avraham had sacrificed instead of Yitzchak. What Rashi meant was  that although that ram had been burned up as an עולה, a burnt-offering which is completely burned up including its horns, G’d had resurrected it to its original condition. In Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31 we read the view of Rabbi Chanina ben Dotha who held that the ram in question had been created at dusk of the sixth day of creation (Avot 5,6) and that  none of its parts went to waste. The ash of the flesh was used in constructing the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The tendons became the ten strings of David’s harp. The skin became the belt used by the prophet Elijah to gird his loins. He bases this on Kings II 1,8: ”a hairy man with a leather belt around his waist.” “That is Elijah the Tishbite, he said.” The right horn of that ram served as the horn which will announce his coming in the future as we know from Isaiah 27,13 ”and in that day a great ram’s horn will be sounded and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria and the expelled who are in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in Jerusalem on the holy mount.” The left horn was the one used at the revelation of Mount Sinai in our verse. Thus far Rabbi Chanina ben Dotha.   Our sages in the beginning of the first chapter of Masechet Yom Tov use this verse to prove  that anything which had been forbidden by a court comprised of a certain number of judges cannot be permitted again by another court unless it comprises a greater number of judges than the previous court (Megillah 2). This is also what is meant in Beitzah 5: “seeing the Torah had already written that ‘also sheep and cattle shall not graze facing the mountain’ (34,3), why was it necessary to write that when a long blast would be sounded on the ram’s horn this would signal the “all clear?” [We have a principle מתוך לאו אתה שומע הן, “from the conditions attached to a prohibition, you can judge when such a prohibition does no longer apply.” Ed] The Torah wrote the verse only to teach us that unless specifically permitted by a competent authority even a temporary prohibition unless it had a specific time limit to start with needs to be specifically permitted again.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words במשוך היובל, “at the long blast of the horn,” are actually an allusion to פחד יצחק, the attribute which distinguished Yitzchak, especially when he was bound on the altar ready to give his life for G’d. This attribute also known as גבורה was attained by the entire Jewish nation at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai. They did not reach the level of verbalizing anything. They heard a (sound) voice [at that point], that was all. This is what ויחרד כל העם, “all the people trembled in awe (without verbalizing any response)” is all about, just as we read in connection with Yitzchak ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה that “Yitzchak was seized by great trembling,” when he found out that the person he had given the blessing to was Yaakov (Genesis 27,33). I have already dealt with this subject in Genesis 22,13 on the words והנה איל אחר נאחז בסך בקרניו. [page 341-342 in my translation. Ed.]
     והגבלת את ההר, “and you shall fence off the mountain.” The idea is to set a boundary approximately 2000 cubits distant from the mountain to prevent accidental infraction of G’d’s command.
     כל הנוגע בהר מות יומת, “whoever touches the mountain shall be executed.” Anyone actually guilty of ascending the mountain would most certainly also die.    לא תגע בו יד, “you are not to touch it by hand.” Seeing that the Torah had already said: “anyone touching it will be executed,” why did the Torah have to write these words? The meaning is that the death penalty to be administered to someone violating the commandment does not involve touching the convicted person by hand such as death administered by the sword or by strangulation as opposed to shooting arrows, but the penalty is stoning which occurs at a distance from the victim. This is why the Torah elaborates כי סקול יסקל או ירה ייראה, “he shall be stoned or thrown down.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויהי ביום השלישי בהיות הבקר, “it was on the third day, during the morning,”  the third day after they started sanctifying themselves, the sixth day of the month.   ויהי קולות וברקים, “and there was thunder and lightning.” The “voices” which we translated as “thunder” were those of the angels praising the Lord each and every morning, as we know from Job 38,7: “when the morning stars sang together and all the divine beings shouted for joy.” The “lightning” also referred to angels, a different group. We know that angels are described as lightning from Psalms 104,4: “He makes the winds His messengers, fiery flames His servants.” We also find this thought reflected in Ezekiel 1,13: “this fire, suggestive of torches, kept moving among the creatures; the fire had a radiance, and lightning issued from the fire.”  וענן כבד, and “heavy cloud.” The purpose of that was to separate between the angels and the people. If the Israelites had seen the angels they would have become frightened. We have a verse describing something similar occurring in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 1,4) ”a huge cloud and flashing fire, surrounded by a radiance;”  this was followed (verse 5) by: “in the center of it were also the figures of four creatures.” The foregoing is a relatively new interpretation of this verse by Rabbeinu Chananel. It does not contradict, and must not be understood as contradicting the plain meaning of the words, i.e. that it was a cloudy day, that the קולות וברקים were thunder and lightning accompanied by some rain. This is in line with the plain meaning of Judges 5,4 where Devorah describes the weather on the day of the battle against Siserah, saying: “the earth trembled; the heavens dripped; yea the clouds dripped water. Mountains quaked, etc.” Rabbeinu Chananel’s explanation may be viewed as  perhaps the foremost amongst the proverbial 70 facets according to which the written Torah may be explained. The cloud came first, followed by lightning and thunder, as is usual on such days. The reason the Torah does not report events in that order  may have been to give prominence to the sound of the shofar. Had the Torah described events in their chronological order then the reader would have made a conceptual linkage between the words קולות and קול שופר, something which would have been wrong. By mentioning the thunder first, the Torah made certain that we would not associate the blast of the shofar with ordinary thunder experienced on that day. The difference between the sound of the thunder and the sound of the blast of the shofar may be described as similar to the difference between physical and spiritual sensations man experiences.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויוצא משה את העם לקראת האלו-הים מן המחנה, “Moses took the people toward G’d out of the camp.“ The “camp” mentioned here was the camp of the 600,000 Israelites. The words לקראת האלו-הים mean toward the “camp of G’d”, i.e. the area where the ministering angels who had descended from heaven had made their camp. According to Tanchuma Tetzaveh 11 the number of ministering angels who had assembled there matched the number of male adult Israelites. When Yaakov (Genesis 32,3) “saw the camp of G’d” this is what he saw already at the time. He named the camp מחנים, “two camps,” as he envisaged a “return trip” by these angels to earth on the occasion of the revelation at Mount Sinai. Alternately, he envisaged the two camps, the Israelites and the angels taking up position, one opposite the other.    In Song of Songs 7,1 Solomon referred to these two camps when he said:  כמחולות המחנים, “as a dance by angels.” Solomon mentions the word שובי, “turn back,” four times in that verse in Song of Songs as the Jewish people experienced four periods of exile during each of which they were urged by their host countries to abandon their religion in favour of the local religions. We, nowadays, who are in the fourth of these exiles are the subject of the last of these four שובי, i.e. to us applies the author’s paraphrasing שובי ונחזה בך, “return so that we may make out of you  rulers, people in authority.” based on Yitro’s use of the words ואתה תחזה מכל העם, “and you appoint from among all the people, etc.” (Exodus 18,21).    In Shir Hashirim Rabbah our sages interpret the word שולמית [a word occurring in lieu of the name Israel, Ed.] as a composite of  אומה אשר שלום העולמים דר בתוכה“a nation in whose midst dwells the One Who represents eternal peace.” That nation is perceived as responding: מה תחזו בשולמית, “what authority can you possibly offer to a nation such as me?” Israel shuns all that the nations of the world have to offer as they cannot match what we have already experienced at Mount Sinai when we were chosen by G’d as His people. This is the meaning of the words כמחולות מחנים, it is impossible to duplicate the joy that pervaded the Jewish people when they saw themselves as paired with 600,000 angels, their equal, at least. Our sages in Taanit 31 have elaborated on this theme when they said that in the future G’d will arrange dances for the righteous in Gan Eden. In view of all this the “Shulamit” spurned all the offers from the Gentile nations to accord them honour and distinction. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 29,2 have further stated that 22,000 angels participated  at that sacred site. They were the angels closest to the Shechinah, closer than the 600,000 angels we mentioned already They are referred to in Psalms 68,18 as רכב אלו-הים רבותם אלפי שנאן, “G’d’s chariots are myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands.” The number of these angels corresponded to the number of 22,000 Levites who had taken up position around the Holy Ark which was within the Tabernacle. Psalms 144,15 proclaims “hail to the people who have experienced this.” At the time the people saw the 4 figures Ezekiel had seen surrounding the throne of G‘d. This is alluded to in the word שנאן which is an acrostic for the creatures supporting the throne of G’d in Ezekiel’s vision i.e. שור, אריה, נשר, plus the letter ן which symbolizes אדם. Five major angels named אוריאל, רפאל, גבריאל, מיכאל, (נוריאל) were seen by the Israelites at that time, the first four representing whole encampments surrounding the Shechinah and presided over by the fifth angel נוריאל who “rode” above the others. This concept has been called ארגמן by Solomon when he wrote in Song of Songs that G’d’s chariot is Argaman (Song of Songs 3,10). The idea described at length in Bamidbar Rabbah 2,2 of the reason for the Jewish camp being provided with flags also goes back to what they experienced a few months earlier when they saw the flags held by the angels. This evoked in them a desire to be given flags also, a request which G’d honored at the time the Tabernacle was erected. According to another Midrash the experience of listening to G’d’s voice at Mount Sinai was of such overwhelming proportions that each time the people heard a word (commandment) their soul escaped their bodies. They were revived immediately, i.e. they experienced multiple resurrections on that day. This is also alluded to in Song of Songs 5,6 when Israel is quoted as recalling: נפשי יצאה בדברו, “my soul departed when He spoke.” A similar Midrash is found in Devarim Rabbah according to which the sun stood still five times for the sake of Moses; they were the day of the Exodus, the day the Israelites had crossed the Sea of Reeds; the day of the battle against Amalek; the day on which the Torah was given, and on the day the Israelites observed the rivers of blood in the river Arnon (Numbers 21,14-15).
     ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר, “they stood at attention at the bottom of the mountain,” below the mountain, beyond the area of approx. 2,000 cubits which Moses had fenced off. 
  The glory of G’d was on the top of the mountain. We know this because the Torah writes in 19,20 that “G’d descended onto the top of the mountain.” We also have a verse in Exodus 24,17 that “the appearance of G’d was like consuming fire on top of the mountain.” All of the Israelites stood at the farthest end of the mountain. Moses was allowed to enter into the cloud and ascend the mountain, as we know from 24,18 as well as from 19,9. The expression עב הענן refers to a dark cloud within which the Presence of G’d was concealed. The word חשך in our context means a type of fire (compare our comments on Genesis 1,2, page 5 my translation). The whole verse in Deut 4,11 must be understood as the following sequence: “and the mountain was burning with fire until the heart of the heaven; חשך, ענן, וערפל. The word חשך refers to a fire as we explained on Genesis 1,2; this was followed by ענן, which in turn was followed by ערפל, also described as עב הענן. In other words, there were 4 separate stages, each one on a higher level than the previous one, each higher level  being “inside” the previous one, closer to the core. The lowest and outermost level was that described as תחתית ההר. This was followed by the region called ראש ההר. The next higher region to that was called ענן, whereas the highest region was called עב הענן. We find something parallel to these regions of relatively higher levels of sanctity when comparing the way the Israelite nation organised itself on earth when it erected the Holy Temple. The level of the relatively minimal decree of sanctity, corresponding to the תחתית ההר, was the שער העזרה, the entrance gate to the courtyard of the Temple. The next higher level of sanctity i.e. corresponding to ראש ההר, was the עזרה, the holy courtyard. This was followed by the היכל, the Sanctuary, which corresponded to the level of ענן when compared to what occurred at מתן תורה. Finally, the Holy of Holies, קדשי קדשים, the innermost sanctum of the Holy Temple was what corresponded to what the Torah described as עב הענן at Mount Sinai. This was equivalent to ערפל, the region where G’d concealed Himself.
  
  Verse 18
  
  . והר סיני עשן כלו, “and the entire mountain of Sinai was  smoking.” The mountain was smoke, not the fire; for the fire which sort of separated between the people and G’d had no smoke. If the Torah nonetheless speaks of  כעשן הכבשן “like the smoke of a furnace,” we know that in a parable the comparisons do not have to be accurate This is especially so when physical concepts are being compared to meta-physical phenomena. Seeing that we are terrestrial human beings, bound to concepts which we can visualise, the Torah cannot describe matters of a spiritual nature except by using terms familiar to us from our daily experience on earth. Similarly, we find that Scripture compares even the brilliance of the sun to the beauty of human beings, and the sun’s orbit to the runner circling a certain prescribed route in the stadium in which he races. This is the meaning of Psalms 19,6: “who is like a groom coming forth from his chamber, like a hero, eager to run his course.” Everybody knows that such a comparison between sun and a human runner is not even remotely similar. Nonetheless, the psalmist chose to make this comparison to give us an inkling of what he had in mind. The same thing applies to the prophet Amos 3,8 comparing G’d to a lion when he writes: “a lion has roared, who can but fear? My Lord G’d has spoken, who can but prophesy?” The reason that the prophet arrogated to himself the right to make such blatantly inaccurate comparisons is simply that he wanted to compare the most powerful and fear-inspiring phenomenon amongst earth’s inhabitants to G’d in order to give man the feeling that he must relate with at least as much fear to G’d as he does to a lion. Our sages have termed all these so-called comparisons as דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, “the Torah having adopted a style of expression with which human beings are familiar” (Berachot 31).
  
  Verse 19
  
  . משה ידבר והאלו-הים יעננו בקול, “Moses  would speak and G’d would respond to him with a voice.” The fact that the Israelites could hear both Moses and G’d’s response at a distance of 12-13 miles away where the Israelites had their camp was in itself already a miracle. Every Israelite was able to hear Moses clearly. Seeing that simultaneously the blast of the shofar is reported to have been constant though intermittent but did not interfere with Moses’ voice being heard, this  clearly added to the magnitude of the miracle. This is why the Torah considered it as appropriate to mention this miracle along with other miraculous happenings on that occasion. The word יעננו, is similar to the verse in Hoseah 2,23 אענה נאם ה’, אענה את השמים, “In that day I will respond declares the Lord; I will respond to the sky.” The word reflects someone’s preparedness to extend assistance.
  
  Verse 20
  
  . וירד ה’ על הר סיני, “G’d descended on Mount Sinai.” Whenever the Torah mentions the term “descent or descending” in connection with G’d, the meaning is that He revealed Himself in some form which could be assimilated by one’s mind. The term is similar to וירא אליו ה’ which the Torah (Genesis 18,1) writes when it describes G’d revealing Himself to Avraham. This is also the way Onkelos translates the words וירד ה’ here; in Genesis 18,1 Onkelos uses the very same words for וירא אליו ה’ i.e. ואתגלי  השם, “G’d revealed Himself,” except that he uses a different attribute for G’d. Why then did the Torah choose to express a form of גלוי שכינה here as a “descent” instead of as a “vision?” The reason the Torah used the term “descent” here is to remind us that whenever G’d makes Himself perceivable by any of the 5 senses we have been equipped with this could only have been preceded by His “lowering” Himself to the parameters of the terrestrial part of the universe. In this instance, He became “visible” to the entire nation. It had already been announced in verse 11 that on the third day G’d would “descend” before the eyes of the whole people. They had been made aware that when they would observe the glory of G’d in the form of a consuming fire, that behind that “consuming fire” there would be G’d Himself. It did not mean that human eyes would behold an image purporting to be G’d. G’d had told Moses clearly that even he could not have a visual perception of the Essence of G’d while alive (compare Exodus 33,20). What is meant here is simply that the manifestations that the Israelites would experience at the Mountain would convince them that none other than G’d Himself had orchestrated all these phenomena, i.e. that they had “seen” G’d (at work). What happened to the individual Avraham in Genesis 18,1 was similar.  Moreover, it is well known that the level of revelation which the patriarchs experienced was not that of the attribute represented by the tetragram but that of שדי, a level which may be compared to שער לה’, the gateway to the attribute  י-ה-ו-ה. This is why the Torah added there “he was sitting at the entrance to he tent;” these words were an amplification of the words וירא אליו, “He appeared to him.” The Torah teaches that the level of revelation Avraham enjoyed at the time was one that emanated from the “entrance of the gate,” not from the innermost part of the Sanctuary of G’d. The Torah was at pains to alert us to the fact that the level of revelation the Israelites had at מתן תורה was superior to the revelation Avraham enjoyed in Parshat Vayera.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ונפל ממנו רב, “and many of them would fall.” The choice by the Torah of the word נפל, singular, in connection with רב, many,  teaches that even if a single Israelite were to “fall,” i.e. to die or be executed, it would be equivalent to a whole world dying.
  
  Verse 22
  
  'וגם הכהנים הנגשים אל ה’, “and also the priests who approach G’d.” The “priests” mentioned here are either the firstborn who would perform the priestly functions in those days, i.e. offer the sacrifices, or it may refer to the sons of Aaron who would be consecrated as priests some time later. This is not so strange as in Genesis 2,14 we read about a river flowing from Gan Eden in the direction of Ashur, a city that would not exist until some 1700 years later.
     יתקדשו, “they will be sanctified.” This verse helps us understand Leviticus 10,3 where the two sons of Aaron who died performing a priestly function are described by Moses as בקרובי אקדש, G’d saying: “I will be sanctified by those who are near to Me.” The word קרובי matches נגשים, and the word אקדש corresponds to יתקדשו in our verses here.
     פן יפרוץ בהם ה’, “lest the Lord make a breach amongst them.” This was an allusion to their death, for G’d פרץ בהם, “killed them.” G’d did not want to punish them now at the time when the Torah was being given so as not to disturb the communal joy. He waited until the eighth day of the consecration rites to carry out the decree against them  (Tanchuma Acharei Mot 6). The word וגם is a reference to the seventy elders.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   והכהנים והעם, “and the priests and the people, etc.” The order of things preceding the giving of the Torah (Ten Commandments)  was as follows: First G’d commanded Moses “to fence off the people,” i.e. to establish visible boundaries around the mountain which the people were not to breach. This is what Moses referred to in verse 23 when he said to G’d: “the people cannot ascend the mountain for You have warned us  “bound the mountain and sanctify it.” What was meant by “bound the people” was the boundary of the mountain. After that G’d told Moses that the people should sanctify themselves and abstain from everything impure for three days including their immersion in a ritual bath and the washing of their garments. Following this procedure, on the morning of the third day, the sixth of Sivan, there was thunder and lightning, a heavy cloud enveloping the mountain, and the blast of the shofar emanating from that direction. At this point G’d’s Shechinah had not yet descended on to the top of the mountain. This is something we learned from Kings I 19,11: when G’d taught Elijah that His manifestation does not occur amidst thunder and lightning, etc. The prophet writes describing that scene: “there was a great and mighty wind splitting mountain and shattering the rocks by the power of the Lord;  but the Lord was not in the wind, etc.”    At that point the Israelites were in the grip of tremors due to the overpowering sound of the thunder (and the chorus of the angels we have described earlier). This is the meaning of verse 16. Moses reassured the people in order to lead them out of the camp toward the manifestation of the Shechinah. Once the people were lined up at the base of the mountain G’d descended on the mountain within the fire, and the smoke rose to the heart of the heaven, dark impenetrable cloud. The mountain itself trembled. This trembling of the mountain intensified causing David to say in Psalms 68,9: “the earth trembled, the sky rained because of G’d, yon Sinai, because of G’d, the G’d of Israel.” The meaning of this verse is that the sky rained fire. The word זה in that verse refers to Mount Sinai burning (the word זה in its aramaic meaning). The prophetic words of Devorah (Judges 5,4) contain similar phraseology i.e. ”the earth trembled, the heavens dripped; Yea the clouds dripped water; the mountains quaked before the Lord, Him of Sinai, before the Lord G’d of Israel.” Another verse describing the mountains as “dancing” like rams is found in Psalms 114,6 These various verses are not to be understood allegorically, just as the line “the sea saw and fled” in the same Psalm is not to be understood as a simile but describes an actual event.    Our sages (Megillah 29) state that at the time G’d gave the Ten Commandments these mountains were transferred to the land of Israel and Mount Carmel crossed the sea. When that had happened the blast of the shofar became very strong. When the people observed all this  (20,15-18) “the people saw the sounds and the lightning and the sound of the shofar blast.....the people saw and trembled...and stood from afar.”
   This all took place prior to the giving of the Torah because the people said to Moses: “you speak to us and we will hear (19,19). Their experience up until that point had already left them enfeebled (compare Daniel 10,16).”my joints shattered  and I could retain no strength.” The words: “from afar” mean further away than the fenced off area. Moses told the people that they had nothing to fear, that G’d wanted merely to test them (20,20). At that point they “stood” from afar, i.e. they did not become calm and refused to go up to the boundary set around the mountain. Moses, however, went close to the ערפל without entering that  thick cloud. At that point G’d spoke the Ten Commandments.
     'והכהנים והעם אל יהרסו לעלות אל ה’, “but the priests and the people shall not break through to ascend toward G’d.” Why was this repeated? Had G’d not already issued these instructions in verse 21? It seems that at that point Moses had understood the warning to extend not only to people who were actually going to ascend the mountain, but  also to those who would approach the boundary in order to have a visual experience. Concerning this Moses had said to G’d (verse 23) that he had already warned the people that even touching the mountain would carry the death penalty (verses 12-13). Moses had referred to five expressions G’d had used as a form of warning. This was the reason of the otherwise unnecessary letter ה at the end of the word העדותה. Seeing that Moses had misunderstood the extent of the prohibition, G’d made it clear that there was no prohibition to approach the fence, as they had already been warned sufficiently not to go beyond. There was however, a prohibition not to intensify visual appreciation of the spectacle. This was the gist of the instruction: “descend; you and Aaron may ascend” (a certain distance); but the other priests as well as the people must not break through “in order to make a spiritual ascent.” The word לעלות here describes an attempt by people to comprehend by means other than those intended for the acquisition of such comprehension matters which their intellect fails to grasp. Priests and common people are considered on the same level; neither group was to attempt to comprehend what was incomprehensible. Hence the emphasis on the word לראות, “to see,” at the end of the warning in verse 21.
      It is worthwhile to examine why the Torah did not add the words את ה’ after the word לראות in that verse. After all, the Torah had written the word אל ה’ in connection with לעלות אל ה’ in our verse here!  Perhaps the reason that the Torah did not add these words in verse 21  was so as not to create the impression that it was possible to see G’d although it was forbidden. This is why the word “not to see” was placed at the end of the verse to describe the futility to even attempt to see something which could not be seen. They were to suppress any thought of gaining any visual experience beyond what had already been provided. In other words, verse 21 contains a message similar to that of G’d to Moses in Exodus 33,20: “for no human being can see Me while alive.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר אלו-הים את כל הדברים האלה לאמור, “G‘d spoke all these words to be relayed.” The word לאמור was added here in order to teach that all these Ten Commandments were spoken in a single utterance. This was something a human mouth would be unable to do, and a human ear would be unable to hear. We also find in Bamidbar Rabbah 11,19 concerning two apparently contradictory statements in Psalms 147,4 and Isaiah 40,26 that what G’d is able to do, man is not. In the former statement the psalmist says: “He counts each one of the stars supplying them with names,” whereas in Isaiah the prophet says: “He leads out their number as an army, each one He calls by name.” The meaning is that when G’d calls upon the stars He calls each one by name simultaneously. 
      Another way of understanding the word לאמור in our verse is that it refers to the hidden meaning of the words of the revelation. Each utterance of G’d contains meanings obvious to all as well as hidden meaning. In this instance the expression דבור, i.e. וידבר, refers to the plain meaning, the revealed message, whereas the hidden meaning is alluded to by the word לאמור. This principle may be applied to most instances where the Torah writes: וידבר ה’ אל משה לאמור, “G’d spoke to Moses, saying.” The text tells us that G’d said more than what meets the eye at a superficial reading of the words. I have already elaborated on this concept in my commentary on Exodus 13,1 (page 907 my translation, Ed.) In this instance, a moment in time when the Israelites were all of a level capable of receiving prophetic insights, G’d revealed both aspects of His words, the plain and the more sophisticated, at one and the same time to all of them. This is the meaning of Psalms 62,12: “G’d has said one (word) whereas I have heard two.”
      You should know that in the view of Maimonides (Moreh Nevuchim  section 2 chapter 33) at the revelation at Mount Sinai  the sound the Children of Israel heard (G’d’s voice) had been created for the purpose. This was a one-time manifestation of that sound and while they heard it, they were not able to separate different letters from one another. It was heard a single time and comprised only the first two of the Ten Commandments. Concerning this phenomenon the Torah wrote (Deut. 5,19) “a powerful sound without break.” The Torah also wrote concerning this sound (Deut. 5,20) “when you heard the sound.” Furthermore, in Deut. 4,12 Moses said קול דברים אתם שמעים, “you hear the sound of words.” Significantly, Moses did not say that the people actually heard words,” i.e. were able to hear distinct letters. This is also what is meant in Exodus 19,9: “in order that the people hear when I speak with you (Moses).” The meaning is that the people will hear the sound but will not be able to make out the individual words.    Our sages (Makkot 24) say that  the Israelites heard the first two commandments from G’d’s own mouth. The wording there is: מפי הגבורה שמענום. This reflects the difference between what Moses heard and what the people heard. The people only heard קול דברים, “the sound of words,” whereas Moses heard the words themselves. This is why Moses interpreted the words he had heard to the people by separating between letter and letter and word and word. This is what Moses referred to when he said (Deut. 5,5) “I was standing between you and G’d at that time in order to tell you the word of the Lord.” Moses referred to the first two commandments which the people, though having heard them, had not been able to understand.    This explains the way Onkelos renders both the words וידבר אלוה-הים את כל הדברים האלה לאמור, and וידבר אלו-הים אל משה לאמור, as ומליל ה’ as if both verses meant the same. He is correct because the word לאמור in each verse means that Moses was to communicate G’d’s words to the people. In 20,15 when Onkelos translates the people saying to Moses ואל ידבר עמנו אלו-הים פן נמות, “let not G’d speak to us so that we shall not die,” he translates this as ולא יתמלל עמנא מן  קדם ה’, instead of ולא ימלל עמנא. The distinction Onkelos makes between the way the people heard G’d’s voice and the way Moses perceived it is clearly reflected in his rendering  what the people had heard as מן קדם ה’. The people had been aware that what they heard was something other than words.    After the people had heard the first two commandments by hearing G’d’s voice their souls departed as we know from Song of Songs 5,6 (compare our comments page 1049 this volume on Exodus 19,17) נפשי יצאה בדברו, “my soul departed at His decree.” They were afraid that they would continue to hear G’d’s voice and were afraid they would die as a result. This is when they said to Moses (Deut. 5,22) “let us not die,”....(and in verse 24) ”approach you and hear what G’d says,....and tell us what G’d said.” Moses heard every one of the Ten Commandments one at a time and related them to the people. To sum up: the Israelites did hear the first two commandments at the same time and from the same source as did Moses, but they could not make sense out of them. The other eight commandments they heard from Moses just as they heard all other commandments in the Torah from Moses. This is what is meant at the beginning of Shir Hashirim Rabbah (5,6), that the words in Deut. 33,4 תורה צוה לנו משה “Moses commanded us the Torah” (not G’d), means that Moses relayed to the people 611 of the 613 commandments. The numerical value of the letters in the word תורה add up to 611. The other two commandments G’d personally commanded  the people. Seeing that the first two commandments were heard by the people as a continuous utterance (no break between letters to form words or sentences), this was what David had said in Psalms 62,12: “G’d said a single word but I heard two.” This is the opinion of Maimonides of what transpired at the giving of the Torah.
      Nachmanides is of the opinion that the entire people heard all the Ten Commandments directly from G’d. According to his view this is the meaning of our verse: “G’d spoke all these words,” as well as Deut. 5,19: “these words G’d spoke to your entire congregation at the mountain out of the fire, etc.” Furthermore, it is written: “He told you of His covenant ....and He inscribed them on the two stone Tablets” (Deut. 4,13). From this we learn that just as G’d had communicated the Ten Commandments to the entire people directly by word of mouth, He subsequently communicated them to the entire people in writing. How does Nachmanides understand the words of the Talmud in Makkot 24 that the Israelites heard the first two commandments  from G’d’s own mouth which suggests that they did not hear the other commandments from His mouth? He understands the word שמעום in the Talmud as relating to what the ear heard, similar to the meaning of the words in Proverbs 15,31 אזן שומעת תוכחת חיים, “the ear that listens to life-giving discipline.” This verse implies that the heart also understood the message as is evident from Kings I 3,9 (also Solomon speaking to G’d in his dream) לב שומע, “a heart that hears.” [Seeing that it is not the function of the heart to hear and to listen, clearly Solomon asked for something more, i.e. understanding, when he asked G’d to be granted a “heart which can hear.” Ed.] As far as the Israelites were concerned, they heard and understood only the first two of the Ten Commandments. The other eight commandments they “heard” without understanding what they heard. This is why Moses had to interpret for them what their ears had heard. This is the meaning of Deut. 5,5: “I was standing between G’d and you at that time in order to tell you the word of G’d.” This is also the meaning of 19,19: “Moses would speak and G’d would respond with a voice.” What G’d had said בקול, in an indistinguishable voice,” Moses interpreted to the people. The word עניה, which usually appears  in the form of ויען means “beginning.” We find it in this sense in Job 3,2. [In that verse the word ויען could not have meant: “he replied,” as Job’s friends were reported sitting with him for seven days without opening their mouth. Ed.] This is the way Nachmanides understands what happened at Mount Sinai.
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words וידבר אלו-הים really mean וידבר ה’. The reason we do not find the attribute י-ה-ו-ה spelled out in this verse is that Israel had attained such a high level of spirituality at the time that it did not need to be addressed by an attribute which primarily represented the attribute of Mercy, i.e. an attribute which makes allowance for human weakness. The Torah had already hinted at that in verse 3 when Moses was described as ומשה עלה אל האלו-הים, that Moses ascended to  the presence of G’d in His capacity as אלו-הים. Onkelos, in his infinite wisdom, has therefore seen fit to translate the word אלו-הים wherever it appears in this chapter as י-ה-ו-ה, so that we would understand the spiritual level at which this entire episode occurred.  [The author must have had a different edition of Onkelos, as in our editions he only renders אלו-הים as י-ה-ו-ה in 19,17. Chavell]. At any rate, the word אלו-הים is not used to depict G’d in His capacity as delegating to agents such as nature, but as the attribute of גבורה, Justice;  at the same time use of this attribute indicates that the people did not experience what we have called אספקלריא מאירה a “clear vision,” (such as was reserved for Moses) but they experienced the type of visions granted prophets of lower rank. In other words: whereas the attribute of Hashem spoke to Moses, the people heard the attribute of Elohim.
      You must appreciate  that in view of the fact that actually the attribute Hashem was speaking, the Torah should have written here: וידבר ה’ את כל הדברים האלה, just as Moses said when he recalled the event of 40 years ago to the people in Deuteronomy. At that point he said in Deut. 5,19: את הדברים האלה דבר ה’ אל כל קהלכם בהר מתוך האש הענן והערפל קול גדול ולא יסף. Also in Deut. 4,12 Moses quotes G’d as וידבר ה’ אליכם מתוך האש.     Seeing that that in Exodus 19,18 the Torah wrote אשר ירד עליו ה’ באש, “on which Hashem descended in fire,” and it has been explained that His great name represents the emanation תפארת, which “resides within fire,” it had now become necessary to write וידבר אלו-הים, as these words reflect that the sound of the voice emanated from the fire. In other words, the Israelites heard a sound which seemed to come out of the fire. We find a similar description [involving both the attributes Elohim and Hashem. Ed.] in Deut. 5,21: הן הראנו ה’ אלו-הינו את כבודו ואת גדלו ואת קולו שמענו מתוך האש. “The Lord our G’d has just shown us His majestic Presence, and we heard His voice out of the fire.” [Israel speaking, Moses quoting how they had perceived what they had experienced. 40 years earlier. Ed.]. Keeping all these factors in mind, when Moses mentioned וידבר ה’ אליכם in Deut. 4,12 he  immediately added the words “out of the fire.” He did the same again when referring to what had occurred in Deut. 5,19 after reviewing the Ten Commandments immediately prior to that verse. The reason is that whereas in Hebrew, and to Hebrew speakers the achievements of Israel are considered primary, in the Aramaic translation of Onkelos (which reflects the use of the language by people speaking that tongue) the achievements of Moses are highlighted. When the Torah (in Hebrew) writes וידבר אלו-הים, this reflects the spiritual level reached by the Jewish people, whereas when Onkelos translates as if the Torah had written וידבר ה’, this reflects the spiritual level achieved by Moses. Onkelos wants to make plain by his very translation of the words of the Torah that Moses had attained a higher spiritual plateau than had the people. Isaiah 26,4 writes as follows: בטחו בי-ה-ו-ה עדי עד כי בי-ה י-ה-ו-ה צור עולמים, “trust in Hashem for ever and ever, for in Yah  Hashem you have an everlasting Rock.” What the prophet means is that the name Hashem which symbolizes the concept of “an everlasting Rock” may be described on occasion as Yah. When G’d is described in 20,2 saying: אנכי ה’ אלו-היך, He is described as speaking in His capacity as Yah, an aspect of the צור עולמים. This צור עולמים contains this name as we learn from Exodus 23,21 כי שמי בקרבו “for My name is within it,” the “it” being the צור עולמים. This is also the mystical dimension of אני ה’ בקרב הארץ (Exodus 8,18) a reference to this Rock.   A kabbalistic approach to the words אשר הוצאתיך, “who has taken you out.” The Exodus, as distinct from the utterance of the Ten Commandments, was orchestrated by G’d in His capacity as Hashem. This is the reason the Torah writes (13,16 ) כי בחזק יד הוציאנו י-ה-ו-ה ממצרים, “for with the power of the hand Hashem took us out of Egypt.” The same formula is repeated in 13,3.    When the Torah writes: (20,3) לא יהיה לך אלו-הים אחרים על  פני, generally translated as “you must not have (recognize) any other gods in My Presence,” the meaning is that the only Presence you are to recognize as divine is My Presence, i.e. פני. The wording here is similar to the wording in Genesis 31,50 where Lavan warns Yaakov not to marry any additional wives. He said: ואם תקח נשים על בנותי. Lavan meant: ”but my daughters certainly are to remain your wives.” Similarly here; G’d forbids other gods to be recognised implying that most certainly He is to be recognised as G’d. The fact that this is so is demonstrated by the use by G’d of the word פנים in Deut. 34,10 when describing His relationship with Moses as אשר ידעו י-ה-ו-ה פנים אל פנים, “whom G’d knew (intimately) face to face.” A similar use of the word פנים is found in Deut. 5,4 describing the close relationship of G’d to the whole people at the revelation at Mount Sinai. The Torah describes this as פנים בפנים דבר י-ה-ו-ה עמכם, “face to face Hashem spoke to you.” All these expressions made it necessary to repeatedly use the expression מתוך האש, in order to explain whence G’d’s voice emanated. The best way to understand these words is that the power of G’d is within another power, just as the appearance of fire, while representing a display of power, contains within it another core of power. This what is meant in Numbers 14,14 כי עין בעין נראה אתה ה’, “that You, Hashem, appeared eye to eye.” The true meaning is that though You Hashem appeared to the eye, there is an inner dimension to this manifestation which remained invisible. This is also the mystical dimension of 20,23 לא תעשון אתי, “you shall not make ‘with’ Me, etc.” The meaning is that no other so-called deity shall share על פני, “My Divine Presence.” When the Torah writes about Moses ascending the mountain (19,3) ומשה עלה אל האלו-הים ויקרא אליו - י-ה-ו-ה that “Moses ascended to G’d, and Hashem called to him,” the meaning is that Hashem called to him from within the attribute אלו-הים. This too is the meaning in Deut. 5,21 ואת קולו שמענו מתוך האש, “and we have heard His voice out of the fire.” The voice referred to there is the voice of the attribute Hashem. It was this voice which the people had been afraid of hearing again, and this is why they said: אם יוספים אנחנו לשמוע את קול י-ה-ו-ה אלו-הינו עוד ומתנו “if we will continue to hear the voice of Hashem, our G’d, again we will die.” This is also the mystical aspect of our sages’ saying (Shevuot 20) זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו, “the words זכור and שמור [one of which appears in the first version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus and the other in the version in Deuteronomy, Ed.] were said as one.” The former refers to the attribute of Mercy, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה, the other to the attribute of Justice, the attribute known best as אלו-הים. The attribute of Mercy spoke from within the attribute of Justice. This was also why there were two Tablets instead of merely one. One represented the attribute of Mercy, the other the attribute of Justice. The Tablet on which the words לא תרצח, “do not murder,” was inscribed at the top represented the attribute of Justice. (according to the view that five of the Commandments were written on each Tablet) Moses, who, as we explained had attained the level of communicating with G’d’s attribute (emanation) תפארת, heard the word זכור, i.e. as a positive commandment, an expression of the attribute of Mercy. The people who had not attained such a lofty level of communication with G’d heard the word as שמור, as a negative commandment, as an expression of the attribute of Justice.    When we find an expression (verse 22) such as כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם, ”for I have spoken with you from the heaven,” the meaning of the word מתוך in that verse is similar to the meaning of the words מתוך האש in the verses we have already discussed. If you peruse all the verses connected with מתן תורה, you will not find a single one mentioning  the tetragrammaton unless it is connected to the words מתוך האש. 
  Whereas all of the Israelites heard the tetragrammaton, no one, including the אצילי בני ישראל, who are described in Exodus 24,11 as having “seen” האלו-הים, “saw” G’d as it is impossible to “see” G’d as we know from Exodus 33,20 that no living human being can have a visual experience of G’d. If you were to counter that G’d Himself had told the people that on the third day ”G’d will descend in full view of all the people” (19,11),  the meaning is that when the people would observe this great glory, “like a fire consuming the top of the mountain,” they would understand that within that spectacle the name Hashem  would be concealed, i.e. the attribute which cannot be perceived by human eyes.  The “glory” of G’d on the other hand, is subject to being seen by human eyes, the attribute called Elohim. It is this attribute which is described as being seen both by the expression ויחזו, and by the expression ויראו in Exodus 24,10 and Exodus 24,11 respectively. Once we have established this you will appreciate that when G’d described Himself as “descending” on the third day in full view of the people” (19,11) what is meant is a “descent” to that level of His glory which could be seen by the people. The area to which G’d had “descended,” was the area from which the word communicated itself to that attribute of glory which in turn became audible to our physical ears. This is what Moses meant when he said in Deut. 4,36 מן השמים השמיעך את קולו “out of the heaven He made you hear His voice.” We find a very similar verse in Nechemyah 9,13 (the Levites addressing G’d in the presence of the people) ועל הר סיני ירדת ודבר עמהם משמים, “and You descended on Mount Sinai to speak to them from the heaven.” You must realise that this is the G’d who is referred to also as שם (“there”, vowel kametz under the letter ש). 
  The word שם is the “home” of the כרובים, as we know from Samuel II 6,2 להעלות מ-שם את ארון האלו-הים אשר נקרא שם שם י-ה-ו-ה צבאות יושב הכרובים עליו, “to bring up from there the Ark of G’d to which the Name was attached, the name Lord of Hosts enthroned on the Cherubim.” This was the attribute of G’d in whose honour King Solomon built the Temple as a residence on earth. This is why you find Solomon refer to it again and again as a sanctuary built לשמך, “in honour of Your name.” (Examples: Kings I 8,44: “the house I built for Your name.”  Kings I 19: “the house he will build for My name.”] The sacrifices which were offered up on the altar of that Temple were all offered to the attribuite described there  as שמך, “Your name.” Solomon’s father David had already instructed him that דע את אלו-הי אביך ועבדהו, “know the G’d of your father and serve Him” (Chronicles I 28,9). When Moses upbraids Korach in Numbers 16,9 for wanting to be a priest not only a Levite, he describes the function of the Levites as כי הבדיל אלו-הי ישראל אתכם מעדת ישראל להקריב אתכם אליו, “for the G’d of the Israelites has separated you (elevated) from the community of Israel to bring you near to Him.” 
      Nachmanides comments on Exodus 32,27 where Moses tells the Levites  to seek out the idolaters who served the golden calf and to execute them that the words אלו-הי ישראל in that verse refer to the attribute to whom sacrificial service to G’d is directed. Furthermore you find a verse in Chronicles II 29,7 ועולה לא העלו בקדש לאלו-הי ישראל, “they did not offer burnt offerings in the holy place to the G’d of Israel.” This teaches clearly that such burnt offerings were offered to the attribute known as אלו-הי ישראל.  Another explicit verse teaching us the same is found in Leviticus 21,8: כי את לחם אלו-היך הוא מקריב, “for he offers the food of your G’d,” and the attribute אלו-הים is used to describe the attribute of G’d to whom the offerings are directed.   Additionally, it is worthwhile to reflect on the expression לחם אשה, in Leviticus 3,11 where the priest is described as the one offering such an offering to Hashem. The word אשה is derived from אש;  we have many similar expressions all referring to certain sacrifices as אשה לה’, “fire-offerings to the Lord.” The reason that the Torah does not describe such food for the altar as (לחם אש) “fiery food,” is that the word אשה is almost identical to the word אשה, woman, meaning that the recipient of the sacrifice is passive like a woman who is passive, a recipient. All of this proves that sacrifices are offered to the attribute of Justice. This is the reason that such “food,” i.e. לחם, is called לחם אשה.    The truth is that while the sacrifices are offered up to the attribute אלו-הים, they are intended for the attribute Hashem. Similarly, when we offer our prayers in (lieu of sacrifices), we dedicate them to the attribute which is far above all our abilities to praise, and we verbalize that when we emphasize this very fact by saying that G’d is מרומם על כל ברכה ותהלה “exalted far above every blessing and praise”  (Nechemyah 9,5). The same thought is expressed in the Kaddish prayer i.e.לעילא מכל ברכתא ושירתא  תושבחתא. 
      Kabbalists do not agree. They believe that all prayers are addressed to the one and only great name, the tetragrammaton. They believe that G’d is not beyond our ability to praise, but that He is close to all who call upon him as stated in Psalm 145,18  קרוב ה’ לכל קוראיו. There is only one condition for the “closeness” of G’d to all who call upon Him; it too has been stated in the same verse of that Psalm, i.e. יקראוהו באמת, “they must be truthful (not ambiguous) in their appeal to G’d.” 
  Nachmanides himself mentions in his liturgical poem beginning with the words מראש מקדמי עולמים אקרא הלא תענה כי בושתי לשאול מן המלך, “l call, for are You not sure to answer? for I would be ashamed to ask (such a thing) from a king (human ruler).” 
  We have numerous instances when the petitioner describes himself as addressing a particular attribute and at the same time expects to receive his response from a different attribute. Example: Psalms 55,17 אני אל אלו-הים אקרא וי-ה-ו-ה יושיעני, “I will call out to Elohim, and Hashem will deliver me.”—An example of a different nature which comes to mind is Psalms 6,10  where David had addressed the attribute Hashem asking not to be judged by an attribute G’d employs when He is angry. David acknowledges that Hashem answered him. There are too many examples of man addressing the attribute Hashem directly for us to have to enumerate them.    If you will examine Solomon’s prayer more closely you will observe that he too did not address himself simply to the subordinate attribute Elohim, but that he combined both attributes in his petition addressing himself to י-ה-ו-ה- אלו-הי ישראל, “the Lord G’d of Israel.” He stressed merely that there is none like Him either on earth or in the heavens. Solomon avoided using the attribute אלו-הי ישראל exclusively when appealing to G’d. [The specific verse quoted by the author from Kings I 8,26 has Solomon saying: ועתה אלו-הי ישראל, without referring to the attribute Hashem. The verse prior does indeed begin ועתה ה' אלו-הי ישראל. Ed.] At any rate, we find that sometimes a combination of G’d’s attributes is being addressed, whereas at other times only a single attribute, be it Hashem or Elohim is being addressed
      The above will help you understand why the sages when formulating our benedictions and mentioning the attributes of  Hashem and Elohim in the benedictions we recite have at the same time not employed the grammatical formula we would have expected such as אשר קדשתנו במצותיך וצויתנו, “You have sanctified us and You have commanded us,” but have insisted on the formula “who has sanctified us and who has commanded us” in the third person. The reason is that the words ברוך אתה, “blessed are You” at the beginning of the benediction refer to the words מלך העולם in a later part of the benediction. This is an attribute more familiar to us by the name תפארת. It is a reference to a certain emanation and it is this emanation (the attribute it represents)  which “has sanctified us and commanded us.” It is this emanation which is the repository of G’d’s commandments to us. You will find what I have said confirmed in the Sefer Habahir item 184 who queries  אשר קדשנו במצותיו instead of אשר קדשתנו וצויתנו? The answer given is that all the commandments are found in two worlds. In His great Mercy G’d has given them to us in order to sanctify us so that we will merit to establish a claim to the hereafter, the עולם גדול, in the here and now. Thus far the quote from the Sefer Habahir. From there you can conclude that the relationship between the Shechinah and the people of Israel is not one based merely on the need of the common Israelite, but that it is a reciprocal relationship also satisfying a need of the celestial forces represented by the Shechinah. Seeing that the glory of the tetragram and all it stands for is disseminated by the attribute  כבוד, “glory, honour,” whenever this occurs an additional element of Holy Spirit is added to the Shechinah. This is why a prayer (Psalms 104,31)  such as יהי כבוד ה’ לעולם ישמח ה‘ במעשיו, makes sense. The meaning of these words is: “the glory of G’d is enhanced to the emanation עולם when the attribute we know as the tetragram has occasion to rejoice in the deeds of its creatures.” This means that every Israelite has the potential to strengthen or, G’d forbid, to “weaken” certain attributes of G’d by his deeds or lack of them. This idea is expressed succinctly in Deut. 32,18 as צור ילדך תשי, literally: “You neglected the Rock that begot you;” according to Kabbalists this means: “when Israel neglects the Torah, it weakens the power of the Torah.” A verse conveying a similar sentiment is Psalms 60,14 באלו-הים נעשה חיל, “we can perform valiant deeds which enhance Elohim.”    The attribute of כבוד which we have spoken about is expressed in our verse by the words וידבר אלו-הים, “The One who spoke was the One who both writes and gives, i.e. hands over what He has written.” It is the same attribute we find referred to in Exodus 32,16 והמכתב מכתב אלו-הים הוא, “and the writing was the writing of Elohim.” When we read in Exodus 31,18 ויתן אל משה וגו’, the unnamed subject is the same Elohim who did the writing on the Tablets. The reference is to the word אלו-הים which appears at the very end of that verse. It was also this attribute of G’d which Moses (Deut. 33,12) referred to when he described Benjamin as ידיד ה’ ישכון לבטח עליו, describing that while this attribute rested on the Holy Temple, Benjamin and the entire Jewish people would dwell securely. Moses singled out Benjamin as the Holy Temple would be built on his tribal territory. This attribute was also referred to as פי י-ה-ו-ה, in Exodus 17,11 at al. This expression, i.e. “The mouth of the tetragram” means that the instructions emanated from an attribute outside the core of Hashem.   It was the attribute described as פי ה’ which Moses and Aaron sinned against in Numbers 20,12 when instead of having spoken to the rock Moses struck the rock. G’d spelled this out when He said  לא האמנתם בי ...אשר מריתם את  פי, “you did not believe in Me....you rebelled against פי. (Numbers 20,24) I shall explain this in greater detail when we discuss that event.    You will now be able to understand the meaning of the word צור when this word refers to an aspect of G’d. We have verses such as הצור תמים פעלו, “the Rock, His works are perfect” (Deut. 32,4). Another verse of that category is Deut. 33,12: צור ילדך תשי. A third word featuring the word צור occurred in Exodus 17,6 הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב; I will explain the last verse in detail in connection with Numbers 20,8 [where only the word סלע is mentioned in contrast with the word צור in Exodus 17,6 Ed.].
      First we have to understand why G’d repeated the word צור in His instructions to Moses in Exodus 17,6 when all He had to say was והכית בו, “strike it,” seeing that He had already told Moses that the צור was the object he was to concentrate on. This hints that the words והכית בצור, may refer to a different “צור.”    The attribute כבוד we have been mentioning repeatedly is the one that said to Yaakov (Genesis 31,13) אנכי האל בית-אל, seeing that it was this attribute which had been described earlier as the G’d of his father when we read of G’d (introducing) revealing Himself to Moses (Exodus 3,6) saying אנכי אלו-הי אביך אלו-הי אברהם, אלו-הי יצחק, ואלו-הי יעקב, ויסתר משה פניו כי ירא מהביט אל-האלו-הים. ”I am the G’d of your father, the G’d of Avraham, the G’d of Yitzchak, and the G’d of Yaakov; Moses averted his face as he was afraid to look at Elohim.” [The common denominator in the last two verses quoting G’d is the word אנכי coupled with Elohim. Ed.] According to Hoseah 12,5 בית אל is an attribute by means of which G’d addresses human beings. The verse in Hoseah, clearly a reference to Yaakov, reads as follows: וישר אל מלאך ויכל, בכה ויתחנן לו, בית אל ימצאנו ושם ידבר עמנו “He wrestled with an angel and prevailed; he (the angel) cried and pleaded with him. At Bet-El He  would meet him, and there He would speak with us.” [The next verse continues (not quoted by our author) “But the Lord, the Lord of Hosts  must be invoked as “the Lord.” Ed.]. When G’d said to Moses (Exodus 33,19) אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך, “I shall let all My goodness pass before you,” He referred to His capacity as the attribute כבוד. In Exodus 34,6 this is described as “Hashem passed before him.” I shall explain the apparent anomaly in this verse when we get to it. The verse in Ki Tissa refers to the attribute which is meant in verse 23 of the same chapter where the Torah speaks of the pilgrims presenting themselves את פני האדון י-ה-ו-ה- אלו-הי ישראל. 
      You have to understand the meaning of the words את פני האדון coupled with the expression י-ה-ו-ה -אלו-הי ישראל. What is meant is that the Hashem aspect is concealed within the manifestation of the attribute פני אדון. The word את פני used in connection with the pilgrimages in Ki Tissa is the mystical dimension of על פני in our verse, and it is the attribute to which Moses appealed in Exodus 32,11 as soon as G’d told him about the Israelites having made themselves a molten calf to worship. Moses’ prayer commenced with the words ויחל משה את פני י-ה-ו-ה אלו-היו. Moses pleaded with the attribute of Justice.    It is also possible, following the approach of Nachmanides on that verse, that the word ויחל is derived from תחלה, “beginning.” In that event the meaning of the Torah’s description of Moses’ prayer is that he drew strength throughout from the beginning of his prayer until its successful conclusion known as פנים. [I suppose the word פנים in that context means that G’d was once again prepared to turn His face, i.e. goodwill, to the people at the conclusion of Moses’ intercession. Ed.] This may have been why Moses used the words למה י-ה-ו-ה i.e. the attribute Hashem in the course of his prayer as if to ask G’d: “why do You Hashem allow the attribute of Justice to exercise authority over Your people?” The attribute which Moses addressed at that time was the one we described as כבוד. We find confirmation of this in Deut. 9,26 where Moses recalls the events of that period saying:  ואתפלל אל י-ה-ו-ה ואומר אד-ני אלו-הים אל תשחת עמך ונחלתך אשר פדית בגדלך אשר הוצאת ממצרים ביד חזקה. “I prayed to Hashem and said: “My Lord Hashem/Elohim do not destroy Your people and Your heritage that You redeemed in Your greatness, that You took out of Egypt with a strong hand.” You will observe that Moses addressed the name with the letters אד followed by the name with the letters יה. [The author refers to the name printed in most editions as yud heh vav heh but read as Elohim, i.e. a combination of part of adonay and the tetragrammaton. Ed.] Seeing Moses had addressed the attribute of Justice, he had pleaded by saying: “do not destroy Your people, etc.” If we were to sum up the meaning of the verse we would say: “Lord (אדון), You within whom is the attribute of Mercy, do not destroy Your people.” We find another occasion in the desert when Moses employed the term adonay in the same sense in Deut. 3,24 where he begins his prayer to be allowed to cross the Jordan prior to his death. At that time Moses reminds G’d that He had revealed to him at the burning bush that within the attribute of Justice there is concealed the attribute of Mercy. Yet another instance when Moses used this address was when he asked G’d to continue to be present amongst the people in Exodus 34,9. A fourth time Moses employs that attribute is in Numbers 14,17 after the debacle with the spies.    In our daily blessing of the attribute כבוד when we recite ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו, “blessed be the glory of Hashem from His place” [an inadequate though customary translation, Ed.], the meaning of the word ממקומו is: ”from the place from which the attribute כבוד receives its input,” i.e. from the attribute גבורה. The ultimate source of blessing is the אין סוף, the essence of the Lord. In our daily kedushah prayer we first proclaim the Holiness of the Lord, followed by ברוך, blessing Him. The reason we make a distinction between קדושה and ברכה, Holiness and blessing, is that the type of sanctity on terrestrial earth and the type of Holiness in the celestial spheres is not to be compared although we call both by the name קדושה. We do this although the blessing is derived from the Holiness in the celestial regions. The two domains must remain separate from one another.    Midrash Tehillim 19 on the words יום ליום asks the rhetorical question: “whence did Moses know  while he was on Mount Sinai (in heaven) when it was day and when it was night?” Answer: at the time when the angels were engaged in praising the Lord using the word קדוש, Moses knew that it was daylight on earth. When the angels used the word ברוך in their praise of the Lord Moses knew that it must be night on earth. When we read in Hoseah 3,5 ובקשו את ה' אלו-היהם ואת דויד מלכם, “and they will seek the Lord their G’d and David their king,” the prophet expresses the difference between Holiness in the celestial spheres and holiness on earth. This is a reference to the respective attributes of תפארת and כבוד. The third part of the daily קדושה prayer when we recite the words ימלוך ה' לעולם אלו-היך ציון, “may the Lord reign forever, your G’d Zion,” re-establishes the joint partnership between the attributes of כבוד and תפארת, the words ימלוך ה' לעולם being a reference to the attribute תפארת, whereas the words אלוה-יך ציון are a reference to the attribute כבוד.
      We find a similar concept expressed in writings explaining aggadic material. We are told there that when the Shechinah will once again take up residence in the Holy of Holies, the inner Sanctum of the third Temple, people will acknowledge this event by reciting ברוך כבוד י-ה-ו-ה ממקומו. In the Sefer Habahir (item 131) this is explained in the following way: “what precisely is this כבוד ה'? We may understand all this in the form of a parable. A king had a beautiful lady in his chamber, a lady that all his soldiers amused themselves with. The king and that lady’s children would pay daily visits to the palace blessing their father the king profusely and asking: “where is our mother?” The king replied: ‘you cannot see her just now.” The children then said: “may she be blessed wherever she is.” Thus far the Sefer Habahir.   This “כבוד” is known generally as שכינה, and you know already that it is perceived as extending to all “extremities, endings,” i.e. all six directions [in terms of our terrestrial world, i.e. the six directions in which we shake the Lulav, Ed.] This emanation כבוד itself ranks seventh [from the bottom up in the ten emanations, Ed.] so that it “presides,” i.e. provides spiritual input for the six “lower” emanations. Basically, this is what occurred at Mount Sinai when the Israelites heard the Ten Commandments as if emanating out of the fire. This is also what the sages (Shemot Rabbah 28,4) had in mind when they said “the Torah was given with seven קולות, “voices.” The word קול or קולות occurs seven times in our paragraph. [The word קול or קולות occurs six times, the seventh time being the words וידבר אלו-הים “G’d spoke,” something obviously involving קול, “voice.” — compare 19,15, 19,16, 19,19,(twice) 20,16. (twice)]. When you look at the second version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5,19 you will again find that the word קול or קולות occurs seven times. I will refer to this in detail when we discuss those verses.    On this occasion Moses attained an understanding of seven different קולות, which in kabbalistic terms are called seven emanations, and to which our sages  referred as שבעה קולות, “seven voices,” whereas in the language of our prophets these are called שבעה עינים, “seven facets.” This is the mystical dimension of Zecharyah 3,9 על אבן אחת שבעה עינים. The word עינים is related in meaning to גוונים, “varieties.” Only Moses understood the name and the full meaning of it. The people at large only heard the voice of G’d as a single קול. This is what Moses referred to when he wrote  Deut 5,19: את הדברים האלה דבר ה' אל כל קהלכם ...קול גדול ולא יסף, “these words the Lord spoke to your entire congregation.. .a great voice without addition,” The verse makes it plain that the congregation only heard a single voice, nothing additional. This was because their limited powers of perception did not allow them to distinguish nuances within that voice. You also find that David mentions seven קולות Psalms 29,3 (1); 29,4(2+3); 29,5 (4); 29,6 (5); 29,7 (6); 29,8 (7). The sequence there is understood in a descending order, i.e. from חסד-גבורה-תפארת-נצה-הוד-יסוד-מלכות.    After Moses had attained understanding of these seven emanations, he turned to G’d asking to be granted understanding of the emanations which were still higher, i.e. the emanations  בינה-חכמה-כתר in ascending order. This is the meaning of Exodus 33,18 הראני נא את כבודך, “please show me Your כבוד. I will deal with this in detail when we discuss that verse. 
  In the meantime you must appreciate that the Shechinah is the seventh  emanation and it exudes its influence on “seventy,” i.e. the seventy nations. As soon as the דבור left the mouth of the Shechinah it split into seven nuances, קולות, and subsequently into seventy languages parallel to the seventy nations on earth and their respective languages. As a result every single nation participated to some degree in the revelation at Mount Sinai, hearing sort of an echo of that original voice (Shabbat 88). 
  This is also mentioned in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 68,6 (on verse 11 in that Psalm) on the words א-ד-נ-י יתן אומר המבשרות צבא רב. “The Lord gives a command; the women who bring the news are a great host.” When G’d (attribute גבורה) spoke His words, the sound was split into seven voices which in turned were subdivided into seventy voices, i.e. the seventy languages of the seventy nations to enable all of them to hear part of G’d’s voice. The process may be compared to a person who strikes an anvil and sparks fly in all directions. This is the meaning of the words  המבשרות צבא רב.    Having understood this it is possible to understand the mystical dimensions of שבועה and נדר, commonly translated as “oath” and “vow” respectively. The word שבועה is derived from the word שבע, “seven,”  whereas the word נדר is related to the three emanations “above” the seven represented by the קולות ה'  as we described previously. A נדר ranks higher in Jewish law than an oath, שבועה. Seeing that the Torah (in its aspect as a Book of laws) does not concern itself with matters beyond the seven lower emanations and the Torah itself is a product of those seven emanations, it makes sense that in Jewish law an oath would never be overriding one of the already existing Torah commandments, i.e. someone who swore an oath not to observe one or several of the Torah’s commandments would not thereby have obligated himself to keep his oath. Any such oath is as if the person who uttered it had not said anything.     Regarding a נדר the matter is quite different, seeing that basically the concept ofנדר  emanates from a domain higher than the lower seven emanations. In principle, a נדר, a vow of a certain type, is able to override a מצוה. The very wording which our sages have assigned to the respective formulations of vows and oaths reflect their legal status in Jewish law. By definition, a נדר is unlimited, i.e. person says “I accept for myself a certain duty,“ such as when David said in Psalms 56,13 עלי אלו-הים נדרך אשלם “it is up to me to pay my vows to You G’d.” There was no time-limit to that obligation, nor was there any kind of contingency which might have rendered the vow as invalid. The word נדר is related to דירה dwelling, as I will explain in greater detail on Numbers 30,3. David understands that the obligation to fulfill his vow is not contingent on pre-existing contrary obligations which would invalidate it. The same is the case in Numbers 30,7 where the Torah describes the absolute duty of a woman, who has not had a husband or the authority of a father who could have objected to her vow at the time she made it, to make good on her vow. When we will discuss the third of the Ten Commandments, I will elaborate on the seriousness of the failure to keep an oath and how it is related to the seven emanations, while in Numbers 30,3 I will discuss the difference between that prohibition and the sin of not honoring a vow one has made. Seeing that I have explained some basic principles of the Torah here I will not need to elaborate on these principles again. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   אנכי ה' אלו-היך, “I am the Lord your G’d,” This is a commandment to be carried out by the heart (compare Chovot Halevavot beginning of the first chapter); it therefore is not counted except as an obligation of the heart to believe with complete and absolute faith that there is a Creator who preceded any phenomena in the universe that we are either aware of or will ever become aware of. We must similarly believe that He is alone, has no partners. (Deut. 4,35). The word אנכי always refers to a presence and the letter א at the beginning of the word alludes both to His existence and to His preceding all. The other letters (נכי) are all multiples of ten which itself is a dimension of the number 1, i.e the א. The entire word conveys “oneness, unity.” [the letter י is to multiples of the number 10 what the letter א is to multiples of the number 1 The number 1 spelled as a word, אחד, equals 81 when squared (1x1 plus 8x8 plus 4x4). This is the numerical value of the letters in the word אנכי. Furthermore, the word אנכי alludes to all the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The א represents the three letters known as אמות (א,מ,ש); the נ represents the 12 letters known as פשוטות (ה,ו,ז,ח,ט,י,ל,נ,ס,ע,צ,ק); the letter כ represents the seven letters known as כפולות. (ב,ג,ד,כ,פ,ר,ת). This means all 22 letters are accounted for. The last letter is the י which is one of the so-called נעלמות (i.e. the letters א-ה-ו-י, letters not usually heard when a word containing them is uttered).
      An additional comment on the word אנכי found in Shabbat 105  is that the word אנכי is also an acrostic אנא נפשי כתיבת יהבית, “I Myself have written and given” (Aramaic). 
  It is appropriate to explain why such an acrostic is necessary seeing that immediately after the word אנכי G’d spells out the fact that He gave the Torah by referring to Himself as י-ה-ו-ה אלוה-יך. You are familiar with the fact that Onkelos translates the word אנכי when applied to G’d as מימרי, except in this instance where he does not translate it but renders it in the original Hebrew. By not translating the words and simply copying them, Onkelos preserves the fact that G’d refers to the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice as having been equally involved in uttering the Ten Commandments and makes plain that the commandment which demands from us complete faith in G’d’s Oneness and being unprecedented extends to both of these attributes of His. By reminding us of the acrostic concealed in these four letters, the sages reminded us of the fact that the entire Torah was given by the attribute Hashem. Our sages (Mechilta Bachodesh section 6) have called this commandment “acceptance of the Kingdom of heaven.” Both the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy are qualities which a king of flesh and blood also has to display when judging his nation. Solomon already refers to this when he says (Proverbs 29,4) “a king sustains the land by justice.” The same Solomon writes in Proverbs 20,28: “mercy and truth preserve the king; he upholds his throne by loving kindness.”    אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים, “who has taken you out of the land of Egypt.” He did this in order to demonstrate the miracles to establish His claim to Kingship and Divinity in your eyes. Seeing that it was all-important to G’d to remind the people of their visual experience of what He had done, He decided not to introduce Himself as the G’d Who had created heaven and earth. The people had not witnessed that, nor for that matter had anyone else. In fact, G’d used the visual experience the people had of Him to support His claim that He had created the heaven and earth. Moreover, the Exodus of Egypt was a manifestation of G’d equal to creation of heaven and earth. The miracles which occurred subsequent to the Exodus were many and variegated; the various miracles which contradicted the laws of nature were proof that only Someone Who had established those “laws of nature” could have also have been the One Who created heaven and earth. This is why G’d chose the word הוצאתיך to describe the Exodus. The word also means “to bring forth,” and has been used repeatedly in that sense in the first chapter of Genesis. It signifies that what occurred at the Exodus was a חדוש העולם, “a rebirth of the world as it had been known.” Instead of being slaves to an earthly power, i.e. Pharaoh, the Israelites would now serve an entirely different Master, the Creator, Who had adopted them as His special people. When referring to the bondage in Egypt as a “house of slaves,” G’d may even have alluded to the fact that the masters,” i.e. the Egyptians, had been shown to be only slaves themselves, subject to a higher authority, G’d. After all, the Egyptians were descended from Cham, youngest son of Noach, whose descendants had been cursed by their father Noach to be slaves. (Compare the Egyptians’ genealogy in Genesis 10,7). Having become the slaves of slaves was in itself unnatural.    It is also possible that the word עבדים in the expression בית עבדים in our verse is a reference to an object or objects. We would have to translate it as “the house of eternal slavery.” It is also possible to explain the words מבית עבדים as “from the house of horoscopes to which all Egyptians were mentally enslaved.” The reason the Torah describes the horoscopes as “slaves,” is that whereas they are like kings to those who believe in them and feel utterly dependent on their power, they are in reality servants to all the celestial forces above them. There is a hint here that actually the Israelites had been condemned to remain in Egypt for longer (according to horoscopic calculations) had not the Lord  negated the power of the horoscopes and taken the Israelites out as a miracle. This is the meaning of Deut. 4,20: “He took you out from the iron crucible” in which the Israelites had been meant to dissolve like iron being melted down. Our verse then describes that the Exodus proceeded in two stages, first G’d took the people out of the iron crucible, then out of the land of Egypt.
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני, “You are not to have any other deities in My presence.” We are not to accept any of G’d’s agents, forces, known as Elohim as deities for ourselves, nor any of the horoscopes as guiding our fates. The word אחרים “others,” [which might suggest that there are such. Ed.] is explained in Sifri Eikev section 43 as justified by the fact that they are “different, false”  to those who serve them.    Another explanation of the meaning of the word אחרים: the deities whom people serve differ from day to day or from year to year. One day they worship gold, another day they worship silver, a third day they worship wood. The principal reason they are called אחרים is that they derive whatever power they are presumed to possess from אחרים, from “other” sources, they have absolutely no power of their own. This is spelled out in Exodus 34,14, לא תשתחוה לאל אחר, “do not worship a deity which derives its power from another (alien) source!” You are to bow down, i.e. worship only the true source of power, the G’d of Israel who does not derive His power from an external source. This is also the way our sages (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,45) interpret Isaiah 44,6 ומבלעדי אין אלו-הים, “there is no god that exists independently of Me.”
     על פני, ‘in My presence.” According to the plain meaning of the text this means “in addition to My essence.” It is similar in meaning to Samuel II 17,11  ופניך הולכים בקרב “and you yourself are  marching  into battle.” An alternate meaning of the words על פני may be a reference to the direction, the place to which G’d turns. Seeing that G’d turns to every direction, is all-present, this means that we must not turn to deities in any direction.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the mystical dimension of the words על פני is על הפנים שלי, “to My face,” similar to the meaning of Deut. 5,4 פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם, ”face to face did Hashem speak with you;” the mystical dimension of the word אחרים is to be found in the fact that G’d did not say לא יהיה לך אל אחר על פני, but He said אחרים in the plural. it is similar to Lavan who had said to Yaakov (Genesis 31,50) אם תקח נשים על בנותי “you must not marry other women in addition to my daughters.” I have already explained (See commentary on verse 1 והוא כמו אם תקח נשים וכו') why  Lavan could not have used the word נשים in the singular, i.e. אשה.    Nachmanides explains that idolatry may manifest itself in three different ways. 1) Some people worship the angels; 2) some people worship the celestial constellations in the sky, horoscopes and astrology; 3) Some people worship demons. During the early generations of mankind any deviation from pure monotheism occurred by the people addressing the angels as G’d’s ministers, believing that since G’d had given authority to these angels to supervise and intervene in the fates of different nations they deserved to be “worshipped,” albeit as subordinate beings. When Daniel 10,20 speaks of the שר יון or the שר מלכות פרס, he refers to the angels G’d appointed to supervise those kingdoms and their respective peoples. At that time each tribe or nation worshipped only a single such angel, i.e. the one appointed to supervise its fate. The reason that the Torah (Deut. 10,17) describes Hashem as הוא אלו-הי האלו-הים  is to make clear that Hashem was understood to be the supreme power above these angels who had jurisdiction over one nation each. This is also what Yitro referred to when he said he had learned that  כי גדול ה' מכל האלוהים, that “Hashem was greater than all the divine powers known as Elohim.” The angels are the ones described as Elohim. This is also what David had in mind in Psalm 97,7 where he says השתחוו לו כל אלהים, “all divine beings (angels) bow down to Him.” This is what our sages said (Menachot 110) that Yitro referred to G’d as the “G’d of gods.” (Exodus 18,11).    After the period when people still worshipped the Supreme G’d but only in His capacity as a remote “boss” of the respective angels to whom He had entrusted their fate, they began to worship visible deities, horoscopes, all kinds of celestial constellations consisting of stars, and other planets. They realized that these forces exercised great influence on what goes on earth. This is the period described as people prostrating themselves before the sun, the moon and many other stars and constellations visible in the sky (Jeremiah 8,2). These people believed that by serving these forces they would increase their relative power and that this in turn would be of benefit to them. The people initiating this were very learned people who had studied what they perceived as the method of these stars exercising their influence on earth.    Still later, people began to worship demons. This is what is meant in Deut. 32,17 אלוהים לא ידעום, “gods they had never known of.” The Torah ridicules the people who sacrifice to demons, phenomena which had never been endowed with divine powers at all, referring to them as “newcomers, recently arrived, whom your ancestors did not dread.” These forces were new to the Israelites; they had heard of them only during their exile in Egypt. Even the Canaanites had not known of their existence. Because of all these various forms of phenomena competing with G’d, the Torah warns not to place any store in any of them. The word אלהים אחרים in our verse refers to the first group, i.e. the angels.
  
  Verse 4
  
   לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה, “do not make for yourself a molten image or any likeness, etc.” After G’d had warned against believing (sin in thought) in any force competing with G’d as the only Divine Force, the Torah now adds the prohibition of constructing (sinning in deed) such a substitute for Him. A person might have thought in all innocence that painting or making three-dimensional replicas of phenomena which G’d had created would be acceptable to G’d as a reminder, for instance, of miracles G’d had performed for His people. These phenomena had been used by G’d as instruments to help the Jewish people, after all.    A  major reason why it seems reasonable for people to make such images as reminders of the miracles G’d had performed are certain ceremonial laws such as the offering and eating of the Passover lamb, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, all intended to ensure that the memory of that event would not be forgotten. The commandment to make and dwell in huts on Tabernacles specifically instructs us to thereby remember the fact that the Israelites dwelled in huts during their wandering in the desert. Seeing that a Jew might want to make for himself a visible memento to remind him of his faith, the Torah had to legislate that he must not do so as once he would do so he would, in due course, substitute the symbol for the real thing and begin to worship the symbol. Such idolatry would commence with relatively innocent obeisance, such as bowing down to the symbol; ultimately it would result in properly serving such symbols. This is why the psalmist (Psalms 1,1) says: “happy the man who did not walk (following) the counsel of the wicked, or did not stand still when encountering the path of the sinners, or sit in the company of the insolent.” On this verse our sages (Avodah Zarah 18) ask: “seeing he did not follow (walk with) the wicked, how would he stand? Seeing that he did not stand, how could he sit?” What David meant to warn us of is that once one walks with the sinners, one will also stand with them and eventually one will sit with the scoffers, i.e. keep regular company with them. In order to avoid this from happening one must not even go for a brief walk with them. Once a person becomes a scoffer he will qualify for what Solomon termed: “if you scoff you bear it alone” (Proverbs 9,12). People who have sunk to that level will not be welcomed by the Shechinah. In our verse the Torah also staggers the description of the danger of idolatry; first you must avoid putting faith in any phenomena besides G’d; next you must not construct something which could become an idol; third, you must watch out that you will not prostrate yourself to an idol. The Torah commences with the relatively mild sin describing how it will lead to the most serious kind of sin.    This leads us to the apparent contradiction of the construction of the commandment in Exodus 25,18 to construct two golden cherubs, which sounds as if “the same mouth which prohibited making molten images permits them” (Ketuvot 22)  in a different context. [G’d is the only One who knows when to allow or even order the making of symbols. Seeing He allows in one context He must have His reasons for prohibiting it in other contexts. Ed.]
      The expression וכל תמונה, means: “any kind of likeness.” [not “every likeness.”] It is similar to verse 10 in our chapter לא תעשה כל מלאכה, “do not perform any kind of work.” Alternatively, the word כל in the phrase לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה, could refer to the attribute כל, which would represent one of the likenesses of what is found in the celestial regions., i.e. אשר בשמים ממעל.    The “כל” referred to is the likeness of some celestial phenomenon. The same applies in Deut. 4,23 where the Torah warns against ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל, “from making for yourselves a molten image, a likeness of כל, concerning which the Lord your G’d has commanded you.” Here too the word כל may  be understood as a reference to something specific rather than as a reference to “all” or “any.”    The words אשר בשמים ממעל, “of what is in the heavens above,” refer to images of angels or other celestial beings the likeness of which we are not to reproduce. Examples would be such angels as: Ophanim, Seraphim or Chayot Hakodesh, categories of angels which we speak about in our prayers. Even though we have not seen these angels we must not portray their likeness as it corresponds to our imagination. The words ואשר בארץ מתחת, “or those that are on earth below,” refer to three-dimensional reproductions of either human beings or animals or birds which populate the earth. The words ואשר במים מתחת לארץ, “or which are in the water below the earth,” refer to all manner of fish. We must not make accurate three-dimensional reproductions of these either. Neither must one construct likenesses of the demons inhabiting the domain under the surface of the earth (Mechilta Bachodesh section 6).    This verse teaches also that earth is positioned above water. This is the reason for the wording: “which is in the water beneath the earth.” We have a verse in Psalms 136,6 לרוקע הארץ על המים, “who spreads the earth above the waters” which makes this point even more directly. It is commonly assumed that the demons consist of three varieties (Chagigah 16). Some reside in the atmosphere and cause people to dream at night. Some reside within our bodies and tempt men into sinful conduct. Some reside within the bowels of the earth. If G’d had allowed these demons to surface they would be powerful enough to devastate the terrestrial universe.    Our sages (Mechilta Bachodesh section 6) added that the words אשר בשמים include the sun, the moon, and the stars, as well as constellations of stars, signs of the zodiac. The word ממעל  includes the angels, whereas the words ואשר בארץ include man, beast and birds. The word מתחת, includes insects, reptiles and the like. The words ואשר במים include the fish in the sea and rivers; the words מתחת לארץ include the demons. Pessikta Zutrata on our verse confirms this interpretation.
  
  Verse 5
  
   לא תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם, “do not prostrate yourselves before them nor perform any act of obeisance.” Any form of service is included, even a form of service which does not deny the sovereignty of Hashem. This verse stipulates that any form of service, adulation, recognition of a Divine Power, is to be reserved exclusively for Hashem. The author refers to a Midrash (similar to our version of the Zohar) in which even a demeaning kind of service vis-a-vis an idol is included in the prohibition the Torah expresses here. The classic example cited in the Talmud is service to an idol known as Pe-or which consists of people excreting in front of such an image. Similarly, pelting stones at Markulin, another ancient deity is equally forbidden, though within the parameter of our culture pelting stones is an insult rather than an act of worship. Even if the form of service performed is not at all the kind prescribed for honouring that particular deity, it is still absolutely forbidden. The words: “do not bow down to them or perform obeisances” does not only refer to voluntary performance of any form of worship but it includes involuntary worship even under threat of death. This is the reason that Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah refused to transgress this commandment and chose (what they thought was) death instead. Not only does the principle of יהרג ואל יעבור, “that one must rather face death than violate this commandment,” apply to deliberate, intentional  violation of this commandment, but it applies even to incidental, unintended violation, such as bending to pick up coins one had dropped in front of an idol. It is absolutely forbidden to give others the impression as if one bent down to the idol even if in fact one merely wishes to scoop up one’s coins (compare Avodah Zarah 12).   כי אנכי ה' אלוה-יך, “for I am Hashem your G’d.” I alone; exclusively. it is not appropriate for you to exchange Me for someone else. If you do, אנכי אל, “I have power,” i.e. I am able to punish you. Moreover, I am קנא, jealous, I am jealous of preserving My reputation so that I will carry out retribution sometimes as long delayed as the fourth generation. In this instance the word פוקד does not mean that G’d remembers, considers benevolently as is the meaning of this word in the list of G’d’s thirteen attributes in Exodus 34,6-7. To make certain we do not misunderstand, the Torah here adds the word לשונאי, “to those who hate Me.”
   Remember that throughout the Torah this attribute of jealousy as one of G’d’s attributes occurs only in connection with idolatry. The reason is that  once the Jewish people had accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai they became an irrevocable part of G’d’s “heritage.” They had given up the freedom to opt out. If for some reason they, or an individual, decide to abandon G’d and His commandments He is entitled to relate to such conduct like a husband who is jealous of the infidelity of his wife. You will not find a single statement by our prophets concerning other nations and their relations with their deities being described in terms of such deities being jealous of their worshippers. The Torah sums up the difference between us and other nations in Deut. 4,19-20: “and you be drawn  astray and bow down to them and worship them, which Hashem your G’d has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven! But Hashem has taken you and removed you from the iron crucible, from Egypt, to be a nation of heritage for Him, as this very day.”
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועושה חסד לאלפים לאוהבי, “and who performs deeds of loving kindness for thousands of generations for those who love Me.” Our sages in Sotah 31 explain the word לאוהבי as meaning: “for those who perform My commandments from a sense of love (for Me), whereas for those who perform G’d’s commandments only out of a sense of fear, i.e. לשומרי מצותיו, He does perform such acts of loving kindness for only one thousand generations. They also say (Sotah 31) that seeing the word לאוהבי, “to those who love Me,” has been written next to the word אלפים, “thousands, or at least two thousand, it is appropriate that it applies to people who perform the commandments out of a sense of love for G’d. On the other hand, the word לאלף דור, “for one thousand generations” (Deut. 7,9), applies to the people who though they perform the commandments do so only because they are afraid of being punished Even though performance of the commandments by such people is not at its optimum level G’d rewards them with disproportionately high reward. In Pessachim 50 our sages interpret the difference between the words in Psalms 57,11 “for Your kindness is as high as heaven,” and Psalm 108,5 where G’d’s kindness is described as “extending even beyond heaven,” by applying the former to people who observe the commandments without the proper intent, and the latter statement as reflecting the reward due to people who perform the commandments with the appropriate intent, i.e. not for what they stand to gain by it but by wanting to fulfill G’d’s purpose. All of this has been explained by Rav who said on that folio that the value of performing the commandments without the proper motivation lies in the fact that eventually one will perform them with the proper motivation. How do we reconcile this statement by Rav with that of Berachot 17 that someone peforming the laws of the Torah for the wrong reasons would better not have been created at all? That latter statement is meant for people who teach Torah to show off their knowledge but who have no fear of the Lord. [It is difficult to know which of many textural emendations on this line is correct. I have assumed that the author agrees with Tosafot Pesachim 50 on the correct interpretation of the statement in Berachot. Ed.]
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא תשא את שם ה' אלו-היך לשוא, “do not take the name of the Lord your G’d in vain.” Why is this injunction phrased as if spoken by some outsider? Why does G’d not say: “do not take My name in vain?” Up until this point G’d had spoken in the first person! 
  Nachmanides uses this switch to the third person to prove his point that the people heard only the first two commandments directly from the mouth of G‘d, hence they heard the “I.” From this point on all they heard was what Moses told them in the name of G’d. The Israelites had to hear the first two commandments from G’d Himself in order to rise to the level of prophecy concerning their belief in G’d and concerning the unthinkability of becoming guilty of idolatry. This is also why G’d employed His Holy Name without such a preface as שם ה', whereas from now on we find the word שם which itself is like erecting a barrier between G’d’s essence and His intermediary to the people.    The reason the commandment of not taking the name of G’d in vain follows immediately after the prohibition of idolatry is to teach that just as it is imperative to accord honour, etc., to G’d exclusively and not to negate this by treating any other phenomenon as a lesser divinity, so it is imperative to relate with equal reverence to “the name of the Lord, not only to His essence. Anyone failing to do so is guilty of desecrating G’d’s name.    The essence of this commandment is not to swear an unnecessary oath, similar to Leviticus 19,12: “do not swear a false oath in My name and desecrate the name of  your G’d thereby.” In this verse the Torah goes further by prohibiting an oath which is pointless, such as someone declaring on oath that the sun rose this morning.  Such a declaration does not add to our knowledge and constitutes the use of G’d’s name in a frivolous manner. An oath which is meant to pervert the truth, such as that a pillar of marble is in reality a pillar of gold, also comes under the heading of שבועת שוא, a vain oath.    The reason the Torah uses the expression לא תשא instead of לא תשבע, “do not swear an oath,” is because this prohibition includes even mentioning G’d’s name unnecessarily without the context of an oath. It is as if the Torah had said: “do not bring this name over your lips.” The word לשוא equals לחינם, “without valid reason.”  We have a different nuance of this word תשא in Exodus 23,1: לא תשא שמע שוא, “do not carry false reports.” The reason that conveying something by one’s lips or mouth is referred to as תשא, “you raise,” is that one has to “raise” one’s voice in order to convey the utterance. We have another example of this usage of the word תשא in Psalms 16,4: ובל אשא את שמותם על-שפתי, “their names will not pass my lips.” The entire legislation has been described by our sages (Temurah 3) as מוציא שם שמים לבטלה, “uttering the name of the Lord in vain.”    The Talmud Nedarim 10 asks: “whence do we know that if someone who is about to declare a certain animal as a sacrificial animal, he must not say לה' עולה or לה' חטאת, “for G’d a burnt-offering,” or “for G’d a sin-offering,” but must say instead עולה לה' or חטאת לה', “a burnt-offering for G’d,” or “a sin-offering for G’d?” Answer: because he may not be able to complete the sentence and would have said only the word: “for G’d,” which would be pointless. If a person who is about to utter G’d’s name when he has to must be so careful not to use it in a way that might result in it going to waste, how much more so must we be careful not to utter the name of G’d to deny the truth or make some other frivolous declaration by involving G’d’s name! Thus far Nachmanides.   The reason that it is forbidden to swear falsely is that by doing so one negates a  basic truth as well as one’s belief in G’d; [If one ignores warnings such as “G’d will not absolve someone who takes His name in vain,” one obviously does not believe that one will be punished severely. Ed.] It is immaterial for the severity of the sin whether one held some object in one’s hand at the time one uttered the oath or if not. In either event such an oath makes the person swearing it guilty of heresy, denying the Torah and the Lord who gave it.   Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra in his commentary on our verse similarly condemns people guilty of this offense and describes them as perverting the purpose of every oath. The purpose behind swearing an oath is to assure the person to whom it is sworn that “just as G’d is true, so my words are true.” If that person fails to honour his oath he is as good as accusing G’d of lying. It is the custom in Egypt (in the time of Ibn Ezra) that if one swore by the life of the king and it was found that one had perjured oneself, the person guilty of this was executed. Even if that person was willing to atone by paying his own weight in gold his life would not be spared as he had shown his contempt for the king in public by using his name in vain. If this is the penalty administered to someone who showed contempt for a mortal ruler, how much more severe is the same sin when committed against Eternal G’d?
      We have observed an example of the punishment which accrued to the Jewish people who had sworn an oath in public in the matter of פלגש בגבעה, (Judges 20,9) not to go home until they had punished the men of Givah for their vicious rape. This oath was a public declaration in the presence of Pinchas the High Priest (20,28). We find there that the people of Yavesh Gilead who had not participated in the punitive expedition against the people of Benjamin were killed, men, women and children because they had dishonoured their publicly given oath (Judges 21,10).This was a harsher punishment than is applied to people who desecrate the Sabbath. Another instance where the severity of not complying with a public oath is demonstrated was the edict of King Saul that no one was to taste any food until after the battle against the Philistines (Samuel I 14,24). Yonatan, King Saul’s eldest son, who had been unaware of his father’s decree and the public oath accepting it, had tasted a little honey in all innocence. In spite of Yonatan’s not having heard the prohibition the King was going to execute him had not the people intervened. (verses 44-45). At any rate, we learn from there that when someone deliberately violates his oath, (or an oath that he had agreed to though not initiated, he is subject to the death penalty.    I can show you that the Torah has compared the severity of violating an oath to the sin of adultery The Torah writes here in connection with swearing a false or unnecessary oath that G’d will never totally forgive a person guilty of this. You will also find the expression לא ינקה in Proverbs 6,29 where Solomon applies it to someone who indulges in sexual intercourse with someone else’s wife. We find that G’d punished the entire nation by a famine because King Saul had failed to honor an oath sworn to the Gibeonites  by the leaders of the Jewish people under the rule of Joshua. G’d told David in Samuel II 21,1 that the famine was the punishment for Saul having killed some Gibeonites in contravention of an holy oath sworn to them at the time of Joshua. Only after this gross injustice had been wiped out by David handing over seven descendants of Saul did G’d again turn to His people with goodwill. (Samuel II 21,14).     Another tragedy involving non-compliance with an oath was the killing of Shimi ben Geyrah who had been sworn by Solomon on pain of death not to leave Jerusalem where he had been under house arrest since the death of David. Kings I 2,42 makes it clear that Solomon executed him for violating this oath. It is noteworthy that in all the Ten Commandments we find a specific reward promised for compliance only in connection with the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas a specific punishment is reserved for violation of the commandment not to worship idols and not to swear an unnecessary oath.    Many people think that the sin of murder and adultery are far worse than the sin of swearing a needless oath and they wonder why the Torah has reserved its condemnation for the sin of swearing an unnecessary oath rather than for committing murder or adultery. The answer is simple. Murder and adultery are the kinds of sins which cannot be committed all the time. One needs a special opportunity in order not to be caught; in the case of adultery one also needs a willing partner. Not only that; having murdered one person whom one hates is unlikely to lead to the same person again murdering other people against whom he harbors no ill will. Similarly, it is unlikely that someone wants to commit adultery again and again with different women as his libido may not have been aroused by them. Committing the sin of swearing unnecessary oaths, however, does not satisfy one’s evil urge and is not subject to special opportunities but is likely to become a way of life with a person who has indulged in that sin without being caught. The very fact that he who commits this sin generally does not even get a feeling of special satisfaction from doing it makes it such a dangerous sin, one which is liable to become a norm rather than the exception. This is why the Torah reserved the warning that G’d will never completely forgive someone who knowingly commits this sin. If Israel were guilty of no other sin than indulging in such oaths this would be enough to add years to our collective exile. Thus far the words of Ibn Ezra on this subject.
      We find that the prophet Isaiah admonishes Israel concerning this sin in chapter 48,1-2 where he writes as follows: “Listen to this O House of Yaakov, who bear the name of Israel and have come forth from the waters of Yehudah, who swear by the name of the Lord and invoke the G’d of Israel- though not in truth and sincerity- for you are called after the Holy City and you do lean on  the G’d of Israel whose name is the Lord of Hosts.” What Isaiah was trying to explain to the people was that they had no reason to be surprised that the pagans did not honour their oaths seeing that they had not been given the Torah. The Jewish people failed to honour their oaths in spite of having been given the Torah and being perfectly aware of how G’d hated the swearing of false oaths. Isaiah referred to the Jewish people as the House of Yaakov to remind them of the introductory words of the Decalogue where Moses was told to address the “House of Yaakov” (Exodus 19,3). It was the very presence at the revelation and their acceptance of the Torah that entitled the Jewish people to bear the name Children of “Israel” and “Yeshurun,” both distinctions conferred on people who are loyal to G’d and His ethical teachings. They had observed the Majesty of G’d by a visual demonstration, i.e. His שררה, as a memento of this they were accorded the name Yeshurun. (compare Deut. 32,15 “Yeshurun” waxed fat, etc.) The words ממי יהודה יצאו, “they came forth from the waters of Yehudah” were a reference to the זרע יהודה, the “seed of Yehudah.” The reason Isaiah singled out Yehudah was because his first prophetic message had been addressed to the tribe of Yehudah, compare אשר חזה על יהודה וירושלים, “who prophesied concerning Yehudah and Jerusalem (Isaiah 1,1). 
  When you look at the verses we quoted above you will realise that the prophet reflects on the almost unbelievable fact that a people who had enjoyed such advantages could have become guilty of such disloyalty, could still bear the name Israel. How could a people with such illustrious antecedents as Yehudah, the founder of the Kingdom of David, people at home in a Holy City such a Jerusalem have become guilty of such depravity as had the people of Israel? They were the people who should have demonstrated holiness and the characteristics of priests as had been their official purpose bestowed upon them by G’d when He said: “you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holyo nation!” (Exodus 19,6). The words “and they leaned on the G’d of Israel” mean that they paid lip-service to the G’d of Israel but their heart was not in their words. Jeremiah 12,2 criticises the same phony attitude of the people when he says: “You are present in their mouths, but far from their thoughts.” Isaiah had concluded his critique with the words: “the Lord of Hosts is His name.” He meant that G’d is the Supreme commander of both the armies of the celestial regions as well as those on earth. This knowledge should have been enough to inspire fear of the Lord in the people.
      A Midrashic approach to the severity of violating oaths (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38): violation of an oath is equivalent to violation of a חרם (matters forbidden by the Torah such as the property of inhabitants of a city in Israel the majority of whose inhabitants had worshipped idols). We know this from the example of Achan Hacarmi  who had appropriated to himself gold and other property from the city of Jericho which G’d had put in חרם, had placed out of bounds to any Israelite (Joshua 7,1-26). Achan’s sin became the cause of 36 righteous Israelites losing their lives in the first battle against Ai. When Joshua was dismayed at this G’d told him “Israel has sinned;” in other words the sin of one individual violating the terms of the חרם was attributed by G’d to the entire nation. Joshua thereupon looked at the names of the tribes on the breastplate of the High Priest and found that the guilty party was a member of the tribe Yehudah, seeing that the gemstone on which Yehudah’s name was engraved had lost its lustre. After that he drew lots to find out to which family of the tribe of Yehudah the sinner belonged. When it became clear that he belonged to the family Zevach, the individual responsible by the name of Achan ben Carmi was isolated and he admitted his guilt. He was executed.   We have another incident involving violating a חרם, when King Saul expressed a curse against anyone who would taste food until the evening (Samuel I 14,24). We have already mentioned that Yonatan had not heard about this חרם i.e. about the curse Saul had placed on violators of this oath. (the Book of Samuel calls this חרם oath.) We read there (Samuel I 14,27) that when Yonatan put the honey to his lips his eyes “lit up”. (the word used for “lit up,” ותאור, are the same as “he was struck by the curse.” At any rate, when the battle against the Philistines started to go badly, Saul wondered if someone had violated the oath (and thus brought a curse on the soldiers). He looked at the stones of the breastplate of the High Priest and found that the gemstone with the name Binyamin had lost its lustre. This caused him to draw lots until he found that the culprit was a member of his own family (verse 41). He condemned Yonatan to death in accordance with the terms of the חרם. It was then found that Yonatan had eaten because he had not been aware of the חרם, and the people prevailed on the King to spare him (verse 45).    We find another example of the severity of violating oaths and the comparison with violating a חרם  in connection with Joseph’s brothers. They had made such a חרם amongst themselves that none of them would reveal to Yaakov what had happened during their encounter with Joseph. They had said: “we are only nine” (seeing that Reuven had been absent when Joseph was sold). A חרם is legally binding only when it involves a minimum of ten people. They had therefore made G’d Himself a partner to their חרם in order to give it legal force. This meant that G’d Himself was constrained from revealing to Yaakov what had happened to Joseph. Reuven respected the חרם and never told his father what he knew. G’d also respected the חרם as we know from Psalms 147,19 that He מגיד דבריו ליעקב, “reveals His words to Yaakov.” Clearly, He had not revealed this matter to Yaakov. The reason was that He had become partner to this חרם. Thus far Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer.
      A kabbalistic approach to our verse: The word שם in the verse לא תשא את שם ה' אלוה-יך לשוא refers to the Shechinah. The verse tells us that Hashem the attribute י-ה-ו-ה will not exonerate anyone who trifles with the name of the Shechinah, uses it in vain. We have a similar verse in Leviticus 19,12: ולא תשבעו לשמי לשקר, “and you shall nor swear an oath in My name which is a lie;” here too the word לשמי is a reference to the attribute known as Shechinah. The verse concludes with וחללת את שם אלו-היך, “and you would (thereby) desecrate the name of your G’d.” The clear message is that even swearing in the name of any of the lesser attributes of G’d is as severe a sin as uttering the tetragram itself to confirm one’s statement on oath .    The severity of the sin of dishonouring one’s oath is tied to the fact that the word שבועה, “oath,” is based on the word שבעה, “seven.” This is a reference to the seven קולות, different nuances of G’d’s voice, whose meaning Moses learned to understand during the revelation at Mount Sinai. Anyone who violates an oath based on these seven קולות, i.e. on the Sinaitic experience, is as if testifying that he is not entitled to life in the hereafter. By doing what he did he excluded himself from the community of people who have embraced these seven קולות as yardsticks by which to guide their lives. Our sages (Sifri Mattot item 153), when trying to illustrate the difference between שבועות ונדרים, “oaths and vows,” explain that an oath may be considered as using the “king as he manifests himself” to buttress his statement, whereas when someone formulates his oath as a vow he buttresses it by the “life of the king,” i.e. the king’s “essence.” You will appreciate this when you reflect on a verse in Kings II 2,2 where Elisha swears that he will not leave Elijah and let Elijah go to Beit El by himself. He phrases it thus: חי-י-ה-ו-ה, וחי נפשך אם אעזבך, “as the Lord lives and as you live I will not depart from you.” The expression חי ה' refers to the “king” Himself and constitutes an oath. The expression  חי נפשך refers to the “life of the king” and constitutes a נדר, a vow. 
  It is an accepted fact that a person swearing an oath and vowing a vow simultaneously does not mention the more severe aspect of his undertaking before he mentions the aspect which is relatively easier, simpler to fulfill. This is why Elisha first mentioned חי ה', meaning that he considered this as a less demanding undertaking. Subsequently he also vowed a vow when he said: “by your life.” He considered this as the more demanding undertaking.   Having appreciated the above we can understand why inadvertent violation of an oath can be atoned for by a sin-offering, whereas inadvertent violation of a vow may not be atoned for by a sin-offering. This will also help you understand that the essence of the “soul” called נפש is in the lower seven emanations, whereas the essence of the soul called נשמה is within the realm of the three highest emanations. When the Torah writes in Genesis 2,7 ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים, “He blew into his nostrils the soul of life,”  this is evidence that seeing G’d blew into man’s nostrils, he received something directly from G’d’s spirit. The meaning of that verse is that some of the nobility of “G’d’s life” was infused into man. He imparted to man part of His own essence so that seeing this part emanated in the emanation בינה which is the source of the concept תשובה, return or repentance, we can understand what Solomon had in mind when he spoke about man’s רוח, “spirit” “returning to G’d who had provided it when his body dies” (Kohelet 12,7). The reason Solomon mentions the attribute האלו-הים in that verse is that  the Torah commences with the words בראשית ברא אלו-הים, “at the beginning He created Elohim” i.e. the concept of Teshuvah, (without which the universe could not have endured).  
      You should realize that from that emanation בינה the souls of the Israelites are channeled to them via the emanation תפארת, (the next lower one). They travel via what we have repeatedly referred to as the קו האמצעי,  the “central” line, route. This line is symbolic of the “east of the world” when Israel perform the will of G’d. We have a verse confirming this idea in Isaiah 43,5 where the prophet says: “I will bring your folk from the East.” If Israel are wicked, then the souls arrive from a westerly direction, i.e. from seed which already existed on earth in the form of previous life (transmigration of souls) as explained in Sefer Habahir.
  [Transmigration of souls is based on a sinful person being given a chance in another body to achieve the moral and ethical objectives he failed to achieve in his first round of life on earth. The person on earth who is here as a re-incarnation therefore “inherits” an impure soul, the one described here as coming from the West instead of from the East. Souls coming from the East originate in G’d’s reservoir of “unused” souls in heaven, souls which had not had a chance to become tainted. Ed.]. The author dealt with this concept in his commentary on Genesis 2,8. This entire concept is one which is applicable only to the Jewish people seeing that all the souls of the other nations originate in the “left” side of the table of emanations. This “left” side is the attribute גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, “the great fire.”    This is the reason behind the halachic rule that if a Gentile slaughters an animal (which is fit for consumption by a Jew as it corresponds to the requirements, such as having cleft hooves and chewing the cud), such slaughter converts said animal into an animal equivalent to one that died by natural causes or disease, an animal whose carcass confers ritual impurity on the person touching or carrying it. All of this is due to their failure (the Gentile nations) to accept the Torah which has been described by Moses (Deut. 33,2)  as מימינו אש דת למו, “On G’d’s right- law became like fire for them.” The Gentiles will be judged by the fires of Gehinom. This is the advantage of Jewish souls over those of the Gentiles. This is also what Ezekiel 23,37 referred to when he said: וגם את בניהן אשר ילדו לי, “and also their sons whom they bore for Me.” The prophet explains in that paragraph that all Israelites when born are born “to Me,” i.e. to G’d, as their souls emanated in the “right” regions.” If anyone of the Gentiles converts to Judaism his soul will be spared from having to undergo the fires of Gehinom, purgatory, seeing he has entered the קו האמצעי, “the middle line,”  from which he may return to his roots on the right side of the emanations.
      Let us return now to the subject matter under discussion, i.e. oaths and vows. Anyone who swore an oath and keeps it, honors it,  will receive his reward in the regions governed by the seven lower emanations as by keeping his oath he has as good as testified that he believes what these seven emanations resp. seven קולות, symbolize. Such a person has demonstrated a longing for G’d’s closeness to man as represented by these emanations. The reverse is the case with people who violate their oaths. Instead of being rewarded by what these seven emanations represent they will be punished by seven different degrees of fire in purgatory. Our sages in the Midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,18) have alluded to this mystical dimension when they interpreted Song of Songs 2,7 השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים בצבאות, “O daughters who are destined to ascend to Jerusalem I have adjured you by gazelles or hinds, etc.” Solomon means that if you will heed the warning you will ultimately wind up as illustrious as the Hosts of G’d in heaven; if you fail to heed the warning you will be like the army on earth. Thus far the Midrash. The meaning of that Midrash is that the word השבעתי is to be understood as “I give you a choice” to become attached to the seven emanations or seven kinds of fire in purgatory. The choice is up to you. Either way you will wind up as part of an army, i.e. צבאות. If you will merit it you will enjoy the seven heavens (Chagigah 12), become part of the army described as attached to the צרור החיים, “the bundle of eternal life” promised by Avigail to King David (Samuel I 25,29). If not, you will join the army undergoing seven kinds of fire in purgatory. The Lord can save people from having to endure punishment and hide them under His protective wings. May He make our share to be with the righteous who put their faith in Him.
  
  Verse 8
  
    זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” After G’d had commanded us to believe wholeheartedly in His overriding attribute Hashem, and not to exchange Him for any other deity, and He also commanded us to “honor” His name by not using it in vain, He now commanded us to make a visible symbol of His holy name by sanctifying the seventh day, the Sabbath, by proclaiming His holy name on that day. The purpose of it is to proclaim publicly that He has created the universe as something absolutely new, out of nothing. 
      An approach based strictly on the literal meaning of the text: The words זכור את יום השבת “to remember the Sabbath day,” with the word זכור as an infinitive as distinct from an imperative, mean that we should remember this thought that G’d created the world out of previously non-existent materials all Sabbath long. Not only must we not exchange Him for any other force claiming divinity status on the Sabbath, the day we spiritualise more than any other, but we must not act on the weekdays as if there were some other divinity, some other ideal that we devote ourselves to. The best way not to deviate from our basic faith is by not forgetting G’d during the week either.     When we think of Him constantly, we will also remember the whole process of creation; once we do this we will remember that He supervises His handiwork and rewards those who are loyal to Him and punishes those who are disloyal.    When G’d says לקדשו, “to sanctify it,” this means that we should remember to sanctify it. We should realise that our resting on the Sabbath is an expression of the holiness of that day and we should turn away from secular concerns such as preoccupation with our bodies and devote ourselves on that day to matters of concern to G’d, by studying His ways and methods of doing things.    On that day we are under an obligation to visit prophets or sages and scholars in order to receive instructions in the ways of the Lord. It recalls Kings II 4,23 when the husband of the Shunamite woman asks her: “why are you on the way to the prophet today? It is neither Sabbath nor New Moon?” This question shows that it was customary to visit the prophet on the Sabbath to receive spiritual uplift from him (compare Rosh Hashanah 16).    David is on record in Psalms 119,97 where he said כל היום היא שיחתי, “it is my meditation all day long.” We would have expected him to say: “I have meditated every day.” Clearly, David refers to a special day devoted to meditations, i.e. the Sabbath. Isaiah 58,13 calls the Sabbath עונג, “a delight,” meaning it is a delight for the soul. The reason is that intelligent people and G’d-fearing people use that day to derive spiritual delight from it. Man’s soul thirsts for G’d on that day, a thought expressed poetically in Psalms 42,3: “my soul thirsts for the living G’d.” 
      A Midrashic approach based on Shabbat 118. Anyone observing the Sabbath laws meticulously has all his sins forgiven to him. Even if he had indulged in idol worship of the type practiced by the generation of Enosh, this too is forgiven him. This is based on Isaiah 56,2 אשרי אנוש יעשה זאת...שומר שבת מחללו, “hail to the man who does this.....who keeps the Sabbath and does not desecrate it.” A story is told of the Roman governor Turnusrufus (the wicked) who encountered Rabbi Akiva on a Sabbath (compare Tanchuma Ki Tissa 33). He asked Rabbi Akiva sarcastically: “what is so special about this day compared to other days?” Rabbi Akiva replied: “how is one man superior to other men?” (that he arrogates to himself special powers and status) Turnusrufus answered: “The King of Kings evidently wanted to honour me!” Rabbi Akiva replied that the King of Kings also wanted to honour the Sabbath. Turnusrufus replied: “if so why does He Himself perform work on the Sabbath?” Rabbi Akiva: “what work does G’d do on the Sabbath?” Turnusrufus: “just as He performs work on the weekdays, He performs the same activities on the Sabbath!” [he meant that we do not observe a change in nature on the Sabbath. Ed.] Rabbi Akiva: “I know you are familiar with Jewish law and our Torah. You therefore are aware that when two people who live in adjoining houses and share the same courtyard they are allowed to carry in the courtyard if they first established a partnership called Eyruv. This means that each of them abandons his exclusive claim to his property for the benefit of the second party. If, however, a single individual lives in a house surrounded by a very large courtyard without a neighbour sharing it he may carry inside it without the need of an Eyruv. The reason is that he does not thereby infringe on the property rights of anyone else. G’d owns heaven and earth; He has no partners to whom He has to cede part of His exclusive rights. Hence He is free to let the sun rise, make the wind blow, the rain fall etc. without infringing on the Sabbath legislation.    This is not all. The Jews who wandered in the desert and who were being supplied by G’d with manna testify to the truth of what I have just told you. The manna descended every day of the week but not on the Sabbath. This shows clearly that the Sabbath was a special day. Not only that but the river <i>Sambatyon</i> which is full of flame daring people to cross it, is silent and still on the Sabbath.” Turnusrufus: “as to the manna, this happened a long time ago and we cannot bring proof from there that the Sabbath is special nowadays. As to the Sambatyon river, I simply do not believe you. Who has seen the river or how it works?” Rabbi Akiva: “go to necromancers and you will find that they practice their art in consulting the dead or making them appear every day of the week. On the Sabbath they are unable to perform their tricks. Go to the grave of your own father and you will observe smoke rising from it every day except on the Sabbath. This should teach you that even the dead are aware when it is Sabbath and that the day is special. You expect the living to ignore a day which even the dead are aware of?” Turnusrufus: “maybe my father’s judgment has been completed so that is the reason no more smoke rises from his grave.” Rabbi Akiva: “Tomorrow you will have proof.” On the following day Turnusrufus again observed smoke rising from his father’s grave. He went to a necromancer and ordered his father to appear. When he did, he asked his father: “while you were alive you did not observe the Sabbath; why do you observe it now that you are dead? Since when have you become a Jew?” His father answered him: “listen my son; anyone who does not observe the Sabbath amongst you on earth is forced to observe it against his will in the hereafter.” Thereupon Turnusrufus asked his father: “what are you doing in the hereafter during the weekdays?” He answered him that on every weekday they were being judged (punished). On the Sabbath they were left alone to rest. A heavenly voice is heard in those regions at the onset of the Sabbath instructing their tormentors to let the victim rest on the Sabbath. An angel known as דומה is in charge of administering the punishments during the week. As soon as the Sabbath is over this angel shouts to the wicked to return to purgatory, explaining that the Israelites have already concluded their various Sabbath observances.” Thus far the Midrash.     Keeping this in mind, the Jews have adopted the custom to recite the paragraphs ויהי נועם, and ואתה קדוש at the conclusion of the Sabbath services very slowly in order to afford the souls being judged in purgatory a little extra time before they have to return to that place. This may also be the reason that it is forbidden for us to drink some water at dusk before the onset of the Sabbath, as according to the Midrash this would be an act of stealing (time) from the souls in purgatory. By decreeing this prohibition the sages wanted to instill in us the belief that the souls of the sinful Israelites enjoy rest on the Sabbath even though they have been consigned to purgatory. When they are released from that place before the onset of the Sabbath they wash and dress in honour of the Sabbath. If the living drink water at that time it is considered as robbing the souls leaving Gehinom for a better place on the Sabbath of some of the water they need to prepare themselves for the Sabbath. The Rabbis have categorized a person drinking water at dusk on Fridays as robbers, and as people lacking in faith.    This is also the reason that we do not recite the verse והוא רחום at the beginning of the Friday night service, as mention is made of three destructive angels in that verse, אף-חמה-משחית, angels who have been appointed to be in charge of the wicked and their sufferings in purgatory. These angels do not enjoy any authority over their charges on the Sabbath. Furthermore,  the purpose of this custom is in order to instill in our hearts the awareness that even the wicked enjoy rest on the Sabbath plus the fact that these angels do not enjoy authority on the Sabbath. I have found the source of this in a book called Masechet Gan Eden, a book which is similar to פרקי היכלות, פרקי מרכבות and פרקי דרך ארץ. I have found the gist of this in another version: “anyone drinking water on the Sabbath between the Minchah service and the Maariv service during the year he has lost a close relative is in effect robbing the deceased. In that book the reason given for this is that the souls leave purgatory on the Sabbath and drink from the waters of a river emanating in Gan Eden. By the bereaved drinking water during those hours one would diminish the supply available to these souls. Once the year has passed there is no need for all this as the soul’s judgment and possible period of punishment has already been completed.
      A more rational approach to the Sabbath legislation. It is well known that this physical/material world is conducted on the basis of light and darkness. Its anchors are day and night. The reason for the alternating periods of light and darkness, day and night, is so as not to subject people to unceasing labor but to give them an opportunity to rest and recover their energy through sleep, etc. Rest, i.e. sleep, is an absolute necessity for all living creatures. Even flies are in need of sleep. If light were to prevail on earth constantly the creatures on earth would not be able to endure, i.e. the world would not be able to continue functioning as all its creatures would collapse from lack of rest. The commandment of the Sabbath therefore is also a natural law ensuring the continued functioning of the world and its inhabitants by providing regulated rest periods at regular intervals. By observing the Sabbath laws, man spends one seventh of his life in constructive מנוחה, relaxation. The reason this day occurs on the seventh day of the week  is that it represents a happy medium between the lunar cycle and the solar cycle. [The author describes four “cycles”, i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. The Sabbath is middle ground between the daily cycle and the monthly cycle. Elsewhere he described the centrality of the day as being that we count towards it and away from it thus declaring it  in effect as the “middle” of the week, not as the “week-end.” Ed.] Many of the Torah’s laws revolve around this number seven. Although the Sabbath has been handed down as legislation from Heaven and has not been made part of natural law, and most of our beliefs are directly or indirectly connected to it (and therefore not applicable to all of mankind), this does not contradict the fact that it has world-wide significance as natural therapy relieving the tedium of life on earth. [If it had not been legislated, man would have had to invent it. Ed.]
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words זכור את יום השבת are a reminder that the Sabbath is the last emanation seeing that it completes the whole cycle of creation. It has been named כנסת ישראל. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 11,8) have illustrated this by saying that the Sabbath is the natural partner of the Jewish people (much as a woman is the natural partner of man). This is the reason we find the Sabbath referred to in much of aggadic literature as <i>Matrona</i>, “a lady of stature.”    We find the following in Vayikra Rabbah 27,10: “The reason the Torah legislates that no animal may be offered up as a sacrifice until it is at least seven days old (Leviticus 22,27) is because it must first have seen the face of the Matrona. The Midrash means that an animal which has not experienced at least one Sabbath on earth must not be slaughtered as an offering. Even the life of an animal would not have been worth living unless it had experienced at least one Sabbath.    The Sabbath is also known as ברית, covenant. Just as the circumcision and the rainbow are described by the Torah as ברית, so is the Sabbath (compare Genesis 9,12--Genesis 17,10--Exodus 31,16).  The reason the Torah writes here זכור, “to remember” is a reference to a specific Sabbath, i.e. the Sabbath known as שבת הגדול, the emanation יסוד, from which all the 248 positive commandments emanate. The numerical value of the letters  in the word זכור plus the acrostic formed by the first letters in the words יום השבת total 248. When the Torah writes שמור את יום השבת in the second version of the Ten Commandments in Deut. 5,12,  the word שמור is a reference to the מקדש, Sanctuary, aspect of the Sabbath. This is the emanation כבוד from which the 365 negative commandments are derived. They are the ones that also all women are obligated to fulfill. This is the mystical dimension of the verse את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו, “you shall observe My Sabbath days and My Sanctuary you shall revere” (Leviticus 26,2) [the plural My Sabbaths refers to the שבת הגדול and to the Sabbath called מקדש.] This is why the prophet warns (Jeremiah 17,24) “not to perform any kind of  work on it.” The word בה “on it,” in that verse is read one way and spelled another, i.e. it is both בו and בה, i.e. masculine and feminine. When the Torah writes in verse 10 of our chapter ויום השביעי שבת לה' אלו-היך, “and the seventh day is a Sabbath for the Lord your G’d,” the meaning is that “the Sabbath is on the seventh day because the seventh day is the foundation (יסוד) of the universe the seventh emanation the one wherein the Sabbath (the concept of the Sabbath) is located.” Our sages referred to this as הכל בכל, “for that which comprises everything (כל) is contained within the emanation known as כל, respectively יסוד. The two emanations יסוד and מלכות are inseparably linked to one another. [Remember we had explained that the seventh day as such represents the seventh emanation (from תפארת down) i.e. מלכות. If the concept of Sabbath is contained in the emanation יסוד, it follows that the two are linked together. Ed]    We find verses which confirm this in Exodus 31,15: וביום השביעי שבת שבתון קודש לה', “and on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, the Sabbath of Sabbaths, it is holy to Hashem.” The verse following the above states לעשות את יום השבת ברית עולם, “to make the Sabbath-day into an eternal covenant.” The verse refers to the seventh day which is the foundation of the universe שבת שבתון קודש לה'. At the same time the Sabbath which receives its input from that שבת שבתון is called ברית. Having appreciated all this there is no longer any reason to wonder why the sages called the benediction we recite over the wine on the Sabbath by day קדושא רבא, “the great sanctification,” (Pesachim 106) a description which has not been applied to the Kiddush we recite on the evening after the Sabbath has commenced. The Kiddush recited by day corresponds to the זכור element of the Sabbath whereas the Kiddush we recite at night corresponds to the שמור element of the Sabbath. Day is usually associated with זכור something denoting activity, whereas night is associated with שמור, something denoting passivity.    Considering all we have said above it is clear why the prophet considers the Sabbath a delight and called it such (Isaiah 58,13) “and you shall call the Sabbath a delight.” It is a delight for the souls. David confirmed this in Psalms 42,3 when he exclaimed צמאה נפשי לאלו-הים א-ל חי, “my soul thirsted after the living G’d.” Every creature thirst (yearns) after its origin, its roots, the place it will eventually return to. The place in question is the river which irrigates Gan Eden, the foundation of the Sabbath and its root. The word ענג, delight, is an acrostic formed by the words עדן, נהר, גן. We base all this on Genesis 2,10 ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן  “and a river emerges from Eden to irrigate the garden.” This is why the Sabbath is called ענג, as it is a delight both for the celestial beings as well as for the terrestrial people on earth.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ששת ימים תעבור ועשית כל מלאכתך “during six days you shall work and perform all your activities.” The meaning of this line is: “during all the six preceding days you will be preoccupied with serving the Lord while you perform your work, just as the patriarchs who served the Lord by the work they performed with herding sheep and cattle and other physical activities. But the seventh day is Sabbath; this day will be devoted to G’d exclusively. You must not perform any labour on it at all.” This is the interpretation of this verse which I have heard attributed to Maimonides. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  'כי ששת ימים עשה ה', “for during six days the Lord made, etc.” The plain meaning of the text is the same as if the Torah had written בששת ימים, “during the course of six days, etc.” we find a similar construction in Genesis 14,4 where the words ושלש עשרה שנה מרדו do not mean that “they rebelled for 13 years,” but that “they rebelled during the course of the 13th year,” i.e. בשנה השלוש עשרה.
      A more rational approach to the wording in this verse: G’d “made” these six days, i.e. they were part of His creative activity. Basically, the verse teaches that the concept of “time” was created during these days. Had the Torah written the words בששת ימים this would have taught that “time” preceded creation of the universe.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words כי ששת ימים are a reference to the period of time the universe will continue to function according to the rules established for it by G’d. During this period there will be interaction and reciprocal input by celestial forces on earth and man’s conduct will have its impact on the celestial regions (compare more about this on Numbers 10,35).
  
  Verse 12
  
  כבד את אביך ואת אמך, “honor your father and your mother.” Up until now G’d had instructed the people to honor the original father in heaven, i.e. Himself; now He wanted to sign this side of the Tablets with the command to honor progenitors in the lower world, here on earth. In effect, what G’d says here is “just as I commanded you to treat Me with honor and respect, so I command you this day to treat your father and mother who are My partners in creating you with respect and honor. Just as one of the most important aspects of honoring G’d is to acknowledge Him as such, so one of the most important aspects of honoring one’s parents is to acknowledge them as such.     Just as an important aspect of belief and faith in the Lord is the second commandment לא יהיה לך, that you must not exchange Him for another deity, so an integral part of the commandment to honor one’s father and mother is not to deny the fact that they are in fact your father and mother. Just as it is forbidden to swear a false or vain oath in the name of the Lord, so it is forbidden to use the reference to the life of one’s father or mother as a way of reinforcing one’s credibility when swearing a false or vain oath. Furthermore, it is forbidden to serve one’s father because one expects to inherit his wealth or even because one hopes to receive the honor and title one’s father enjoyed during his own life time.    There are numerous details pertaining to the observance of this commandment which our sages have taught us in this regard. To mention but a few: the son is obligated to provide for his father with food, drink, clothing, etc., both as a financial contribution as well as being a physical support for him in case of illness, frailty in his father’s old age, etc. (Kiddushin 31). In Proverbs 3,8 Solomon instructs us כבד את ה' מהונך, “demonstrate your honoring the Lord by using your wealth.” The way one honors the Lord with one’s wealth [seeing He has neither need of it nor use for it, Ed.] is to distribute some of one’s wealth to the poor. One must set aside the various tithes the Torah has instructed us to give to the priest, the Levite, or the poor. Seeing the Torah has set aside tithes and gifts for these people who are not your next of kin, one must certainly provide for one’ parents if the need arises.  As to the reward promised here that he who observes this commandment will enjoy long life in the land of Israel, Rav Saadyah Gaon has explained that seeing that on occasion father and son share many years together on this earth, i.e. the father enjoys in inordinately long life, and as a result the son may feel that the obligation to look after his father in addition to his obligation to look after his own wife and children has become very burdensome, this is the reason why the Torah went out of its way in this instance to promise long life to the son who observes this commandment meticulously. This is not as much a promise of reward as it is a warning not to neglect fulfillment of this commandment as failing to observe it is equivalent to playing with one’s own life. If you are interested in long life yourself, make sure that your father and mother’s lives are enjoyable.    This concludes the first five of the Ten Commandments. They all appear on the same tablet, and, as we have demonstrated, there is conceptual linkage between all of them. To sum this up once more: the first commandment is to believe in the Lord, His existence, His exclusivity. In order that one should not think that it suffices to believe in the Lord and at the same time to believe that He has partners, the second commandment spells out that belief in any partner of G’d is intolerable. In order that someone should not say that seeing that G’d has no partner it does not matter if we bandy His name about needlessly, the Torah had to go on record that this is the very reverse of honoring Him, that  one must on no account treat His name as if it were something common or ordinary. Having begun to tell us what is an act of dishonoring G’d, i.e. using His name in vain, the Torah then instructed us in an example of how to honor His name, i.e. observing His Sabbath. If we really want to show that we honor Him and His name we will be meticulous in our Sabbath observance. Having instructed us in how to honor Him by honoring the Sabbath, the Torah then proceeded to instruct us to honor those who have begotten us, i.e. our parents. This concludes my commentary on the first five of the Ten Commandments and how they are related to each other.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לא תרצח, “do not murder!” The five commandments on the second Tablet are all negative commandments, and I will explain to you the reason for the order they appear in and how they relate to one another. Seeing that the commandment not to worship idols was expressed as a negative commandment, G’d continues here with a list of negative commandments commencing with the commandment not to murder. This commandment and the one following it, i.e. not to commit adultery, share the death penalty for deliberate violation, but seeing the kind of death penalty applicable to these three commandments is not identical the Torah lists the sins according to the severity of the death penalty applicable in descending order. Idolatry is punishable by stoning, (the most severe kind of death penalty); murder is punishable with death by the sword, decapitation, whereas adultery is punishable by death through strangulation. Our sages always mention the following three sins in one breath, i.e. idolatry, sexual licentiousness, incest and murder. [In order to avoid committing any of these in a context of religious coercion and in public, one must choose death rather than violate either of them. Ed.]   The seventh commandment i.e. “not to steal,” speaks of stealing people, kidnapping, not inert objects or animals (Mechilta bachodesh section 8). This kind of theft too is punishable by death through strangulation (compare 21,17). The last three commandments which all deal with different forms of theft, robbery, i.e. greed, are listed in descending order of their severity. 
   לא תענה ברעך עד שקר, “do not bear false witness against your fellow.”  Please note that the Torah does not write “against your brother,” as it does when forbidding charging interest, (Deut. 23,20) or when it commands you to return found property (Deut. 22,3), or in similar legislation. In all those instances our sages explain the word אחיך as excluding non-Jews. In other words, while it is forbidden to charge (or pay) interest to a Jew, it is not forbidden to charge interest to a Gentile. While one must go out of one’s way to restore lost property owned by a Jew, there is no legal obligation to spend time, energy, and even money to restore lost property to a Gentile. Here the reason the Torah fails to limit the legislation to אחיך, “your brother.” It is clear that one must not bear false testimony against a Gentile, i.e. against Egyptians. Moreover, we find in Exodus 11,20 וישאלו איש מאת רעהו, “they asked each person from his fellow;” it is clear that the word רעהו refers to the Egyptians as the verse would not make any sense otherwise. Not bearing false testimony therefore is a commandment of universal application.    Furthermore, if the Torah had written the word אחיך in our verse we might have concluded that it is in order to testify against (or on behalf of) other relatives, whereas generally speaking a whole list of relatives are unfit to testify together (as a team), on behalf of each other or against each other. Not only is false testimony illegal in such instances but even true testimony is unacceptable.  Were this not so the Torah should have written לא תענה ברעך עדות שקר, “do not lie in your testimony against your fellow.” Such wording would have been very misleading as it would have meant that only the actual false testimony is prohibited but that someone who is in collusion with people arranging false testimony would be exonerated by the legal process. The Torah therefore uses ambiguous wording to cover as much ground as possible, i.e. in order to include as many people as possible in the parameters of guilt governing the subject of false testimony. The very word תענה means to “assist,” or “invite.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תחמוד, “do not covet.” It is known that coveting something is a matter for the heart. The principal warning contained in this commandment is that one must train oneself to absolutely renounce all hope of ever acquiring things belonging (legally) to another person, be it real estate, livestock, inert objects, etc. One must not even think of these and wish for them in one’s heart. Were one to covet them one would ultimately commit murder in order to own them oneself. A classic case in point was Achan. When he confessed to having taken from the loot of the city of Jericho, this is how he worded his confession (Joshua 7,21): “I saw among the spoils a fine Shinar mantle, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, and I coveted them and took them. They are buried in the ground in my tent, with the silver under it.” This act of coveting resulted in Achan being stoned to death.(ibid verse 29). Another example of the extremes to which allowing oneself to covet someone else’s property may lead was King Achav (Kings I 21, 1-24). His uncontrollable desire to own the vineyard of Navot ultimately resulted in his being slain in battle. 
  Concerning this the Talmud Sotah 9 comments that “if someone covets something that is not appropriate for him to have, he will wind up losing even what was appropriate for him to own.” He becomes cursed. This is what happened to the serpent who seduced Chavah. It wanted to replace Adam as Chavah’s husband and instead it wound up having to crawl on its belly and to eat dust. Thus far the Midrash.    Had it not been for the fact that robbery is an integral aspect of coveting and on account of this it deserved to be included in the Ten Commandments, the outright prohibition of robbery would have had to be included in the Ten Commandments, seeing that robbery is such a  wide-spread a sin and so severe an infraction of G’d’s laws.    Furthermore, robbery  is a sophisticated sin similar to murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony. However, seeing that coveting conceptually includes robbery as a person does not commit robbery until he has first coveted the object he robs, it was not  included specifically in the Decalogue. The proof for the close linkage between coveting and committing robbery is found in Micah 2,2 where the prophet places the two sins side by side when he writes: “they covet fields and seize them, houses and take them away.” A further reason why the Torah preferred to include the prohibition of coveting in the Ten Commandments over the alternative of including “do not commit robbery,” is that the prohibition to covet is more all embracing and the Torah wanted to make plain that it views a person eyeing other people’s property with an eye to acquiring it as being guilty of such a severe sin that it was included in the Ten Commandments and inscribed by G’d Himself on the stone tablets. The Torah wanted man to use a little logic and to realise that if G’d took such a dim view of someone who only eyes other people’s property as something he wants for himself, how much more so would G’d react to someone who actually made a move to commit robbery to possess the property in question!    Still, there are occasions when coveting is a character trait which is permitted. Coveting the opportunity to perform certain commandments of the Torah is not only permissible but is praiseworthy. This is what our sages had in mind (Baba Batra 21) when they said קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, “the envy displayed by scholars of the knowledge of other scholars who are their superiors leads to an all-round increase in wisdom.” This kind of jealousy and coveting such knowledge possessed by another is not only permissible but is rewarded by G’d. Included in this type of permissible desire is the desire for one’s friend’s (unmarried) daughter to be married to one’s son. When the Torah  writes first: “do not covet the house of your fellow,” this is a general prohibition; when it continues with detailing: “his wife, his field, his house, his servant or maidservant,” these are details. Just as these details are matters which cannot possibly become yours unless their present owner so agrees, so the same rule applies to what is described in the כלל, i.e. in the introduction to this legislation, coveting a house. This, however, excludes one’s fellow’s daughter (if she has reached the age of puberty, 12 and a half years of age) to become the wife of your son or vice versa as neither requires the permission of a second party to become married to the other party seeing they are not presently “owned” by anyone. This concludes my commentary on the last five of the Ten Commandments. I have demonstrated that they are all conceptually linked to one another commencing with the warning not to murder.     One must not decrease the world’s population even if one thinks the world is overpopulated. Having understood this a person might say to himself that it must be G’d’s will to increase the human population on earth even at the cost of engaging in illicit sexual relations, [even if well meant, such as impregnating a married woman with her sterile husband’s consent in order for them to have a child. Ed.] The Torah therefore warns you that any form of adulterous relationship is taboo; so much so that the penalty is death.     A person may then reason that if increasing the world’s population by adulterous means is forbidden, he might at least effect a population exchange by acquiring an existing human being (through stealing it). All he would be doing is to transplant that human being from one city or country to another. He would then sell such a person in a different location. He would reason that at worst he had committed a minor offense involving financial damage to the first owner. The Torah therefore included this sin in the Ten Commandments to make clear that it views such conduct as a capital offense, not merely a commercial misdemeanor. Having appreciated the seriousness of the sin of kidnapping, one might still think that an offense such as uttering false testimony is minor, seeing that it involves only  words, not deeds. To prevent us from thinking along these lines the Torah had to include the legislation that one must not be involved in false testimony as part of the Ten Commandments. Finally, even if one had understood that causing damage to a second party by deceitful use of one’s mouth, one’s words, is serious indeed, one might think that harboring only evil thoughts such as contemplating property belonging to someone else would certainly not be considered criminal, so the Torah disabuses us of such thoughts by legislating the law of לא תחמוד as so important that it is included in the Ten Commandments.
      The reason why there are precisely Ten Commandments which were deemed fit to be engraved on these Tablets: according to the plain meaning the number 10 is a number which symbolises a closed circle, i.e. something complete. There is not a single number which does not somehow derive from the י the number represented by the number 10. [Even when we count beyond the number 10 we have to begin again with the number 1, etc. i.e. we repeat ourselves to some extent.]    A Midrashic approach: the reason that Ten Commandments were inscribed on the Tablets was that prior to the revelation mankind had known seven basic G’d-given laws which were the guidelines for man’s conduct on earth. This original number had already been increased to nine prior to the revelation. At this point G’d wanted to enable the people of Israel to earn credit for performing additional commandments; this is why He decided to reveal all the commandments starting now (Makkot 23). The matter is explained in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,4 by means of a parable:     A king had a large cellar wherein he stored many barrels of good wine. One of the king’s friends came to visit and the king presented him with a barrel of wine. A second friend came to visit the king, and and the king presented him also with a barrel of wine. A third friend came to visit and the king presented him with yet another barrel of wine. Eventually, the king’s son came to visit and the king was so overjoyed that he gave him the entire stock of wine in the cellar. The parable mirrors the sequence in which G’d handed out His commandments to man. When Adam had been created he had been given six commandments. They were designed to ensure the ability of the universe to endure, i.e. each commandment symbolised one of the six points of the globe known in aggadic terms as קצוות העולם (the extreme ends of the world). Fulfillment of each commandment would prevent those ends of the universe from disintegrating [due to their distance from the center. Ed.]. With the appearance of Noach on earth and his having survived the deluge due to meticulous observance of these six commandments, G’d rewarded  him with a seventh commandment, not to consume tissue of a living animal. Avraham, who led the life of a model human being, was rewarded with an eighth commandment, that of circumcision. Yaakov, another “friend of the king,” was rewarded with a ninth commandment, that of גיד הנשה, not to eat the sinew of the femoral vein. When the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai in their multitudes, G’d decided to reward them with the Ten Commandments which contained within them the gist of all the 613 commandments of the Torah. In order to allude to this concept the Torah writes in connection with the offerings of the princes on the occasion of the consecration of the Holy Tabernacle (Numbers 7,14) כף אחת, עשרה זהב, מלאה קטרת, “one (gold) ladle of ten (shekel weight) filled with incense.” In an allegorical sense, the verse speaks of the Ten Commandments which are represented by the golden ladle and which are filled with the balance of the 613 commandments described as “incense.” Actually, the letter ק in the word קטרת is interchangeable with the letter ד, so that the numerical value of the letter in the word קטרת would amount to a total of 613. (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 13,16. It is pointed out there also that the number of letters in the Ten Commandments commencing with the word אנכי, excluding the last two words אשר לרעך total 613. The seven letters in the last two words would represent the seven Noachide laws to which all of mankind was obligated after the deluge. (All of this reinforces the idea that the Ten Commandments are the gist of all the commandments in the Torah.)
      A rational approach: The reason that there are Ten Commandments is that they correspond to ten celestial גלגלים, “planets,” i.e. celestial spheres influencing events on earth. [This number for the major stars in the planetary system  (and what they represent in theological terms) is a departure from the number seven with which astrologers and astronomers of the middle ages used to operate. The idea of nine such planets is mentioned in Ibn Ezra’s commentary on his verse, attributed to an unnamed scholar. Expanding the number to nine involves assuming the existence of a “super-planet” which is responsible  for the orbits of the other planets.  Our author has his own method of explaining the number. Ed]    The first commandment, אנכי, corresponds to the גלגל השכל, the sphere of intelligence, the highest sphere beneath the throne of G’d’s glory [described in the essay called כתר מלכות by Rabbi Sholomo Ibn Gabirol printed in the Yom Kippur Machzor of Heidenheim (and recited privately in many German synagogues at the conclusion of the Kol Nidrei service still in my youth. Ed.] This celestial sphere is especially effective in alerting our thinking to thoughts of the Unity of G’d, His exclusivity as the only deity, etc.    The commandment לא יהיה לך, corresponds to the celestial sphere called גלגל המקיף by Ibn Gabirol. This commandment refers to אלהים אחרים, other deities. G’d had to take a stand against such erroneous thinking caused by people believing that though He is the Creator, seeing He is not physical, there were yet other divine forces which had a body.    The third commandment, לא תשא, corresponds to the planet sun; the גלגל חמה, the fourth, זכור, to the planet moon, גלגל לבנה. The fifth commandment, כבד corresponds to the celestial sphere Jupiter צדק גלגל. The sixth commandment, לא תרצח, corresponds to the גלגל מאדים, the planet Mars. The seventh commandment לא תנאף  corresponds to the גלגל שבתאי, the celestial sphere of Saturn, whereas the eighth commandment לא תגנוב, corresponds to the גלגל נוגה, the celestial sphere of Venus. The ninth commandment לא תענה corresponds to the celestial sphere  regulating the signs of the zodiac, the various constellations, whereas the tenth commandment לא תחמוד corresponds to the celestial sphere כוכב, Mercury.    There is great התעוררות, excitement, awakening of spiritual forces, connected with each of these commandments and how they interact with these celestial spheres. If you will study the subject in depth you will find that the wonders of G’d and the wisdom expressed by His creations becomes very manifest.   There is another reason for the number of these commandments  being 10. Man possesses 10 basic organs which constitute the essence of his body without which he cannot function as a proper human being. We have mentioned repeatedly that the composition of man of 248 limbs and 365 sinews closely parallels the structure of the Torah which consists of 248 positive and 365 negative commandments. Just as the Torah considers the Ten Commandments as the irreducible minimum of man’s obligations vis-a-vis His Creator, so the ten organs which we mentioned as essential to man will be found to correspond to the messages addressed to man in the Ten Commandments. The ten organs in question are: 1) the heart, 2) the ear, 3) the mouth, 4) the brain, 5) the hands, 6) the liver, 7) the male organ, 8) the legs, 9) the eyes, 10) the kidneys. According to Rabbi Chavell, the heart corresponds to the first commandment seeing it has to be fulfilled by the heart. The ear corresponds to the second commandment as the ear must not listen to a false prophet inviting obeisance to another deity. The mouth corresponds to the third commandment not to utter false oaths. The brain corresponds to the fourth commandment as appreciation of the meaning of the Sabbath requires a brain. The hands correspond to the fifth commandment to honor parents by performing services for them with one’s hands. The liver corresponds to the sixth commandment seeing it is all blood and murder deals with blood. The male organ corresponds to the seventh commandment as one cannot engage in adultery without that organ. The legs correspond to the eighth commandment as in order to steal one employs one’s legs. The eyes correspond to the ninth commandment as testimony is based on what has been seen. The kidneys correspond to the tenth commandment seeing they are the seat of עצה, they advise how to translate the wish into reality, how to acquire what one has coveted.
      A kabbalistic approach. The Ten Commandments correspond to the ten emanations. You will find in them 613 letters corresponding to the 613 commandments which emanate from the Ten Commandments. The extra seven letters (which we discussed already) are an allusion to the seven קולות Moses heard, i.e. that he acquired an understanding of the meaning of the seven lower emanations while he experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai. When you add these seven letters to the other 613 letters the total numerical value will be 620, the numerical value of the tenth and highest emanation כתר. The seven emanations which Moses had learned to understand were all derived from that highest emanation כתר. 
      I will use this opportunity to acquaint you with some aspects of the emanations by explaining how each one relates or is relevant to one of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment, אנכי, corresponds to the emanation כתר, the highest emanation. The second commandment לא יהיה לך corresponds to the emanation חכמה. The third commandment לא תשא corresponds to the emanation תפארת; the fourth commandment, זכור corresponds to the emanation עטרה, i.e. כנסת ישראל. The fifth commandment כבד corresponds to the emanation חסד, whereas the sixth commandment לא תרצח, corresponds to the emanation פחד. The seventh commandment לא תנאף corresponds to the emanation יסוד. The eighth commandment לא תגנוב corresponds to the emanation נצח, whereas the ninth commandment לא תענה corresponds to the emanation תשובה. The tenth commandment לא תחמוד, corresponds to the emanation הוד. 
      You will have to consider this very carefully. Although the Commandments are not listed in their usual order, i.e. parallel to the sequence of the ten emanations, you will realise the reason why the commandment אנכי had to be the first one. This is because seeing that G’d is first and we have to believe in that fact, the second commandment, which ensures that we do not dilute our belief in the supremacy of G’d as the first and only מציאות at that time, had to be commandment number two although the angels were created before man and it might seem odd to command man who did not exist yet how not to relate to G’d. This might seem especially peculiar when we consider  that it was commanded in a framework  when seeing there had not been any angels or other agents of G’d, man could not have become guilty of idolatry even if he had tried.   The angels represent second rank in the order of creation, immediately below G’d Himself. This is why they were created on the second day (see author’s comment on Genesis 1,21 under “a kabbalistic approach). This is the reason why the angels are called שנאנים based on Psalms 68,18 אלפי שנאן (from the word שני “second”). The third commandment לא תשא is the third as anyone who uses G’d’s name in vain destroys the world which is built on three pillars, i.e. Torah, service of the Lord, and the performance of deeds of loving kindness for fellow human beings (Avot 1,2). The penalty for contravening that commandment also is threefold: Such a person destroys “his bones, his timber, and his stones.” Compare Zecharyah 5,4 who describes what G’d will do to people who swear false oaths as: “it (the curse) shall lodge in the inside of their houses and shall consume them to  the last timber and stone.” The Torah repeats the sin, concluding the commandment with the words: “who will use His name in vain,” to emphasize how severely G’d views violation of this commandment. Treating G’d’s honour as of little consequence is equivalent to shaking off the whole range of the commandments as an intolerable burden. The prophet Malachi 1,6 phrased it thus: “If I am a father, where is the honour due Me? If I am a master, where is the reverence due Me?” The reason the commandment זכור was chosen to be the fourth commandment  is because the Sabbath is the fourth day following the fourth day, the day on which sun, moon, and all the celestial phenomena were placed in their respective orbits. The sun is the fourth of the seven (or nine) such celestial orbits revolving around the earth. [The author as well as the Kabbalists whose views he mentions lived long before Copernicus, Ed.] The moon is in a fourth orbit relative to the sun, based on the sequence שצ'ם חנכ'ל, the seven  “fixed stars” which we have mentioned on repeated occasions. The luminaries are considered מרובעים, “divided into four,” seeing the day is divided into four parts. You will also note that שבתאי, Saturn, the planet corresponding to the Sabbath is the fourth from (inside) the orbit of the גלגל השכל, the sphere of intelligence. Immediately above (outside) that sphere is the eighth sphere that of the כוכבים, the stars. Beyond that sphere is the ninth sphere, the one called ערבות, beyond which is the גלגל השכל the sphere of intelligence.    Everything connected with the Sabbath is divided into “four.” There are four separate prayers on the Sabbath none of which is a repetition of any other. The prophet (Isaiah 58,13) when describing the outstanding features of the Sabbath and how we are to behave on it, makes his points in sentences of four words each, such as 1) אם תשיב משבת רגליך, “if you refrain from trampling the Sabbath; 2)  עשות חפציך ביום קדשי, “from pursuing your affairs on My holy day.” The fifth commandment כבד is the fifth in number as there are five contributing components which result in offspring being born, in parents becoming parents. They are father, mother, fundamentals of nature, i.e. יסודות, time, and G’d. The father contributes the sinews, the bones and everything in the human being that is coloured white; the mother contributes all the red-coloured parts, such as the blood, the flesh, the hair and the black in the pupil of the eyes (compare Niddah 31). This black-looking colour is in reality a form of red, it has been impaired (Niddah 19). The יסודות are the four basic raw materials our physical universe is composed of. These four basic components function in various combinations, i.e. they are to a human body what a mixture of metals is in an alloy. Time is a factor as a baby’s development inside the womb is determined by the passage of a certain amount of time. Development of the embryo is not complete unless a certain amount of time has elapsed. G’d contributes the soul which is the principal contribution to man’s intelligence. Without G’d’s contribution man would not amount to anything worthwhile although there had been input from 4 other sources. You will find that there are 5 different categories of living creatures in nature: man, mammals, birds, fish, and creeping creatures. When formulating the fifth commandment, the Torah referred to life on האדמה, “on the earth,” i.e. the part of nature yielding some sort of harvest. This part of the earth is divided into 5 categories, i.e. fields yielding a grain harvest; vineyards; vegetable gardens, orchards, forests growing trees for making furniture, heating, etc. There are also five basic kinds of metals that the earth yields for man: gold, silver, copper, iron and lead.    The sixth commandment לא תרצח, was placed in sixth position as 6 different character traits may be responsible for a human being murdering another human being. They are: jealousy, greed, hatred, anger, irresponsibility, and drunkenness. The first murder was committed against a human being who had been created on the sixth day (of the week and of creation).    The seventh commandment, לא תנאף, is appropriately number seven as there are seven forbidden sexual relationships. 1) sleeping with a woman married to someone else; 2) sleeping with any woman including one’s own when she is in a state of menstruation. 3)  A High Priest must not marry a widow. 4) An ordinary priest must not marry a divorcee. 5) sexual relations with animals. 6) homosexual relations. 7) sexual relations with non-Jews. There are seven prohibitions (6 are Rabbinic) that might lead to such forbidden sexual relations. 1) visual, i.e. a situation which may cause arousal because one has viewed what is forbidden. 2) Aural arousal, i.e. listening to the seductive voice of a woman with whom relations are forbidden. 3) secreting oneself with such a woman; 4) conversation with her. 5) touching her; 6) kissing; 7) the actual deed.    The eight commandment לא תגנב, is in eighth place as there are eight varieties of violating this commandment. 1) wrong numbering; 2) wrong measuring; 3) wrong weights; 4) withholding found property. 5) kidnapping a Jew or Jewess. 6) stealing money. 7) גנבת דעת, deliberately misleading, i.e. “stealing somebody’s mind.” 8) “stealing for oneself,” i.e. embezzling funds entrusted to one by using them for one’s own needs in a legally permissible way such as if one is a trustee of funds of an orphan using these funds or part of them to pay for a wedding or even to become the dowry of the trustee’s son marrying such a female orphan. Concerning this way of taking advantage of one’s position as a trustee the Torah wrote (Leviticus 19,13) “You shall not defraud your fellow; You shall not commit robbery.”    The ninth commandment, לא תענה, was placed ninth because it is well known that the ninth (highest) celestial sphere ערבות contains the throne of G’d’s glory where He stored the souls prior to assigning them to bodies; deserving souls return to that region after death. Anyone who testifies falsely denies the existence and significance of that region and as a result his soul will never return to its sacred origin. Finally, the tenth commandment לא תחמוד was placed in tenth position as anyone who covets other people’s possessions and money will not be likely not give up a tenth  of the money he already has; he will not set aside his tithes, etc. By placing this commandment in tenth position, the Torah found an elegant way of warning people that the positive commandment of paying one’s tithes is conceptually linked to the negative commandment not to covet. This commandment concludes the list of the Ten Commandments which correspond to the ten celestial spheres The fact that they have not been listed in the order corresponding to the sequence of the ten emanations is testimony to the deep wisdom of our sages who have said that the Torah is under no obligation to write matters in a chronological sequence of events These sages have displayed deep insight into how all of the 613 commandments are represented in the Ten Commandments and the 613 letters that the list comprises. They have even revealed to us the reason for the absence of the letter ט in this version, i.e. the absence of the words למען ייטב לך, a promise written in the second set of Tablets in the Book of Deuteronomy. Kabbalists suggest that the reason may have been that G’d knew that this set of Tablets was going to be smashed  and He did not want the letter ט which symbolises טוב to be smashed (compare Baba Kama 55). 
      Personally, I can think of another reason why the letter ט is absent in the Decalogue (first version). The letter used to represent an allusion to killing or the death penalty in olden days. When the Jews died (80% of them during the ninth plague) which was itself a forerunner to the tenth plague, the wholesale dying of the first born, the letter ט, meaning “killing” was far more closely associated with death than with טוב, and the Torah wanted to avoid  such allusions. at this time. [When the Israelites were given the second set of Tablets they were not standing at the mountain in mortal fear of expiring from the impact of G’d’s voice. Ed.]     The eating of leavened bread on Passover may have been prohibited because we left Egypt walking from deep spiritual darkness into great spiritual light, i.e. an Exodus orchestrated by the great name of Hashem, not just the “strong hand” which was involved in killing the Egyptian firstborn. At Mount Sinai the great name of Hashem was again in evidence and gave us the Torah. The sages of the Midrash had this in mind when they suggested that the letter ט is a veiled hint of the attribute of Justice. Seeing that the text of the second Tablets has the word שמור instead of  the word זכור as the operative word describing Sabbath observance,  there has already been a reference to the attribute of Justice, i.e. the negative aspect of the Sabbath observance. It is therefore not surprising that the Torah saw no need to omit the letter ט in that version when writing למען ייטב לך as part of the reward for observing the commandment to honour father and mother. The Ten Commandments may be viewed as completing the circle with the tenth commandment, i.e. just as the first commandment addresses itself primarily to our heart, so the tenth commandment again addresses itself to our heart. The author concludes by citing Avraham (reportedly) the author of the most ancient kabbalistic text, the ספר היצירה which concludes by acknowledging the insights into the emanations granted Avraham by G’d and how he learned to understand by means of the covenant of circumcision the deeper significance of the seven celestial spheres and the 12 signs of the zodiac. Understanding the ten emanations and how they were the prelude to G’d commencing the creation of a physical universe has been paraphrased by Daniel 12,3: “and the wise will shine like the radiance of the firmament and those who make the many righteous (Avraham’s missionary activities on behalf of monotheism) like the stars forever and ever.” Just as the flame is connected to the glowing coal from which it has risen, (i.e. the tangible produced the intangible) this is true in reverse for our world of the apparently tangible, physical, substantive having had its origin in the utterly intangible. [I have paraphrased the words of the author according to my understanding of them. Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
  . וכל העם רואים את הקולות, “And all the people saw the sounds (thunder), etc.” The word “saw” in this context is to be understood as “understood, comprehended,” similar to when Yitzchak spoke of ראה ריח בני “look at the fragrance of my son” (Genesis 27,27). He was well aware that fragrance just as sound cannot be seen by the eye. He meant that just as the eye is used to understand something clearly, so he experienced a clear understanding of what his son’s fragrance represented. Similarly, here; the Torah describes that the aural perceptions of the people were as convincing to them as if they had experienced the same thing with their eyes, a normally superior tool for clear perceptions. An alternative meaning could be that the Torah employed the word “saw” because these thunders were invariably accompanied by fire, something very visible to the eye. We have examples of such expressions  and meanings in Psalms 29,7: “the voice of the Lord kindles flames of fire.” The people then saw the fire not the thunder. The words of the text may then be understood literally without the Torah telling us of an additional miracle.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ובעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם, “and so that the fear of Him shall remain on your faces, etc.” Mechilta (bachodesh section 8) understands this “fear” as a “sense of shame.” The reason is that fear or reverence are parameters of the heart, whereas shame is something one recognizes in one’s face. This is the reason the Torah refers to it as being על פניכם, “on your faces.” The Torah adds לבלתי תחטאו “in order that you will not sin,” to teach us the psychological lesson that shame inhibits the commission of sin (Mechilta bachodesh section 9).
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ויעמוד העם מרחוק ומשה נגש, “The people stood from a distance, whereas Moses went close.” Why did the Torah have to write this, seeing it had already written (in verse 15) that “the people saw and trembled and stood from afar?” We may have to understand that verse 15 describes the people as standing even further distant from the area where the mountain had been fenced off. Now the Torah wanted to tell us that although in the meantime the people had been elevated to the level of being prophets, they were still not comparable to the level of Moses who could approach much closer. The word הערפל with which the Torah describes the place which Moses approached always appears as meaning “a thick darkness” as mentioned by all the commentators such as Rashi, Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, etc. Examples are: Psalms 97,2 ענן וערפל סביביו. The meaning of all this is that the attribute כבוד is not visually accessible even to the angels. This is why David writes in Psalms 18,11: “He made darkness His screen, dark thunderheads, dense clouds of the sky were His pavilion round about Him.”
      I believe that the meaning of the word ערפל is a very clear and brilliant form of light, the word being a composite of ערוי אפל, i.e. that the darkness was transfused, emptied out of that place. The word describes a light so brilliant that it blinds so that the viewer sees it no better than he sees darkness. It (this brilliant light) hides matters just as effectively as does ordinary darkness. In other words, the attribute of G’d called כבוד is so brilliant that it remains hidden from the eye. [Just as the human ear can hear only up to a certain number of decibels and anything beyond that number, though sound, cannot be heard by the human ear, so we have something parallel here with the intensity of light. Ed.] Proof that the word ערפל describes a form of light is  that the Torah adds אשר שם האלו-הים, “where G’d was.” Daniel 2,22 states that “light is where G’d is,” or (vice-versa). We refer to this fact in the Mussaph prayer on Rosh Hashanah in the paragraph which commences with the words אתה נגלית, “You have become revealed.” The author of that liturgical poem continues with the words ונגלית עליהם בערפלי טוהר, “You revealed Yourself to them in clouds of brilliance.” Moses did not enter the cloud but merely approached it, much like a man approaching the entrance gate of a palace. This is the meaning of the word נגש in our verse. Onkelos translates it as קרב לצד אמיטתא, “he approached the edge of the dense cloud.” In other words, Moses did not cross the boundary of where cloud ended. The Torah adds the words “where G’d was” to explain why Moses did not go any further. At that point the report of the Torah in verse one of our chapter begins, i.e. וידבר אלו-הים את כל הדברים האלה, and all of Israel heard His voice. This was the fulfillment of what G’d had announced previously in 19,,9: “Here I will come to you in the thickness of the cloud in order that the people will hear that I am speaking with you.” The subject matter of these verses here is to make clear that the people had “seen” the voices before the giving of the Torah. This is quite clear from the wording both in chapter 19 and in chapter 24,17 where the people standing at the bottom of the mountain are again described as having seen the glory of G’d in the form of consuming fire at the top of the mountain.
  
  Verse 19
  
  . אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם, “you have seen that I spoke with you from the heaven.” Seeing that all the Israelites had witnessed with their own eyes all the miracles G’d had performed beginning with the ten plagues in Egypt and now culminating in the giving of the Torah, G’d repeated both at the beginning (19,4) of the Decalogue and at its end the words: “you have seen.” At this point G’d wanted to clarify that though His attribute כבוד had been at Mount Sinai, the voice they heard had not emanated from Mount Sinai but from heaven, as I have already explained previously.
  
  Verse 20
  
   לא תעשון אתי, “Do not make with Me.” The plain meaning of this verse is that ‘you must not make as partner with Me any reproduction in gold or silver which is supposed to represent a deity.’ G’d then repeats: “do not make it for yourselves.” This latter statement includes a prohibition to make such reproductions even if not intended as a form of religious symbol [but merely as a form of art. Ed.]
      One may also interpret the words לא תעשון אתי וגו' to mean that “while you are engaged in prayer to Me, do not think of your gold, your silver, etc.; in other words, when you address Me I expect to have your full attention, do not share Me in your thoughts with anything else at such a time. If you were to do that, I would consider it as equivalent to your having made competing deities.”
      Rashi writes as follows on the words אלוהי כסף: “this is a warning not to construct the cherubs which were to be part of the lid of the Holy Ark in the Tabernacle to be made of silver (instead of gold). If you were to do that I would consider this as a form of idolatry, as if you had constructed them as a divine image.” He goes on: “the words לא תעשון לכם, mean that you must not construct such cherubs in your synagogues reasoning that just as the cherubs graced the Holy Temple they are appropriate symbols in the synagogues and houses of study.”     The Talmud Avodah Zarah 42 understands the words לא תעשון אתי to mean that that “you must not make anything which is with Me, i.e. in My universe.” This is a prohibition not to construct likenesses of what one perceives to be celestial beings i.e. different kinds of angels, אתי, “with Me, in My domain,” neither must you make such likenesses of things in the lower domain, such as the sun and the stars. Seeing that the Torah prohibited the making of images of angels which are perceived as humans with wings attached, I would have thought it would be in order to make reproductions of human heads by themselves; this is why the Torah had to add לא תעשון אתי as if it had been spelled לא תעשון אותי “do not make a reproduction of Me as the head of a human being.” The likenesses (three-dimensional, sculpture) of humans as humans or as superhumans is equally prohibited.    Sanhedrin 7 adds further that the words also mean that one should not appoint a judge because he is financially independent but because he possesses the wisdom to know truth from falsehood. According to this interpretation the words אלוהי כסף ואלוהי זהב mean that ownership of silver or gold in substantial quantities does not constitute a reason to deify the owner and to elevate him to a high position. Remember that the Torah often employs the term אלוהים when speaking of judges of flesh and blood.
      A Midrashic approach: (Mechilta bachodesh 10) the entire line is a warning not to apply human yardsticks to the way one relates to G’d. Humans revere people who have done them favors, i.e. they only worship and show respect to their deities if these deities treated them in the way they expected or demanded to be treated. If the deity in question did not fulfill their expectations  they do no longer show honor and respect to it. An example are the Philistines who did acknowledge their deity when they had captured Samson and gave credit for their success to their deity (Judges 16,24). When idolaters experienced disaster such as described in Isaiah 8,21: “and when he is hungry, he shall rage and revolt against his king and his divine beings,” he takes out his rage on his gods. The Torah’s message to us here is that we have to thank the Lord  both for the good and for the unpleasant (which we are foolishly assuming is evil). This is what David said in Psalms 116,13: “I raise the cup of deliverance and invoke the name of the Lord.” In the same psalm verses 3-4 he said: “when the torments of She-ol overtook me, I came upon trouble and sorrow; and I invoked the name of the Lord.” David invoked the same G’d, rain or shine, We find similar sentiments expressed by Job 1,21 who exclaimed after suffering painful reverses: “the Lord has given and the Lord has taken; may the name of the Lord be praised.” 
      A Kabbalistic approach: I have already explained on 20,2 that the word אתי has a similar meaning to the expression על פני “in addition to Me.” I have to add to what I wrote then that one must imagine the word אתי as derived from את with the vowel tzeyre under the letter aleph. It is similar to ואראה את ה' in Isaiah 6,1: “and I saw the Lord.”  Clearly it does not mean that a prophet of the calibre of Isaiah saw the Lord, when G’d had told Moses that no living human being including himself could see the Lord (Exodus 33,20). Isaiah described that he saw something “with” “beside” the Lord. The wicked King Menasheh (prior to his repentance) erred when he read these words of Isaiah taking them at face value, not paying heed to the meaning of the word את. This is why he accused Isaiah of being a false prophet and executed him. (compare discussion in Yevamot 49). The Talmud explains that the reason Isaiah did not defend himself by explaining what I have explained to you was that he knew that Menashe would not accept his explanation and this would make him into a murderer instead of merely a king exercising his authority. According to the Talmud, Isaiah (after uttering the holy name of G’d) hid in the hollow trunk of a cedar. Menashe sawed off the cedar killing Isaiah in the process. Isaiah had been guilty of slandering the Jewish people when he had described himself as living amongst a nation of impure lips (Isaiah 6,5). This is why he was killed when the saw cut through his mouth. The word את or אות mean the same thing. Example Numbers 16,39 וראיתם אותו, “when you see it,” etc. (the blue thread on the fringes). The word אותו in that verse is a derivative of the word את. This is what enabled the sages in the Mechilta which we quoted to interpret the word אתי as if it had been spelled אותי.
  
  Verse 21
  
    בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי, “in any location where I allow My name to be mentioned.” The Torah really should have written תזכיר, i.e. “you mention.” After all, it appears that the message is that wherever man prays to G’d, i.e. mentions His holy name, He would respond.
      A kabbalistic approach. The reason the Torah writes אזכיר rather than תזכיר is that the verse provides an opening to help us understand the value of animal sacrifices. These verses (19-23) were spoken by G’d in His capacity as the tetragrammaton. This is also why in verse 22 the Torah does not write ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לו, “and if you will build an altar of stone for Him,” but it writes ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי “if you will construct an altar of stone for Me, any altar must be exclusively for Me in My capacity as the tetragrammaton.” Once you offer sacrifices on such an altar I will cause My goodwill to be drawn toward you, and  as a response to these offerings I will bless you.    The Torah’s message by writing אזכיר instead of תזכיר is that the blessings will already commence now, they will not await your building the altar that is mentioned in verse 22. The fact that the tetragrammaton, the source of all blessings had begun to dispense it at Mount Sinai means that the whole world will benefit by it.    The word אזכיר is associated with expressions such as אזכרתה, i.e. “a memorial portion,” something designed to channel the ריח ניחוח, the pleasant fragrance (allegorical) in the direction of the Almighty bringing to His attention the pure thoughts of the one offering the sacrifice. Expressions such as מזכיר לבונה, (Isaiah 66,3) “using incense to be remembered through it,” or Jeremiah 17,2 כזכור בניהם מזבחותם, “as their children remember their altars,” or Song of Songs 1,4 נזכירה דודיך מיין, ”let us savor it (your love) more than wine,” all refer to spiritual pleasures. The meaning of אזכיר את שמי then is similar to אריח את שמי, “I will allow My name to exude a pleasant fragrance.” Or, “I will let My goodwill follow to where My name has been mentioned in a positive context.”    The reason the Torah wrote the letter ה at the beginning of the word מקום, i.e המקום instead of simply כל מקום, is a hint at a site which already existed and was known, i.e. the site of the Holy Temple in the future. It was the site where Yaakov had spent the night where he had the dream with the ladder. It was the site where Solomon built the Temple of which he said: והבית אשר בניתי לשמך. Had the Torah not written the letter ה in front of the word מקום we would have concluded that it would be in order to build the Temple wherever we saw fit to do so. We have been warned against offering sacrifices wherever we want to in Deut. 12,13-14: “be on guard not to offer your burnt-offerings in any place which you see, except in the place that the Lord your G’d will choose; there you may offer your burnt-offerings.”
  
  Verse 22
  
   לא תבנה אתהן גזית, “do not build them hewn.” The reason for this prohibition of hewn stones to be used on G’d’s altar is to avoid stones meant to serve as an altar to be partially discarded. This would not be appropriate, would not honour G’d. This is Ibn Ezra’s reason for this commandment.
      Maimonides (Moreh Nevuchim 3,45)  writes a reason for this in his essay dealing with underlying reasons for the command- ments which seems rather remote. He suggests that this was forbidden so that people would not make some kind of image of the parts of the stones that had been discarded and make them part of their flooring, their mosaic floors. 
  Nachmanides supplies a much better sounding reason claiming that using instruments that are instruments of war to fashion the stones for an altar which symbolises peace would seem a contradiction in terms. Esau’s power derives from his father’s blessing ועל חרבך תחיה, “and you will survive by the sword” (Genesis 27,40). At the same time, G’d is on record repeatedly as saying that He hates Esau and what Esau stands for (Malachi 1,3). Esau is the very antithesis of the altar.     Actually, the principal prohibition is not that the stones are hewn but the fact that in order to be hewn iron instruments, instruments used to wage war have to be used. This is made plain in the words at the end of the verse: “for your sword has been raised over it.” You have a similar verse in Deut. 27,5: לא תניף עליהם ברזל, “do not  raise iron above them.” If a stone which is hewn is made by use of chemicals such as the secretion of the Shamir worm or a silver hammer, the Torah would actually not object to an altar so constructed. The main purpose of the prohibition is to ensure that iron is not used in construction of or use on the altar. The reason that in our verse the word “iron” is paraphrased as “your sword,” is that the sword is a destructive agent bringing death to the world. The altar’s purpose is to ensure that peace reigns on earth. It is therefore conceptually difficult to reconcile the use of iron in building the altar. When you peruse the gifts the people brought for construction of the Tabernacle you will not find that any iron was contributed. None was used in its construction. Kings I 6,7 makes a point of mentioning that during the seven years it took to build Solomon’s Temple “the sound of a hammer, ax, or iron tool was never heard in the House while it was being built.” There is a commentary which views the words “in the House” as meaning that only inside the Temple were iron tools not heard, but they were used outside of it without restriction. This means that items requiring iron tools were constructed outside and not brought into the Temple until they had been completed.
      A Midrashic approach: (Mechilta bachodesh 11) The words “for you will have raised your sword over it,” teaches that whereas the altar’s function is to prolong man’s life, the sword’s function is to shorten it. It would therefore be incongruous if a tool designed to shorten man’s life were to be employed in building a structure whose function is to prolong man’s life on earth. This teaches that every single commandment of the Torah has many different facets, that in fact the words of the Torah are reminiscent of someone striking and smashing a rock. Splinters will fly in all directions (Jeremiah 23,29). In other words, when one studies Torah intently, many different reasons for each commandment will suddenly surface. Every one of these reasons will be of value both to our bodies and to our souls. They enrich the lives of the people who discover these reasons. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said (Proverbs 4,22) “for they are life for those who find them and healing for all his flesh.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     גם אלה לחכמים הכר פנים במשפט בל טוב. “These things also belong to the wise; it is not good to display partiality in judgment” (Proverbs 24,23). 
  From the beginning of the Book of Proverbs up until here Solomon made it his business to admonish foolish people and adolescents. In fact, he announced his purpose at the very beginning of the Book when he said (1,4) “to give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.” Commencing with this verse he switches and admonishes the scholars, the ones who preside in the courts and dispense justice. This is why he said at the beginning of the verse we quoted above גם אלה, meaning that “also these parables” are meant for the wise. What does his admonition consist of? “It is not good to display partiality in judgment.” Solomon condemns partiality as a negative character trait. Why did we need Solomon to tell us this seeing that the Torah (Deut. 1,17) has already written: לא תכירו פנים במשפט, “do not show favoritism in judgment?” Solomon added an additional dimension to what the Torah had said in that the Torah did not mention a specific penalty for judges guilty of showing favoritism. Solomon adds (verse 24) “he who says to the wicked ‘you are righteous’ will be cursed by people, nations will abhor him.” If a judge convicts an innocent person the outrage of the people will be even greater, and he will likely be removed from his position as judge. Seeing that the entire Torah from בראשית until לעיני כל ישראל is inextricably tied to a system of justice Solomon said בל טוב instead of לא טוב parallel to what we say in Psalms 147,20 ומשפטים בל ידעום, “He did not acquaint them with a system of fair justice (the Gentiles).”
      It is a well known fact that משפט, a system of justice, is the foundation of the throne of G’d’s glory as mentioned in Psalms 89,15: “righteousness and justice are the foundations of your throne.” Anyone helping to establish true justice on earth thereby helps to strengthen the foundation of G’d’s throne. He who perverts justice undermines the foundations of G’d’s throne. By saying בל טוב, Solomon indicated that a person guilty of this will not merit טוב, will not experience “goodness in store for the righteous,” of which the psalmist (Psalms 31,20) said: “how abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You.” Solomon taught us in Proverbs that he who is guilty of showing partiality in judgment will be punished not only in this world but also in the world to come.    Justice is the prerequisite for peace. This is why we find Yitro telling Moses that if he were to carry out his advice with the approval of G’d, “also this whole people will arrive at its destination in peace” (Exodus 18,23). Peace ensures the continued existence of the world This is why the sages (Berachot 64) say that the scholars add to the amount of peace in the world (seeing they are in charge of administering justice). This is also why it is forbidden to submit disputes to Gentiles and only the sages of Israel must adjudicate between Jew and fellow Jew.
   ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, “and these are the ordinances which you shall place before them.” The Talmud Gittin 88 understands the word “before them” to mean that these ordinances are to be submitted to the wise, the trained and not to the uninformed average Israelite. Rashi elaborates there by saying that the legislation before us was presented by Moses to the seventy elders, i.e. the members of the Supreme Court. These elders had already functioned as the highest tribunal prior to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. They were the people who ascended part of Mount Sinai together with Moses (24,1). The Talmud there is bothered by the fact that ordination as an elder is impossible in Babylon or anywhere else outside the Holy Land. This would appear to deprive Jewish judges in the Diaspora of their authority. The Talmud concludes that the status of such Judges as הדיוטות notwithstanding, the fact that each such judge views himself as merely an appointee of a judge ordained as such in Eretz Yisrael makes their status legal. This entire line of exegesis is based on the unusual word לפניהם, “before them,” instead of להם, “to them,” which is the normal way of the Torah telling Moses to convey legislation to the Israelites (compare 15,25 שם שם לו לו חוק ומשפט). Keeping this in mind,  the Talmud also uses the word לפניהם as a prohibition not to submit disputes to gentile courts even if these are guided by Torah principles of adjudicating disputes.
   Our sages of old considered the sin of submitting inter-Jewish disputes to gentile jurisdiction as consisting of a number of violations of the Torah. The author proceeds to illustrate this by means of an example:   It is generally admitted that murder is one of the most severe offenses that man can commit and the Torah punishes it severely. It is a facet of the seven Noachide commandments concerning which the Torah wrote that he who spills the blood of a human being will have his own blood spilled by the hands of humans (Genesis 9,6). Sanhedrin 37 points out that by killing a single human being, very often all his potential offspring is also “killed,” i.e. prevented from ever being born. In other words, it is impossible to know the number of potential human beings who are denied life through the murder of a single human being. There was a time when Adam was the only inhabitant of the universe. Had someone, even an animal, killed him at that stage the human race would have been wiped out through a single act of murder. This puts into perspective the famous saying of our sages that anyone who kills a single human being is viewed as if he had murdered a whole world full of human beings (Sanhedrin 37). The reverse is true of someone who saves the life of even a single person. By doing so, he may be equivalent to saving the entire human race. All of this brings home to you the enormity of the crime of killing a single human being without due process of law. In spite of the severity of the crime of murder, the crime of robbery and desecration of the Holy Name of G’d is considered as even more serious. The sin of murder is subject to forgiveness if the murderer repents truly as we know from Kayin who murdered his brother Hevel and who repented and was forgiven (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer who takes the words (Genesis 4,13: “my guilt is too heavy to bear” as proof of Kayin’s repentance). Not so the sin of robbery. Repentance does not wipe out the sin of robbery unless the robber had first restored the property in question to the victim. If no restitution is made his sin will never be forgiven. The same applies to the sin of desecrating the name of the Lord. This is a sin more serious than any of those punishable by death at the hands of a human tribunal or even at the hands of G’d, i.e. karet. Our sages (Yuma 86) state that if someone is guilty of a sin for which the death penalty by execution or karet is mandatory (but has not been carried out) and the sinner has repented and Yom Kippur has passed before he died or has been executed, (if there were no witnesses, or similar) then his repentance may achieve a suspended sentence and the afflictions he suffers in this world may eventually wipe out his guilt. If, however, he is guilty of desecrating the name of the Lord, none of these measures will help him achieve atonement. Only his death may eventually atone for his sin. Our sages base this on Isaiah 22,14: “then the Lord of Hosts revealed to my ears; this iniquity shall never be forgiven you until you die.” Anyone who submits inter-Jewish disputes to a gentile tribunal thereby becomes guilty (at least inadvertently) of both the sin of robbery and the sin of desecrating the Lord’s name (whose judges he rejected by implying that G’d’s justice is defective). By going to pagan judges to seek justice one enhances the reputation of pagan religions and their deities in whose name justice is meted out.    The Torah (Deut. 32,31 ) has said: “for their Rock is not like our Rock, yet our enemies judge us.” The Torah means: “when our enemies act as our judges.” Anyone who voluntarily chooses non-Jewish courts and has read the passage we cited displays drunkenness and total confusion in his thinking. This is what Isaiah 29,9 had in mind when he spoke of: ”they are drunk but not from wine, they stagger but not from liquor.” People who act in this manner abandon primary pillars of Judaism in the hope of securing or retaining secondary values (the money or property under dispute). This is considered robbery in the true sense of the word. David (Psalms 16,4) had this to say about this kind of behavior: ירבו עצבותם אחר מהרו, “those who have other gods will suffer many afflictions for the sake of mohar, financial gain” (compare Rashi on that verse).     Turning to non-Jewish courts is also considered an act of robbery. One commits unknowingly complete robbery if he is awarded money or property by that court. Seeing the recipient of such a reward considers the money so obtained as rightfully his, he will never restore it to the true owner and will remain guilty of this act of robbery. This is why he will never be forgiven.    Concerning the word תשים, “you will  place,” an unusual word to say the least, this is to teach the judges to whom this paragraph is primarily addressed, to explain the basis for their judgment to the litigants. They have to explain which proof convinced them to rule as they did. Our sages (Sanhedrin 31) say that the word תשים is equivalent to the loser telling the judge: “please write down for me on the basis of which halachah in the Torah you have decided in favor of my adversary.”
      A Midrashic approach(Shemot Rabbah 2):  “wherever a paragraph is introduced with the word אלה, this signifies that there is no conceptual linkage to what was written now to what had preceded it immediately before. On the contrary, what follows is a contrast to what preceded it. Examples are Genesis 2,4: “these are the descendants of heaven and earth.” Up until then the Torah had described new creatures; from this point on it describes derivatives of existing creatures. It is as if G’d had said: “the former ones I did derive satisfaction from, the ones following them I did not derive satisfaction from.” “These are the descendants of Noach (Genesis 6,9).”  By writing the introduction אלה, the Torah hints that the descendants of prior generations such as those of the generation of Enosh and the people who had to be killed during the deluge did not have much in common with the descendants of Noach. We find something similar in Genesis 37,2: ”these are the descendants of Yaakov.” Here too the Torah wants to draw a dividing line between the descendants of Esau and those of Yaakov.   On the other hand, wherever a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, this indicates that what follows is sort of a continuation of what had been related previously. When the Book of Exodus commences with the words ואלה שמות בני ישראל, the Torah endeavours to pick up the thread about what we had learned about Yaakov’s sons in the Book of Genesis, a story which had been interrupted by Israel’s death and burial. The Torah wishes to describe the children of Yaakov as sharing in the virtues which distinguished their illustrious father. Here too, the words ואלה המשפטים, indicate that just as the commandments engraved on the Tablets were received at Mount Sinai, what will be related from here on in was also received from G’d by Moses at Mount Sinai.    The Torah comprises laws at its beginning, in the middle, and at the end (Shemot Rabbah 30,3). In Exodus 15,25 we were told that G’d gave laws to the Jewish people at Marah; moreover in 18,2 the Torah stated that judges were to be ready to dispense justice at all times convenient to the litigants. Now, after the giving of the Ten Commandments the Torah continues to present the Jewish people with a list of laws. The words ואלה המשפטים and what follows provide the framework for the Ten Commandments which were both preceded by pieces of legislation and followed by more pieces of legislation. This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 8,20: “I walk the path of righteousness, in the path of justice.”    Another approach (Shemot Rabbah 30,9):  when David said in Psalms 147,19: “He issued His words to Yaakov, His statutes and social laws to Israel,” you have to carve up this phrase as follows: the words: “He tells His words to Yaakov” refer to the Ten Commandments; the words: “His statutes and social laws to Israel,” refer to our portion here, the one which commences with the words ואלה המשפטים; the words לא עשה כן לכל גוי ומשפטים, mean that “He did not do so” (give social laws to all other nations). However, He did give to Adam, and thereby to all of mankind, six statutes. When Noach appeared, He added a seventh commandment, אבר מן החי. [seeing that after the deluge mankind had been permitted to eat meat and to kill animals in order to provide themselves with meat, this prohibition of eating flesh taken from living tissue, from a live animal had to be given at that time. Ed.]  When Avraham appeared on the stage of history an eighth commandment, circumcision of the males at eight days of age, was added to the existing range of commandments. With the advent of Yaakov, and after his successful encounter with the guardian angel of Esau, a ninth commandment, that of not eating the femoral sinew was introduced. When Israel stood at Mount Sinai they were given the Ten Commandments which symbolized the remainder of the Torah. This is the meaning of the words כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטרת, (Numbers 7,14). The allegorical meaning of that phrase is: “the Torah which was given to the Jewish people from the hand of G’d to the hand of Moses is אחת, “one,” consisting of עשרה, “Ten Commandments” which in effect are מלאה קטרת, “filled with incense” a word totaling 613 (when exchanging the letter ר for the letter ד when using the system of א'ת, ב''ש etc. (compare our comments on Exodus 20,16 on the section dealing with the letter קוף being a natural alternative for the letter ד) When the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai and said: “all that the Lord has said we shall do and we shall hear,” He said to them: “here the whole Torah has been given to you.” This is what David said in Psalms 147,19 that “G’d had not given all these righteous laws to any other nation.”    Rabbi Eliezer said: “when there is justice down here on earth, there is no justice in the heaven above (i.e. there is no need to apply the attribute of Justice in the celestial regions). When there is no justice on earth, then G’d has to invoke the attribute of Justice in the celestial regions” [to compensate for the absence of justice on earth. Ed.]  G’d said: “if I had been required to invoke the attribute of Justice for even a single hour, the universe would not have been able to continue to exist.” This is what Isaiah had in mind when he said (Isaiah 27,4) “if I were to have to march into battle, I would have to burn all of it.“ (the vineyard which serves as Isaiah’s simile). Isaiah explains in the following verse: “But if he holds fast to My refuge, He makes Me his friend, He makes Me His friend.” The prophet means that if man, i.e. Israel, will cleave to Torah law then all will be well. This is also what the sages (Tanchuma) had in mind when they said that Israel would not have lost its independence had they not failed to observe the laws of the Torah and the maintenance of a fair judicial system. They were punished by what is described in Job 4,20 as “shattered between daybreak and evening perishing forever unnoticed.” This is what would happen if the ordinances G’d placed before the Israelites in our portion would be ignored by them.
   אשר תשים לפניהם; The word תשים is related (at least aurally) to the word סם, which can be a poisonous or therapeutic herb. If the משפטים would be observed they would act as the elixir of life, if not, as the reverse.
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי תקנה עבד עברי  “if you will purchase a Hebrew slave, etc.” The reason the Torah commences with legislation involving rules about how to treat a Hebrew slave is because the Israelites had only recently emerged from all being slaves, albeit to masters of another nationality. This legislation is also a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt. The essence of the liberation of the Jews from Egypt was to exchange their masters. Whereas prior to the Exodus they were enslaved to a mortal master, a cruel one at that, ever since the Exodus they became the charge of an eternal Master, the most kind-hearted imaginable. By liberating the Jewish people from a cruel fate G’d had established a claim to their loyalty, much as He had established an especial  claim to the loyalty of the Jewish firstborn who had been exempted from the slaying of the firstborn.    Just as G’d had mentioned the fact that He had taken the Jewish people out of Egypt as the reason for claiming obeisance as their sole owner, (Leviticus 25,55) “for the Children of Israel are My servants,” so mention of this fact in the first of the Ten Commandments provides the justification for legislation regulating treatment of Jewish servants. This legislation is also a reminder of the fact that the Lord created the universe, as the Sabbath is the foremost reminder of that fact in the Decalogue. Just as free men are to rest every seventh day as an acknowledgment of their Creator who created the world in seven days, so the Jewish servant is no less obligated to devote the Sabbath to His master in heaven rather than to devote it to his master’s deputy, his employer on earth. The number seven permeates Judaism in more ways than one. Not only the seventh day, but the seventh month as well as the seventh year all have special significance. This special meaning of cycles of seven years culminates in the Yovel  legislation which concludes a cycle called עולם, “forever,” in the words of the Torah (Leviticus 25,20). The term Sabbath is not reserved exclusively for the seventh day, but is also applied to the seventh year, the year when agricultural work is suspended. 
     שש שנים יעבד, “he shall serve during six (consecutive) years.” The Torah speaks of a servant who has been “sold” by a Jewish court in settlement of debts incurred through thefts or robbery of things he has not been able to return to the owner (Mechilta). The Torah refers to this indirectly in 22,2: “if he does not have (money for making restitution) he will be sold to pay for his thievery.” When the Torah uses the expression יעבוד to describe the labor to be performed by such a servant, this is misleading as it reminds us of the conditions under which the Jews labored in Egypt. The fact is that this servant is in the category of a hired hand (except that the master paid his salary six years in advance to the people to whom said servant was indebted). In fact the letter ו in the word יעבוד is missing in the Torah to signal that such a Jewish servant is not to be treated like a slave, but that he must not be assigned demeaning tasks or burdensome chores. The Torah (Leviticus 25,40) specifically writes: “like a hired hand or a resident he shall work with you.” Just as a hired hand is given only tasks which represent his specific skill, so such a Jewish servant is to be assigned only tasks with which he is familiar. Just as a resident is not expected to work at night, so a Jewish servant may not be assigned night work. (Mechilta on: “six years he shall work”).
     ובשביעית, “and in the seventh year,” this is the seventh year after he has been sold; the Torah had already written that he is to work for six years.    לחפשי, “to freedom,” he does not require a document showing that he has been released from service by his employer.
     חנם, “by himself.” If the servant took sick during the period of his (forced) employment the employer cannot demand to be reimbursed for working hours lost, nor can he demand to be reimbursed for medical treatment for which the employer laid out the money. In short, the word חנם means that no money will change hands at the time this servant leaves the employ of his master (Mechilta). This rule applies provided that the servant was not sick for more than three years out of the six. If he was sick for three years or more, he has to make up time lost by working it off. This is based on Isaiah 16,14: “in three years, fixed like the years of a hired hand.” Seeing that this servant has been compared to a “hired hand” in Leviticus 25,40 it follows that the minimum amount of service he must render is three years (compare also Tosafot Kidushin 17A.).
  
  Verse 3
  
   אם בגפו יבא, “if he shall arrive by himself, etc.” If he was single at the time he commenced his service he is not allowed to marry a Jewish girl while in the employ of this master seeing he is financially unable to provide the minimum material comforts for a wife which the Torah stipulates a bride is entitled to (compare verse 10). Seeing that he cannot marry during the years he is in service the Torah had to add: “he will leave alone.” His master may also not give him a Gentile slave-woman as a wife seeing he had entered service without any wife (Kidushin 20) The Torah stipulates that his marital status when he leaves must be the same as when he enters such forced employment. [Verse 4, which describes the master as giving him a Gentile slave-woman, who, however, remains with the master when the Hebrew servant leaves, applies only if he had entered service as a married man. Ed.]  Another meaning of the word בגפו is that it means בגופו, “whole in body.” The verse tells us that he is to leave as he came, i.e. as opposed to the Gentile slave who is automatically freed when he loses certain organs such as an eye, a tooth, or even the bones of his finger tips (Kidushin 20).
   A Hebrew servant can buy his freedom by one of four methods: 1) completion of six years service. 2) advent of the Jubilee year. 3) death of his employer. 4) compensating his employer for unexpired time of service  (such as when he inherits money). If said Hebrew servant had his ear pierced because he expressed a desire to remain in service, he has only two options by means of which he can free himself. 1) the advent of the Jubilee year. 2) death of his employer (Kidushin 14). A female Hebrew servant can free herself by one or more of five ways:  (the methods already mentioned plus reaching the age and signs of puberty). She is not subject to having her ear pierced  in order to extend length of her service with her employer as is her male counterpart.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ואם אמר יאמר העבד, “if the servant shall say.” In Kidushin 22 the sages use the repetition of the word  אמר as proof that unless the servant expresses this wish twice the employer is not entitled to pierce his ear to extend his period of service in his employ. The word העבד [which does not appear necessary in our context as the subject did not change. Ed.] means that he must express this desire before his period of service expired, i.e. while he was still an עבד (ibid.)
     אהבתי את אדוני, “I love my master.” Unless the relationship is one of mutual love the law of extending the servant’s service by piercing his ear is not applicable. This is based ion the words כי טוב לו עמך, “for it is good for him with you,” (Deut. 15,15) (Kidushin 22). If the master is sick while the servant is in good health, this law is also not applicable seeing that the word עמך presupposes some parallel condition between servant and master. If the servant were to be sick while the master is in good health the law would also not apply as the Torah writes כי טוב לו, “for it is good for him,” and a sick servant is not good for his master.
     את אשתי ואת בני, “my wife and my children.” If said servant does not have both wife and children he may not have his ear pierced and continue in service (Kidushin 22). If he requested to serve additional time with this master already at the beginning of his term of service he may not subsequently have his ear pierced and stay on. He must formulate his request near the end of his six year term of service (ibid.). 
  
  Verse 6
  
   והגישו אל הדלת, “and he shall bring him to the door.” Had the Torah not added the words או אל המזוזה, “or to the doorpost,” I would have concluded that it did not matter whether the door be in an upright position at the time the awl was applied or not. The words או אל המזוזה provide conceptual linkage between door and doorpost. Just as the doorpost is upright, so the door must be in an upright position at the time of the piercing of the servant’s ear (Pessikta Zutrata).
     ורצע אדוניו, “and his master will perform the piercing.” only the master himself, not his son or his agent or even an agent of the court (Mechilta).   את אזנו, “his ear;” not her ear; this excludes piercing the ear of a female (Kidushin 15).    במרצע, “with the awl.”  the Torah does not say be-martzea,  with any awl, but the vowel patach under the letter ב means that there is a special awl for this procedure (kept by the court?).
     ועבדו, “and he will (continue) to serve him.” “Him” and not “his son.” This word proves that the servant acquires his freedom automatically when his master dies.   לעולם, “forever.” According to Kidushin 21 the word means “for the duration of that Yovel cycle.”
   It is a fact confirmed by psychologists that a servant who keeps serving the same master is liable to get fed up with his life wishing to become free. The fact that the Torah discusses the phenomenon of a Jewish man who prefers to remain in the permanent service of a human master instead of relying only on  G’d as his master is an entirely unusual phenomenon. This is why the Torah legislated that in this instance the employer (master) in whose service this servant has chosen to remain must himself be the one who pierces the organ of a man who had heard at Mount Sinai that “the Children of Israel are My servants,” and who has yet preferred to serve a master of flesh and blood. ...
  I believe that this consideration explains why the paragraph did not commence with the words כי תקנה עבד ישראל, “when you purchase an Israelite as a servant,” but refers to such a person only as עבד עברי. The word ישראל is a compliment for a Jew. The servant in question did not deserve this compliment when he was sold for stealing, nor does he deserve this compliment if he prefers to serve a master of flesh and blood to serving exclusively the Almighty. The Jews in Egypt, the enslaved Jews, were always known as עברים instead of as ישראלים. Even Moses had referred to אלו-הי העברים when introducing himself to Pharaoh (Exodus 5,3) as the Israelites had not yet qualified for the title “Israelites.” All this explains why the Torah chose the ear of the servant which had heard G’d proclaim the commandment to be servants of G’d exclusively and had yet chosen to ignore it, to be pierced by his master whom he had chosen in order for both servant and master to realise that they had been remiss in maintaining a servant-master relationship between them. The Torah insists that this contract between the servant and the master be concluded in front of court, i.e. “his master shall bring him אל האלו-הים, “to a judge,” i.e. a court, the representative of G’d on earth. The word האלו-הים represents the attribute of Justice. This same attribute of Justice had waived its right as Master to kill the Jewish firstborn in Egypt in order to save the Israelites from bondage and from slavery, and here comes an Israelite and he volunteers to be a slave! The Torah repeats once more: “and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost,” the doorpost being reminiscent of the one which, when it was smeared with the blood of the Passover lamb, signified service of the inhabitant of that house to G’d rather than enslavement to man (Exodus 12,22). This is why by piercing the ear of the servant in question the master extracts some blood from it. This blood signifies the reverse of what the blood on the doorposts and lintel of the Jews in Egypt on that fateful night had signified, Then it had expressed the desire to be free, this time it expresses the desire of the owner of that ear to remain unfree. The entire procedure legislated here by the Torah is once again a demonstration of how G’d employs the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, “measure for measure.” Even though the extraction of blood from the ear lobe of the servant is not an essential part of the procedure, as piercing the ear with a chemical would also have achieved the same halachic result, the fact is that most piercing of ears is done by means of an awl and not by means of some chemical agent. The letters in the Hebrew name for the tool employed, i.e. מרצע have a numerical value of 400, as if to symbolise that the servant to whom it was applied wanted to add to the 400 years of bondage of the Jewish people in Egypt. 
      A Midrashic approach to the words והגישו אל הדלת: G’d had said: “I opened the door of the house for him to enable him to walk into freedom and he slammed the door upon himself in order to remain a slave! As a penalty he will be hit by the door.
      You must also understand that there is a mystical dimension to the word דלת. This is the reason that the word has been used here with the letter ה and the vowel patach under it to signify that the Torah speaks of something known, not just of any door. We also find the word ובדלת in Deut. 15,17 ונתתה באזנו ובדלת, “and put it through his ear and the door,” with the vowel patach under the letter ב as if the door were one that we are familiar with.    The door is a means of gaining entry into a house. A house without a door cannot be accessed. The very word דלת represents the letter ד in the first line of the קריאת שמע declaration שמע ישראל ה’ אלו-הינו ה' אחד, “Hear O Israel the Lord our G’d the Lord is One.” The word שמע is addressed to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the people of Israel. כנסת ישראל symbolizes our entrance gate to the celestial regions, the “door” or דלת leading to Heaven, the gateway by which the righteous enter that domain (Psalms 118,20).  When the Torah continues saying או אל המזוזה, the word מזוזה  is a “number” representing a substitute for the same concept;  it  has a numerical value of 65, the same as the attribute of G’d as “Master” i.e. א-ד-נ-י. The Hebrew servant discussed in our portion was unaware of these deeper mystical connections between one kind of master and another; this is why he foolishly traded the Master whom he could not see with his senses for one whom he could see, hear, feel, etc. In order to eventually teach him to recognize the mistake he made he has to serve his master לעולם, until the conclusion of “this world,” i.e. until such time as לה' הארץ ומלואו, all of mankind will recognize that the whole earth belongs to the Lord.
     ועבדו לעולם, “and he will serve him forever.” Mechilta Nezikin section 2 accepted that the meaning of the word “forever” in this context is “until the advent of the next Jubilee year.” This would be the fiftieth year of the cycle during which the servant had his ear pierced. A period of fifty years has been called עולם already in ancient times and we find a reference to it as having this meaning in Samuel I 1,11 where Samuel’s mother Chanah  vows that after she had weaned her young son she would bring him to the Temple to reside there עד עולם, “forever.” Clearly, seeing no one lives forever, she did not mean that the word לעולם is to be understood as literally “forever.” She referred to the active life span of a Levite who is forced to retire at the age of 50 as we know from Numbers 8,24. Samuel was a Levite, of course. Samuel only lived for a total of 52 years, the last 50 of them after his mother had dedicated him to be a servant of G’d as she had vowed before becoming pregnant with him (Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 4,1). The Torah’s direction that the Hebrew servant be freed at the advent of the Jubilee year is effective regardless of how many or how few years before that year the servant in question was acquired.   Another way of interpreting the word לעולם is: “as long as the world exists.” In that event the connection with the שנת היובל would be the יובל הגדול, a concept mentioned in Psalms 105,8 דבר צוה לאלף דור, “He gave a command which is in effect for 1000 generations.” A “generation” in that case would be considered a period of 50 years. When Solomon (Kohelet 1,4) spoke of והארץ לעולם עומדת, that “the earth will endure for a period called עולם,” he referred to these 1000 generations mentioned in Psalms. The word עולם in our verse then would refer to the “world of the great Jubilee.” I shall discuss this in greater detail in my commentary on Leviticus 25,8.
  
  Verse 7
  
    וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה, “when a man sells his daughter as a maid-servant, etc.” This verse is the father’s authority to “sell” his daughter for her own benefit as long as she is less than 12 years old (Mechilta Nezikin section 3). לא תצא כצאת העבדים, “the terms of her release will not parallel the conditions of freedom for her male counterpart.” She will not leave the service of her master like a Gentile male slave, i.e. through loss of an organ such as an eye, a tooth, etc. (ibid). Whenever the word עבד or אמה is found in the Torah without  additional data such as “Jewish” or ”Egyptian,” Canaanite slaves are meant. When the Torah speaks of a Hebrew servant the fact that he is Jewish is spelled out (compare 21,2). The warning in our verse is addressed to the employer of such a Jewish maidservant that if he would release (kick out) his maidservant due to loss of, say an eye, he would be guilty of violating this negative commandment. Instead of releasing her from his service he has to compensate her for the loss including pain, embarrassment, etc., (based on the author of Halachot Gedolot). She continues in her position for the agreed upon period.
  
  Verse 8
  
    אם רעה בעיני אדוניה אשר לא יעדה, “if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who had designated her for himself (as a wife).” Nachmanides writes that anyone who “buys” a Jewish daughter does so with a view to marrying her. She is automatically considered as designated for her master as a wife. If, after getting to know her while she worked for him, he changed his mind, her father has to assist in her redemption (the word והפדה refers to the first subject in the verse, i.e. the word איש). It is forbidden for the girl’s father to allow her to continue in the service of a man who does not plan to wed her after the master expressly says: “I do not want her.” He has no authority to sell her to a Gentile master. Even though the Torah permitted the master of a Hebrew servant to sell him to a Gentile (compare Leviticus 25 47) where sale to a גר תושב, a resident stranger is expressly permitted, this permission does not apply to girls. This is in order to  ensure that Gentiles do not treat Jewish girls or women as inferior. This is the plain meaning of these verses. Thus far Nachmanides.
     בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” He would have betrayed her if he sold her to a Gentile master. He can only sell her to someone who can wed her in accordance with Jewish law.    There is a disagreement between the two scholars Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva (Kidushin 18) on the precise meaning here of the words בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” One of the scholars traces the word בבגדו to the word בגד, “garment,” whereas the other scholar understands is as בגידה, “betrayal.” Rabbi Akiva who holds that it is connected to בגד bases himself on the principle of יש אם למקרא that the reading of the text is more authoritative when it conflicts with the spelling. The reading is based on the word לו as we read the word לא as if it had been spelled with a ו, meaning the master had designated her for himself. By becoming betrothed to her master at the time she entered his service he had placed her under the protection of his mantle, figuratively speaking. Once her master had done this he is no longer free to sell her. Rabbi Eliezer, on the other and, believes that the spelling is of greater weight whenever there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the words, a principle known as יש אם למסורת. In our case the spelling of the word לא is with the letter א meaning “no” i.e. he had not betrothed her to himself.  Rabbi Akiva sees an ambiguity even in the word בבגדו-בה  itself, being convinced it means “when his garment was on her,” seeing that if it were derived from בגידה, betrayal, the vowel under the second letter ב should have been a chataf kametz instead of a chirik  which is proof that it is derived from בגד, a word in which the basic vowel segol always turns into a chirik when it appears in the possessive form. The word בה is to be understood as עליה, “upon her.” The word בה also means עליה in Nechemyah 2,12 הבהמה אשר אני רוכב בה, “the beast which I ride on.” Rabbi Eliezer understands the word as derived from בגידה even though the vowel pattern does not appear to support his theory. The reason is that he considers the word not as a possessive form but as an infinitive. The vowel chirik as such would be perfectly in place. A Biblical example supporting his theory would be Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” The reason the Torah writes בה, (according to Rabbi Eliezer) is that the preposition used with the word בגד, betray, is always the letter ב. To quote but two examples: (Malachi 2,14 and Malachi 2,15) אשת נעוריך אשר בגדת בה, “the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed; or ובאשת נעוריך אל יבגוד, “and let no one break faith with the wife of your youth.” On that same folio of the Talmud Rabbi Shimon holds that we pay halachic attention to both the spelling and the reading so that we can derive two rulings from the verse.
      A Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 30,5) on the words וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה, “G’d said to Israel: “I had an only daughter (the Torah) and I sold her to you (collectively) as a maid-servant. You are not allowed to remove her from the house unless she is securely (encased) dressed, in an appropriate ark; this is the meaning of the words following לא תצא כצאת העבדים, “she is not to leave (the house) in the manner of male servants.” G’d says: ”I charge you to treat the Torah with honor and respect  seeing that you have captured her after she had been My companion previous to Matan Torah, the giving of the Torah.” The Midrash bases itself on Psalms 68,19: “you (Moses) went up to the (celestial) heights having taken a captive.” The Midrash continues by explaining the words אם רעה בעיני אדניה, “if she becomes displeasing in the eyes of her master,”  i.e. that the Israelites have become wicked, not performing the commandments of the Torah. לעם נכרי לא ימשול למכרה, “He (G’d) never agreed to sell her (the Torah) to any other nation except to Israel;” so how could Israel betray her?!
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואם לבנו ייעדנה, “but if he designated her (as a wife) for his son, etc.” If the master had intended to marry the girl in question herself, no additional act of betrothal is necessary as the money he paid to her father when he “bought” the girl  constitutes the money or equivalent a groom has to give to the father of a minor. He had to add the words הרי את מקודשת לי, “you are betrothed to me, etc.” (according to Maimonides hilchot avadim 4,7) If, however, he had not meant to marry her himself but had intended for his son to marry her, then the Torah adds: כמשפט הבנות  יעשה לה, “he has to deal with her according to the rights of free women.” She is a Jewish girl and the master acts as her father in this instance. In practice this means that her master (the groom’s father) must provide the appropriate (22,16) dowry for her from his own funds. Seeing that she is a Jewish girl, all the provisions the Torah has made in Deut. 15,14 that the master has to provide a stake for a Jewish servant who is released from service are to apply to her also. This is an act of kindness towards her by G’d.
      A different way of understanding the words: “like the rights of Jewish daughters he shall do for her,” could be that these words form the introduction to the Torah spelling out these rights in detail as שארה כסותה ועונתה לא יגרע, “she must not be disadvantaged compared to others in her entitlement to food, clothing, and marital relationship.” The master has to provide the equivalent when she marries his son. 
      Rashi explains that the word שארה refers to entitlement to be fed, whereas the word כסותה refers to her clothing allowance, and the word עונתה, refers to her entitlement to marital relations at no fewer than designated intervals. Nachmanides differs with Rashi claiming that the meaning of Ketuvot 47 upon which Rashi based his commentary, i.e. that the obligation is Biblical rather than Rabbinic in origin, is certainly only the opinion of a single scholar which is not shared by his colleagues. That scholar based his understanding of the word שאר on Psalms 78,27  וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר, “He rained meat on them like dust.” According to Nachmanides this is surely an isolated view as is evident from the continuation of the discussion in the Talmud on that folio. The consensus in the Talmud is that providing food is a Rabbinic right of married women and cannot be attributed to legislation in our verse. Keeping all this in mind, Nachmanides explains the word שארה to mean “her right to intimate relations.” In most other instances where the word שאר appears it means a “bodily relation, a close relative.” Our sages Yevamot 22 explained that the word in Leviticus 21,2 כי אם לשארו, means “except for his wife,” i.e. the priest’s closest bodily relation. Such a close relationship between husband and wife has already been described in Genesis 2,24 to show that it is a closer natural bond even than that between father and son, or son and mother. According to Nachmanides the word כסותה would mean “her cover,” i.e. the blanket covering her and her husband in the same bed. The word appears in that sense in 22,26 כי היא כסותה לבדה במה ישכב, “for it is his only cover, what would he lie down with?” Thirdly, the word ועונתה would refer to the period when her husband will join her for the purpose of marital relations. This then would be the detailed meaning of the caption משפט הבנות, “the rights of the young women.” The reason this last word had to be added is to assure this girl who considers herself rejected in favor of some other woman should not be treated like a concubine who is slept with at whim and on the floor, while the other woman is treated royally on an honorable bed.    Our sages (Ketuvot 48) also add that the word שארה describes marital relations when one is in a state of undress, not like the Persians who do not even bother to disrobe when the men sleep with their women. The Torah used refined language to describe its meaning. The three items mentioned here are matters which man and wife have in common. The items discussed by Rashi, while entitlements of the wife, are of Rabbinic authority.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, “and if he does not perform these  three for her, etc.” If he does not marry her himself, nor give her to his son as a wife or allow her father to release her, as per the word והפדה, then she leaves the employ of her master without having to compensate him for breach of contract and her father cannot prevent her from leaving. If even her father who had the right to sell her has lost his authority over her, her master whose authority over this girl never equaled that of her father most certainly cannot detain her. All of this is contained in the words ויצאה חנם, “she goes out free.” If you were to argue that her master can demand part of his purchase price back from her father, the Torah wrote the word חנם, “without compensation,” to make it clear that the father also does not have to compensate a master who had not honoured his undertaking. If you were to say that her master has to compensate her financially for having disappointed her, the Torah adds the words אין כסף, meaning she has no financial claim on him because he did not marry her. These are the words from which our sages learned in Kidushin 4 that a maidservant acquires her freedom merely by displaying signs of puberty.
  
  Verse 12
  
   מכה איש ומת מות יומת, “if someone strikes a man and he dies as a result the striker shall be executed.” Having concluded the legislation concerning Jewish servants, a subject conceptually linked to the first commandment on the first Tablet, the Torah returns to the first commandment on the second of the Tablets, the law about murder. Seeing that in the Ten Commandments the prohibition was spelled out without the penalty for transgressing it, the Torah now announces the penalty for murder. The verse speaks of an intentional, at least potentially lethal attack.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . ואשר לא צדה, “but if he did not lay an ambush, etc.”  The verse speaks of unintentional killing. The word צדה means there had not been a deliberate hunt to kill the person in question by his eventual killer, however, “G’d had intervened” causing this man to kill someone because he had already been guilty for committing another capital sin which had either not been detected or could not be prosecuted. If the killer had not already been guilty of a similar crime, the Torah would not have described the unintentional killing as “an act of G’d” rather than as an act of man. This is what Solomon was speaking of when he said (Proverbs 13,23)  ויש נספה בלא משפט, “sometimes someone is destroyed for something which is not subject to justice capable of being meted out by  a court.”
      The Talmud Makkot 10 already illustrated this with the well known parable of two men, one of whom killed intentionally whereas the other killed unintentionally. G’d had arranged that these people meet at the same place at the same time; the one who had been guilty of unintentional killing ascended a ladder and fell down killing the person standing underneath it who had already been guilty of intentional killing. The person falling off the ladder had to move to a city of refuge, one of the cities set aside for unintentional killers. The reason that the Torah uses the expression איש was to let us know that only adults have to be executed, not minors. For this reason the Torah wrote in one instance ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם (Leviticus 24,17) “an adult who kills any human being, etc.,” in order to make clear that the death penalty applies also to someone who killed a minor. The word איש also excludes aborted fetuses, and embryos born too early to be viable.
     ושמתי לך מקום, “I shall provide a place for you.” This means that even in the desert a special place will be set aside for such unintentional killers to find refuge from a potential avenger who is a blood relation of the victim. The “place” in question was the area in which the Levites had their tents (Makkot 12). I believe that the reason the Torah wrote the word לך, “for you,” something quite unusual, is  to hint that Moses, a Levite, had himself been guilty of killing someone.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וכי יזיד איש על רעהו להרגו,  “and if a man shall act intentionally against his fellow to kill him,” the meaning of the word להרגו, is והרגו, i.e. “he has carried out his intention and killed the person he intended to kill.” The Torah had to add the words בערמה, “with guile,” in connection with the legislation involving murder and its penalty as nearly every murderer makes an elaborate attempt to conceal the fact that he killed intentionally. In other words, a murder almost by definition, engages in ערמה, guile, deceit. Not only that, his sin is one that was inspired by the original serpent who wanted to make man guilty of death. The Torah had described the principal characteristic of that serpent as being that it was the “most ערום,” the most crafty of all the living beasts (Genesis 3,1). Murder then is a sin directly attributable to the influence of the serpent. According to ancient sources, the serpent had mated with Chavah and its seed had produced Kayin, the first murderer. (see author’s commentary on Genesis 5,2;  Ed.) This is also why the sages (Sotah 21) call anyone who engages in sin after having misrepresented his intentions a רשע רע, “an evil sinner,” (as if a sinner were not evil by definition already). The attribute רע which the sages appended to the description רשע is based on Isaiah 3,11 אוי לרשע רע, “woe to the wicked sinner.” Such a sinner derives his strength from the celestial sphere Mars, which itself is described as רע, evil, as wars and murder usually take place under its aegis. (I have explained this in detail on Exodus 10,10). The prophet Jeremiah 1,14, when saying that “disaster shall break loose from the north upon all the inhabitants of earth,” also refers to the planet Mars. This planet was also referred to as רעה, by Pharaoh in Exodus 10,10.
     מעם מזבחי תקחנו, “from My altar shall you take him (to die).” The Torah implies that there is no need to tell us that a city of refuge does not offer protection to an intentional killer, and that he will have to be surrendered to the court to stand trial; here the Torah adds that even if the murderer sought refuge in sacred grounds, clinging to the altar, this is no protection for him and the authorities are instructed to remove him from there to stand trial. We find proof of this having been done in Kings I 2,28  where it is described that Yoav, David’s commander-in-chief who had sided with Adoniah in the latter’s abortive attempt to become king instead of Solomon, took refuge in the Tabernacle and held on to the corners of the altar to escape being executed for treason. Solomon commanded Benayahu to extradite him from there. When Yoav refused to leave the holy precincts, Benayahu executed him inside the sacred grounds, carrying out the instructions in our verse. The message contained in the legislation is that even someone who thinks he can call on G’d to save him from  prosecution by a human tribunal does so in vain if the sin he was guilty of was murder, (as David had explained to Solomon about Yoav prior to his death). Display of “mercy or pity” in such instances is tantamount to displaying cruelty as failure to execute a murderer deprives him of atonement in this life and he will face the whole burden of his sin after death when he comes up to be tried by a celestial tribunal.
      Rashi explains the words מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות, as meaning that even if the murderer happens to be a priest or a Levite, whose domain is the proximity of the altar, he will be taken to stand trial and will be executed if found guilty. This is based on Mechilta Nezikin section 4. The Talmud in Makkot 12 already pointed out that Yoav, who held on to the corners of the altar in order to save himself from extradition, was executed only because he thought that even the corners of the altar not only its roof were an area of refuge from prosecution by human tribunal. He had misinterpreted the fact that the Torah wrote מעם מזבחי, “from beside My altar,” instead of מעל מזבחי, “from on top of My altar,” to include any part of the altar. Alternatively, he thought that the Torah referred only to murderers who had committed murder in the presence of witnesses and after legally valid warning and who had thus become subject to trial by a human court. Seeing that he did not commit his crime under such conditions he thought he could throw himself on G’d’s mercy instead. The fact is that the words in our verse are intended to tell us that whereas under the aforementioned circumstances the court cannot convict and execute, Yoav’s guilt was also insurrection against the king. This is a crime which does not need warning and witnesses of a certain type in order for the king to execute the offender. Yoav erred thinking that when there were no witnesses or warning the altar could protect him from the king’s vengeance. 
  One can also interpret "from my altar he should be taken" as referring to the witness: Even if the witness is currently occupied with offering a sacrifice on the altar, he should be summoned immediately to bear testimony. To sum up: our verse teaches that if the objective  of retribution is not so much vengeance as the removal of wicked sinners from the face of the earth, G’d waives the sanctity of the altar in order to enable justice to be done to such people. 
  
  Verse 15
  
   ומכה אביו ואמו מות יומת, “If someone strikes his father or his mother he shall be executed.” The blow must be such that it causes an injury involving bleeding or a bruise (Mechilta Nezikin section 5). The situation described here is similar to Kings I 20,37: “he struck him and wounded him.” When the Torah writes אביו ואמו, the meaning is not that in order to become guilty of the penalty prescribed  the son or daughter has to strike both father and mother. The letter ו here as well as in many other instance means או, “or.” A striking example of the letter ו meaning “or” instead of “and,” is Deut. 17,3 ויעבוד אלוהים אחרים וישתחו להם ולשמש או לירח או לכל צבא השמים, “and he will go and serve gods of others and prostitute himself to them, or to the sun or the moon or to any of the host of heaven;” clearly the letter ו in the word וישתחו cannot mean that he must perform all of these acts of idol worship in order to become culpable. The Torah lists a number of alternatives any of which result in his becoming guilty of death by stoning. In our verse the death penalty for someone striking either parent is death by strangulation.
  
  Verse 16
  
   וגונב איש ומכרו, “If someone kidnaps a man (person) and sells him, etc.” Rabbi Saadyah Gaon explains the reason this verse has been inserted between the one dealing with striking father or mother, and the one dealing with cursing father or mother. He writes that seeing most people who have been kidnapped and sold into slavery were minors at the time they were snatched, if or when such a person returns to his  home town after many years he does not recognise his parents. He may therefore have occasion to strike or curse someone and will do so not knowing that the person whom they strike or curse is actually his father or mother. The cause of such a sin occurring is the kidnapper. This makes the kidnapper morally guilty of the crime committed by his victim and, at least theoretically, of the death penalty.
      Nachmanides writes on this subject  that the reason the Torah wrote both these verses together is that both the kidnapper and the person striking father or mother is subject to the identical death penalty חנק, death by strangulation. Someone who curses father or mother (verse 17) however, is subject to death by stoning, as we know from Leviticus 20,9 כי איש איש אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו מות יומת, אביו ואמו קלל דמיו בו, “any man who will curse his father or his mother shall be executed; his father or his mother he has cursed, his blood is upon him.“ Wherever the words דמיו בו appear the death penalty referred to is stoning. The verse from which we learn this is Leviticus 20,27 באבן ירגמו אתם דמיהם בם, “they shall pelt them with stones, their blood is upon themselves.” Stoning is a more severe death penalty than death by strangulation. One of the reasons may be that the sin of cursing parents is more widespread than the sin of striking them; the Torah therefore provided for a penalty which is more likely to restrain a person from committing this offense. Or, the fact that cursing anybody involves using (abusing) the name of G’d in the process, cursing father or mother makes it a double offense. The Torah therefore threatened a more severe death penalty for violators. 
  The reason the Torah inserted this prohibition here, in between the prohibitions of hitting and cursing one's parents, is to magnify the sin and give it the level of severity of those transgressions. In the Ten Commandments the prohibition to kidnap has also been inserted between the sin of adultery and that of false testimony for similar reasons. Had the Torah mentioned that offense only at the end we would have thought that this is a relatively less serious offense than striking father or mother or cursing them. On the other hand, the Torah was unable to position the law against kidnapping earlier as it had already commenced with the penalties about murder in verse 12. This had to be followed by the law against striking father or mother. The severity of kidnapping is best demonstrated in that the brothers who had kidnapped Joseph had not been punished until more than 1000 years later when the “Ten Martyrs” died at the hands of the Romans in order to finally expiate for that sin. I have already explained the reason that the Torah repeats the words מות תמות in order to hint at death in the terrestrial as well as the celestial regions (see commentary on Gen. 37:28, 44:17).
     ונמצא בידו, “while he was in his power.” The word נמצא must be contrasted with מצוי. The former is a person over whom the kidnapper had no legal authority; the latter is someone such as a teacher who does have a certain legal authority over the victim. Such a kidnapper is not subject to the death penalty (Sanhedrin 86).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
    באבן או באגרוף, “with a stone or a fist.” The term “fist” means a hand in which the fingers have been clenched. The word occurs also in Rabbinic Hebrew such as in the Mishnah Keilim 17,12 אגרופו של בן בטיח, “someone known as big-fisted.” Members of the family of David were known to be aggressive, i.e. big-fisted (Kidushin 76). The Torah here describes two blows, one a hard blow, the other not so hard. The judges will have to consider whether either one of the blows was hard enough to cause death to most people struck by such a blow. A blow similar to a stone is the heavy blow, whereas a blow similar to that struck by a fist is considered a lighter blow. When a person dies from the “hard” blow, the striker is considered a murderer and will be executed. When the victim is only temporarily disabled but does not die, the striker must pay different kinds of compensation, primarily for loss of income and doctor’s fees.    The full meaning of the verse is: if the victim recovers sufficiently after having been bed-bound to leave the house and walk outside any relapse is not considered the fault of the one who struck he original blow, even if the patient walked with the aid of a crutch as do people who are enfeebled. In such cases the one who dealt the blow is free from criminal proceedings and faces only civil charges, i.e. assessment of damages. Even if the victim neglected his injuries and left he house prematurely, while still weak, so that he dies as a result, the one who administered the blow is not held responsible for his death by court action. The Torah describes a situation which is usual, i.e. that the injured party does not leave the house until he has sufficiently recovered from his injury. At that point he is considered as out of danger and whatever happens to the victim  afterwards is attributed to causes other than the blow or blows he had sustained during the attack described in our verse. This is the reason for the words והתהלך בחוץ, “if he walked outside.” Had he risen from his bed but only walked inside his house before dying, the attacker would be blamed for his death and would be charged with murder. 
  Mechilta (Nezikin section 6) interprets the verse by dissecting each word; the words אם יקום והתהלך, “if he rises and walks by himself,” are interpreted as walking in the house; to make sure we do not misunderstand, the Torah added the word בחוץ, “outdoors.” Had the Torah only written והתהלך בחוץ, omitting the word יקום, I would have concluded that as long as he was able to even stagger or limp outside this would be sufficient proof that he was out of danger from the blows he had received. Therefore the Torah added the word יקום, i.e. he must have been able to get up in a perfectly normal, healthy-looking manner. Furthermore, the absence of the word ממשכבו, “from his sickbed,” makes it clear that he must have appeared to have fully recovered, without feeling the need or desire to lie down again as soon as he comes indoors. The fact that he still uses a cane is no sign that his life is still in danger from the blows received.     The principle of the matter is that we do not judge the degree and danger of his injuries by the wording of our verse. The medical evaluation is determined by medical experts. The Torah simply describes a scenario which reflects what happens in most of these situations. The fact that the medical experts determine the likely cause of death of such a victim is reflected in the translation by Onkelos who simply writes: על בוריה “according to his state of health.” The wording רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, is carefully chosen by the Torah to forestall the injured party demanding medical expenses and then failing to consult a physician. The guilty part pays the doctor’s bill, he does not pay the victim the equivalent of what the doctor might have charged him (compare commentary by Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 19
  
   ורפא ירפא, “and he shall provide for healing.” Whenever the Bible mentions the word רפואה when applied to a human being the letter פ always appears with the dagesh. For instance Jeremiah 51,9 רפאנו את בבל ולא נרפתה, “we tried to cure Babylon but she was incurable;” when we find the word used as something being performed by G’d then there is no dagesh in the letter פ. Example: Jeremiah 17,14 רפאני ה' וארפא, “Heal me O Lord and I shall be healed.” Another example is found in Psalms 147,3: הרופא לשבורי לב, “He heals the broken-hearted, etc.” There are many more examples. The reason for this distinction in the spelling of the description of the applied cure is that when man, i.e. a physician, administers a cure it is apt to be accompanied by pain and suffering, whereas a cure administered by the Lord is a painless procedure. This is part of the meaning of Proverbs 10,22: “the blessing of the Lord enriches, He does not add sorrow to it.”    When the sages in Baba Kama 85 stated that the words ורפא ירפא in our verse constitute permission for a physician to practice his art they said so only in connection with externally visible injuries or symptoms of diseases; internal diseases, especially mental diseases are not subject to treatment by physicians of flesh and blood. They are the sole domain of the One who provides the soul to all living creatures. [This interpretation seems to be based on Ibn Ezra, but is disputed by other authorities. Ed.].
  
  Verse 20
  
  . וכי יכה איש את עבדו או את אמתו בשבט, “if a man (master) hits a male slave or a female slave with a stick, etc.” Whenever the Torah uses the word עבד or אמה, it refers to a Canaanite slave. Additional evidence that this paragraph deals with Gentile slaves is the fact that the Torah describes this slave as “his money,” i.e. one whose body is owned by the employer. Jewish servants’ bodies  are never owned by their employers. 
      Nachmanides writes that the word בשבט with the vowel patach under the letter ב which is equivalent to a definitive article  indicates that the master is normally walking around with such a stick as a sign of his authority. The Torah warns that although it is common knowledge that such a staff is used to discipline with, the master is not allowed to do this. The words תחת ידו, indicate that he has been hitting the slave incessantly until the slave died as a result. The Torah writes simply נקום יוקם that such a deed will be avenged without spelling out the details. The principal message of the verse is that just because the master “owns” the body of the slave he is not at liberty to abuse it, much less to kill it. The wording “he will surely be avenged” means that just a the master would be held responsible for murder, i.e. killing with lethal force, any other human being not owned by him, so he is liable when he causes death with a lethal instrument to his slave. Seeing the standard death penalty for killing with intent is by the sword the same death penalty is applicable in our case also. This is spelled out more clearly in Leviticus 26,2: והבאתי עליכם חרב נוקמת, “I will bring upon you an avenging sword,” a verse in which the close association of vengeance and the sword is clearly demonstrated.
      Rabbeinu Chananel explains the reason why the Torah in this instance uses the expression ינקם, ”he will be avenged,” as based on the fact that the master used his authority, etc., to mask the killing of his slave as merely a disciplinary measure which had had sad consequences. In fact, the master had planned to kill this slave for personal reasons and had made it appear as if  it were an accident. Seeing he himself had killed as an act of revenge, his own execution will also be considered as an act of vengeance 
  
  Verse 21
  
  . אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד, “however, if he will survive for one or two days, etc.” if the Torah had referred only to the possibility of this slave surviving one day we would have understood the word יום as the day of the Torah, i.e. an evening followed by night and a day, such as the days described in the first chapter of Genesis. By adding the word יומים, a day which appears as if two days is included. In other words, a 24 hour-period composed of two different daylight periods. Seeing that the words ומת תחת ידו, and he died under his hand,” gave the impression that the death penalty would apply only if the slave died as an immediate result of the beating, it had to add that if he died within the next twenty-four hours such death would still be attributed directly to the beating he had received. A survival until the third day is not mentioned as in that event the master would not be liable through court action (Nachmanides).
      At this point it is pertinent to ask why the Torah did not use this opportunity to describe what the law is when someone hits father or mother violently enough so that they die as a result of the blows sustained. The answer is that a situation occurring where the son deliberately beats the father to death is so unlikely that there was no need to legislate in the Torah for such a likelihood. Masters beating their slaves to death in a fit of anger is far more likely, however. We humans cannot always determine the intent behind the blows. When the victim survives for the period mentioned, however, we conclude from this fact that there had never been an intent to kill the victim with these blows. Seeing that one does not generally destroy one’s own property, כי כספו הוא, in such cases the master is given the benefit of the doubt.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ונגפו אשה הרה, “and they collide with a pregnant woman,” the collision described was unintentional; ולא יהיה אסון “no ascertainable damage occurred,” to the woman although she miscarried.   כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, “as the husband of the woman shall assess against him.” It is not the woman who had miscarried who will assess the amount of loss she has sustained. The reason for this is that the mother has no financial standing in her offspring. Although the Torah speaks of ילדיה, “her children,” giving the impression as if she had a proprietary interest in them, this is not so. The legal position of a woman and her children is similar to the legal position of a man to whom an object or animal has been entrusted for safe-keeping. [The male who impregnated her gave her his seed as a treasure to guard. In due course he would reclaim it, compare Kidushin 59]. The Talmud phrases it as “wherever the seed may be it remains the property of the donor-husband.” This is the reason that when the matter of compensation comes up the father determines the amount of compensation he feels he is entitled to. In the event that the father makes a claim which is perceived as excessive, the matter is adjudicated before judges, i.e. ונתן בפלילים. The way this verse is interpreted in Mechilta (Nezikin 8) is that if the Torah had only written the words כאשר ישית עליו, I would have concluded that the father of the prematurely born baby can demand any amount of compensation he likes. To make sure that he will not demand an excessive amount the Torah adds the words “he will give it (the man who caused the mishap) according to the decision of judges.”
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואם אסון יהיה, “but if a mishap occur,“ to the mother.    ונתת נפש תחת נפש, “then you shall award a life for a life.” Our sages (Mechilta) are divided as to the precise meaning of these words. Some hold that they are to be understood literally, i.e. that the guilty party pays with his life, whereas others hold that financial compensation is referred to. The first group of sages consider this an involuntary manslaughter, whereas the second group view it as a classical case of someone wanting to kill A and killing B by mistake when no death penalty applies. 
      A Kabbalistic approach based on Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: The words כי ינצו אנשים refer to a struggle between the angels Michael and Samael (the angel of death). The words ונגפו אשה הרה refer to the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the Jewish people becoming a victim. The words ויצאו ילדיה, refer to the Jewish people going into exile. The words ענוש יענש, “he will most certainly be punished,” refer to Samael in accordance with כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, “G’d the husband of the כנסת ישראל will impose upon him.” This “master” is G’d who will punish Samael בפלילים in criminal proceedings.
  
  Verse 24
  
    עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin section 8 understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. Proof that this interpretation is correct can be deduced from verse 19 where the Torah had legislated financial compensation for injuries caused to a fellow human being. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another  person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up?   Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described  in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused.    Furthermore, the Torah writes in Leviticus 24,19-20: “and if a man inflicts a wound on his fellow, as he did so shall be done to him; fracture for fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him!” It is quite impossible to carry out the instructions in this verse except by accepting the ruling of our sages that what is meant is financial compensation.
      You may well ask how it is possible to fulfill an instruction such as “as he has done so shall be done to him,” unless we inflict the same kind of injury that the guilty party has inflicted? Surely giving someone money in compensation for experiencing pain and suffering is not what the Torah had in mind when writing: ”as he has done so shall be done to him?” 
  We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me  so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
  The verse mentions injury of seven different kinds: 1) eye; 2) tooth; 3) hand; 4) foot; 5) burn wounds; 6) פצע, an “injury.” 7) חבורה, “a bruise.” Each of this injuries contains at least one element not contained in all the other six, thus making it impossible to omit any of these seven examples. An eye is something we have from birth; teeth we are not borne with; their loss might be considered as less serious. Teeth are also not included in the 248 organs which make up man as a healthy specimen. All the 248 organs are covered with tissue and flesh whereas the teeth appear in our mouth completely exposed. The function of the teeth is not to help man survive as a viable human being, but they are merely a tool to break down the food we eat. Just as we could not have assumed that the legislation contained in our verse applies to teeth unless the Torah had made a point of writing it, so the loss of none of the seven examples cited by the Torah would have been presumed to be a cause for the freeing of a slave forthwith. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וכי יכה איש את עין עבדו, “And if a man will injure the eye of his slave, etc.” It is a Biblical law that a Canaanite slave is set free if he lost a tooth or eye through maltreatment by his master. The reason is that they became slaves only due to “tooth and eye.” It is written in connection with Cham the father of Canaan (Genesis 9,22) “Cham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father and he told his two brothers outside.” He was first guilty with his eyes by looking and then with his teeth by telling what he had seen.” This is why he was cursed: “cursed be Canaan, the lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9,25). Once the offending organs had been smitten the rest of the body has been released from that curse.   Our sages (Kidushin 25) say that the word ושחתה, “and destroys it,” in our verse means that there must have been an intent to destroy that eye or tooth. If the master struck the eye in the process of trying to cure it and the treatment failed and resulted in loss of that eye, the slave does not go free. The sequence of these paragraphs commences with verse 20 which speaks of killing one’s slave intentionally, a very severe sin, progressing to the description of two men fighting in the course of which the Torah discloses the legal status of an unborn baby, a death which is due to a lesser sin than that described in verse 20. This is followed by injury inflicted on Jewish  people, i.e. the meaning of “an eye for an eye.” There the Torah speaks about injury rather than death. This is followed in turn by injury caused to a Canaanite slave, the least serious misdemeanor of the list commencing in verse 20. After having dealt with injuries and death caused by human beings, the Torah turns its attention to injuries or death caused by beasts or inert objects. The Torah proceeds in a very orderly and logical manner.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
    וכי יגח שור את איש, “If an ox shall gore a man or a woman, etc.” the Torah employs the term נגח when speaking of an injury or death caused by an ox attacking a human being, whereas when describing two beasts fighting each other the word used is נגף, “pushed with the body” (compare verse 38). The Talmud Baba Kama 2 explains that seeing the fate of a human being is influenced by horoscopic influences as well as through supervision by celestial forces of his individual fate, the Torah uses an expression indicating intent, whereas when beasts fight each other, seeing that their individual fates are not subject to such celestial influences the Torah is content to describe what happened as a result as a mere unintentional push.
     סקול יסקל השור, “the ox will be stoned to death.” The death penalty administered to the ox is not punishment for the ox but represents punishment for its owner who was guilty of negligence by not having guarded the beast so that it could not be a hazard to humans. The owner must be warned that negligence will cost him dearly. This, at any rate, is the opinion of Nachmanides.
      There is another approach to this stoning of the ox (the author does not attribute it to a specific scholar) which holds that any ox or other beast or bird even, which kills a human being did so only as it had absorbed some of the lethal powers of the original serpent which was bent on causing death to man. This is the reason we find that the sages compared the plague of pestilence (a deadly plague) to the goring of an ox as we learned at the beginning of Tractate Taanit (folio 19). We have been told there that: “if three people die on the same day this is not an indication that the pestilence of plague is raging. If three people die on three successive days however, this is an indication that the pestilence of the plague is raging.“ (The halachic consequence is that people in that town must congregate in prayer to implore G’d to bring the pestilence to a halt). The law about how do deal with an ox which has gored is also connected with the dates on which this occurred. If the same ox has gored three people on the same day we do not consider that it has lost its status as a tame beast. If it has gored one person each on three successive days it has become a dangerous beast and the owner has to take extraordinary precautions to prevent this happening again. This is the meaning of the words in verse 29 “if this ox has gored yesterday and the day before.” This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir does not agree with this kind of logic. He feels that  if an ox which only killed at intervals of at least 24 hours is subject to stoning, an ox which goes on a rampage on the same day must most certainly be stoned. In spite of what sounds like sound logic, the halachah has been determined according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah (Maimonides Nizkei Mammon chapter 6 halachah 1).  A further observation about the behaviour of oxen is made in Pesachim 112 based on a verse in Ezekiel. The Talmud there says that in the month of Nissan oxen have Satan dancing between their horns. It is well known that the ox derives its physical strength from the attribute of Justice. This is what Ezekiel 1,10 referred to when he described it in his vision. The face of the ox in that vision is described as being on the “left”, i.e. the traditional side assigned to the attribute of Justice. Berachot 27 relates an incident in which a rooster which had killed a human being was stoned to death by order of the court. The reason our verse mentions an ox is that oxen are the beasts most likely to cause death of humans through goring. The legislation is certainly not restricted to oxen. 
  It is well known that in the period of the Talmud Satan was a very visible demon, so much so that eventually people implored G’d to have mercy and to conceal Satan from their eyes (compare Kidushin 81)
  
  Verse 29
  
   והמית איש או אשה, “and it kills a man or a woman, etc. “ According to Pessikta Zutrata on our verse, these words are redundant in connection with the immediate subject at hand. They are therefore available to serve as a basic premise that just as there is no difference in the treatment of man and woman if either has been gored by an ox, neither does Jewish law make a distinction between men and women in other instances of woman sustaining death or injury. Although nowadays (since the Jews were exiled to Babylon) we do not have the authority to impose financial penalties, if someone who was wronged (injured) compensated himself by seizing property belonging to the guilty party our local courts do not reverse what the injured party has done.   Our sages in Baba Kama 30 relate a list of anecdotes describing how careful various Talmudic scholars were to ensure that their property (inert) could not accidentally become the cause of injuring people. They buried plowshares 3 feet underground, were very careful that discarded shards should not pose a hazard to anyone, etc. Deut. 22,8 (in connection with the fence on one’s roof) states “in order that you do not place blood in your house,” as the basic warning not to become guilty of damage or injury through inadvertence. A certain individual was observed throwing stones which he did not want anymore from his house into the public domain, the street. An old man accosted this individual challenging him why he threw refuse from a place which was his own to a place which was not. The offender replied sarcastically: After some time had passed the offending individual found himself in financial straits and had to sell his house. He tripped over the stones which he had thrown out sometime earlier. He then remembered the words of the old man who had scolded him at the time and now he acknowledged that the reproof had been in place. The story is an illustration of what Solomon said in Kohelet 12,1: “remember your Creator in your youth.”
     וגם בעליו יומת, “and also its owner  shall die.” The word יומת here does not refer to execution of the owner by a human tribunal. Our sages, (Sanhedrin 15) in interpreting the word conclude that a man is executed for murder of a human being not for the killing committed by his ox. The penalty referred to in our verse is known as מיתה בידי שמים, “death at the hand of heaven,” i.e. premature death of the owner in question. The expression used for the death penalty of the guilty owner is the same as in Numbers 18,7 “and the stranger (non-priest) who enters holy precincts  will die.” Sanhedrin 83 makes clear that what is meant is death at the hands of G’d. 
  
  Verse 30
  
   אם כופר יושת עליו, “if a ransom payment has been imposed upon him,” the word אם in this instance is not a conditional word, i.e. “may be yes maybe no,” but describes the duty of the court to assess  such financial damages. The word אם therefore means either “when,” or as “soon as.” The wordכופר  means atonement wherever it appears. Payment of the fine constitutes atonement for the owner. The atonement is similar to that achieved by presenting a sin-offering where the owner paid for the animal in question. The principal atonement is a matter for heaven;  the owner is not forced to appear before a court in order to be assessed damages, nor, after damages have ben assessed and he has failed to pay them is his property seized to enforce the court’s judgment (compare Ritva on Makkot 2).
     ונתן פדיון נפשו ככל אשר יושת עליו, “and he is to pay a redemption for his life in accordance with what has been assessed against him.” This teaches that if the owner of the goring ox has paid the judgment he is no longer subject to death at the hands of G’d. We base this also on Job 33,24: “redeem him from descending to the Pit, for I have obtained his ransom.” This is the law whenever someone is guilty of death at the hands of G’d such as this individual who has not committed murder or even manslaughter, but has merely been the indirect cause of death of a human being through his negligence. When a person has killed with his own hands, (directly) there is no provision for his guilt being wiped out through a ransom payment. This is what the Torah meant in Leviticus 27,29 אך כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה מות יומת, “but any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed, he shall be put to death.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  . או בן יגח או בת יגח, “whether it gores a boy or a girl, etc.” Seeing that  in verse 28 the paragraph commenced with the words “if an ox gore a man or a woman,” the Torah adds that even if the victim of such a goring was a minor the same law applies. 
  
  Verse 32
  
    אם עבד יגח השור או אמה, “if the ox gores a male or a female slave, etc.,” this again refers to Canaanite slaves;    כסף שלושים שקלים, “thirty silver shekels.” This is a fixed amount irrespective of the market-value of the slave in question, even if he is a pearl-stringer, or even one who is inflicted with a skin disease.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
    כי יגנוב איש שור או שה וטבחו או מכרו, “if a man steals an ox or lamb and slaughters it or sells it, etc.,” according to the plain meaning of the text we are taught here that crimes which are more common than others need to be punished more harshly in order for the penalty to have a restraining effect on the potential criminal. Seeing that the Torah decrees that an ordinary thief has to pay back twice the value of what he has stolen, it is no more than logical that in cases where the thief tried to eliminate traces of the stolen object through eating it or selling it, he should be required to pay even higher compensation to its owner. The Torah stipulates double the ordinary penalty for people who steal sheep, goats, etc., whereas theft of cows and slaughtering them is paid for by five times their value if the thief is discovered. According to Maimonides (Moreh Nevuchim 3,41) the difference is due to large animals such as oxen being the object of theft more often as the shepherd cannot guard them as well as he can guard sheep.
      According to Mechilta (Nezikin section 12) the reduced penalty for stealing sheep is due to the Torah’s regard for human dignity. Whereas carrying a sheep under one’s arm is demeaning, leading an ox by a rope is not. Allowing for the thief’s having had to demean himself in order to bring the stolen sheep home, the Torah was content with the thief paying four times its value in order for him to exonerate himself.  As a corollary of this piece of legislation we learn that the Torah considers manual labour as very important as it reduced the penalty for people whose crime involved manual labour.   The reason a thief has to pay twice the value of what he has stolen whereas a robber only needs to make restitution without the Torah adding punitive damages, our sages are already on record (Baba Kama 79) that the robber placed the owner on a par with G’d, displaying no fear of either when he robbed in broad daylight. The thief, however, displayed more fear of the owner of the animal he stole than of the Lord in heaven who watches his crime. Seeing he insulted the Lord by the attitude he displayed when he indicated that he did not believe G’d saw his deed, he has to pay twice the value of what he stole. Isaiah 29,15 illustrated this bitingly when he said: “Ha! Those who would hide their plans deep from the Lord! Who do their work in dark places and say: ‘who sees us, who takes note of us?’” We find a similar verse in Psalms 94,7: “they think that the Lord does not see it, the G’d of Yaakov pays no heed.”
      A Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 30,7):  when the Israelites heard this legislation they said: “G’d has given us many commandments to help us make up for many sins we have committed; we have stolen an ox and we have made it into a golden calf;  we paid five times the value of the ox as our fathers died in the desert on account of that sin. The legislation that a thief pays four times the value of a lamb he has stolen and slaughtered is a reference to the sale of Joseph on account of which we spent 400 years as slaves in Egypt, and we have since been ruled over by four different alien empires.” Thus far the wording of this Midrash. I believe that the meaning of this Midrash needs further clarification. The words: “our father died in the desert” are a reference to the three thousand idol-worshipping Israelites whom the Levites executed in the aftermath of the golden calf episode (32.,28). These words also refer to the other Israelites who died by a plague at that time as there was no evidence against them that could be presented in a court. (compare Exodus 32,28 and 35). Seeing that the Midrash mentions the number “five,” I assume that there were five different punishments meted out in connection with that sin. This is the meaning of the words תחת השור, i.e. the letter ה in front of the word שור. The five penalties were: 1) killing offenders whose deed was witnessed by the sword. 2) The plague that struck those whom G’d knew to be guilty but man could not prosecute. 3) the embarrassment caused those whom Moses made drink the water with the dissolved parts of the golden calf (32,20), similar to what a woman suspected of marital infidelity (Sotah) has to do (32,20). 4) The destruction of the Holy Temple many years later (compare Ezekiel 40,1) based on the words וביום פקדי ופקדתי in 32,34, meaning that whenever G’d brings on a great disaster, part of it is in delayed expiation for the sin of the golden calf. 5) that although G’d generally does not punish anyone for a sin committed more than four generations earlier (34,7), this sin was an exception and it is never fully expiated. Successive generations suffer a small portion of the punishment for it at the time they qualify for punishments for their own sins. I shall explain this in greater detail on Exodus 34,7.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “If the thief is found while in hiding.” The word מחתרת suggests that he was tunneling his way into the house in the dark of night.   אין לו דמים, “there is no blood-guilt on his account.” If the owner killed the thief believing his life to be in danger he is not accused of manslaughter. The Torah presumes that if someone breaks into a house at night he is also prepared to kill if discovered by the owner who would defend his property.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אם זרחה השמש עליו, “if the sun shone upon him, etc.” If the thief entered in broad daylight or remained in the house of the victim till morning,
     דמים לו, “there is blood guilt on his account.” Anyone who kills unless his own life was in danger is subject to the penalty for murder or manslaughter. In this instance, when the identity of the thief has become known, he would not threaten his victim with death as he would be aware that he would suffer the penalty for murder. Seeing that the owner of the house was not in danger he must not kill the intruder.    The reason why the Torah describes the sun shining by using the  feminine form of the word זרחה, rather than the customary זרח (compare Kohelet 1,5 or Genesis 32,32) is that the Bible usually does so when it describes the sun spreading its rays over the earth during the day. Examples are: Samuel II 12,11  לעיני השמש הזאת, “in view of this bright sunlight.” The sun is described as masculine in the Bible when it is only at the beginning of its daily journey across the sky. Example: השמש יצא על הארץ, “the sun had risen over the earth” (Genesis 19,23). The author quotes additional examples. At any rate, the meaning is that if the sun has already spread its light all over the earth and it is clear that the thief will be caught and cannot escape, דמים לו, anyone killing him will be guilty. The words have a dual meaning, i.e. they also mean that the thief has to pay compensation to the victim failing which the court will sell his labor for the next 6 years to the kind of master described in 21,2 so that the owner of the stolen property can be  compensated.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, “from the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall make payment to him (restitution).” The Talmud (Gittin 48) uses this wording to arrive at the general ruling that when compensation is assessed by the court for damages caused willfully or through negligence, the guilty party’s most valuable agricultural property is used. If the court would be content to take comparable produce grown on inferior soil belonging to the party causing the damage this would encourage such a party to openly steal the best quality of produce of his neighbor and have the court replace it with inferior quality from his own field or vineyard. In such cases the guilty party would profit by his crime. In order to discourage a farmer from engaging in this kind of pilfering, the law is slanted in favor of the potential victim so that the potential thief will realize that it will not pay him to steal from his neighbor as the court’s order will soon result in his losing instead of profiting by his crime.    When money is owed by a borrower who has failed to repay it on time, (an interest-free loan) the court assesses average quality of the debtor’s produce to be used to repay his debt.    When a husband has to pay a wife whom he has divorced her marriage settlement, he is entitled to compensate her from the most inferior quality produce which his fields produce. Actually, if we were to proceed strictly according to Biblical law, the borrower would also have to be assessed only to make repayment from his most inferior produce. (They wanted to base this on Deut. 24,11 where the lender is not permitted to enter the borrower’s house to pick himself the kind of security he wants to hold onto until the debt has been paid. It is reasoned that just as in that instance the debtor will surely volunteer only the cheapest of his possessions as a pawn, so here too the Torah would take only from his most inferior produce to satisfy his creditor). However, if the sages had applied this ruling the lenders would have refused to extend loans to impecunious borrowers in the future. In order to forestall such a possibility and to help future borrowers to obtain loans, the sages decided to upgrade the kind of produce from which such a defaulting borrower has to make repayment. The sages also advance a reason based on psychology of women to explain why if her marriage settlement becomes due she is presumed as satisfied with unfavorable conditions. It is presumed that a woman’s desire to be married (and to enjoy that status) is greater than the comparable desire of her husband to marry her (Kidushin 49).
  
  Verse 5
  
   כי תצא אש, “if a fire is started and spreads, etc.” by itself; שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה, “the party who started the conflagration must pay compensation.” The party who had started the fire is the root-cause of the damage. Had he not started it the fire could not have spread and burned standing corn or stacked, harvested grain. The sages in Baba Kama 60 use this verse to see an allusion in it to the destruction by fire of the Holy Temple. They quote G’d as saying that He Himself must compensate the Jewish people for the burning down of the Temple as He had started the fire. The sages quote Isaiah 64,10: “our Holy Temple, our pride, where our fathers praised You, has been consumed by fire; all that was dear to us has been ruined.” Seeing that the Jews attribute the destruction to their own faults, G’d was willing to describe Himself as the root-cause and assumes the burden of compensating the Jewish people as if He had started the fire (compare Rashi there).
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, “if a man shall give money or vessels to his fellow to safeguard, etc.”  Our sages (Baba Kama 93) describe four categories of people who keep other people’s property for them. The first category is known as שומר חנם “a keeper who does not receive compensation.” The second category is a paid guardian known as שומר שכר. The third category is known as שואל, a borrower of someone else’s utensils. The fourth category is known as שוכר, someone who rents other people’s tools, etc. The laws applying to these various שומרים differ in relation to the use they get out of the items for whose safekeeping they have made themselves responsible.    The paragraph commencing here speaks of someone who does someone else a favor by accepting something in trust by neither receiving nor asking compensation for his trouble. It is after all something quite common for neighbors to do each other such a favor. The next paragraph commencing with the words: “if someone gives his fellow a donkey or an ox, etc.,” speaks about a keeper who is being paid for his trouble. After all, animals have to be fed and cared for; most people expect to be compensated for their trouble in taking care of them. The third paragraph commencing with the words: “when someone borrows from his fellow, etc.,” clearly speaks of borrowers who use their relationship with the owner to borrow his tools or domestic beast for free. Finally, the last part of that same paragraph: “if he is a renter,” describes use of other people’s property against payment of a fee.
      You should know that as a general rule the שומר חנם is not liable to make good the loss of the item under his care if it was stolen or became lost, and most certainly not if some unforeseeable accident happened to it such as an earthquake, etc. After all, he had done the owner a favor accepting a responsibility without charging for it. The exact opposite is the case in the case of a person who had borrowed a neighbor's tools or animal and made use of it as if they were his own. He is liable not only for theft and disappearance of the borrowed object but also if it became damaged or lost through accident. Instead of having done a favour to the owner, the owner had done him a favor by loaning the object in question to him for his use. Our sages summed up the reason for the borrower’s comprehensive liability by saying דכל הנאה לדידיה הוא “the borrower enjoys total use of this property (like the owner).” By using this logic it is clear that he who enjoys the rights of ownership is responsible for the well being of the item under discussion.    In the case of both a person who hires the object or who rents it out, the responsibility for loss is shared depending on the nature of the loss and the manner in which it occurred seeing that both parties share in the usefulness of the item in question. One party receives financial benefit; the other party, the one using the animal or tool enjoys its use. Damages arising from theft or loss accrue to the party under whose care the animal or object was at the time such damage occurred. Accidental damage that could not be foreseen and is not attributable to negligence accrues to the owner rather than to the user (based on Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim third volume chapter 42). All the above demonstrates the fairness of Torah legislation in regulating the way righteous people ought to live their lives.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלוהים,...עד האלוהים יבא דבר שניהם. אשר ירשיעון אלוהים, “then the householder shall approach the court.....to the court shall come both their claims....whomever the court shall find guilty shall pay.” In this short paragraph the word Elohim appears three times. This prompted our sages in Sanhedrin 3 to rule that a court must consist of a minimum of three judges. You will note that in the whole portion commencing with chapter 21 up until here the four-lettered name of G’d has not appeared even once. The reason for this is spelled out in Deut. 1,17 כי המשפט לאלוהים הוא, “for justice is a matter which is the domain of (the attribute) Elohim.” The only time the tetragrammaton is mentioned is in connection with the oath where the Torah defines such an oath as שבועת י-ה-ו-ה; we have already explained that theקו האמצעי  is the principal emanation associated with an oath. It is therefore logical that such an oath should be described as sworn in the name of the attribute Hashem. The word שבעה is spelled without the letter ו, to show its connection with the lower seven emanations as we have explained repeatedly in Yitro 20, 7 as well as in Genesis 21,23.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו, “that he did not lay his hand on the property of his fellow;” the Torah refers to the object held in trust for his fellow (compare Ibn Ezra). This is also the opinion of Onkelos who translates these words as לא יושיט ידה במא דמסר ליה חברה, “he did not stretch out his hand against what his friend had given him.” The reason such a deposit is described by the Torah as מלאכה, is that a person’s wealth is often referred to as his מלאכה; one example is found in Genesis 33,14 where Yaakov explains that he has to travel more slowly than his brother Esau due to his “wealth” moving slowly. His wealth consisted primarily of his flocks and herds.   The major point our verse makes is that the person to whom the deposit has been entrusted must not make any use of it whatsoever. If the deposit consists of beasts of burden the trustee must not use them for his own purpose; if they consist of vessels he must not use them for his own purposes either. Using such vessels would also fall under the heading מלאכה. Vessels have been manufactured for precisely the use called מלאכת תשמיש.  Our sages in Baba Metzia 41 stated that the trustee who made any kind of use of deposits of vessels entrusted to them even if they did not deteriorate in value by such use, will henceforth be liable for anything which happens to such vessels. Two scholars, Rav and Levi disagree with one another on that subject, one saying that the word שלח ידו implies that the item under discussion loses value as a result of such use. The other scholar says that it does not need to lose value in order to fit the description in our verse. The decision in the Talmud is that it does not need to lose value in order for the trustee to become liable for any damage from that point on.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   מכשפה לא תחיה, “You must not let a sorceress live.” The whole subject of sorcerers and their activities centers around the linking of phenomena which ought to be separate and distinct from one another. Sorcerers preoccupy themselves with establishing a link between phenomena reserved for our terrestrial world and phenomena from a higher world. When such phenomena are linked (illegally) the result represents a challenge and danger to the continued functioning of G’d’s universe. 
  The חרטומים of Egypt, the Egyptian sorcerers, engaged in such activities and their principal knowledge consisted of producing miraculous phenomena based on their intricate knowledge of the laws of nature.    When the Torah forbade the joining of linen and wool and the wearing of such products by Jews (except the fringes with the blue wool thread in a four-cornered garment) this is a small hint that there are elements which Torah law wants to keep apart (compare Nachmanides on Leviticus 19,19). The Talmud Sanhedrin 67 explains that the reason these people are מכשפים and the products of their activities are called כשפים is that they deny the פמליא של מעלה, the existence and effectiveness of celestial forces. A denial of such forces consists of combining elements in our terrestrial world which were clearly meant not to be joined together. The orbit of the various celestial spheres and their failure to collide are proof of things existing in the universe which are meant to remain apart. It is appropriate for human beings to allow the world to function as it was meant to function as this clearly reflects the will of the Creator. Interference with G’d’s blueprint for the functioning of the universe is an act of heresy and insurrection (compare Nachmanides on Deut. 18,9).
      Rabbeinu Chananel in his commentary on that folio in Sanhedrin explains the matter of מכשפים differently. He claims that such sorcerers cannot perform any supernatural feats unless G’d specifically wants them to succeed. He bases his view on a reply given by Rabbi Chaninah to a woman who was trying to extract soil from beneath the feet of that Rabbi in order to perform acts of sorcery. Rabbi Chaninah told her that in the event she would enjoy help from G’d in her efforts and succeed he would still not be concerned as there is no one beside the Lord (Deut. 4 4,35). Rabbi Yochanan questioned this saying that the reason these sorcerers are called מכשפים is because they deny the power of celestial forces. In that case, Rabbi Chaninah did have something to be concerned about! The answer given by the Talmud is that Rabbi Chaninah had so many merits that he personally did not have what to worry about. Concerning the above, Rabbeinu Chananel writes that although the Talmud gave such an answer it is not to be taken seriously.
      If you were to ask that assuming, as Rabbi Chaninah said, these activities of the sorcerers can succeed only if especially approved by G’d, why does the Torah bother to outlaw these activities and to make their practitioners subject to the death penalty? The answer is simply that by doing so, or even attempting to do what they have in mind they commit an act of rebellion against G’d and the rules He has established for His universe. Consider simply this: if an act of rebellion against a mortal king of flesh and blood is punishable by death, surely an act of rebellion against the King of Kings must carry the death penalty! Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.    Seeing that during their long stay in Egypt the Israelites had been constantly exposed to acts of sorcery and it was likely that some of them at least would have a tendency to credit these sorcerers with knowledge of matters of substance, the Torah had to come out explicitly forbidding such practices and legislating the death penalty for people ignoring the Torah’s prohibition. In order to show us how seriously the Torah views these activities the Torah was not satisfied with the usual command to execute such practitioners of sorcery but it wrote: “you must not allow a sorceress to remain alive!” In other words, inactivity, not bringing such a sorceress to justice, is an additional sin committed by anyone who is aware of such people practicing their nefarious art. The only other place where the Torah uses such strong language is in connection with the seven nations occupying what was to be the land of Israel. There too the Torah writes: לא תחיה כל נשמה, “you must not allow a single soul to remain alive” (Deut. 20,16).    The reason the Torah writes not to let a sorceress live instead of writing “do not let a sorcerer live,” is that most of the people practicing this art are women. Certain activities such as those attributed to אוב are carried out exclusively by women. This is what the Torah writes (Leviticus 20,27) “and any man or woman in whom there shall be the sorcery of Ov or of Yidoni shall be put to death, etc.” [Apparently a man cannot perform these tricks unless he is assisted by a woman. Ed.] According to information available to us from books dealing with such practices a woman is required to stand over (in) the grave of the dead person above his head whereas her male partner takes up his position at the feet of the deceased. A youth must stand in the middle; the lad holds a kind of rattle with which he makes rattling sounds. In previous ages this appears to have been a widespread practice. The rattles (church bells) which are common in the Kingdom of Edom (Roman Empire) and which are pealed in their towers (cathedrals) appear to have their origin in that practice.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   זובח לאלוהים יחרם, “anyone bringing a sacrifice to the gods shall be put to death.” Seeing that in the second of the Ten Commandments this prohibition has already been mentioned in general terms, the Torah now spells out the penalty. The expression יחרם is similar to Leviticus 27,29 כל חרם אשר יחרם מן-האדם לא יפדה מות ימות, “any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed, he shall be put to death.” The word יחרם has been chosen by the Torah to demonstrate the principle of “the punishment matches the crime.” The guilty party has offered a sacrifice to something which is condemned to be destroyed; hence he will himself be subject to destruction. The fact that the Torah speaks of actual slaughter of a sacrifice to such idols is not to be construed as limiting the death penalty for idol worship. If the person in question had merely prostrated himself in front of that idol or had kindled incense, etc., etc., he is subject to the same penalty. We have already explained that even if an obeisance made to an idol appears in our eyes as an affront rather than as an act of paying homage, the perpetrator is subject to the death penalty (Mechilta Nezikin section 17). Rashi explains that the vowel patach [actually kametz, but meaning the same as a patach in words where the first letter is not followed by the letter א. Ed.] under the first letter ל in לאלוהים makes it unnecessary to add the word אחרים after the word לאלוהים. The definite article which this kametz represents is a reference to the second commandment (20,3) where idolatry, even if the obeisance is made to an angel in his capacity as the Lord’s angel has been forbidden.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word לאלהים is an allusion to the mystical dimension of animal sacrifice. Consider Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי לאשי , “My offering, My food, My fires.” Our sages  said that in the event someone thought that the Torah speaks of G’d consuming actual food (לחמי), the Torah corrects such an impression by adding the word לאשי  as “My fires.” This teaches that the animal (or other) sacrifices the Jewish people present are given to an attribute He calls “fire.” The truth of the matter is that  whereas the offerings will be consumed by G’d’s “fire,” they were addressed to G’d’s essence, to Hashem. This is why the verse adds בלתי לי-ה-ו-ה- לבדו, “exclusively to Hashem alone.” This is also reflected in Onkelos translating these last three words as לשמא דיי בלחודוהי, “to the name of the unique G’d only.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  .  וגר לא תונה, “and you must not take advantage of a stranger.” The word תונה refers to disadvantaging him with words, whereas the following word ולא תלחצנו refers to physically taking advantage of his status such as robbing him of money which is his (Mechilta Nezikin section 18). The Torah writes many times about the need to treat a proselyte fairly seeing that he is alone in a country in which he has no roots, no family who could protect him. The word גר for a stranger is derived from גרגיר, an isolated berry at the far end of a solitary branch. People have a habit of insulting strangers and belittling them. G’d therefore warns us not to think that such a stranger has no one who takes up his complaints. The Lord Himself will fight his fight for him. The Torah reminds us that we of all people should have empathy for strangers seeing we had been taken advantage of in Egypt because we were strangers. G’d implies that just as He took pity on us as we had no one else to turn to, He will do the same for such strangers if the need arises. Interestingly, the Torah (23,9) did not write אתם ידעתם את הנר, but ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר. “you know the soul (feelings) of a stranger,” You are aware that every stranger has low self-esteem, and he has no one to turn to except Me.” The Torah mentions immediately afterwards that we must not oppress widows or orphans, both of whom have been bereaved of their human protectors. Both categories are often taken advantage of by callous people. Baba Metzia 59 describes them as prone to weeping. Seeing that the “gates of weeping are never locked,” i.e. G’d is ready to respond to people who feel so wretched that they turn to G’d with their tears, G’d warns offenders that He, personally, will exact retribution from people who exploit the weakness of either widows or orphans. To avoid becoming the object of such retribution we must be especially careful not to give widows or orphans cause to complain to G’d against us. Isaiah 58, 7 and 10 warns: “share your bread with the hungry, take the wretched poor into your home, when you see the naked clothe him....offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature.” He means that if you have bread you can give the poor do this; if you do not have what to share at least display some sympathy for the suffering creatures so that they will regain hope and confidence. The reason the Torah speaks about כל אלמנה, “every widow,” is to include wealthy widows in the commandment not to take advantage of them. She too is prone to shedding tears and is liable to feel embittered.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you were really to cause him pain,” The Torah goes to the trouble to again spell out each group of potentially affected people such as the widow, the orphan, although they had been mentioned in verse 21 as people that were not to be oppressed. [The repetition ענה תענה is perceived as applying to widow and orphan individually. Ed.] 
  The reason the Torah repeats so many words in this legislation (ענה תענה, צעק יצעק, שמע אשמע), is that most such people when they suffer indignities endeavor to obtain redress by appealing to a variety of socially responsible organisations. Being widows or orphans however, they do not rely on such organisations but appeal to G’d at the same time. The Torah reflects this situation by describing them as appealing for help on two different levels. The Torah assures them that G’d too will respond on two different levels, i.e. שמע אשמע את צעקתו, “I will hear (respond) his outcry repeatedly.” If G’d is faced with appeals from a variety of people which He will respond to, the appeals by widows and orphans will enjoy priority. This is similar to what Solomon said in Proverbs 23,11: “for they have a powerful redeemer; He will fight their battles against you.” Seeing that unfortunately it is the way of people to constantly oppress the widows and orphans the Torah informed us that G’d will help these people more than anyone else.    We would have expected that the words ענה תענה would be followed by the word אותם, “them,” not אותו, “him,” as the Torah writes here. The reason is that the Torah warns not to oppress the same widow or the same orphan again and again. Were this to happen, if even only one victim would appeal to Me צעק יצעק אלי   שמע אשמע צעקתו, “I will surely listen to the outcry of each one of these people who have been abused.” We usually find the response by G’d to appeals to Him described in a manner reflecting the urgency or intensity with which they were presented to G’d. Example: Psalms 39,13 שמעה תפלתי ה’ ושועתי האזינה, “hear my prayer O Lord, give ear to my cry.” A prayer which is uttered by lips is referred to as requiring שמיעה in response, whereas a prayer which reflects deeper anguish by the petitioner and which is described by the psalmist as שועה, requires a correspondingly more profound attention and response, hence the psalmist says of it האזינה, “give ear.” Such a type of listening goes beyond mere שמיעה, which registered merely the sound of the prayer. Finally, in that same verse, David adds: אל דמעתי אל תחרש, “do not remain silent in response to my tears!” Tears are an expression of a human being having humbled himself before the one to whom they are addressed, in this instance, of course, to G’d. The meaning of אל תחרש is that that the petitioner wants to secure G’d’s goodwill. From the above you can appreciate how meticulous G’d is in dealing with different nuances of human behaviour, responding to each person in accordance with his individual level of piety, distress, etc. 
      There is a Midrash which expresses a similar sentiment. Job 33,23, (Elihu speaking), אם יש עליו מלאך מליץ אחד מני-אלף להגיד לאדם ישרו, “if he has a representative, one advocate against a thousand to declare man’s uprightness.” [The speaker goes on to demonstrate how easily G’d will respond to favorable data about the petitioner. Ed.] The Midrash draws attention to the fact that Elihu did not say  מלאך אחד מני אלף, but מליץ אחד מני אלף, not “one agent (angel) amongst a thousand,” but “one advocate among a thousand.” Elihu meant that if a single merit can be shown on behalf of a person against whom there may be one thousand demerits this suffices to elicit a positive response from G’d.   Another way of explaining the words שמוע אשמע צעקתו could be that the first word (שמוע) means “I, the Lord, will compensate you for the harm done to you by your fellow;” the word אשמע then would mean that “I, the Lord, will deprive the one who slighted you of an amount equivalent to that which he has stolen from you.” This would be in line with the last verse (26) in this paragraph והיה כי יצעק אלי ושמעתי כי חנון אני, “it will be when he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate.” The word חנינה is a reference to the attribute of Justice being employed against the one who caused the petitioner to cry out to G’d, and G’d as a result suppressing His compassion with such a person.
  
  Verse 23
  
  . וחרה אפי, “and My anger shall blaze forth.” This is the same attribute of Justice which smote the Egyptians because they maltreated you taking advantage of the fact that you were strangers. The words והרגתי אתכם בחרב are aimed at those guilty of abusing the stranger whereas the words והיו נשיכם אלמנות are the warning to the people taking advantage of widows. The words ובניכם יתומים, are aimed at people abusing orphans. Each offense will be punished by the מדה כנגד מדה principle, punishment fitting the crime. All the time you are careful not to offend the sensibilities of any of the three groups of naturally sensitive people, any part of the attribute of Justice which would be turned against you (for other sins) will be reversed and will express itself instead as an arm of the attribute of Mercy (Sotah 16). This will enable you to enjoy many years on the land, both you and your children in the presence of your G’d. Practice of righteousness saves from death as we know from Proverbs 10,2. We also have a promise in chapter 12,28 of Proverbs: “there is life in the path of righteousness, there is no death on its path.” Practicing charity is considered a greater ethical/moral achievement than offering of sacrificial animals to G’d as we read in Proverbs: 21,3 “G’d prefers the performance of righteousness to the presentation of sacrificial offerings.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
   אם כסף תלוה את עמי, “when you lend money to My people, etc.” Proverbs 21,14 extols the virtue of people doing charity anonymously. Solomon says: מתן בסתר יכפה אף, “a gift in secret pacifies anger.” On the other hand, ושוחד בחיק  חמה עזה, “a bribe in private makes G’d very angry.” Solomon set out to extol the virtue of people practicing the attribute of charity which deflects many problems which we might otherwise have to face and which altogether cancels negative decrees if such charity is practiced with discretion. The ideal way of fulfilling the concept to give charity anonymously is to ensure that the recipient is unaware of the donor and the donor remains unaware of who the recipient of his charity is. This avoids embarrassment to both parties. It is well known that there are eight different ways of giving charity (as listed in Maimonides’ tractate of Matanot La-aniyim chapter 10). These eight variants represent eight different levels of piety in ascending order. The lowest form of giving charity is to respond to a direct request by the recipient while making plain that one gives reluctantly. The next higher level is that one gives gladly in response to such a direct appeal but one does not give adequately. The third level is to give to the poor person before he has a chance to actually ask for the handout. The fourth level is to give to the poor in such a way that he knows from whom he receives but the donor does not know who the recipient is. This is the level employed by many scholars in the period of the Talmud who dispensed charity by letting the coins drop behind their prayer shawls as they were walking the streets. The poor would pick it up. The scholars did not disdain contact with the poor but they wanted to remain unaware of the identify of the recipients.  The fifth level involves people who are aware of who receives their money but the recipient is not aware of who the donor is. This was a method of people known as חסידי עליון, (definition found in Maimonides describing very pious individuals). These people would throw their contributions into the doorways of the recipients’ houses. The sixth level of dispensing charity is to preserve the mutual anonymity of both donor and recipient. This is what can be described as performing a commandment for its own sake. This was the purpose of the collection boxes in the Holy Temple into which donations were thrown which eventually were distributed by officials appointed for the purpose (compare Shekalim 5,6). Nowadays contributions to a charity fund administered by trustees who keep the names of the recipients a secret are of a similar level. This level of charity is capable of warding off impending disasters. This is what Solomon was talking about in Proverbs 21,14 and 17,8. This level is precisely the reverse of what Solomon described in that latter verse, i.e. bribing someone secretly in order to pervert the course of justice. The positive message of Solomon’s statement is that if someone deprives himself of part of his wealth by giving it to charity, this very deprivation is what keeps away disaster that had already been lurking around the corner for him. As a result of his good deed he can turn in any direction and be successful. Solomon tells us that he who imagines that he will profit by bribing someone secretly to pervert justice in his favor will ultimately deprive himself as he thereby angered G’d exceedingly. To sum up: what may be perceived as a financial setback at first glance, i.e. the giving away of money, will in fact turn out to have been the cause of financial gain while the reverse is the case when one thought one had profited by illegal and deceptive ways.    The eighth method of performing the commandment of charity, the most laudable of them all, is to extend a loan to the needy; a person who receives a loan has no cause to feel embarrassed or to lose his self-respect as the one extending the loan has proved to him that he thinks he will be repaid. This is why the Torah legislates in our verse that it is a positive commandment to extend such loans. Our sages have stated unequivocally that the word אם in this verse is not conditional but an exhortation similar to Exodus 20,28 where the Torah introduces the law not to use iron tools to build an altar with the word אם. Similarly, the word אם in Exodus 21,30 אם כופר יושת עליו does not mean “if an atonement payment has been assessed against him,” but “when an atonement payment has been assessed against him.”   The meaning of our verse then is: “when you extend loans of money to fellow Jews, certain categories of people enjoy priority claims to such loans.” The words את עמי, for instance, mean that if a Jew has a good friend who is a Gentile and a fellow Jew whom he hardly knows who both request a loan then the Jew takes precedence if he is unable to extend loans to both men. The words את העני עמך mean that if a request for a loan is received by the same party from a wealthy Jew and from a poor Jew, the request from the poor Jew takes precedence. Similarly, a local Jew’s request takes precedence over that by a Jew from a different town. This is based on the meaning of the word עמך, i.e. the one who resides with you, near you.    The words את העני, mean “with the poor,” i.e. if someone who is in a position to extend a loan refuses to do so he may wind up poor himself, i.e. “the poverty will be with you” (compare Tanchuma Mishpatim section 15). The words לא תהיה לו כנושה, “do not be to him like a creditor,” mean “do not behave as if the recipient of the loan is socially inferior to you because he is in your debt.” The typical relationship between lender and borrower has been described in Proverbs 22,7 as “the borrower is a slave to the lender.” The Torah deplores this and forbids lenders to behave in that fashion. The words לא תשים עליו נשך, ”do not impose interest upon him,” refer to interest in its various forms whether as monetary payments, food, or in any other form (compare Deut. 23,20). The loan is supposed to be an act of loving kindness; one is not even to exploit it in order to secure some intangible advantage such as receiving honours not normally accruing to one. Even being greeted first by the borrower is considered such an intangible form of  prohibited interest. This is why in Deuteronomy Moses added the words כל דבר, “in any shape or form.” (compare Baba Metzia 75).
      A Midrashic approach to our verse based on Shemot Rabbah 31,15. The words: “when you lend money to My people,” are a reminder that all of G’d’s creatures are constantly borrowing from each other as well as lending to one another. The day borrows from the night and the night borrows from the day. They did not need to resort to litigation on account of this, ever. This is the meaning of Psalms 19, 3-4: “Day to Day makes utterance, Night to Night speaks out; there is no utterance, there are no words whose sound goes unheard.” The moon borrows from the stars and the stars borrow from the moon; whenever G’d so desires He does not display either of them. This is the meaning of Job 9,7: “Who commands the sun not to shine; who seals up the stars.” Light borrows from the Sun and the Sun borrows from Light; this is the meaning of: “sun and moon stand still on high;” (Chabakuk 3,11). Wisdom borrows from Understanding, and Understanding borrows from Wisdom as we know from Proverbs 7,4: “Say to Wisdom “you are my sister and call Understanding a kinswoman.” Heaven borrows from Earth and Earth borrows from Heaven. This is the meaning of Deut. 28,12: “The Lord will open for you His bounteous store, the heavens, to provide rain for your land at its appropriate season.” His creatures borrow from each other and repay each other. Contrast this with the behaviour of man who lends only if he can swallow the borrower through charging him interest. This is why the psalmist described an upright individual, as someone “who does not lend his money by charging interest nor accepting bribes against the innocent” (Psalms 15,5).    Please note that anyone who is wealthy and who gives charity to the poor and does not charge interest on the loans he extends is considered as if he personally had kept all the recipients alive. This is what David meant when he said (Psalms 15,5) “he who does all these will never be shaken.” Who was an individual who fitted the description mentioned by the psalmist? This was Ovadiah, who was both wealthy and a supervisor of the treasury of King Achav, King of Israel. We read in Kings I 18,3: “Achav called Ovadiah who was in charge of his palace.” He was exceedingly wealthy, spending all his money on charitable deeds as we know from verse 13 in that same chapter in Kings where he told the prophet Elijah: “I have hidden one hundred of G’d’s prophets, fifty and fifty in two different caves each. I have supplied all of them with bread and water (food and drink).” When the famine decreed by Elijah materialized this man was forced to borrow from Yehoram, Achhav’s son, (paying him interest) in order to ensure the continued survival of these prophets. Actually, Ovadiah had not meant to pay the interest to Yehoram. This is the meaning of  כספו לא נתן בנשך, “he did not give his money as interest”. Yehoram had a different idea, however. He had every intention of collecting the interest agreed upon. This is why G’d dispatched Yehu to kill him. This is the true meaning of (Kings II 9,24) “Yehu drew his bow and hit Yehoram between the shoulders so that the arrow pierced his heart and he collapsed in his chariot.” In this way we can understand the statement of Ezekiel 18,13: “he has lent at advanced interest or exacted accrued interest—shall he live?” To warn us of all this the Torah here exhorts us  by writing: “when you lend money to My people you must not charge interest.”    An alternate approach (based on Shemot Rabbah 31,10) the unusual formulation in our verse where the Torah writes עמי, “My people,” is a hint that G’d considers the poor as “My people” by excellence. The word עמו “His people,” is found in Scripture repeatedly in reference to the poor. Examples: Isaiah 49,13 “for the Lord has comforted His people and has taken His afflicted ones in love.” Or, Isaiah 14,32: ”that Zion has been established by the Lord. In it the needy of His people shall find shelter.” It is a characteristic amongst people not to want to be saddled with poor relatives. This is what Proverbs 19,7 describes as: “all the brothers of a poor man hate him;” in chapter 14,20 Solomon expands on this further when he writes: “the poor man is hated even by his own neighbor, but the rich has many friends.” Contrast the way G’d relates to the poor. He is certainly wealthy as testified to by Chronicles I 29,12: “Riches and Honor are Yours to dispense; You have dominion over all.” Or, Chagai 2,8: “Silver is Mine and gold is Mine- says the Lord of Hosts.” Nonetheless He extends His cover and protection only to the poor as we know from Isaiah 14,32: “that Zion has been established by the Lord. In it the needy of His people shall find shelter.” This is the message of the verse commencing with the words: “when you lend money to My people.”
  
  Verse 25
  
   אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו, “If you take your neighbour’s garment in pledge you must return it to him before the sun sets.”  The verse speaks of a garment worn by day (Mechilta Nezikin 19). [The meaning is that if you took such a garment (as collateral, with the court’s approval) but during the day, you have to give it back and take it only after sunset when the owner does not need it. Ed.]    Shemot Rabbah 31,10 writes as follows on our verse: here the Torah describes the meaning of Jeremiah 6,30: “they are called ‘rejected silver,’ for the Lord rejected them.” You find that when the Israelites were exiled from Jerusalem that their captors led them in iron collars. Their enemies said: “their G’d has already despised them as He said concerning them that they are rejected silver.” Just as silver needs refinement before it can be trans-formed into usable vessels, and it has to be melted down and be refined again in order to make a different vessel out of it, eventually it will be used up and returned to the soil as it is of no further use, this is what happened to Israel who are of no further use.” As soon as Jeremiah heard this he exclaimed: “Have you then rejected Yehudah? Have You spurned Zion?” (Jeremiah 14,19) The matter is best explained by means of a parable. A king punished his wife, striking her; her friend said to him: ‘how long will you keep on hitting her? If you want to divorce her, go on striking her until she dies; if however, you intend to take her back eventually, why are you so exact in your demands of her?” The king replied: “even if my entire palace were nothing but a sword, I would still not divorce her.” This is what Jeremiah said to G’d: “If You want to divorce us, keep hitting us until our memory is wiped out.” This is what he meant with the words “Have you utterly despised us, etc.?” If not, why do You inflict punishments for which there is no cure?” G’d answered him: “I will not divorce Israel until the time comes when I will destroy My Universe.” This is what is reflected in the words of Jeremiah 31,37: “Thus said the Lord: ‘if the heavens above could be measured and the foundations below could be fathomed, only then would I reject all the offspring of Israel for all they have done- declares the Lord.’ In spite of their being wayward I have made a pledge to them when I said: “I will give My sanctuary to be amongst you.” Instead of reading the word משכני to mean “My sanctuary,” you can also read it to mean משכוני, “My pledge, My collateral.” This is what Bileam had in mind when he referred to the Tabernacle saying מה טובו אהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראל, “how goodly are your tents o Yaakov, your “pledges” o Israel” (Numbers 24,5). When the Tabernacle (Temple, Sanctuary) is in ruins its concept remains as the pledge that  Israel is not permanently out of favour with its G’d. G’d, so to speak, said to Israel: “I do not offer you as a collateral, (captive) to the Gentiles because I love them but because your sins against Me.” This is what the prophet meant when he quoted G’d as saying: “where is the document of divorce of your mother whom I dismissed? And which of My creditors was it I sold you off to? You were only sold off for your sins, and your mother dismissed for your crimes.”    The Midrash continues elaborating on the words אם חבול תחבול, saying: “when the Israelites transgress the commandments I will sell them as two pledges. (this is a reference to the destruction of both the first and the second Temple). How long will they be in the pawnshop? עד בא השמש, “until the Messiah will arrive.” Of that Messiah it is written (Maleachi 3,20) “a sun of victory will shine to bring healing to those who revere My name.” It has also been written (Psalms 72,17) ”while the sun lasts may his name (Messiah) endure.” When that time arrives the Jewish people will be taken back by G’d as His “wife.” Thus far the Midrash.    It is well known that the people of Israel have been described as ריעים, “companions” of the Lord as we read in Psalms 122,8: “for the sake of My kin and friends.” The Holy Temple has been compared to G’d’s “mantle” (reading the word Shlomoh as Salmoh instead, i.e. with the letter ש having the dot on its left side).  By the same token Solomon himself referred to the Temple as יריעות, (Song of Songs 1,5) a word which can mean either “draperies” or be a reference to this companionship we mentioned. Moses has referred to it asלבנון  in Deut. 3,25 where he says: “this good mountain and the Lebanon.” Onkelos translates the word לבנון as בית מקדש, “the Holy Temple.” Yuma 39 understands the words “this good mountain” as a reference to Jerusalem whereas “Lebanon” is a reference to The Temple Mount and the Sanctuary.
  
  Verse 26
  
  .ושמעתי כי חנון אני , “I shall listen for I am compassionate.” Nachmanides interprets these words to mean: “in order that no man should reason that the poor man whose garment was taken as a pledge was not worthy in the eyes of G’d and taking his garment would therefore not be sinful even if he did not return it to him at the time he is need of it.“ This person might reason that G’d would not answer his outcry seeing he was not worthy. G’d therefore goes on record that He would listen to such an outcry not because it was necessarily justified or that the petitioner was worthy, but because G’d Himself is compassionate. The word חנון is derived from חנם, “for free, without recompense.” It is similar to Exodus 33,19 וחנותי את אשר אחון, “I will show grace to whoever I decide to show grace.” According to Berachot 7 this means that G’d reserves the right to listen to people who entreat Him regardless of merits we are aware of. 
  
  Verse 27
  
   אלוהים לא תקלל, “you shall not curse a judge.” This is a warning for the party who has been convicted of a crime or sin not to curse the judge who convicted him. This subject follows the subject of the need to extend loans to fellow Jews as on occasion disputes arise over whether a loan has been repaid, the debtor either denying he had received it or the lender claiming that he had not been repaid. Such disputes are submitted to judgment. It is quite possible that the party whose claim is rejected (if he feels that he has been wronged) will curse the judge who has wronged him. This is why the Torah has to warn that one must not engage in such conduct.
     ונשיא בעמך, “nor a prince amongst your people, etc.” This refers to the legally appointed king who has thereby been elevated above the people. The Torah warns his subjects that if the king found them guilty they must not curse him. Solomon issues a similar warning (Kohelet 10,20) “do not revile a king even amongst your intimates! Do not curse a rich man even in your bedchamber, for a bird of the air may carry the utterance, and a winged creature may report a word.” The reason the Torah first lists the prohibition against cursing a judge is  because by reason of his position he must be wise and should not have erred in judgment. We also have this order of precedence in Horiot 13 where the Talmud ranks a scholar ahead of a king.  The Talmud in Sanhedrin 66 interprets our verse as a warning not to curse G’d even by not referring to Him by His holy names. The word elohim is understood as a reference to the Supreme King, i.e. the Almighty, whereas the word נשיא בעמך refers to the mortal king appointed by the people. This too would be in accordance with Proverbs 24,21 where Solomon writes: “fear the Lord my son and the king.”
      A Midrashic approach (based on Shemot Rabbah 31,8): there is a conceptual linkage between verse 27 not to curse people in authority and the following verse which deals with the setting aside and handing over of the various tithes, etc. If people will fall into the habit of cursing their judges and their king the result will be crop failure, i.e. they will not have any tithes to set aside. The Midrash cites as a case in point the beginning of the Book of  Ruth which commences with the words ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים, which is understood to mean that the period during which this story occurred was one when the common people “judged” the judges, i.e. were openly disdainful of them. In the verse following we are told of a major famine in Eretz Yisrael which led to the emigration of Elimelech and his family. This is an illustration of how one sin results in other sins. From verse 28 in our portion we are to learn that it is not enough to set aside the various gifts for the priest, the Levite, the poor and the destitute, but they must be set aside in their proper sequence commencing with Terumah, followed by the first tithe, followed by the second tithe.    The Torah promises reward for setting these tithes aside on time and in their proper sequence by implying that he who does so will have a first born son, i.e. בכור בניך תתן לי, “the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.” Clearly, this commandment applies only if you do have firstborn sons. The Torah follows this promise with “so you shall do to your ox, to your flock.” The message is that if the Jewish farmer sets aside what he is supposed to set aside in accordance with Torah legislation, these gifts far from depriving him will actually result in his giving away what is G’d’s as G’d has already blessed him with produce and flocks and herds.     As a result of complying with these various regulations the Torah writes (verse 30) ואנשי קודש תהיו לי, “and you will be people of holiness to Me.” G’d will make the Jewish people into the תרומה, the symbolic heave-offering of the world. This is the meaning of Jeremiah 2,3: קדש ישראל לה’ ראשית תבואתו, “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruit of His harvest.” Seeing that the Jewish people are Terumah, G’d’s heave, they are not allowed to consume animals which are diseased or mutilated, i.e. טרפה, as is stated in verse 30 of our chapter. G’d furthermore decreed that we must give such animals to the dogs in acknowledgment of the fact that during the fateful night preceding the Exodus all the dogs kept silent and did not take up a hostile attitude towards the Israelites (compare 11,7). This is why the Torah legislates here “throw it to the dogs!” Thus far the Midrash.
  
  Verse 28
  
  . מלאתך ודמעתך לא תאחר, “do not delay your fullness-offering and your priestly heave-offering. This verse is a warning concerning the heave-offerings of liquids, i.e. oil and wine. The word מלאתך refers to the liquid made from grapes as described by Numbers 18,27 וכמלאה מן היקב, such as the “flow from the vat,” whereas the word דמעתך describes the liquid secured from the olives which are being squeezed much as tears are the product of one’s squeezing one’s eyes. This is why the product of the olives is called דמעך, “your tear.”
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ואנשי קדש תהיון לי, “and people of holiness shall you be for Me.” Actually we would have expected to find the word קדושים, “holy” in the plural, seeing the subject are אנשים, “men,” in the plural. The verse alludes to the fact that the spiritual concept כנסת ישראל, the community of Israel as a collective unit, is the true strength of Israel. The reason this concept is called קדש, holy, is that it is a direct derivative of the emanation חכמה which has its origin in the letter י of the tetragrammaton, the name י-ה-ו-ה. This is the reason the Torah had to add the word לי, “for Me,” The meaning of the word לי in this verse is similar to the meaning of the word לי in Exodus 25,2 ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take a heave-offering for Me,” (i.e. bring contributions for the construction of the Holy Tabernacle.”) Israel are considered as if sanctified for the Holy Name of Hashem. Seeing that their spiritual level is so high, they are not to eat meat of diseased or mutilated animals as that meat is the product of the destructive powers rampant in the universe, the power which opposes sanctity and holiness.   The Torah adds the word בשדה, “in the field,” in order to underline the origin of such treifah meat. Esau’s predominantly evil nature had been described by the Torah as איש שדה, “a man of the field,” i.e. he represented the murderous instincts of Kayin the first murderer, whose evil deed was described by the Torah as occurring בשדה, “in the field” (Genesis 4,8). This is another reason that the dogs are entitled to eat this meat as their characteristic is close to that of Esau’s.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לא תשא שמע שוא, “Do not  accept a false report.” The instruction of the Torah to judges is that they shall not accept an oath from people whom they suspect of being prepared to violate it. They must first investigate the matter under dispute to evaluate if an oath would amount to perjury. Another way of explaining these words: “do not accept testimony by one litigant as he may change his testimony when confronted by his antagonist” (Mechilta Kasspa section 20). If the first party testifying in the absence of his antagonist had lied, he might feel forced to deny this by repeating his original statement and confirming it by an oath. Solomon says something along these lines in Proverbs 18,17: “the first one to plead his case appears to be right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”    Our sages (in the Mechilta already mentioned) understand our verse as a warning not to accept defamations from anybody concerning anybody else. This is also why Onkelos translates the words as: “do not accept untrue reports.”
     אל תשת ידך עם רשע, “do not extend your hand with the wicked.” This refers to a trumped up charge, to which someone undertakes to act as a false witness.”
  
  Verse 2
  
    לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, “do not be a follower of the majority for evil;” the plain meaning of these words is that even if you see a vast majority of people acting in a forbidden manner, do not make the fact that they constitute the norm an excuse to follow in their footsteps.    Our sages (Sanhedrin 20) explain the wording to mean that a majority of only a single vote in matters involving capital punishment is not sufficient to convict the accused. The meaning of the word לרעות, which is in the plural,- and a reference to the people voting “guilty”- is  that such a verdict must be arrived at by a majority of at least two votes. However, a majority of one is sufficient to exonerate an accused. This is the meaning of the words following, i.e. אחרי רבים להטות.
     ולא תענה על רב, “and do not respond to a grievance, etc.” this is a warning to the judge not to argue on behalf of any of the litigants. It includes a warning to all other non-litigants present not to argue on behalf of either of the litigants. Only the actual litigant is allowed to present arguments on his own behalf. The claimant presents his arguments first and the accused replies to his arguments. Nobody else intervenes in a litigation to which he is not a direct party (Baba Kama 46). Sanhedrin 36 adds the comment that seeing the word for litigation, strife, ריב is spelled defectively, without the letter י so that it could also be read rav, i.e. a scholar, we derive from this that the customary courtesies of someone having to stand in front of a scholar, his Rabbi, etc., are dispensed with when both the Rabbi and the student are facing each other as litigants. The student does not have to display any deference for his opposite number. [Rabbi Chavell interprets our author to mean that junior members of the tribunal must not challenge a ruling made by senior members after it has been made. Ed.]
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . עזוב תעזוב עמו, “you shall help him with it (even repeatedly).” This concerns the commandment to unload the beast (Baba Metzia 32). The interpretation is based on the verse being superfluous as we could have deduced this message from the words in Deut. 22,4 where the Torah writes about a similar situation הקם תקים עמו, “help him to stand it up.” If the Torah commands us to help someone load his beast, how much more would it be in place for the Torah to command us to help unload a beast which broke down under an overload! Nonetheless, the Torah writes both laws in order to teach that there are different considerations which determine the legislation in these two situations. Help in unloading must be extended without charge, whereas help in loading may be charged for. The reason one may not charge for helping to unload the beast in our verse is because alleviating pain of animals is a Biblical commandment, may have to be performed even without the assistance of the owner.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג, “and do not execute the innocent or the righteous.” The word נקי, innocent, refers to a wicked person which the court was unable to convict. Subsequently, evidence turns up on the basis of which this person could be convicted on a second trial. The Torah prohibits a retrial. The Torah assures us that if a guilty person escapes human justice, not to be upset as he will not escape divine justice, i.e. כי לא אצדיק רשע, “I, G’d will see to it that the wicked will not wind up being considered as righteous.”
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ושש שנים תזרע את ארצך, “and for six successive years you will sow your land.” It would have seemed appropriate to phrase this in the third person, i.e. את הארץ, “the land,” instead of ארצך, “your land.” Similarly, in the reference to the vineyard and olive plantation we would have expected the words כן תעשה לכרמים ולזיתים instead of כן תעשה לכרמך ולזיתיך (verse 11). You will note that the Torah uses direct language when speaking about either the Sabbath (day) or the Sabbath (year), whereas when speaking of the Jubilee year יובל, it uses the third person, speaking in more general terms. Compare Leviticus 25,11: “you shall not sow, you shall not harvest its aftergrowth, and you shall not pick what was set aside of it.” Seeing that immediately after the Sabbath one may resume work and immediately after the shmittah year the farmer may recommence his usual activities of ploughing, sowing, etc., the Torah used direct language as the farmer considers the land as his own. After he seventh year preceding the Jubilee year which was also a shmittah year, i.e. a year when he did not work his field, the farmer must now wait another year before he can again treat the land as if it were his own. That is why the Torah hinted at this factor by using indirect language in speaking of the land in question.” Even the manner in which the Torah describes abandoning the land during the shmittah, i.e.תשמטנה ונטשתה , “leave it untended and leave it unharvested,” indicates that  the land has ceased to belong to the farmer (during that year). The relationship between us and the land during the shmittah year is that whereas we abandon it, it does not abandon us. The reason is that we will once again resume our activities on it demonstrating that it is ours. The same is not the case in the case of the Jubilee year, as many fields will return to owners who had previously been forced to sell them for one reason or another. It is therefore appropriate to speak of such land in the third person, i.e. not addressing a specific owner.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  .  למען ינוח שורך וחמורך,“in order for your ox and your donkey to enjoy rest.” The meaning of the words: “so that your ox and donkey can rest,” is the tail end of the legislation that you shall work for six days and shall rest on the seventh day. As a result of your resting, your man-servants, maid-servants, oxen and donkeys will rest also, as well as your stranger. The objective of the legislation is not aimed at rewarding your donkeys, etc., with rest but if you do all your work during six days so that you will rest on the seventh day, then also your labourers and your beasts of burden will rest on that day. We find a similar construction in Deut. 16,3 למען תזכור את יום צאתך ממצרים, “on account (of this) eating of unleavened bread, etc., you will remember the day you went out of Egypt.” 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . שלש רגלים תחוג לי בשנה, “three  pilgrimage festivals shall you celebrate for Me during the year.” The Torah repeats this once more by legislating that the males of the nation have to make three appearances annually on those festivals in Jerusalem (or the place where the Tabernacle stood) on the festival of unleavened bread, on the festival of weeks, and on Tabernacles. In Deut. the Torah only writes; “Three times” without specifying on the festival of Tabernacles (Deut. 16,3). In Deut. 16,16 where the Torah writes שלש פעמים, the same once more, the reason the dates had to be spelled out once more for these appearances is that had the Torah only written the words שלש פעמים, I could have thought that as long as each male appears in the Sanctuary three times a year at times of his choosing, he would have complied with this commandment. This is why the Torah had to add: “on the festival of unleavened bread, etc., etc.” If so, why did the Torah in our verse write רגלים instead of פעמים, suggesting that coming by foot was of the essence? This was to exempt people who do not have feet or legs and have to travel on stumps or prostheses from this commandment. It is also to exempt the blind and the lame  who are unable to make this pilgrimage on their own.
      A Midrashic approach:  we find the expressions שלש רגלים, as well as שלש פעמים, as well as the expression תרמסנה רגל רגלי עני פעמי דלים, ”to be trampled underfoot, by the feet of the needy, by the soles of the poor” (Isaiah 26,6). This is a warning to the Israelites not to make this pilgrimage in carriages but on foot. This is also alluded to in Song of Songs 7,2: “How lovely are your feet in sandals.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  . למועד חודש האביב, “at the appointed time in the month of spring.” This wording prompted Pessikta Zutrata to state that the Passover must only be brought after the spring equinox. If the crops have not sufficiently advanced for the new barley offering of the Omer to be able to be offered the sages will have to insert an additional month of Adar. The words: “you shall not be seen before Me empty-handed,” refer to the sacrifice. Any pilgrim has to offer at least one burnt-offering and one peace-offering.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  'אל פני האדון ה’. “before the Lord, Hashem.” These three festivals occur during three separate seasons. Passover occurs in spring, Pentecost in summer, and Tabernacles in fall. All three festivals are also in recognition of different harvests. On those festivals we are to express our gratitude for the bounty of the earth. We must thank the Lord who provides sustenance for His creatures, and the entire universe.   A Kabbalistic approach to the words את פני האדון (34,23): I have already explained this on 20,1.
  
  Verse 18
  
  לא תזבח על חמץ דם זבחי, “do not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.” Nachmanides queries why the Torah did not write לא תשחט על חמץ זבחי, “do not slaughter My sacrifice with unleavened bread,” seeing that blood is not being “slaughtered.” The formulation of the Torah teaches that the Passover must not be slaughtered at a time when consumption of leavened bread is still permitted, i.e. on the morning of the 14th of Nissan (compare Mechilta Kaspa 20). The verse has to be understood as follows: “do not slaughter while leavened bread abounds in order that the blood of My sacrifice not be offered at a time when your leavened things have not yet been destroyed or sold.”
  
  Verse 19
  
   ראשית בכורי אדמתך,”The choicest first fruit of your soil.” These first fruit are forbidden for secular use by their owners. Our sages state that this is the reason that this legislation was written immediately prior to the prohibition of boiling a kid in the milk of its mother. Just as that legislation prohibits secular or any use by its owner of such a dish, so first ripe produce is also prohibited for profane purposes. Another reason offered for the aparently unrelated sequence of this verse and the one following it, is that first fruit must not be offered either when they have been boiled or in an unripe condition.
     לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “do not boil a kid in the milk of its mother.”  This verse, identically worded, appears three times in the Torah (compare Exodus 34,26 and Deut. 14,21). Our sages (Chulin 115) interpret this to mean that the prohibition is threefold: 1) not to boil it together. 2) not to consume such a mixture. 3) not to use it in any other form, sell, it, etc. The reason that the Torah chose to word the prohibition in this way is that the Biblical injunction is boiling these two matters together. Consuming meat and milk which was boiled together is a Biblical prohibition punishable by 39 lashes if violated intentionally. Eating meat and drinking a glass of raw milk with it, while forbidden by rabbinic decree, does not carry this penalty. This is the opinion of my teacher (Rashba). We could ask why the Torah did not simply write the words לא תאכל, “you shall not eat,” a formula which traditionally includes the prohibition to enjoy such a substance in any other form (compare Pesachim 21). The reason is that if the Torah had written those words I would have assumed that culpability for eating such a mixture occurs only if one enjoys eating it, as is the case with other prohibitions of that kind. By not using the word: “do not eat,” the Torah implies that even if a mixture of cooked meat and milk was consumed while it was too hot to enjoy, or even burned one’s tissue, the prohibition and culpability for it still apply. Seeing that the Torah was unable to use the words לא תאכל, “do not eat,” It became necessary to write the same verse three times in order to convey to us all the aspects of this prohibition. Nonetheless, the penalty of 39 lashes is applied only to boiling it or eating it even without enjoying it. Other aspects of the prohibition such as selling the mixture is not punishable though prohibited (compare Pesachim 25).    There are only two prohibitions of eating something which do not provide one with some enjoyment or satisfaction for which a Biblical culpability exists. One is  our verse, the other is a mixture of grapes and some other seed planted too close to it. In accordance with this the sages in Pesachim 24 stated that all scholars are agreed that the penalty of 39 lashes is applicable to someone who deliberately eats from כלאי הכרם , this mixture of grapes and other species planted right next to the grapes even if eating from the mixture was of no benefit or pleasure to the person eating it. The reason advanced for that ruling is the fact that in prohibiting that mixture the Torah refrained from using the words: “do not eat,” but it wrote פן תקדש המלאה הזרע אשר תזרע ותבואת הכרם, “lest the growth of the seed that you plant and the produce of the vineyard become forbidden” (Deut. 22,9). In Kidushin 56 the words פן תקדש are understood as פן תוקד אש, “so that no light be lit with it,” i.e. so that no use be made of it.
      According to the plain meaning of our text the reason for this whole commandment is that the practice of boiling the kid in the milk of its mother is apt to deaden feelings of compassion in the human heart. It coarsens one’s entire personality. After all, milk is a derivative of (the animal’s) blood. Consumption of blood coarsens a person’s personality, causing a person to develop feelings of cruelty. One of the reasons consumption of blood is prohibited to Jews by the Torah is the fact that contrary to other parts of the animal, blood does not become assimilated by the body of the person eating it in the same manner as do other parts of the animal’s tissue. In other words, the negative influence of blood remains in the body without being sublimated. Even though in the meantime this blood was been converted into milk and when by itself does not transport the negative elements of blood to people drinking the milk, the moment it is mixed again with flesh and boiled together it reverts to its original negative character-coarsening properties. 
  Doctors believe that the same is true when fish is mixed with cheese and boiled together. [This would account for the prohibition in Yoreh Deah item 87]. Not only would consuming a dish prepared by such ingredients in such a manner produce coarseness of character but it would also produce some form of leprosy.    The reason that every time we find this verse it appears in connection with the pilgrimage festivals is in order to warn the pilgrims who come to Jerusalem three times a year,- the holy site where prophets are active,- not to coarsen their hearts by consuming forbidden foods but to ensure that their physical bodies remain as pure and conducive to positive character building influences as is possible. Their hearts must remain receptive to the positive spiritual influence which abounds in Jerusalem.
      Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim third part chapter 48, writes concerning this prohibition that seeing it was a custom of the pagans to eat milk and meat in their temples on their festivals the Torah forbade this practice and wrote it twice in connection with the three pilgrimage festivals in order to remind us not to behave on these festivals as did these pagans. The Torah is at pains to implant in us the awareness of how radically different the observance of festivals for our G’d is from the way the pagans worship their deities. This is what Maimonides writes as the reason for this commandment. Although I have not quoted his words  verbatim I have presented his meaning faithfully.
      It is fairly clear that these various reasons are not an adequate explanation for such a basic legislation. Maimonides did not mean to advance this as the deeper meaning of the legislation. He only wanted to show the questioner that this commandment could be understood in terms of weaning the Jewish people from pagan practices.    The fact is that the entire legislation belongs to the category of חקים, the statutes for which no logical reason can be found, just as we cannot fathom a reason for the legislation of the red cow. The true meaning of these statutes will not be revealed to us until after the arrival of the messiah. The law about the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement is of a similar nature. All our attempts to understand it only touch the surface and do not reveal the true purpose G’d had in mind when He legislated it other than that by observing these laws we are to demonstrate our belief in His superior wisdom of what is good for us. Seeing that in the period following the arrival of the messiah there will neither be paganism nor coarseness of our character and bloodthirsty people, and there is no reason to believe that this legislation will then be abolished, it is clear that its true meaning is something far beyond what we have been given to understand. In the meantime we rely on the promise of Deut. 30,6 that there will come a time when the Lord will circumcise our hearts after the end of all exile and persecution when we will be able to comprehend what we cannot comprehend now. A similar promise has been spelled out in Tzefaniah 3,9: ”for then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they will all invoke the Lord by name and serve Him with one accord.” In the meantime it suffices to know that there is a mystical dimension to this commandment.
      A Kabbalistic approach: You are aware that all the commandments are divine and reflect something parallel to conditions which exist in the celestial regions. The same applies to the commandments known as חקים. They are called thus as they reflect matters engraved, חקוק, in the celestial regions. The legislation of meat and milk is an example of this. Just as each of these components by itself is permissible and only mixing them is prohibited, so the Torah had to be especially stringent in its prohibition against mixing two perfectly permissible items with  one another. Were this not so we would find it difficult to understand  that joining two permitted substances and making one out of them is so harmful to the condition of G’d’s universe. It is like a lesson not to confuse the kind of holiness which exists in the celestial regions with the sanctity which exists, or is the aim of the Torah to establish, in our terrestrial world. Even when optimum conditions of sanctity exist in our part of the universe, this does not mean that these two types of holiness can be part of the same “brew,” can be mixed as if they were all the same. As long as there is a יצר הרע, an evil force at work in our world, G’d and His name are not one and the same. These two kinds of holiness are still apart and do not mix. It is our task to strive in this world to bring about a merging of these two kinds of holiness. When our sages  (Masechet Gan Eden) said that in the future G’d will reveal to us the meaning of the legislation in His Torah including the reason for the prohibition of mixing milk and meat, what they meant was that although these commandments have been given to us to fulfill in this terrestrial world, the condition of this  world is not such that it is appropriate to reveal to us the mystical dimension of this legislation as long as this world is infested with the יצר הרע. If G’d were to reveal this information to us in our present state of spiritual/intellectual imperfection it might sow doubt in our minds rather than an additional resolve to observe the commandment meticulously. We might, G’d forbid, conclude that there are two competing divine powers which control the universe. In the future, after the power of the evil urge will have been broken, and when there is no fear that we would therefore misunderstand the reasons for this legislation, G’d will reveal it to us. This will be the period when the deserving dead will be resurrected. Only then will the concept of והיה ביום ההוא יהיה ה’ אחד ושמו אחד, “on that day the Lord and His name will be one and the same, they i.e. the two levels of sanctity will merge.” In fact, at that time the prohibition of mixing meat and milk will become redundant. This explains why the angels who visited Avraham could eat butter and meat at the same time as it appears from Genesis 18,8 that Avraham served it both simultaneously. Seeing that the angels do not have an evil urge (Shabbat 89) this restriction does not apply to them. Once the evil urge will have been abolished there will therefore be no need for this commandment. This is what prompted our sages (Yuma 67) to say in explaining Leviticus 19,19 את חקותי תשמורו, “you shall observe My statutes,” as meaning: “I have engraved them and you have no right to investigate their meaning or criticize them as any such criticism would undermine this terrestrial universe in which the evil urge is still rampant.” This is why in a similar verse in Leviticus 18,4 the verse concludes with the “justification: “I am the Lord.”     The plain meaning of the verse in Zecharyah 14,9: “on that day the Lord will be One and His name will be One,” is a reference to mankind worshipping. The message is that from that day onwards all of mankind will serve only the Lord, there will no longer be any competing religions. The word אחד means that at that time we will pronounce the tetragrammaton as we read it not by substituting the letters א-ד-נ-י because we are not worthy to utter the word י-ה-ו-ה (compare Pesachim 50).
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך, “Here I am about to send an angel ahead of you, etc.” The plain meaning of these words is that G’d announced to Moses that the Israelites would commit the sin of the golden calf at some time in the future; this is why He said that “this angel will not forgive your sin”  (verse 22). He spoke of a single sin, פשעכם, not a variety of sins such as לחטאותיכם, sins committed inadvertently. The sin of the golden calf had been committed in full knowledge of it being a violation of the second of the Ten Commandments. G’d told Moses that seeing the people were not worthy that the Presence of the Lord, “Shechinah” would travel with them, He would send a lower ranking angel instead. 
  Due to the power of Moses’s prayer this decree was rescinded at least during his lifetime so that the angel spoken of here did not make his appearance until Joshua (Nachmanides)   The words לשמרך בדרך, “to guard you on the journey,” mean that the angel would protect the Jewish people while they were in the desert. The words אשר הכינותי, “which I have prepared,” is a reference to the place G’d had readied for His own residence. The wording is similar to what we have found in the song Moses composed after crossing the Sea of Reeds, (Exodus 15,17). It is a reference to the Holy Temple. The wording is the one used by David when he said (Chronicles I 29,19) ולבנות הבירה אשר הכינותי, “to build the Temple for which I have made provision.”    According to the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel the angel spoken of here was the angel Michael, known as השר הגדול  described in Daniel 12,1 “and at that time there will stand, Michael, the great heavenly prince, who stands to support the children of your people.” We also have a verse in Daniel 10,21: “And no one reinforces me against these, except your heavenly prince, Michael.” This was the angel who appeared to Joshua and said to him (Joshua 5,14) “I am the prince of the Hosts of the Lord, now I have arrived.” Our sages (in Tanchuma 18 Mishpatim) have said that the words כי שמי בקרבו, “for My name is within him” in our verse here mean that this is why he is called שר צבא ה’, “the prince of the army of the Lord.” This would be parallel to Kings I 8,15 כי שמך נקרא על הבית הזה, “because Your name has been associated with this house, which is called the house of the Lord.”    As to the words כי לא ישא לפשעכם, “for he will not forgive your sin,” these words are a warning by G’d that although He is sending along this angel to protect the Israelites they must be careful not even to commit unintentional sins as this angel has no authority to forgive any sin. The reason is that the authority to forgive is one that G’d has reserved to Himself as we know from Isaiah 43,25: “it is I, I, who-for My own sake-wipe your trans-gressions away and remember your sin no more.” Thus far Tanchuma.    Also Ibn Ezra understands the angel in this verse as being Michael. 
  I have seen one of the Kabbalists who believes that the angel mentioned here is identical with the Seraph seen in a vision of Isaiah, i.e. Michael. He writes: it is most likely that this is the angel normally charged with forgiveness, displaying loving kindness, the שר החסד. G’d had to state that in this instance this angel would not have authority to extend forgiveness precisely because on other occasions that is his function. Had this angel not normally been charged with doing just that, i.e. forgiving sins, there would not have been any need for the Torah to tell us that this time he would not be allowed to do this. This angel had appeared to Isaiah in Isaiah 6,6 where the prophet writes: ויעף אלי אחד מן השרפים אשר בידו רצפה, “and one of the Seraphim flew to me and he had a live coal in his hand;” it is clear that this was Michael as our sages in Berachot 4 explained that the description of the power of Michael is of an angel with greater powers than the archangel Gavriel seeing he is described as flying, whereas Gavriel is described as needing two flights, i.e. resting in between as we know from the words Of Daniel 9,21: “he was lifted in flight” (compare Berachot 4, Rashi). The reason Michael is described in Daniel as Seraph, an angel which is associated with water, is no problem. This angel is associated with different elements according to the context in which he appears. Moreover, we must consider the timing of when Michael was referred to as a Seraph. Here in the Torah, when G’d tells Moses about the consequences of the sin of the golden calf, the attribute of Mercy which had guided them had been exchanged for the attribute of Justice. This is what the angel Michael’s arrival at that time would represent. In Isaiah the very reverse process is the subject of the prophet’s vision. In verse seven the prophet has been advised that the time had arrived when he could represent the attribute of Mercy and lead people to repentance. We know that as G’d had  said to Isaiah (Isaiah 6,10) “dull that people’s mind, stop its ears, and seal its eyes- lest seeing with its eyes and hearing with its ears it also grasps with its mind and repents (regresses in view of what its eyes and ears will be tempted by) and weakens itself.” Previously, in verse 7 the Seraph had  said: “now that this (flaming coal, רצפה has touched your lips  your guilt shall depart and your sin will be purged away.” There is therefore no contradiction in the appearance of Seraphim on both occasions and their respective functions being different.   At any rate, the verses in Isaiah prove that far from being by definition “unforgiving,” the angel Michael is usually the one who introduces repentance and forgiveness. In our verses the Torah reminds the people that such a benevolent function of the angel occurs only with G’d’s prior approval. In this instance G’d warns that no such prior approval has been given so that the Israelites should not count on the forgiving nature of this angel that they had been used to. Perhaps there is an allusion to the function of the angel Michael in the wording of our verse, i.e. G’d saying (verse 23) כי ילך מלאכי לפניך, seeing that the letters in the word מלאכי are the same as those in the name of the angel מיכאל. It may be a hint that G’d Himself will accompany that angel. 
  At any rate, the negative fallout of this decree was neutralised all the time during which Moses remained alive until this angel presented himself to Joshua as we have already mentioned. The words עתה באתי, “now I have come,” with which the angel introduced himself to Joshua were a reminder that he had been supposed to take up his duties 40 years earlier but that the time for his intervening in the progress of the Jewish people had been put off until now. 
      A Midrashic approach to our verse (Shemot Rabbah 32,2). From the words: “Here I am about to send an angel ahead of you,” we learn that G’d meant that had the Israelites been worthy He Himself would have continued to be at their head as He had been at the Exodus when the Torah testified “and the Lord Himself was walking ahead of them by day,” etc., (13,21). Now that they had proven unworthy G’d handed them over to an agent. This is the meaning of: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you.” You will observe that as soon as the Jewish people had said כל אשר דבר ה’ נעשה ונשמע, “all that G’d has said we shall do and we shall hear (learn it)” in 24,7, G’d responded by saying: “I granted Adam eternal life for performing the single commandment I had given him not to eat from the tree of knowledge.” This is the meaning of Genesis 3,22: “here this Adam who had been just like one of Us, (i.e. immortal celestial being).” “These Jewish people who have undertaken to observe 613 of My commandments are surely entitled to eternal life!” The Midrash derives this from the words חרות על הלוחות, “freedom on the tablets” instead of reading it merely as “engraved on the Tablets” (32,16). We find a disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemyah in the above quoted Midrash as to the precise meaning of the word חרות if read as meaning “freedom.” Rabbi Yehudah understands it as freedom from the oppression of mortal rulers, i.e. exile, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah understands it as freedom from the authority of the angel of death. He bases this on Numbers 21, 18-19 וממדבר מתנה, וממתנה נחליאל, ומנחליאל במות, “and from the wilderness- a gift. From “the gift”- my heritage became G’d. From the heritage called G’d- elevated heights.” Rabbi Nechemyah understands the verse not as describing physical landmarks describing where the Israelites rested on the way, but as spiritual landmarks and the gradual recapture by the entire people of Adam’s spiritual stature before the sin when he had still been immortal. The progression was as follows: through the experience of marching in the desert the Israelites merited the gift (מתנה) of Torah. Through the gift of Torah they inherited a relationship to divinity אל)) forever. Through this relationship they acquired immortality. After they had said to the golden calf: “these are your gods O Israel,” they again forfeited this new-found immortality. G’d said to them: ”you followed the same foolishness that Adam was guilty of who had proven unable to resist the temptation of the tree of knowledge for more than three hours. I had said: ‘you are divine (Psalms 82,6-7)-however you will have to die like humans.” In the past you were able to experience the Holy Spirit directly through Me. From now on you will be able to experience it only through the intermediary, the angel.” This is the meaning of “here I will send My angel ahead of you.” This is reflected in what Jeremiah 3,19 had in mind when he said: “I had resolved to adopt you as My child, and I gave you a desirable land- the fairest heritage of all nations; and I thought you would surely call Me “Father,” and never cease to be loyal to Me. Instead, you have broken faith with Me, as a woman breaks faith with a paramour, O House of Israel- declares the Lord.” G’d laments the fact that the Israelite people allowed Him to interpose the Gentile nations between Himself and the Jewish people. The words איך אשיתך mean a separation being established. The word is used in that sense in Genesis 30,40: “he set a separation between each flock.” When G’d referred to the “desirable land,” ארץ חמדה, He meant that it is a land which the great men of the world (the patriarchs) expressed a desire for. Avraham had pleaded with the sons of Chet to sell him a burial plot (Genesis 23,4). G’d had told Yitzchak: “reside in this land” (Genesis 26,3). Yaakov had expressed the wish to be buried in that land and claimed to have dug it with his own hands (Genesis 50,5). The reason Jeremiah quoted G’d as referring to the land of Israel as נחלת צבי, is that  just as the skin of a deer shrinks after it has been removed from its carcass so that it does not cover it anymore, so the land of Israel displays similar lack of elasticity, not being able to accommodate itself to G’d’s bountiful harvests but flowing over with it. The expression צבאות גויים, “of the hosts of the world,” is a reference to the fact that all the kings on earth expressed a desire for this land. How do we know this? We find that the city of Jericho had its own king and that the town of Ai less than three miles removed also had its own king. The kingdoms in the land of Canaan each covered very small amounts of territory. In fact if a king ruled over a vast tract of land outside of the land of Israel but did not have a small kingdom inside the boundaries of the land of Israel he was not even considered as entitled to describe himself as “king.” [Proof of the truth of this is the fact that Joshua made war against and defeated no fewer than 31 Kings all in the narrow land called “the land of Israel,” not even including the coastal areas inhabited by the Philistines. Ed.]     There is an interesting comment by Rabbi Parnach in the name of Rabbi Yochanan (Tanchuma Mishpatim 17). The words spoken by Achan ben Carmi in Joshua 7,21: וארא בשלל אדרת שנער, “I have seen amongst the loot (of the city of Jericho) a cloak from Shinor.” He understands the words literally as a cloak belonging to the King of Babylon (Shinor). He considered it as so valuable that he wore it only in Jericho.     When Jeremiah 3,19 continues: “I had hoped you would  call Me father,” he referred to G’d thinking that seeing He had taken the Israelites out of Egypt, and split the sea for them that surely He was entitled to the respect of a father. Instead, they had made the golden calf. Considering further that G’d had provided the Israelites with all their needs in the desert, they in turn had been unfaithful to him. When the Gentile nations had become unfaithful to G’d, He had appointed agents to look after their welfare instead of doing so Himself. Similarly, with the Jews. Now that they had become unfaithful, He would appoint this angel to look after them instead of continuing to do so Himself. This then is the meaning of the words: “Here I am going to send an angel ahead of you.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניכם לשמרך, “Here I will send a messenger ahead of you to protect you,” do not refer to a disembodied being which we usually call “angel.” These “angels,” though disembodied, are sometimes sinful as we know from Job 4,18 ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה, “and He casts reproach against His angels.” The reproach concerned the fact that these angels in saying to Lot (Genesis 19,13) “we are about to destroy the city (Sodom),” made it appear as if it were up to them to decide if and when to destroy the city instead of their acting under G’d’s instructions. Rather, the agent G’d is speaking about in our verse here is one of those known as נטיעות, a superior kind of angel who is not subject to sin [and therefore has no understanding for sinful creatures? Ed.] This is why Tanchuma Mishpatim 18 explains the words: “for he will not forgive your sin” as “because he belongs to the category who do not sin.” This is the angel Mattatron, the one appointed to generally run G’d’s universe on His behalf. He is also known in kabbalistic lore as שר הפנים, “the Minister of the Interior.” This is why the Torah adds the words לשמרך בדרך which are translated by Onkelos as למטרך, i.e. the same as Leviticus 5,35 משמרת, This angel is in effect the executive arm of the attribute of Justice. This explains why G’d added the word לפניך, which suggests the same as in Chabakuk 3,5: לפניו ילך דבר ויצא רשף לרגליו, “Pestilence marches before him and plague comes forth at his heels.” When the Torah says in verse 23 כי ילך מלאכי לפניך, “for My angel will walk ahead of you,”  this reference to “My angel” indicates that it is the one most beloved of G’d, the one by means of whom G’d has become well known in the world. It is about this angel that the Torah says in 33,14 פני ילכו, “My Presence will go,” in response to Moses’ request in 33,14 הודיעני נא את דרכך, “please let me know (understand) Your ways.” Moses requested an attribute by means of which G’d had manifested Himself, and he was told פני ילכו, that indeed this attribute would travel alongside the Jewish people. This is what Isaiah 63,9 had in mind when he said ומלאך פניו הושיעם, “and the angel known as פניו (His Presence) delivered them.” In order to make this point clear G’d says (verse 22) וצרתי את צורריך, “I will be the enemy of your enemies (by means of this angel), and the Torah continues והכחדתיו, “and I will annihilate them.” It requires the attribute of Justice to completely annihilate the enemies. As to this agent being called מלאך, we must appreciate that this is not a reference to the disembodied beings because it is used to be active in our terrestrial part of the universe on a regular basis, i.e. it is a manifestation of the attribute of Justice.    The words השמר לך, “take heed,” are most appropriate as a person always has to take heed not to become a target of the attribute of Justice which would punish him for sins committed. This is why the Torah uses the root שמר, as well as the word  פנים saying ושמע בקולו, “and listen to his instructions.” This is a specific warning not to commit sins of a heretical nature. In order that we do not misunderstand, the Torah adds immediately אל תמר בו, “do not rebel against him.” Seeing that the word תמר is very similar to אל תמירני, “do not trade Me,” i.e. do not treat any other deity as if it were divine, we might be correct in translating the words אל תמר בו as “do not exchange Him.” In other words: “this “angel” and I Myself are quite inseparable from one another.”    The words כי לא ישא פשעכם are a continuation of the warning; although this angel does have the power to forgive your sins he will not do so if your sin is of the type described by the words אל תמר בו. The message is that anyone who rebels against this angel is in effect rebelling against Me Myself seeing My name is within him. When David said in Psalms 130,4 כי עמך הסליחה, “for forgiveness is something with You, (reserved for You),” and our sages in Tanchuma Mishpatim 18 say that this means that G’d did not authorize any angel to dispense forgiveness, this simply means that the angels known as נפרדים, “disembodied beings,” the ones who are able to sin (as we explained earlier) have not been authorized to extend forgiveness.    The words כי שמי בקרבו, “for My name is within him,” is a reference to the tetragrammaton, the one normally described as  כי ביה י-ה-ו-ה. This is also how Onkelos translates it when he writes ארי בשמי מימריה. The meaning of these words is that “whatever this angel says he says only in My name.” in other words: “his voice is the voice of the Supreme G’d.” This explains why our verse (22) speaks about  listening to the “voice” of this angel rather than “listening to what he says;” he does not have anything of his own to say. By writing ושמע בקולו, the Torah wants to make clear that G’d Himself is the active part of the message, the משפיע, whereas the angel is only the echo, i.e. the מושפע. You will find that when dealing with creatures in our terrestrial world  man is the active force whereas woman is the passive force as we know from Adam saying when he first beheld his wife as a separate entity לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת, “this (one) will be called woman for she was taken from man.” He did not say anything about his wife being someone initiating things. Woman’s role is essentially responsive.   In this connection it is interesting to note that the מנחה offering, though feminine, is always spelled as if it were masculine when the Torah refers to it as מנחה הוא instead of as we would expect מנחה היא. [Compare Leviticus 2,6 and 2,15 for example. The same is true of אשה הוא in Exodus 29,28 describing the fire-offering, where we would have expected that the spelling should have been אשה היא. Compare also Leviticus 8,21 and 8, 28 where we read about עולה הוא, although we read the word as היא. In the case of the מנחה the anomaly is even greater as the Torah when referring to it refers to אותה not אותו which would have been appropriate if we were to treat it as masculine. Perhaps the most telling example of this phenomenon is found in Deut. 17,5 where the Torah speaks of the death penalty being administered to both the man and the woman who have committed a similar sin, writing והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההוא instead of את האשה ההיא]. This whole matter becomes clearer when you consider that  our verse starts with the letter ה in the word השמר and ends with the letter ו at the end of the word בקרבו. These two letters represent the female and the male elements respectively. Their position in this verse may be designed to teach us that in this instance there is no difference between the masculine and the feminine attributes of G’d, that essentially they are all one.     This whole subject has been alluded to by Nachmanides in connection with Leviticus 2,11: כל המנחה ...לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה’. When the Israelites committed the sin of the golden calf this angel who had previously accompanied them disappeared. This is the true meaning of the words in 33, 3 כי לא אעלה בקרבכם, “for I will not ascend in your midst.” As long as this angel of whom we have been told that the Holy Name of G’d was בקרבו, within him, in his midst, G’d never said כי לא אעלה בקרבך. As long as that angel was by our side He Himself was by our side. The angel  who made his appearance during the time of Joshua and who would assist in driving out the Canaanites was Gavriel, one of the disembodied beings. As soon as the people had been informed that G’d would not ascend in their midst they went into mourning (33,4) seeing that the angel who carried within him the Holy Name of G’d had left them. They became afraid for their own survival fearing that they were now potential prey for their enemies as their enemies also could call on the support of those angels whom we have described as the נפרדים, the ones who had been assigned, one each, to each of the seventy nations. 
  The statement by Tanchuma Mishpatim 18 that as long as Moses was alive the Israelites had no angel with them, is in full agreement with this Kabbalistic view, meaning that the angel called שר הצבא was not with them seeing that they had a superior angel, the one we described as one of the נטיעות, a category of angel unable to sin.    When the Torah writes in 33,2 ושלחתי לפניך מלאך וגרשתי את הכנעני, “and I will send ahead of you an angel and I will drive out the Canaanite,” etc., this refers to a category of angels belonging to the נפרדים. This promise/threat by G’d was never carried out during Moses’ lifetime as his prayer succeeded in cancelling this decree. He, Moses, became the substitute for that angel. After Moses died, this void had to be filled and the angel spoken of by G’d in 33,2 then appeared to Joshua announcing that he had at that time begun to assume the task assigned to him already originally in Exodus 33,2. 
  We know that Moses fulfilled the role of that angel during his own lifetime from the fact that whenever he raised his hands in supplication the Jewish people succeeded in driving back Amalek (Exodus 17,11). When this angel materialized before the eyes of Joshua with a drawn sword in his hand he made it amply clear what his function was to be. When, subsequently, we read in the Book of Joshua (10,11) of gigantic rocks dropping out of the sky (heaven) upon the fleeing Canaanites  this was part of that angel’s doing. When the kings were killed (Joshua 10,28) the description of the utter destruction wrought upon all the living souls in these various cities was beyond anything Moses had done during his own lifetime. When Moses conducted war the Torah mentions that the victims’ bodies were destroyed. We never find, as we do constantly in the Book of Joshua, that the souls of the victims were destroyed also (contrast description of Deut. 3,6 with Joshua 10,28-39). In order that we do not misunderstand the word נפש  in those verses as applying only to the animalistic life-force of the Canaanites, we are told in Joshua 10,40 ואת כל הנשמה החרים, “he utterly wiped out every soul.” This was why this angel had to accompany Joshua on his campaign.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  . והביאך אל האמורי והחתי והפריזי והכנעני החוי והיבוסי, “and He will bring you to the Amorite, etc. etc.” The seventh tribe, the Girgashite, was not mentioned here as, according to our tradition recorded in Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6,1 that tribe emigrated, nort waiting for a disastrous confrontation with Joshua and the Jewish people. There was therefore no need for the Israelites to campaign against them.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ועבדתם את ה' אלוהיכם, “and you will serve the Lord your G’d.” Seeing that the Gentiles believe that if they serve their various deities this in turn will assure them of success in their lives on earth, the Torah added the words: “but you will serve the Lord your G’d” as a contrast at this point. It is simply a reminder that it is not appropriate for the Israelites to serve any other deity which cannot grant them their desires anyway. The Torah adds: “for He blessed your bread and your water.”   והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, “and I will remove illness from amongst you.” There are certain sicknesses which result from the intake of certain foods, illnesses not visible on the surface of one’s body. There are other external illnesses which are due to changes in climate, etc. This is why the Torah assures the Jewish people that when they serve the Lord G’d will bless their food and water so that their bodies will be able to resist the sickness which may normally result from the consumption of food and drink containing invisible but harmful ingredients. This means that the righteous person will not have to have recourse to a physician.  This is the meaning of Chronicles II 16,12: “but even though he (King Assa) was ill, he did not turn to the Lord but to physicians.” (This was sinful and the reason he was not cured.) The word מחלה, “sickness,” includes such deficiencies as sterility, propensity to not carry out an embryo for its full term, etc. Actually, the verse should have written the word והסיר, “and He will remove (in the third person) instead of והסירותי, “I will remove.” After all the previous reference to G‘d in that verse such as וברך, “and He will bless,” is in the third person. However, the correct interpretation of the whole verse is: “for the Lord will remove all manner of disease from our midst if we serve Him by addressing ourselves to His exclusive attribute, the tetragrammaton” (compare Nachmanides on the end of verse 25).
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   את אימתי, “the fear of Me, etc.” This is the attribute of Justice. The word is the same as in Exodus 15,16 תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “may fear and terror befall them.” The צרעה which verse 28 speaks of is a kind of flying insect similar but bigger than a bee. The term צרעה includes many species of a similar type all of which sting people. Just as there were many different kinds of locust during the plague of locust in Egypt, so there are many different kinds of צרעה. The Talmud Sotah 36 claims that this insect injected its poison into the Canaanites who became its victim, blinding them and killing them almost instantly. This insect entered the Holy Land together with Joshua, crossed the Jordan as is reported in Joshua 24,12: “I sent a plague  ahead of you.”    The reason that in verse 28 only three of the Canaanite tribes are mentioned as being driven out by this צרעה is that these three tribes were the strongest ones amongst the seven tribes residing in tall fortresses and fortified towns. The Torah wanted to inform us that such mighty warriors in such protected habitats became the victims of such tiny creatures as the hornets. It is an object lesson for us demonstrating that G’d will bring down the strong by using the weakest of His creatures as His agent.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  . מעט מעט אגרשנו מפניך, “little by little will I drive them out before you.” The meaning of the verse is that the hornet will drive these people out due to the power of the attribute of Justice so that they will constantly decrease in numbers (in contrast with you who will steadily increase in numbers). This process will continue until you can take possession of the whole country.
  
  Verse 31
  
  . מים סוף ועד ים פלשתים, “from the Sea of Reeds as far as the Sea of the Philistines.” The Sea of Reeds is in the South and the Sea of the Philistines is in the West (Mediterranean). We know this also from Joshua 1,4: “as far as the great Sea where the sun sets will be your borders.” The sea described as the “great Sea” is not the ocean (Atlantic or Indian ocean) as the ocean surrounds all land masses. The words וממדבר refer to the eastern side whereas the words עד הנהר  refer to the river Euphrates in the north.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  'ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: “ascend to the Lord, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text this occurred prior to the giving of the Torah. This is why the Torah wrote that Moses was to approach the thick cloud all by himself (verse 2), although the instruction to ascend included Aaron, Nadav, and Avihu, as well as the seventy elders. The meaning of the word אל ה' in verse 2 is אל הערפל, “to or towards the thick cloud” within which the Presence of G’d had wrapped itself (compare 20,21). The whole paragraph relating that the people “saw the thunder” (20,18) also occurred before מתן תורה. [The important word at the beginning of this paragraph is the word אמר instead of ויאמר. The word אמר, meaning “He had said,” as distinct from ויאמר “He said,” indicates that this paragraph speaks of matters which had occurred some time previously. Ed.]
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words ואל משה אמר refer to Moses having been addressed with this instruction by the attribute of Hashem. The meaning of the words עלה אל ה' (which obviously cannot mean that Moses was to ascend to the region of Hashem) is that he was to ascend to the level of the angel Mattatron, the angel whom we have already described as the שר הפנים, “the Minister of the Interior,” the angel to whom G’d normally entrusts the running of His universe.     This is also what our sages in Sanhedrin 38 meant when they said that the reason this angel is called Mattatron is that this word combines two meanings (in two separate languages). They are אדון and שליח. The reason that this is so is because in the language of our sages (a mixture of Latin and Greek at the time of the Mishnah) a lady who commands great authority is called Matrona. The word also means שליח, “agent, emissary,” as in Greek such a messenger  is known as Mentaur. There is still a third meaning which is associated with the word מטטרן which is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew משמרת, “custody, guard.”  The name of that angel is Mattatron as it is the custodian of the world on behalf of G’d who is also known as the שומר ישראל, “the guardian of Israel.”
      Seeing that we have established from the meaning of his very name that he is the master of all that is below him in rank, all the heavenly hosts as well as those on earth are at his command and under his control. He acts as the agent of the One Who is above him, the One who has given him this authority. His name is אדון לביתו ומושל בכל קנינו, “master of His household and governor of all His possessions.” 
  You ought to appreciate that in accordance with the meaning of the word אדון, “master,” the letter ט in the name מטטרון appears twice. The reason for this is that the two letters ט when combined have a numerical value of ח'י an allusion to the חי העולמים an expression of supremacy. Alternatively, the extra letter ט is an allusion to the ninth emanation which derives its potency directly from the highest emanation, the tenth emanation    It is well known (in Kabbalistic circles) that another description of this angel Mattatron is נער. This is the reason the firstborn of the Israelites have been referred to as נערים in verse 5 of our chapter where the Torah writes: וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות, “He sent the youths of the Children of Israel and they offered burnt-offerings, etc.”
      It is well to realise that at this time it was not an ascent to G’d which G’d had in mind, as if it had been that there would not have been a point in including Aaron, his sons and the elders in any part of this instruction. When the Torah writes here in verse 2 that Moses was to approach the ערפל all by himself, the meaning is also that he would approach the angel Mattatron who was at that time within the thick cloud described as ערפל. Actually, the Torah should have written: ונגשת לבדך “you are to approach all by yourself,” if the Torah had meant for him at this time to ascend all the way to G’d. At this point G’d’s words were directed only at Moses seeing that what was said about Aaron, his sons, and the elders was in the third person, i.e. quite obviously not intended for their ears at this time. G’d had told Moses that Aaron and the elders were to remain at a distance when they would prostrate themselves.    We need to understand why the direct form of the speech in verse 1, i.e. עלה אל ה' was changed to indirect speech in verse 2 where the Torah writes in indirect speech “and Moses shall approach theערפל .” We must assume that the words in verse 2 for Moses to approach the  ערפל all by himself were not spoken by G’d but by the angel Mattatron. In that event he spoke of Moses approaching himself (the angel) within the thick cloud. The entire verse then was primarily a command for Aaron, his sons, and the elders not to approach but to prostrate themselves from a distance. As a consequence of these instructions, the Torah adds immediately that these people who had not approached beheld what is reported in verse 10 i.e. ויראו את אלו-הי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטוהר,  “they experienced a vision of the G’d of Israel in the form of a likeness of bricks made of sapphire under His feet, being as pure as the essence of heaven.” In the interval, Moses alone approached more closely to the ערפל, as he had been told in verse 12  עלה אלי ההרה “ascend to Me to the mountain and remain there, etc.” This additional ascent (additional to what was commanded in verse 1 represented an additional spiritual elevation on the part of Moses until he actually entered the cloud. The next step occurred in verse 18 where the Torah reports Moses as entering the cloud, ascending the mountain and remaining there for forty days.
      You are already aware that this (angel) is the one who was the cause of Elisha ben Avuyah making a grievous error, resulting in his heresy  when he formed the opinion that there are two domains of divinity (compare Chagigah 15). The same is liable to happen to anyone who does not exercise extreme care in contemplating these verses. Perhaps the reason that this paragraph has been written immediately after the previous paragraph concluded with the word מוקש, “a trap,” in 23,33, is to warn that this chapter must be read with more than ordinary care. It is a veiled warning that he who is not extremely careful when studying this chapter is liable to fall into a theological trap. The error committed by the people who served the golden calf, by Nadav and Avihu (compare our author’s comments on Leviticus 10,1), may be traced to misreading what is written in our chapter. Of all the great scholars delving into the matter only Rabbi Akiva escaped with his mind and body completely intact (Chagigah 14). How was it that only Rabbi Akiva succeeded where others had failed? This is what our sages  meant when they said that Rabbi Akiva realized that there are other powerful angels of the caliber of Mattatron thus precluding the error that because Mattatron was unique he was a divinity. The sages based this on Deut. 33,2 אתה מרבבות קודש, that when G’d gave the Torah “He had come with some of the myriads of holy beings.” The reason G’d is called ה' צבאות is precisely because He is the Master of all these holy beings.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  'ויבא משה ויספר לעם את כל דברי ה', “Moses came (back) and told the people all the words of the Lord.” This is a reference to the commandment to separate from their wives in anticipation of G’d’s revelation, as well as the instruction to fence off the mountain. When our verse mentions ואת כל המשפטים the reference is not to all the social legislation which has been in the preceding pages of Parshat Mishpatim. We have already proven that this chapter deals with matters which occurred prior to Matan Torah. The expression המשפטים in our verse refers to the legislation introduced at Marah (i.e. laws about the red heifer, rules about litigation and parts of the Sabbath legislation 15,25).
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  'ויכתב משה את כל דברי ה', “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.” This refers to the conditions spelled out in 19,5: “it will be if you listen to My voice, etc.”   וישכם בבוקר ויבן מזבח תחת ההר, “he arose early in the morning and erected an altar beneath the mountain.” This occurred on the fifth day of Sivan.     כל הדברים אשר דבר ה' נעשה, “all the words the Lord has said we shall do.” Rabbeinu Chananel writes that the word  נעשה includes the positive and the negative commandments. The reason for this is simple. Anyone who deliberately refrains from violating a negative commandment thereby performs a positive commandment. There is an explicit verse in Psalms 119,3 making precisely this point. The psalmist says: “they have done no wrong but have followed His ways.”
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישלח את נערי בני ישראל, “He sent the youths of the Children of Israel, etc.” These were the firstborn. The reason the Torah refers to them as נערי, “youths of,” is  that they were ritually pure, ready to perform sacrificial service. They had never committed a sin, had not had sexual intercourse with a woman. This is what our sages said in Berachot 43 when they described that in the future these  בחורי ישראל, “young men of the Jewish people,” who had never committed any sin would exude a fragrance like that of the Lebanon. They based this on Hoseah 14,7: “His beauty shall be like the olive tree’s, his fragrance like that of the Lebanon.” With the bringing of this sacrifice the covenant signifying the giving of the Torah was concluded. There were three separate occasions when the Israelites were committed through conclusion of a covenant.     One was circumcision; the second was immersion in a ritual bath; the third is the offering of a communal sacrifice. The circumcision occurred prior to the Exodus from Egypt. All of them had first been circumcised as we know from the fact that they could not eat the Passover unless they had been circumcised. We also have a specific verse in Joshua 5,5 stating that all the Israelite males who had departed from Egypt had been circumcised.    Immersion in a ritual bath was part of the process of sanctification commanded by G’d in 19,10. The offering of a communal sacrifice is what is referred to in our verse. When someone wishes to convert to Judaism he must fulfill all these three rituals. This is based on the Torah comparing natural-born Jews to newly converted Jews when it wrote in Numbers 15,15 ככם כגר, “one teaching for you as well as for the proselyte.” The Jewish court is obligated to administer and supervise circumcision and ritual bath of the converts. When the Temple will be rebuilt, each convert will then offer his sacrifice to complete the procedure of his conversion (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Biah 13,5).    Our sages in Yevamot 47 state that prior to circumcision and ritual bath the proselyte receives instruction in some of the laws of the Torah, especially those dealing with the various tithes imposed by the Torah on the Jewish farmer. One also makes such a proselyte familiar with the penalties he incurs for violating laws of the Torah. The reason is that the mixed multitude who joined the Jewish people as converts at the time of the Exodus were the ones who initiated the sin of the golden calf. They were also the cause of the death of 14,000 Israelites on the occasion when the people had demanded meat after expressing their dissatisfaction with the manna diet (Numbers 11,4). The Torah had described the instigators of that affair as האספסוף, ‘the collection of rabble.” The Talmud Yevamot 43 adds that the absorption of proselytes is a very difficult task for Israel, as difficult to stomach as ספחת, psoriasis, as we know from Isaiah 14,1 ונספחו על בית ישראל, “and strangers shall join them and cleave to the House of Yaakov.” The reason that these proselytes are so hard to absorb is that their inexperience with Jewish laws and customs produces the result that Jews learn from their customs instead of vice versa.
      Another interpretation of why the Talmud says that one informs the prospective converts of some of the penalties which are in store for people who deliberately violate Torah laws is that  they should not be able to say at a later point that had they been aware of these penalties they would never have converted. If this were to happen then the conversion would retroactively turn out to have been based on the wrong premise. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that when someone converts he does so wholeheartedly, aware of what obligations he takes upon himself. When the Talmud speaks of the proselytes being קשים לישראל, we must not understand this as a slight aimed at the proselytes, rather it is a rebuke to the Israelites. The fact hat G’d will look at the tremendous challenge that these converts took upon themselves when joining Judaism, leaving their families, their homeland, etc., this is compared to natural born Israelites who did not have to undergo such difficulties and still do not serve the Lord their G’d wholeheartedly.
      We find this approach confirmed by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who is quoted in Tanchuma Lech Lecha 6 as saying that the converts at this time are morally/ethically on a higher plane than the natural born Israelites. The latter had witnessed the revelation at Mount Sinai and all the miracles which this entailed. The converts had not witnessed anything in the nature of miracles  and still they had come to place themselves under the protection of G’d Almighty although it involved great initial hardship for them.
     זבחים שלמים לה' פרים, “as feast peace-offerings for Hashem, bulls.” As long as the Israelites were in the desert they always experienced some fear of the attribute of Justice seeing they found themselves in a part of the earth which was desolate, reflected destruction of nature, etc. This is why they slaughtered bulls as their offerings [the standard sin-offering of High Priests, or the communal sin-offering for the whole people when the occasion demanded it. Ed.].
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
    ויקח משה את הדם ויזרוק על העם, “Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people.” He sprinkled the blood on them in order to enable them to enter the covenant with G’d by means of blood. The bloodstain which remained on each of their garments was called עדי, “jewel, ornament,” as this stain was a sign of distinction and honour for them. It served as testimony that they had entered into a covenant with the Lord. This is the reason why after they had sinned at the golden calf, i.e. had violated that covenant, G’d told Moses to tell the people to remove עדיך, “your jewelry.” G’d meant that the people were to take off the garments with that bloodstain which so far had served them as jewelry. When we read in 33,6: “the Children of Israel were stripped of their jewelry,” this means that they divested themselves of the garments they had worn at the time of the revelation.    Why did G’d employ blood as the instrument by means of which He made the covenant with the people?  it was a hint that as long as the Israelites were to be loyal to the covenant and they would observe the commandments all well and good; if they were to fail to do so G’d would permit their blood to their adversaries. This is the view of Rabbeinu Chananel
      Rashi writes in a similar vein saying that Moses sprinkled part of the blood on the clothing of the Israelites as a sign of distinction similar to when he had been told to sprinkle blood on Aaron, his garments,  and Aaron’s sons and their garments at the time they were being consecrated as priests (Exodus 29,21).    Onkelos appears to understand the words על העם, which he translates as על מדבחא לכפרא על עמא, “on the altar as atonement for the people,” as meaning that the word על does not mean “on” but “on behalf of.” 
  There is also a commentator who understands the word על figuratively, i.e. “in the direction of.” The blood fell short of them, did not stain their garments. A similar meaning of the word על would be found in Genesis 1,20: ועוף יעופף על הארץ על פני רקיע השמים, “and fowl that fly over the earth towards the expanse of the heaven.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויראו את אלו-הי ישראל, “and they ‘saw’ the G’d of Israel, etc.” The Torah refers to the attribute כבוד which we have discussed at length earlier saying that according to Pessikta Zutrata this is another name for what is popularly known as Shechinah. We know that it is impossible to experience a vision of the attribute of Hashem, as Hashem told Moses specifically that His attribute of Hashem cannot be seen by any living human being (Exodus 33,20). This is why Onkelos translates these words as וחזו ית יקר אלהא דישראל. This is the same attribute כבוד which the prophet Ezekiel experienced in a vision in Ezekiel 1,26 as the appearance of a human being above (the other chayot). First he had seen the חיות הקודש, and the אופנים beneath next to the חיות. When he looked again he saw the sky suspended above the heads of the חיות. Then he saw the throne of the Lord above the sky. Above that he saw a likeness resembling that of a human being, still higher above the throne.
     ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר, “and beneath his feet the likeness of a brick made of sapphire.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this entire verse is that Moses, Aaron, his sons, as well as the elders now experienced a vision of G’d, the G’d of Israel, seated on His throne above the sky. This was the same sky which had previously been described as an expanse covering the חיות. The words ותחת רגליו refer to what was beneath the throne, i.e. the sky. This corresponds to the translation by Onkelos who writes: כורסא יקיריה כעובד אבן טבא, “a splendid throne just like the work of a gemstone.” The reason that the elders saw something looking like כמעשה לבנת הספיר is that this is the way Ezekiel describes what he saw (1,26). ספיר is a whitish gem-stone according to the opinion of Rav Saadyah Gaon quoted by Ibn Ezra. This is why the Torah writes the word לבנת, i.e. a derivative of לובן, the translucent whiteness of the white in the egg. The remarkable thing the Torah tells us then is that it was a great compliment for these people to behold something which emits its light behind it.
      However, the opinion of Ibn Ezra is that ספיר is blue. He does not agree that the word לבנת is a derivative of the word לובן, but that we must understand it as similar to Ezekiel 4,1 ואתה קח לך לבנה, “and now take for yourself a brick.” According to Ibn Ezra the elders and Aaron saw instead of an ordinary brick, a brick-like image made of the finest blue sapphire. Whereas in Ezekiel 1,26 Ezekiel had seen אבן ספיר כמראה, something like a sapphire stone, the elders saw an image of something like that. Proof of the fact that this is the correct interpretation is the fact that Ezekiel compared what he saw to אבן ספיר “a sapphire-coloured stone,” clearly not the white of an egg. Proof for Ibn Ezra is the fact that our verse describes the structure of the object as כמעשה, “like the work of,” a description which would not fit something fluid like לובן. According to Ibn Ezra then the meaning of the whole verse is that these people saw the throne of G’d’s glory as a structure made of sapphire-like brick of the utmost clarity and purity and beneath this sapphire-based structure they saw the pure and clear sky. This was the same as the sky seen by Ezekiel in his famous vision which was above the heads of chayot described there as “awesome ice” (Ezekiel 1,22). The sky mentioned here was also beneath the throne, and the throne beneath the G’d of Israel, just as in the vision of Ezekiel, except that the Torah did not bother to write all these details in our verse. 
  The idea that our verse was shorter and more concise is the opinion of Nachmanides who states that above the chayah is the sky (heaven), and above the heaven the throne, and above the throne is the G’d of Israel. 
      The reason that in our verse instead of רקיע the Torah describes the appearance of that phenomenon as like עצם השמים and the chayot are not mentioned at all, may be that the Torah deliberately wanted to conceal these aspects of the vision of these אצילי ישראל, “nobles of Israel” (verse 11), seeing that these additional words were the ones that led to the sin of Israel and the removal of one of the four supports of the Merkavah supporting the Shechinah as a result of their worshipping the golden calf(compare our author’s comment on Exodus 32,4).
      A Midrashic approach (based on Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 4,3) to  the words: “like the structure of a brick made of sapphire.” This image recalled to them the fact that the Israelites’ heavy slave labour in Egypt consisted of their making mud bricks. Seeing such an image in the heavens proved to the people viewing it that when the Israelites suffer persecution by the Gentile nations in the terrestrial world the Shechinah shares their suffering in the celestial spheres. This reflects the statement by Sifra Parshat Behar 9,4 that whenever the Israelites are being enslaved in our world it is as if the oppressor does the same to the Shechinah in the heavenly regions. This explains Exodus 3,3 where G’d said to Moses כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “for I am intimately familiar with its (Israel’s) pains.” This is why the Jerusalem Talmud in Sukkah  had drawn our attention to the fact that the Torah did not write מעשה לבנת ספיר, but כמעשה לבנת ספיר, i.e. not merely an actual brick made out of sapphire but something additional such as the molds and tools required to make such bricks. Thus far the Jerusalem Talmud in Sukkah.    The seventy elders of which the Torah speaks here were the overseers of the Israelites in Egypt who had allowed themselves to absorb beatings by the Egyptians rather than enforce harsher conditions imposed after Pharaoh responded cruelly to Moses’ first interview by making brick making harder for the people (5,16). This is why they were rewarded by having this vision of bricks made of sapphire.
      A scientific approach to the words כמעשה לבנת ספיר: this is a reference to a vision of the original substantive matter in the universe, which exists immediately beneath the throne of G’d (compare Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim section 1 chapter 28). It looked to them like snow. Our sages in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 3 ask the rhetorical question: “whence (from what raw material) was the heaven created?” Answer: “from the light of His (G’d’s) garments.” This is what David meant when he said (Psalms 104,2) “You are wrapped in a robe of light. You spread the heavens like a tent cloth.” The earth was created out of the snow beneath the throne of glory. We have proof of this from Job 37,6: “He would command the snow: ‘become earth!’”    Onkelos, who translated the words as ”a splendid throne like the work of a gem stone,” understands the words “under His (its) feet” as a reference to the oceans which form the legs of that throne. The words רגליו means “its causes.” We encounter the words רגל in that sense in Ezekiel 1,7 ורגליהם רגל ישרה, or ועמדו רגליו in Zecharyah 14,4. The meaning in these verses is that the raw material emanates from beside it (G’d’s throne) and its proximity is the reason (cause) that it exists and endures.    Applied to our verse here, the word כמעשה, means that just as in the instances mentioned by Ezekiel and Zecharyah, these prophets were granted insights, these אצילי בני ישראל were granted these insights by means of the visions they experienced at this time. The word לבנת is a reference to the white of the egg which was beneath the throne of G’d and formed the original raw material from which earth was constructed. The reason the Torah did not write כלבנת ספיר but כמעשה לבנת ספיר, was to warn us that raw material is something passive, subject to outside influences, but unable to exert its own influences. It may have one colour one day and another colour on a different day depending on external stimuli. A ספיר is not white. If it were white it could not then have become all kinds of colours. Similarly, a raw material does not have a specific shape or form. This is why potentially it can assume any shape or form. This is the opinion of Maimonides in chapter 26 of the second part of his Moreh Nevuchim. I have copied his words. [a perusal of that chapter will reveal that Maimonides understands Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer as distinguishing two basic raw materials, one “beneath the throne,” i.e. materials used to create what is in the terrestrial universe, and the other “materials” used for the creation of the celestial universe. Maimonides came to this conclusion in order for the wording of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer not to mislead us into thinking that he thought that the raw material preceded G’d the Creator. Ed.]
      A kabbalistic approach on the words כמעשה לבנת הספיר. It is well known in the circles of the scholars dealing with celestial beings that the throne of G’d is based on three foundations: they are; אש, רוח, מים, “fire, wind, and water.” These three materials are emanated from three attributes of G’d חסד, דין, רחמים. They  have three different colours, i.e. white, red, blue. Remember that the word לבנת in our verse refers to the colour “white.” The word ספיר alludes to the colour “red.” The word שמים in the expression כעצם השמים לטוהר refers to the colour “blue.” This is why Onkelos translated  as he did. His translation reflects what our sages said in Sotah 17: “the blue of the ציצית is similar to the blue colour of the ocean; the blue colour of the ocean is similar to the blue of the sky. The blue of the sky is similar to the colour of the throne of G’d.”
      It is important that you understand how Onkelos’ translation reflects the fact that there were actually two thrones, one underneath the other, and that the words תחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת ספיר refer to the lower of the thrones which is described here as “beneath its feet,” i.e. beneath the feet of the higher throne. The lower throne appeared to these nobles of The Children of Israel as מעשה לבנת ספיר. (The concept of the two thrones appears already in Chagigah 14) It is a fact that there are two thrones. This is why our verse wanted to make clear to you that beneath the upper throne there is a lower throne to which the description of the vision seen by the nobles of the Children of Israel became privy as a result of their vision.    The three foundations of G’d’s throne which we mentioned earlier are actually six and this is the mystical dimension of the verse in the Book of Kings dealing with details of Solomon’s throne (Kings I, 10,19). We read שש מעלות לכסא, “six steps were leading up to the throne.” The reason for this was that Solomon in his wisdom wanted to include in the construction of his own throne the מעלות, “advantages or virtues” of both the thrones in the celestial regions concerning which it has been written in Psalms 122,5: “for there the throne of judgment stood, thrones of the house of David.” This is the meaning of Chronicles I 29,23: “Solomon sat on the ‘throne of the Lord.’” This description applies to times when Israel enjoyed G’d’s goodwill. On the other hand, in times of Divine anger at Israel, the applicable verse is Daniel 7,9: עד די כרסון רמיו, “I watched until thrones were set  in place and the Ancient of Days took His seat....His throne was tongues of flame, etc.”
      There are some other commentators who explain the words כמעשה לבנת הספיר as describing the achievement of the nobles who could view the interior of the white sapphire, i.e. behold what is hidden from normal eyes inside it. Normally, this gem reveals only what is on its outside, preserving the mystery of its essence.  All that becomes visible is a reflection of its inner essence. Its essence itself is not understood even by the beholder of its reflection. This would be similar to what G’d said to Moses in Exodus 6,3 וארא אל אברהם .....באל שדי, “I appeared to Avraham...as the G’d Shaddai.” He added: “but My name Hashem, i.e. My essence, I did not  acquaint them (the patriarchs) with.” This is why our verse actually describes the vision of the nobles in the form of a parable which is designed to make us understand the נמשל, the moral lesson of the fable. Proof that we are speaking about a parable, “fable,” is the letter כ before the word מעשה which describes an approximation of the insight these people achieved at that time. Whenever prophets achieve insights, when the Israelites achieved insights at Mount Sinai, something the Torah described as פנים בפנים, “face to face” in Deut. 5,4, the reference is to “a spiritual force within another spiritual force.” The recipient of that revelation was granted to enter an interior chamber of a hidden mystical domain without penetrating to its core. In order to illustrate this the Torah wrote the word כמעשה to describe a process similar to the viewing of the luster of the sapphire without seeing its true interior.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ואל אצילי בני ישראל, “and against the ‘nobles’ of the Children of Israel, etc.” The reason they are referred to as אצילי is that the word is connected to אצילות, “emanation.” Some of the holy spirit had been emanated to them while they were standing at this holy site. The people so referred to were Nadav and Avihu as well as the seventy elders.
     לא שלח ידו, “He did not stretch out His hand.” This wording proves that they deserved to experience disciplining or worse by G’d.  ויחזו את האלו-הים, “they gazed at G’d.” This is a repetition of what had been described earlier with the words ויראו את האלו-הים (24,10). The principal meaning of these verses is that the nobles were content to gaze at G’d from afar and not breach the security fence around the mountain.   ויאכלו וישתו, “they ate and they drank, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text they considered the day a festival in view of their having been granted such insights and having survived the experience. This would be comparable to Yaakov who had said after his struggle with the protective guardian of Esau (Genesis 32,31) “for I have seen G’d face to face and my life has been spared.” This is also why the High Priest used to make a feast at the end of Yom Kippur every time after he had come out of the Holy of Holies without having been harmed in body or spirit by the experience (compare Yuma 70).
      Another way of looking at the meaning of these words is  that the Torah wanted to tell us that the spiritual level of these people did not match that of Moses who was able to go without food or drink for 40 days when he communed with G’d (34,28). As soon a these “nobles” had had their vision they returned to being ordinary mortals with the requirements of ordinary people. This is why they had to eat and drink.
      Rashi reads the words: “they gazed upon G’d and ate and drank” together, meaning that the two experiences occurred simultaneously, that they acted in a very gross fashion.
      A Midrashic approach to these words (Vayikra Rabbah 20,10): “Did they take cake, i.e. provisions along to Mount Sinai?” Rabbi Yochanan understands the words ויאכלו וישתו in a literal sense, i.e. they ate and drank real food (something superior to physical food). He compares the words to Proverbs 16,15: “in the light of the King’s face there is life.” The vision they had experienced sustained them as if they had been refreshed by physical food and drink. The meaning of Solomon’s words is that the true food which sustains life is “G’d’s favour,” which Solomon describes as “like the rain in the spring” in the latter half of the verse quoted. According to this view the entire vision may be compared to receiving food and drink of a superior category. This was the true nutriment. It may also be compared to what David had in mind in Psalms 63,6 when he said: “I am sated as with a rich feast.” We have to contrast physical food which though it sustains the body and therefore life, is something which reaches us at arm’s length, so to speak. G’d has to employ a number of “transformers” in order for physical food to reach us. Receiving Divine inspiration directly is a much more efficient process, skips the intermediaries, and therefore is likely to achieve more with less. This thought may be reflected in Psalms 36,9-10: “they feast on the rich fare of Your House; You let them drink at Your refreshing stream.”
      Still another way of explaining the words: “they ate and they drank” -that instead of reading וישתו we could understand this word as וישיתו, “they set.” We have found that after the sin of the golden calf and G’d’s decree not to travel with them but to delegate this task to an angel (33,4) the Jewish people no longer put on their “jewelry.” (Compare what we wrote in connection with 24,8). Interestingly enough this remarkable שכר, reward, this jewelry was never mentioned explicitly as having been received by the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. The Torah became explicit about it only at the time when it was removed from them after the golden calf. This I have heard from Rabbi Dan.
  Why were we never told specifically that this “jewelry” had been the reward for the נעשה ונשמע, the absolute devotion displayed by the people at the giving of the Torah?    I believe that there was no real need to mention this “reward” specifically at all. The people who had come out of the camp and approached the mountain within the allowable parameters and who had heard the sounds of the Shofar and experienced all the mind-shaking phenomena reported in chapters 19-20 were obviously “clothed,” i.e. “bathed” in superior light, etc. When a person goes out in order to anoint himself with oil there is no need to report specifically that he did indeed smear the oil all over himself. Our sages (Shavuot 47) have paraphrased this thought when they said: “if you touch someone who has oil all over  him you will find that some sticks to you,” (Rashi on the proverb there).
      The whole matter may be compared to the Torah’s treatment of life in the hereafter, and indeed any specific promise that there is such a thing. Seeing the entire Torah legislation would not make any sense unless there was such afterlife, the Torah did not have to spell it out expressly. It suffices for the Torah to have written (19,17) “Moses took out the people towards G’d,” to teach us from this generality that the result of all this was that they received this “reward” which they are reported as being deprived of as a result of the sin of the golden calf. When that sin did occur, it became necessary to spell out that the people had lost this distinction (the stains of blood, or whatever other form the jewelry had taken).
      A Kabbalistic approach to the words: “they gazed at G’d and ate and drank.” Why was this repeated seeing the Torah had already written in verse 10 that these people had “seen the G’d of Israel?” It is possible that these אצילים “saw” G’d  i.e. prophesied. In order that you should not think that what these people saw in verse 10  was “seeing” in the accepted sense of the word, the Torah had to use a different verb, i.e. ויחזו when describing the experience of these nobles and their reaction to it. The word ויחזו clearly reflects the word מחזה a mental image, such as Avraham experienced, not seeing something with one’s physical eye when awake. On the one hand, their prophetic achievement was greater than that of the rest of Israel, but at the same time it was inferior to Moses’ prophetic achievement. Moses could see with his physical eyes what these אצילים could see only with their mental eye. Expressed differently; the accomplishment of the people of Israel could be categorized as of the caliber ענן וערפל, “cloud and heavy cloud,” whereas that of the אצילים was in the nature of נבואה שלא במחיצה, a vision without deliberate obstructions; Moses on the other hand, saw the attribute כבוד with his physical eyes. This is what G’d meant when He told him in 33,23 וראית את אחורי, a reference to this attribute כבוד האחרון. As to the words ויאכלו וישתו following immediately afterwards, this teaches that the אצילים related to their exalted experience in a light-hearted, irresponsible manner. This is the reason that they should have been punished by G’d, i.e. שליחות יד by the attribute of Justice. However, G’d was content to wait so as not to disturb the festive atmosphere of the occasion.
  
  Verse 12
  
   עלה אלי ההרה, “ascend to Me, to the mountain!” This paragraph also speaks of matters prior to the giving of the Torah. The wording proves it as otherwise it would not make sense for G’d to say: “I will give you there the Torah and the commandments.”	והיה שם, “and remain there.” Rashi  explains that G’d meant “for forty days.”
     אשר כתבתי, “which I have written, etc.” This means that G’d had written the Torah already prior to creating the universe with black fire on white fire. Alternatively, the words אשר כתבתי refer to the two Tablets which were reported as having been written by the finger of G’d“ in Exodus 31,18.
     להורותם, “to teach them.” According to the plain meaning of the text this teaches that the Torah and the commandments are the path to enable the soul to return to its roots. The true meaning of this then is: “to teach them the way to eternal life.” This is also what Solomon said in Proverbs 4,4; “He also taught me and said to me: ‘let your heart retain My words; keep My commandments and you will live.’”
      A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata): The word להורותם refers to the Talmud. This is also what the Talmud Berachot 5 says. The words את לוחות האבן, “the Tablets made of stone,” refer to the Tablets upon which were engraved the Ten Commandments; the word התורה refers to the written Torah; the word והמצוה refers to the Mishnah (oral Torah); the words אשר כתבתי refer to the other Books of the Bible, the Books of the prophets and the Hagiographa; the wordלהורותם  refers to the Talmud. This teaches that all the laws contained in all these Books have been given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Furthermore, you will note that the first and last letter of the word להורותם between them have a numerical value of 70; this is one of the origins for the well known adage that there are 70 facets to the written Torah, i.e. 70 different ways of interpreting it.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the word להורותם is spelled defectively here, the Torah merely writing להורתם. This spelling is support for the interpretation that when one observes Torah and the commandments this will result in man walking the correct path in life. The path leads to the realization of the ideals represented by the concept of כנסת ישראל. Having reached that level, the soul is ready to ascend to the celestial regions, eternal life. This reflects the meaning of the words of Psalms 73,24  ואחר כבוד תקחני אתה, “and You guided me towards honor.” The word להורותם may be translated as “towards the bedroom of my parents.”
  
  Verse 13
  
    ויקם משה ויהושע משרתו, “Moses and his servant Joshua stood up, etc.” Joshua was one of the seventy elders mentioned previously as having had a vision of G’d. In fact, Joshua was the most senior of these seventy elders.
   The question arises why he is mentioned specifically in this context. Nachmanides writes that possibly the reason is that the Torah wanted to tell us that during the entire 40 days that Moses spent on the mountain Joshua waited for him at the bottom of the mountain. This is why the Torah saw fit to describe him as Moses’ personal valet, משרתו, at this point. As such it was appropriate for him to accompany his master right up to the fence.
     ויעל משה אל הר האלוהים, “Moses ascended to the Mountain of G’d.” This teaches that all the time Moses was on the mountain Joshua waited for him at the bottom of the mountain. Proof for this can be found in 32,17 where we read that as soon as Moses descended the Torah reports Joshua as “hearing the sound of the people in shouting.” Had he remained inside the camp, this verse would not make sense.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני, “the attribute כבוד of Hashem rested on Mount Sinai.” This is in line with what had been mentioned in connection with 20,1: “G’d said all these words.” I have elaborated on this subject there. When the Torah writes here that the cloud covered the mountain this means that during the six days from the first of Sivan until the time of Matan Torah the cloud enveloped the mountain.
     ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי, “He called Moses on the seventh day. This was the day after the Ten Commandments had been given at Mount Sinai. Moses then remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights, as we know from verse 18: “Moses remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights.” The six days during which the mountain was enveloped in cloud (during which Moses prepared himself mentally for meeting Hashem) were part of the forty days. You might ask that seeing that Moses remained there and did not descend until the seventeenth day of Tammuz, why did the Torah have to give us this statement about G’d calling Moses once more while he was already on the mountain? Our sages have different answers for this question. In the first chapter of Yuma (folio 4), Rabbi Akiva says that the whole verse was written only in order to honour Moses. Rabbi Natan says that  these six days were mentioned as during these days Moses’ entrails emptied themselves of any remnants of food consumed while he had been down below. This would make him more equal to the angels in that region who do not consume physical food. Rabbi Matya son of Charash says that the verse is meant to inspire fear. Torah can be given only to someone who relates to it from feelings of awe, sweat and fear. We know this from Psalms 2,11 “Serve Him out of feelings of trembling and fear.”
      A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata): consider the remarkable fact that whereas the entire universe was created in a mere six days, it took forty days to give the Torah to Moses. “Hail to the person who sells or gives something which is the product of only six (days labour) and who receives in return something that it took forty days to perfect” (compare Vayikra Rabbah 30,1). This explains why Moses had to remain on the mountain for a whole forty days.
      I believe that the number 40 is an allusion to the maximum spiritual/intellectual accomplishments which it is given to the human species to achieve. Moses achieved that maximum and that is the reason it took him forty days to do so. This is presumably what the sages had in mind when they said (Pesachim 72) “A certain scholar studied a certain subject forty times until he felt he knew it as well as certain objects he had in his pocket.”  I believe furthermore that the merit of studying Torah incessantly for forty days resulted in Moses’ skin emitting the rays of light described by the Torah (Exodus 34,29) for the remainder of the forty years until he died. The great splendor his facial features acquired as a result of his stay on Mount Sinai did not  fade for the rest of his life. This is the meaning of Deut. 34,7: “his eye had not dimmed and his vigor had not diminished.” Moses spent a total of three times forty days on Mount Sinai, 120 days corresponding to the number of his years. The first forty days were spent acquiring the first set of Tablets and understanding the meaning of the Torah; the second forty days were spent imploring G’d to forgive the sin of the golden calf; the last forty days he prepared for receiving the second set of Tablets.
     מתוך הענן, “out of the cloud.” Seeing that during the preceding six days Moses had been covered by the cloud and had not proceeded further, the Torah now has to tell us that on the seventh day G’d called to him out of the cloud and instructed him to come inside it. This is why the Torah continues: “Moses entered the cloud.” Our sages in Yuma 4 said  that G’d made a path for Moses inside the cloud. They based this on the same expression בתוך being used when the Israelites entered the Sea of Reeds and G’d made separate paths for each tribe, as the expression בתוך  in our verse here.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  'ומראה כבוד ה'  The words 'ומראה כבוד ה are an expression for the Shechinah. Our sages refer to the phenomenon as שכינה, whereas the Torah calls it 'כבוד ה'. When we read in Psalms 85,10 לשכון כבוד בארצנו, “to make His glory dwell in our land,” the reference is to the Shechinah, which is also another name for the attribute of Justice known as יד, the attribute (tool) used by G’d to create the universe. This is what Isaiah 45,7 had in mind when he said ואת כל אלה ידי עשתה, “My hand has made all these (phenomena).” All the phenomena which between them make up the universe were described by the prophet simply as אלה, “these.” All of these are creations of the attribute of Justice. This is why Isaiah 66,2 refers to them as ויהיו כל אלה “all of these (phenomena) came into existence.” We find similar expressions in connection with the creation of the universe in Genesis. The word אלה appears in Genesis 2,4 אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, “these are the products of the heavens and the earth.” The word אלה in that verse includes all that had been created both in the celestial spheres as well as what had been created in the terrestrial spheres. Even when enumerating these phenomena in detail we find the expression אלה describing them. These are the phenomena in question in detail: “light, darkness, the Torah, Justice, the in-gathering of the exiles, Israel, the earth’s produce, rainfall. There is a verse describing each phenomenon as a product of G’d’s creative activity, Isaiah 45,7 writing: “I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things." The verse describing G’d as creating the Torah is found in Exodus 20,1 וידבר אלו-הים את כל הדברים האלה, “G’d said all these things.” Justice is referred to in 21,1 ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם “and these  are the judgments you are to set before them.” The word אלה appears in conjunction with Israel in Genesis 49,28 כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר, “all these are the tribes of Israel, twelve in number.” The word אלה occurs in connection with the in-gathering of the exiles in Isaiah 49,12: הנה אלה מרחוק יבואו והנה אלה מצפון ומים ואלה מארץ סינים, “here: ‘Look these are coming from afar, these from the north and the west; all these from the land of Sinim.’” We have another verse on this subject in Zecharyah 8,12: ואמרת בלבבך מי ילד לי את אלה ואני שכולה וגלמודה גולה וסורה ואלה מי גדל הן אני נשארתי לבדי, אלה איפה הם? “And you will say to yourself, ‘who bore these for me when I was bereaved and barren, exiled and disdained; by whom then were these reared? I was left all alone- and where have these been?’” We have a verse in which the word אלה also appears in connection with the earth’s produce, i.e. Zecharyah 8,12: כי זרע השלום הגפן תתן פריה והארץ תתן את יבולה והשמים יתנו טלם והנחלתי את שארית העם הזה את כל אלה, “but what it sows shall prosper; the vine shall produce its fruit, the ground shall produce its yield, and the skies shall provide their dew. I will bestow all these things upon the remnant of this people.” The rain too is mentioned in a verse containing the word אלה in Jeremiah 14,22: היש  הבלי הגוים מגשימים ואם השמים יתנו רביבים הלא אתה ה' אלו-הינו ונקוה לך כי אה עשית את כל אלה, “Can any of the false gods of the nations give rain? Can the skies of themselves give showers? Only You can, O Lord our G’d! So we hope in You for only You made all these things.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   קחו מוסרי ואל כסף ודעת מחרוץ נבחר, “accept my discipline instead of silver; accept knowledge instead of gold.” (Proverbs 8,10).
  In this verse Solomon warns man that he should harness his powers of alertness and energy for the pursuit of the ethical values of Torah rather than for the amassing of silver and gold. The reason is that the values Torah has to offer are useful both in this world and in the hereafter whereas silver and gold are useful only in this life. Not only that, a surfeit of silver and gold is potentially quite destructive and brings with it many causes for worry. This is what the sages said in Avot 2,7: “he who amasses silver (money) increases his worries.” The only thing which cannot be amassed to excess without negative results is Torah. The meaning of the words: “and knowledge is preferable to gold” is “accept the knowledge dispensed by Torah  for it is superior to gold.” The reason Solomon employed the word קחו for the acquisition of ethical imperatives is that just as material benefits are acquired by the owner “taking” them, i.e. they are not  usually the result of a windfall, so a similar effort is required to obtain proficiency in Torah knowledge and for the student to embrace its ethical message. Anyone displaying laziness in his attitude to the acquisition of Torah is liable to punishment even if he does observe the relevant commandment. If he were to pay lip-service to the importance of Torah-study and implementing its teachings but he relates to it with a lukewarm heart, he is guilty of a sin too great to carry. On the one hand, he does perform (go through the motions) the commandment, but on the other hand, he is subject to punishment for the disdain he displayed in the manner in which he fulfills the commandment. The same applies to people who say their prayers regularly, but as a form of routine, possibly even thinking of their business affairs while uttering the holy words of the prayers as composed by our sages. Anyone who acts in this manner is almost guilty of violating the commandment (20,23) “You shall not make (gods) of what is with Me, either out of silver or even out of gold.” We have already explained that the principal meaning of this line is that “while you are standing in My presence, addressing Me, you shall not think of either silver or gold, i.e. your private affairs.” Any petitioner, or even person who simply offers up praises to the Lord, estranges himself from G’d by doing so. It is something one would not dare do during an audience with a mortal king, a king of flesh and blood; how much more offensive is it when done vis-a-vis the King of Kings. When a person wears his phylacteries and is too lazy to take them off before going to sleep, he is guilty of a similar severe offense against G’d. Similarly, one must not pass gas while wearing the phylacteries. Anything the sages legislated with regard to proper respect for the phylacteries applies to the performance of the other commandments also. You have now learned that even while performing a commandment one may become guilty of a sin by the very manner in which one performs the commandment because of the lazy manner in which one performs it. The matter is comparable to vinegar drunk by people at the physicians’ urging. This drink may be beneficial to one’s health or it may even be detrimental. It all depends. While it may cure one’s stomach, it may harm one’s teeth. Similarly, the heat of a fire may be gut-warming and may dissipate the effects of winter. At the same time, the accompanying smoke and its inhalation may cause harm to one’s lungs. What follows from all this is how important it is to ensure that one’s mitzvah-performance does not result in unwelcome side-effects. This is the reason Solomon always condemns laziness, considering it a very negative character trait. (compare Proverbs 10,26: “as vinegar is to the teeth, and smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy man to those who send him on a mission.”) Another verse in which Solomon expresses his disdain for the lazy is Proverbs 13,4: “the soul of the lazy man desires but has nothing;” What Solomon means is that if someone desires something and comes to the conclusion that he does not lack anything worth desiring, this is proof that he is lazy. Had he made a serious effort to find things which need improving he would have found such matters. [An example would be someone looking to do charity but not finding a person in need of charity. Ed.] Our sages (Megillah 6) phrase it thus: if a person says to you: ‘I have tried but could not find, do not believe him’; if he said: ‘I did not try but I did find, do not believe him either.’ If, however, he says: “I have tried to find and succeeded in finding, do believe him!” This is why Solomon was so insistent that laziness is a very bad character trait. Another occasion in the Book of Proverbs where Solomon makes the point of exhorting us in the name of the Torah to be diligent is in Proverbs 6,6: “go to the ant, you lazybones; study its ways and wise up!” The ant is to serve as an inspiration to man. Although it is one of the most inferior of all the crawling insects it uses the summer in order to stock up for a winter  without being forced to do so by a ruler.
  When a person is diligent in perfecting his character traits he will experience that he enjoys constant personality growth. He will find that every day he is walking in a forward direction, never regressing (Jeremiah 7,24). Concerning the people mentioned by Jeremiah, Solomon said (Proverbs 15,19): “the way of the lazy man is like a hedge of thorns, but the way of the upright is paved.” A lazy man has prevented himself from making progress by his very laziness. Instead of progressing morally and ethically he regresses using his lethargic manner to prevent him from accomplishing anything. If we were to compare such a man to a wheat field with all its potential to produce a useful crop, he would instead produce only nettles. Solomon employs this parable when saying in Proverbs 24,30-31: “I have passed by the field of the lazy man, and passed the vineyard of the man devoid of understanding. Here it was, all overgrown with thorns; its surface was covered with nettles, its stone fence was broken down. Solomon compared a person who is too lazy to perfect his personality to a farmer who is too lazy to tend the various forms of labour required to produce a crop. Seeing that most people do have the energy to bestir themselves in the pursuit of silver or gold, Solomon demands that they apply themselves with equal vigour to the study of Torah and the ethical imperatives contained in the Torah. Torah is also called מוסר “ethical teaching,” as we know from Proverbs 6,23 ודרך חיים תוכחת מוסר, “instructive rebukes are a way of life.” By applying these teachings to  oneself man acquires eternal life in the hereafter where he will feast on the glory of the Shechinah. Our sages in Proverbs 2,21 interpreted the words: “for the upright dwell on earth, and the blameless will remain on it,” to mean that the word ישכנו in that verse is a reference to these people enjoying the glory of the Shechinah when their time comes to move to the celestial regions. The Shechinah is always close to the Torah. When G’d gave the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the Torah wrote (Exodus 24,16) וישכון כבוד ה’ על הר סיני, “the Shechinah of G’d rested on Mount Sinai as the attribute of כבוד, ‘honour, glory.’” “It”, i.e. the Torah, is the cause that the Shechinah rested on Mount Sinai when G’d revealed Himself there, and the word וישכון refers to a hidden presence of the Shechinah, whereas the word כבוד refers to the revealed nature of that appearance of the Shechinah during the giving of the Torah. This was confirmed when the Torah described this manifestation in Exodus 24,17 as ומראה כבוד ה’ כאש אוכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל. “Now the Presence of the Lord appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.” Later on, when the Tabernacle was constructed, this Shechinah was hidden inside the Holy of Holies and in order to proceed with the construction of the Tabernacle housing the Shechinah the people were bidden to bring their respective contributions.
   ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי, “and from every person whose heart so moves him you shall accept the gifts for Me.” The plain meaning of the text is that these gifts were dedicated to G’d’s name. The word תרומה means something set aside. In other words, the Israelites were to set aside a voluntary contribution for the building of the Tabernacle  each out of his or her own funds. The whole concept of the Tabernacle has to be understood as an internalized version of what transpired during the revelation at Mount Sinai (based on Nachmanides). The very attribute כבוד which rested on Mount Sinai for all to see afterwards was manifest inside the Holy of Holies on the ark between the cherubs on an ongoing basis. The principal difference was that it could no longer be seen. Moses had said in Deut. 5,21 “here the Lord has shown us His majestic Presence כבוד וגדלו,“ and this has been repeated in connection with the Tabernacle twice more. Once in Exodus 40,34: “and the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” In the verse immediately following, the Torah also writes that Moses was unable to enter the Tabernacle as the cloud had settled over it and “the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” Just as the Torah wrote in connection with the Mount Sinai experience (Deut.  4,36) “From the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on the earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst the fire you heard His words,” so a parallel experience is described in connection with the Tabernacle in Numbers 7,89: “he (Moses) would hear the voice addressing him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the covenant between the two cherubs; thus He spoke to him.” If, at Mount Sinai, the “nobles” were described as: “they saw the G’d of Israel,” we find something similar in connection with the Tabernacle in that the G’d of Israel “sat” on the cherubs (Samuel II 6,20). This is also what the prophet Ezekiel reported as seeing in his vision (Ezekiel 10,19-20) וכבוד אלו-הי ישראל עליהם מלמעלה, היא החיה אשר ראיתי תחת אלו-הי ישראל בנהר כבר ואדע כי כרובים המה, “and the glory of the G’d of Israel was above them; this was the Chayah which I saw beneath the G’d of Israel at the river Kevar.”
     תקחו את תרומתי, “take (accept) the contribution for Me.”  After the Torah had first mentioned whose heart would be moved by generosity of spirit the Torah informs us that such a spirit results in the gift being described by G’d as “My gift,” as if it were G’d’s own contribution. G’d feels close to people who are of generous heart whereas He hates people who are stingy by nature. Furthermore, the word תרומתי, is meant to teach that once the donation has been made (promised), it belongs to G’d, and if the donor does not pay it he is liable to punishment as he has stolen from G’d. Once the gift has left the domain of the donor, he is no longer responsible for what happens to it.
      It is possible to explain the fact that the word תרומה occurs here three times in two verses as meaning that the Torah speaks of three different contributions by means of which the world is elevated. They are: חכמה, תבונה, ודעת, “wisdom-insight-know-ledge.” This is based on Proverbs 3,19-20: “G’d founded the earth with wisdom; He established the heavens with understanding. By His knowledge the depths were broken up.” The reason why these facts were alluded to here was that the construction of the Tabernacle was comparable to the construction of the universe (Bamidbar Rabbah 12,13). The first of these gifts was the one mentioned here which was used for the construction of the Tabernacle. The second תרומה consisted of the half-shekel which every male over the age of 20 had to contribute after the sin of the golden calf for the construction of the sockets of the beams making up the walls of the Tabernacle (Exodus 30,13). The third was the contribution known as תרומת המזבח, the half shekel contributed by all the males for financing the cost of the daily public offerings to be brought on behalf of the entire people. This is the תרומה mentioned in Numbers 1,2 where Moses was commanded to count the males above the age of twenty. The counting took place by means of each Israelite contributing a coin of a half-shekel. Of these three תרומות, contributions, two were considered sacred (the money), whereas the third, the one mentioned in 30,13 was not of sacred character as the occasion was the need to atone for the donor’s part in the sin of the golden calf. This is spelled out in detail by the words ונתנו איש כופר נפשו, “they shall each contribute (the half shekel) as an atonement for his soul” (30,12). When the Israelites entered the Holy Land they were once more commanded three times to contribute a תרומה. Two of these contributions were sacred in character, whereas the third was profane. The third, i.e. חלה, was profane seeing that it is applicable not only in the Holy Land but also in the Diaspora. The reason that the commandment of חלה, a תרומה for the priest, is the exception in that it also has to be set aside in the Diaspora is to ensure that the knowledge of this commandment will not be forgotten during the long years of exile the Jewish people experienced. In order to make it clear to us that the Tabernacle’s construction equaled that of the creation of the universe the Torah mentioned all the three תרומות which contributed to the founding of earth (as per the verse in Proverbs) at the beginning of the portion before we hear the details of the materials and quantities and measurements required. This is why the Torah writes about Betzalel the master-craftsman in charge of the construction of the Tabernacle: “I have filled him with a Godly spirit, with wisdom, insight, and knowledge, and with every craft” (Exodus 31,3). According to Berachot 55 Betzalel was able to combine the letters of the alphabet or of the Torah in the manner in which they had been used to create the universe. The wording of our verse is what I have just quoted, and the wording in Proverbs is: “G’d founded earth with wisdom, etc.” Our sages wanted to hint when writing all this that there was a parallelism of the wisdom required in creating the universe and in the wisdom required to carry out the instructions pertaining to constructing the Tabernacle and its contents.
      You will find in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3 that Solomon employed all of these three elements (wisdom, insight, and knowledge) to build his Temple. You find in Mechilta 7,14 that Chirom (compare Kings I 4,13-14) “was the son of a widowed woman from the tribe of Naftali whose father had been a coppersmith in the city of Tyre. He was endowed with חכמה, תבונה, ודעת,” exactly the same talents as mentioned in connection with Betzalel and mentioned by Solomon in Proverbs. In the future, when the third Temple will be built, the same three attributes will also be employed in its construction. The precise wording is (Proverbs 24,3-4) ”a house is built by wisdom; it is established through understanding; its rooms are filled with knowledge.” G’d will endow the Israelites with all three as a gift as we know from Proverbs 2,6: ”for the Lord will grant wisdom, etc.” You will note that Solomon did not speak about wisdom having been granted but about wisdom which will be granted in the future. All of these three attributes will be granted to King Messiah as we know from Isaiah 11,2: ”a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor; a spirit of knowledge and reverence for the Lord.”
      A Midrashic approach: “What do the words ויקחו לי תרומה, “and they will take a gift for Me mean?” After I, G’d, already have given them My gift, i.e. the Torah, in which is written כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי, “for I have given you good instructions, My Torah, etc., I ask you to bring Me a gift” (compare Proverbs 4,2). How are we to understand the words כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם? Tanchuma Terumah 2-3 describes the following parable. There were two merchants. One had pepper the other had silk. They exchanged their respective merchandise, the former one taking the silk, the latter took the pepper. As a result of these transactions, each of the merchants now lacked what he had previously possessed. Not so with Torah. If someone studies tractate Moed this will become his property. If another studies tractate Zeraim this will become his property. He who has mastered tractate Moed can now teach the one who had not learned it as yet without giving up what he already possesses. This is the meaning of “for I have given you good instruction.” You will retain it. It happened once that a certain person found himself on a boat together with many merchants each of whom carried his wares with him. Seeing that the scholar did not have a bundle they asked him: “where is your merchandise?” He answered them: “my merchandise is superior to yours.” The other merchants searched the whole boat without being able to locate that scholar’s merchandise. They began to ridicule this merchant (scholar) who did not have a bundle. In the meantime the boat was attacked by pirates who stole all the other merchants’ wares. When the boat docked and everyone went ashore, the other merchants found themselves in a strange country without money or food, etc. The scholar, however, went to the nearest Torah Academy where the local Jewish population received him with great honour. When the merchants became aware of this they went to the scholar asking his forgiveness for their rude behaviour towards him. They then asked him to do them a favour and to intercede on their behalf with the local population so that they would receive food and lodging. They appealed to him to tell the local people that they had been robbed and were not penniless beggars. Thereupon the scholar turned to them saying: “did I not tell you that my merchandise was superior to yours? Yours has ben lost whereas my merchandise endures. Not only this. Anyone who deals in tangible merchandise can do so only at certain hours on certain days. Customers do not always come to buy. My merchandise is available at any time and I can deliver it both by day and by night. Torah is a standby not only in this life but also in the hereafter.” All this is included in the verse כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words ויקחו לי תרומה may be understood as an invitation for the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the Jewish nation to gather around G’d. They are to be considered as a gift to G’d, collectively. It is the כנסת ישראל which is referred to by the word זאת in verse 3. This is why the Torah wrote here: וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם, “and this is the gift you are to take from them.” The word וזאת is also featured in Genesis 49,28 where I have explained this in detail. We have a verse in Psalms 118,23 מאת ה’ היתה זאת, “the זאת is from Hashem,” which makes a similar point. The reason for the wording ויקחו לי “let them take for Me,” is that it is an invitation to bring together the celestial forces with those on earth and vice-versa. Seeing that in all such matters the driving force is the heart and the mind, the Torah states that in order to attain such an objective it is necessary מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו, “for every such person to be motivated by his heart.” 
  This is all alluded to in the Tanchuma 24 on Emor  where the point is made that the Torah did not merely write ויקחו תרומה but ויקחו לי תרומה. According to that Midrash the word לי may be understood as אותי, as if the Torah meant: “you will take Me.” G’d meant, so to speak, “take Me to take up residence amongst you.” Another penetrating comment  found in Shemot Rabbah 49,2 is that the words mean that it is the כנסת ישראל which is the תרומה, the gift. The Midrash bases this on the verse קדש ישראל לה’ ראשית תבואתו, “Israel is holy to the Lord, the first of His harvest” (Jeremiah 2,3). 
  In the Sefer Habahir item 103 you will find the following explanation of our verse: “they shall take for the Holy One a gift which is equivalent to י i.e. the tenth. How do I know that the tenth is holy? Because we read in Leviticus 27,32 “the tenth shall be holy for the Lord.” What precisely is the meaning of קדש,”holy?” Ezekiel 44,30 explains וראשית כל בכורי כל וכל תרומת כל, “All the choice first fruits of every kind and all terumah of any kind-of all your terumah gifts;” the word ראשית is equivalent to חכמה, compare Psalms 111,10 ראשית חכמה. Thus far the Sefer Habahir. [I believe the intention of the author as well as the author of Sefer Habahir is to read the word  לי as ”ל”י “as a tenth.” Ed.]
      When the Torah writes a little while later on (verse 9) ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, the meaning is that G’d showed Moses all this already while he was on the mountain (27,8). The word אני refers to he attribute of Justice in this instance. This is not the only time the attribute of Justice appears in connection with the Tabernacle or Temple. We find the same, also in connection with construction of a Temple, in (Chronicles I 28,19) where David says that הכל בכתב מיד ה’ עלי השכיל כל מלאכת התבנית. “All this the Lord made me understand by His hand on me, I give you in writing- the blueprint of all the works” (David speaking to his son Solomon). The words יד ה’ in that verse also refer to the attribute of Justice.
      You should realize that beginning with the words ויקחו לי up until the end of that verse the Torah speaks about a תרומה עליונה, a gift to heaven, whereas the words in the following verse dealing with gold, silver and copper, etc., refer to a תרומת המשכן the contributions to be made for constructing the Tabernacle. The meaning of all this is that when the Israelites would bring such contributions as gold, silver, copper etc., they would be considered as having made simultaneous contributions to the celestial regions. This concept enables us to understand the words ועשו לי מקדש. The contributions for the Tabernacle are considered as making a Temple for G’d, as a result of which ושכנתי בתוכם, “I will dwell within them,” i.e. this is the result of the תרומה עליונה, the spiritual aspect of the gift, the motivation of generosity. The mystical dimension of the words יביאה את תרומת ה’, “he will bring G’d’s gift,” is  that this  gift will come with the terrestrial gift. The Shechinah moving to earth and taking up residence inside the Tabernacle will be the result of the תרומה עליונה. The gift of gold, silver, etc., only provides the location for the Shechinah if we merit its presence amongst us. To sum up: donating materials without the gift representing the right spirit will result in an empty Tabernacle, one in which the presence of G’d is not manifest.
  
  Verse 3
  
   זהב וכסף ונחשת, “gold, silver, and copper.” The Torah mentions three types of metal and three types of wool (different colours). We do not find that silk was used in the construction of the Tabernacle. The reason is that silk is the product of the body of a שרץ, a worm, and the only materials which were found suitable for forming part of the materials used in the construction of the Tabernacle are those that originate in ritually pure animals (compare Shabbat 28). In this connection it is well to remember that our sages explain in connection with Tachash (Shabbat 28) that the color derived from such worms as the shamir is not derived from the actual body of the respective animal/worm but from a berry which was also inhabited by a worm which took its name from the berry. This applies also to the expression תולעת השני which does not mean that the red color was taken from the worm but that that worm used to lodge in a berry from which the red color for dying the wool was taken. Afterwards the Torah lists שש, another name for flax, i.e. linen. Immediately afterwards the Torah mentions contributions of עזים, i.e. goats’ wool, not the skins or the animals themselves. This is also the reason that Onkelos does not translate the words as עזיא, goat, but as מעזיא a product of the goat. The product in question is the hair, i.e. the wool. Even though the Torah has prohibited the combining of wool and linen, the priests when they entered the holy precincts had to wear garments in which wool and linen were interwoven. I shall explain the mystical dimension of this in Parshat Kedoshim where the prohibition is written.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . ועורות תחשים, “and the skins of the tachash.” The tachash was some kind of free-roaming beast. Our sages in Shabbat 28 are of the opinion that the tachash was an animal  which existed only during that generation and had a single horn on its forehead. Its whole function was to have its skin serve as one of the coverings of the Tabernacle. Apparently, the colour of their skin was so beautiful that it was not to be used again for secular purposes so that G’d allowed this animal to become extinct as soon as it had fulfilled its purpose. Our sages on that same folio  explain that the fact that it had a horn on its forehead was proof that it was a ritually pure animal. According to our tradition the ox offered by Adam as a sacrifice also had only a single horn on its forehead. This is based on Psalms 69,32: “ותיטיב לה’ משור פר מקרן מפריס, “that will please the Lord more than oxen, than a bull with a horn and hooves.” The singular of the word קרן means that a particular bull had only one horn. Although the vowel pattern under the word מקרן suggests more than one, the absence of the letter י suggests that David speaks about a single-horned bull. At any rate, unless the tachash had been ritually pure, none of its parts would have qualified for use in the Tabernacle. We have a strong allusion to this in the words of Exodus 13,9 למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך, “so that what goes into your mouth should conform to the Torah of the Lord.” Seeing that the tachash had so many colours Onkelos translates ססגונה, “proud of its being multi-coloured.”
     ועצי שטים, “and wood of the Shittim tree.” Where did the Israelites take these trees from? According to Tanchuma Terumah 9 Yaakov foresaw in his holy spirit that these trees would be required  when the Israelites would build a Tabernacle in the desert and having this in mind he brought acacia trees with him to Egypt which were planted there. He commanded his children that when they would leave Egypt they were to take these trees with them.
  
  Verse 6
  
   שמן למאור, “Oil for illumination;” fine olive oil for lighting the eternal flame.” בשמים לשמן המשחה ולקטורת הסמים, “spices for the oil of anointment and the aromatic incense.” The meaning of the words is that in order for the incense to be offered up they were to bring gifts consisting of a variety of spices. There is a difference between spices, בשמים, and סמים, an inedible kind of fragrance. בשמים are a kind of food which are distinguished by their rich fragrance. סמים are medicinal herbs which are quite unsuitable as food or as additives to food. Frankincense is one of such ingredients known as סמים.  The reason that gold is mentioned as the very first material that was to be contributed was to indicate that at the time the materials for the Tabernacle were collected, the sin of the golden calf had already been forgiven. This is why it was appropriate that the very material which had served as the instrument to commit such a grievous sin should now be donated freely to demonstrate the about-face of the Jewish people who were now ready to donate their most precious material to serve the Lord (Tanchuma Terumah 8). This is also the reason that when the Torah legislates which animals make fit sacrifices, the calf heads the list. compare Leviticus 22,27. G’d wanted to emphasize that the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven. This entire commandment to contribute materials for the construction of the Tabernacle was commanded on the day following Yom Kippur, the day when the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven, finally (compare Rashi). Even though that sin had been committed prior to the building of the Tabernacle, seeing it had been committed in the month of Tammuz and the building of the Tabernacle had been commanded only after the Day of Atonement, so that the Torah quite clearly does not report things in chronological sequence here, the Torah, whose paths are all designed to promote peace and harmony decided to write things in this order. G’d is normally at pains to provide (make available) the cure before the onset of the disease (Megillah 13). It was important to G’d to show that before we read about the sin of the golden calf that the means to make the people’s repentance effective had been outlined already. We have a verse in Hoseah 7,1 which spells out this concept that G’d prepares the cure before He inflicts the disease, i.e. “When I would heal Israel the guilt of Ephrayim reveals itself.” 
  In order to show that the sin had been completely forgiven, the Torah commences the list of contributions to be donated for building the Tabernacle with gold. This means that the very means which had caused their disgrace would now become the means by which G’d would express His goodwill. A Biblical verse expressing the same sentiment is found in Hoseah 7,3, ברעתם ישמחו מלך, ”with their very malice they make a king merry.”
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Terumah 8): The words “gold, silver, copper,” refer to three different host-countries in which the Jews have been exiles. “Gold” refers to the kingdom of Babylon. We know that Nevuchadnezzar said (Daniel 2,38) “You O G’d are the head of gold.” The word “silver” is an allusion to the exile under the Medes, for it is written of Haman that he was offering ten thousand talents of silver in order to obtain permission to kill all the Jews (Megillat Esther 3,9). Copper is an allusion to the exile under the Greeks which was the most abominable of the three kingdoms mentioned. The words אלים מאדמים “red-dyed ram skins,” are an allusion to the Roman Empire. Esau, the progenitor of the Romans, was described as red-skinned already at his birth (compare Genesis 28,25) ויצא הראשון אדמוני. The allusion to the exile under the descendants of Esau is followed immediately by the words ושמן למאור, “and anointing oil,” i.e. a reference to the מלך המשיח King Messiah of whom it is written in Psalms 132,17 שם אצמיח קרן לדוד ערכתי נר למשיחי, “There I will make a horn sprout for David, I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one.” The words בשמים לשמן המשחה are an allusion to the fact that in the future the High Priest will once more be anointed with this oil; the words לקטורת הסמים are a promise that the Jewish people will once again enjoy being in G’d’s good graces. This has been promised by Ezekiel 20,41 בריח ניחוח ארצה אתכם, “by means of sweet smelling fragrances I will display My goodwill for you.” The words אבני שוהם refer to אבני כדכד of which Isaiah 54,12 said: ושמתי כדכד שמשותיך,”I will make your battlements of rubies.” The words ועשו לי מקדש refer to the Holy Temple which may soon be rebuilt in our days. The words ושכנתי בתוכם are an assurance that when that time comes G’d will dwell in our midst forever.
  
  Verse 7
  
   אבני שהם ואבני מילואים, “shoham stones and (other) stones for the settings.” The sequence of the words in our verse is: “shoham stones for the Ephod, and the other gemstones for the breastplate to be set in it.” There were two shoham stones and twelve stones for the breastplate. Nachmanides explains that the reason the stones for the breastplate are called מלואים is that they were whole gemstones each, had not been polished or cut to size by craftsmen. This is also reflected in the translation by Onkelos who writes אבני אשלמותא, “whole stones.” According to Nachmanides the spiritual value of these various gemstones is dependent on their being whole as found in the ground. This is the reason the Torah instructs in 28,17 ומלאת בו מלואת אבן, “you shall fill it with stone;” we have a second verse concerning this procedure in  verse 20 of that chapter requiring that these stones be במלואתם, “in their wholeness.” Significantly, no such restrictions are mentioned in connection with the stones for the Ephod, i.e. the shoham stones. It is possible that the names of the tribes of the Children of Israel were engraved on the shoham stones similar to the way a signet ring is engraved, the seal sticking out when one presses it on to the sealing wax. At any rate, 28,11 makes it rather clear that a jeweler’s craft was required in connection with the two shoham stones and the names to be engraved in them. In connection with the twelve stones to be mounted on the breastplate such words as מעשה חרש אבן, “a jeweler’s handiwork,” are totally absent. However, the Torah did stipulate פתוחי חותם, (verse 21) “engraved like a signet ring.” This was the reason Moses had to use the shamir worm in order to achieve the engraving by chemical means, i.e. through secretions of that worm applied minutely. Had this not been the case, the requirement that they remain במלואותם, “in their wholeness,” could not have been met. This is the way our sages in Sotah 48 describe the procedure: “these stones were not inscribed with ink as the Torah stipulates פתוחי חותם; on the other hand, they were also not engraved with an engraving tool as the Torah stipulates that they were to remain whole, i.e. במלואותם.” What did Moses do? He first wrote the letters with ink and then exposed them to the shamir worm. When thus exposed (at some distance) the stones cracked in the required places, so that the names appeared as if they had been engraved on the respective stones. Nonetheless, not a single splinter of the original stone was missing as a result. Thus far Nachmanides.
      It is important to realize that there are a total of 15 items mentioned in this  paragraph which list the various donations  for the Tabernacle. בשמים וסמים are treated as a single item. (Normally, we think of these contributions in terms of 13 different items). The shoham stones and the stones for the settings in the breastplate are considered as items 14 and 15 respectively. When you examine the first verse in Genesis you will find that it has 15 syllables, (not counting the half-vowels called sheva) so that the items which formed the materials of the Tabernacle paralleled the beginning of the creation, i.e. the Tabernacle represented a re-enactment of מעשה בראשית. This was intended by Isaiah when he wrote (Isaiah 26,4) כי בי-ה ה’ צור עולמים, “for in Yah, the Lord you have an everlasting Rock.” [If I understand the allusion correctly it means that the presence of the Shechinah in the Tabernacle demonstrated that unlike human artists, G’d did not withdraw from His creation once He had completed it. Ed.] We also find that in the descriptions of the distances between the seven layers of heaven that the number 500 (years of walking) is mentioned 15 times. Each such רקיע is described as 500 such years distant from the next one (Chagigah 13). This gives us a total of 13 times 500, seeing the thickness of that heaven is also 500 years of walking distance. Beyond the seventh heaven are the chayot, presumably a region of similar distance. Above the chayot is another heavenly region. So this gives us a total of 15 times 500 years walking distance from earth to that highest region. G’d, of course, is above all that. The sages who composed the prayers in our liturgy included 15 different praises in the prayer called ישתבח which is the conclusion of the פסוקי דזמרה, the verses of songs recited daily prior to the קריאת שמע and its benedictions. After the קריאת שמע we recite a paragraph commencing with the words אמת ויציב which contains references to 15 attributes of G’d. Except for the word אמת itself, each one of these attributes is linked to the next one by the letter ו The first one, i.e. the attribute אמת, is not introduced by the letter ו as it is the name of G’d. This is why we find a verse in Jeremiah 10,10: וה’ אלו-הים אמת, showing that the word אמת is also a name of G’d. Furthermore, we find that David composed a list of 15 praises of the Lord when he wrote in Chronicles I 29, 10-11: לך ה’ הגדולה והגבורה והתפארת והנצח וההוד כי כל בשמים ובארץ לך ה’ הממלכה והמתנשא לכל לראש, והעושר והכבוד מלפניך ואתה מושל בכל ובידך כח וגבורה לגדל ולחזק לכל. He also composed 15 hymns commencing with the words שיר המעלות in Psalms 121-134 all in allusion to these 15 items mentioned in 15 syllables in the first verse in Genesis. We also find that the blessing pronounced by the Priests contains 15 words, corresponding to the same concept. In Deut. 26,17 we also find the programmatic verse commencing with the words את ה’ האמרת היום as containing 15 words. This too is an allusion to the relationship between Israel and its G’d being the purpose of creation of the universe.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ועשו לי מקדש, “They shall make a Sanctuary for Me.” The reason the Torah refers to the Tabernacle as Temple, Sanctuary, from the word קדש holy, is that it was sanctified by the very Presence within it of the Shechinah. According to Shemot Rabbah 34,4 the words ועשו לי imply that Israel are G’d’s flock and He is their shepherd. This is the meaning of Ezekiel 34,17: “As for you, My flock, thus said the Lord G’d, etc.” The fact that G’d considers Himself our shepherd is based on Psalms 80,2: “Give ear, O shepherd of Israel! Appear, You who are enthroned on the cherubim.” There are numerous other verses quoted by the author, such as Isaiah 5,7, Psalms 121,4, Deut. 14,1 and Jeremiah 31,8 all making essentially he same point about the G’d-Israel relationship. This relationship bespeaks honour for the children when they are in the proximity of their father, and honour for the father when he is within the home of his children and feels welcome there. All of this is the meaning of the reciprocal relationship suggested by the words: “they shall make for Me a Sanctuary and I shall dwell amongst them. The words ושכנתי בתוכם may also be read as ושכינתי בתוכם, “so that My Presence will be amongst them.” 
  The numerical value of the letters in the word ושכנתי alludes to the 410 years the first Temple stood, i.e. the word לשכני בתוכם in Exodus 29,46. When we break up the word ושכנתי into ושכן ת’י we get the same result, i.e. “He will reside for 410 (years).”  By re-arranging the letters to read ושני ת’כ “and the second (Temple) 420,” you get an allusion to the length of time the second Temple remained standing.
  
  Verse 9
  
   את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו, “the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all its vessels.” It is an accepted concept that the various components of the Tabernacle on earth were replicas or symbols of concepts which exist in higher regions. One of the outstanding features of the Tabernacle was the fact that it was divided into three parts. 1) The area beyond the dividing curtain, the western part; 2) the area in front of the dividing curtain known as אהל מועד. 3) The courtyard in front of the Tabernacle which was enclosed by curtains. These three sections symbolized the three parts of the cosmos, 1) the world of the disembodied beings, the angels; 2) the world of the inert bodies, the stars and the planets; 3) our terrestrial universe, inhabited by living creatures with bodies (and souls, some of them). Upon examination we shall find that man, the most important creature in our lower world, is also composed of three parts representing the division of the whole cosmos into three parts. This is why man is called a microcosm, a world in miniature, by the sages (compare our author’s comment on Genesis 1,27). The three parts are: 1) the world of דבור, creatures capable of verbal communications. 2) the world of חיות, all kinds of living and moving creatures. 3) the world of vegetation, life and motion limited to the roots of these plants in the soil. The innermost part of the Tabernacle contained the Holy Ark, the Tablets, the cherubs, all of which were interior vessels that remained hidden from view as they housed the entourage of the Shechinah. This is what was meant in Ezekiel 10,19: וכבוד אלו-הי ישראל מלמעלה, “and the attribute כבוד of the G’d of Israel was above.” This attribute has also been described as dwelling with the cherubs in Psalms 80,2. This part of the Tabernacle was patterned after the celestial regions, the home of the angels. They are not visible, partly because they are disembodied spirits, forming the entourage and throne of G’d. Man’s equivalent to that part of the cosmos is his head, i.e. what is inside it, his brain; it is the Temple of his wisdom, and it is the region in which disembodied שכל, intelligence, makes its impact on man’s brain. A truly righteous man is himself an entourage for the Divine. Our patriarchs were such people. The Shechinah rests over such צדיקים by means of the phylacteries they wear on their heads and on their arms. These phylacteries inspire man’s head and heart respectively. They do for the צדיק  what the cherubs accomplished within the Holy of Holies in the macrocosm. Having had this explained to you, you can now understand the tremendous importance of the commandment to lay תפילין and the great potential contained  in that commandment. The second part of the Tabernacle, the one without the dividing curtain, was the part containing the table, the candelabra, and the altar for incense, all of which were very important interior vessels although they were not of the prime importance of the vessels inside the Holy of Holies. They corresponded to the world of the planets and stars which have all been infused with intelligence by their Creator and whose constant orbit is directly responsible for keeping this cosmos a going concern. In the microcosm called the world of man, they are represented by the heart which is an interior organ without which the body could not function. The constant pumping of blood to different parts of the human body does for our bodies what the motion of the stars and planet does for the cosmos. The third part of the Tabernacle, the courtyard around it, contained the copper altar, the one on which most animal sacrifices were offered up. This was where the animals used in that procedure lost their lives. The courtyard corresponded to our terrestrial universe which by definition is populated by creatures all of which die sooner or later, just like the animals on the altar. The corresponding part to the courtyard of the Tabernacle in man is the part from the navel downwards, the area where his life originated and which in turn is usually the beginning of the process of his life disintegrating. The very loss of life is simultaneously the cause of its coming into existence. If our world were not condemned to the death of its inhabitants there would be no need for new life to be generated.  You have now learned that the Tabernacle in its three sections corresponded to the cosmos in its three parts concerning which David said (Psalms 103,20) “bless the Lord, O His angels, mighty creatures who do His bidding, bless the Lord, all His hosts.” David’s son Solomon followed in his father’s footsteps when he said in three consecutive verses in Song of Songs 5-13,14,15) “His cheeks are like beds of spices;” “His hands are rods of gold;” “His legs are like marble pillars;” I have already explained the meaning of these allusions in connection with Yaakov’s dream of the ladder in Genesis 28,12.
      A Midrashic approach: the words את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו teach that G’d had shown to Moses “green fire, black fire, white fire, and red fire.” He now told him: “in accordance with all that I have shown you” (verse 40). He instructed him: “construct it like this.” The matter can be illustrated by means of a parable. A King had a very costly pearl-studded garment. He instructed one of his servants to make him another one like it. The servant replied: ‘My lord king where am I going to get the raw materials to make another garment such as this?’ This is precisely what Moses asked G’d: “where am I going to take green fire, black fire, white fire and red fire from in order to construct a replica of the cosmos?” G’d said to him: “You do the best you can with the materials at your disposal.” Not only that. But, “if you will construct something comparable to what you have seen in My celestial spheres down on earth, I shall leave My celestial court and confine My Shechinah to the extent necessary in order to take up residence in the Tabernacle you will construct on earth.” Just as in the celestial regions there are upright standing Seraphim (angels) so on earth there will be upright standing columns of acacia wood (compare 26,15). Just as there are stars in the heavens there are stars down on earth.” Rabbi Chiyah added: “this teaches that the golden clasps appeared like stars on the carpets forming the ceiling of the Tabernacle.”
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועשו ארון עצי שטים, “They shall construct an ark made of acacia wood.” When the Torah introduces the instructions to construct any of the other furnishings of the Tabernacle it always uses direct language, i.e. ועשית שלחן, “you shall construct a table, etc.” Why does the Torah switch to issuing the instruction to make the ark by using the third person, “they shall construct?” Shemot Rabbah 34,3 discusses this anomaly. Rabbi Yehudah son of Shalom said that G’d said: “let them all come and be occupied with the construction of the ark in order that all of them will acquire the merit of providing a housing for the Torah. They were all to contribute for the making of the ark.”
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the ark was a kind of box within which the Tablets of the covenant were to be stored and hidden. Seeing that Torah was called ראשית “a first,” it was appropriate that the ark should be the first of the furnishings to be constructed. The reason this box was called ארון is that the word is connected to the word אורה, “light.” Seeing that this box contained the Torah, the description of it by means of a word recalling “light” is most appropriate.  The height of this ark which the Torah described as being “one and a half cubits,” takes into consideration the fact that cubits used in the Torah are six handbreadths long. The height of that ark therefore was 9 such handbreadths. When you add the fact that the lid  (kapporet) had a  thickness of one handbreadth you will find that the total height of the ark was ten handbreadths. The number 10 also resurfaces in connection with the table of which the Torah also writes that its height was to be one and a half cubits (verse 23). Seeing the Torah also designated what is termed a “crown”, i.e. sort of a frame around the top of the table, and this “crown” was one handbreadth high, the overall height of the table was also 10 handbreadths. The same height was designated for the candelabra (verse 31) where the word תיעשה is spelled with an unaccountable letter י. This motivated Solomon to construct 10 candelabras. The meaning of the letter י was not that Solomon was to make 10 candelabras out of the one in the Tabernacle. Similarly, we find that Solomon constructed 10 tables for his Temple as well as 10 basins for the priests to wash their hands (Chronicles II 4,7-8). He did not do so arbitrarily but there had been a long-standing tradition  that when the Temple would be built there should be this number of such furnishings. There is another allusion to the number 10 connected with the candelabra seeing the Torah speaks about 7 arms, 1 knob, 1 cup and 1 flower to be part of each of the seven arms (verses 31-35). The number 10 is again prominent in connection with the Tabernacle itself  whose beams were 10 cubits high (26,16). The “carpets” forming its inner ceiling were also ten in number, though they were joined to each other (26,1). The number 10 is featured again in connection with the copper altar which was five cubits long and five cubits wide (27,1) giving the altar a combined length and width of ten cubits. Furthermore, the height of the altar was also 10 cubits as I will explain at the end of this portion [seeing the Torah first describes it as 5 cubits high. Ed.] As a result of all this you find that the number 10 was of cardinal importance in all aspects of the Tabernacle.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bamidbar Rabbah 4,13: there are allusions in our paragraph to the kabbalistic statement that the composition of the Holy Ark was as dear to G’d as His throne in the celestial regions. They base this on Exodus 15,17 מכון לשבתך פעלת ה’, “You G’d have  made the foundation of Your dwelling place.” This teaches that the Temple corresponds to the throne in the celestial regions. The two cherubs are as dear to G’d as are heaven and earth, both of whom contain residences of the Lord. The entire Tabernacle was constructed only for the sake of the Holy Ark as the Shechinah resided within it. All the miracles performed for the Jewish people after the construction of the Tabernacle were performed by means of the Holy Ark which always traveled in front of the camp of the Israelites (Numbers 10,33). It would kill poisonous snakes on the way as well as any other antagonists lying in wait for the Jewish people. Rabbi Eleazar son of Pedot quotes in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Zimta (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3,5): “two sparks used to come forth from between the lid of the Ark killing snakes, hornets, etc., and burning the nettles and other harmful growths in the desert. The smoke rising from this fire would rise and sweep the whole earth with a pleasant fragrance. The nations of the world would react to this phenomenon  with the words of Song of Songs 3,6: ‘Who is she that comes up from the desert like columns of smoke in clouds of myrrh and frankincense of all the powders of the merchant?’” Thus far the words of the Midrash. 
  We have to add to this  that the words: “they shall construct an Ark out of acacia wood” refer to the people who preoccupy themselves with the Torah (Yuma 72). וצפית אותו זהב טהור, “you shall overlay it with pure gold.” This is an allusion to the tradition that in the future G’d would make a special “shade” for the people studying Torah and generally supporting Torah, concerning whom Solomon said in Kohelet 7,12: “for to be in the shade (shelter) of  wisdom is also to be in the shelter of silver.” Solomon also wrote in Proverbs 3,18: “she (the Torah) is a tree of life for all those who support it.” He did not write: “for those who study it,” but “for those who support it.” If merely supporting Torah and its institutions is considered holding on to ”a tree of life,” how much more must this be so for the people who actually study the Torah!והבאת את הבדים  בטבעות, “you are to insert the staves into rings, etc.” This is a reference to the multitude whose duty it is to maintain Torah scholars in a manner similar to the staves maintaining the Ark. This is the meaning of the words לשאת את הארון בהם, “by means of which they will be carried (sustained) by the Ark.” People who support Torah institutions will find themselves uplifted by what they do.” Our sages in Sifra Emor section 1,2 explain these words as meaning that such supporters of Torah (the Ark) will be raised to a higher level than their brethren. We find an explanation very similar to this in Chulin 92 where the Talmud states: “let the grapes pray for the leaves; for if it were not for the leaves there would not be any grapes either.” The meaning of this parable is: “when one plants a vine one should not have in mind the grapes exclusively, although, of course, they were the reason that one plants the vine; nonetheless the leaves fulfill a crucial function protecting the plant from excess heat and cold, etc.” There is a statement by our sages according to which “all the cubits inside the Ark were ‘broken.’” [I believe this means that after allowing for the insertion of the golden overlay on the inside of the Ark, the height, length, and breadth measurements left inside were fractions of cubits rather than whole cubits. Ed.] At any rate, the lesson to be derived from that fact is that a Torah scholar should always feel as well as deport himself in a somewhat broken manner, as opposed to appearing haughty and of an imposing appearance.
      A rational approach to these measurements: it is possible to explain the words: “they shall make an Ark for Me,” as an instruction that the Ark and its lid with the cherubs were to  symbolise the three parts the human being is made of, i.e. body-soul-intellect. The wooden part of the Ark represents the body of man; the four rings represent the four basic materials that the body consists of. These materials are what keep him alive and functioning. The two staves  correspond to the two “strings” which run through man’s body, i.e. the spine (vertebrae) and the spinal cord inside it. The two tablets which were to be deposited inside the Ark represented two special organs within man’s body which enable him to understand the wisdom of the Torah, i.e. the brain and the heart. The two cherubs represent the soul and the intelligence, the former being feminine the latter masculine. 
  You are aware already that the masculine element is the predominating one. The male is the active element, the female element is responsive by nature. This is what Solomon referred to in Proverbs 19,2 when he wrote: גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב, “it is also not good for a person (soul) to lack knowledge.” He meant that the soul cannot attain its objective, its fulfillment, unless it possesses intelligence. There is no need to add that if this is true of the creatures in our “lower” terrestrial world this is certainly true of the world of the planets and the stars. In that part of the cosmos we also have male and female forces such as the sun being a masculine, active force, whereas the moon is responsive, feminine. This is why both of these forces appeared in Joseph’s dream (Genesis 37,9), i.e. the masculine and the feminine force in the middle part of the cosmos, the world of the planets and stars. Even in the celestial regions this division between masculine and feminine forces exists as it is the function of the soul to eventually return to G’d as a soul which has absorbed divine intelligence [as if the feminine נפש after it had become impregnated with the masculine שכל, intelligence, had achieved its purpose, Ed]. Both of the cherubs, which represented the male and female elements in the celestial spheres were constructed out of the pure gold of the kapporet, the lid. of the Ark, in a single piece, מקשה. This kapporet  was an allusion to the throne of G’d the source of חכמה, wisdom. The word כפורת, of course, is derived from כפרה, atonement. A return of the soul to its origin is impossible unless atonement for sins committed while inside the body had first been obtained. Similarly, without knowledge of the Torah a return to its holy roots is also impossible as during its stay on earth the soul otherwise becomes contaminated by the body. We learn from this whole description of the construction of the Holy Ark that by means of knowledge of the Torah which is stored inside the Holy Ark the soul as well as the intelligence, both of which were “emanated” from celestial regions down to man on earth  from their origin near the throne of the attribute כבוד will be able to regain their roots if they make prudent use of their potential. This is hinted at when the Torah describes the cherubs as סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפורת, “they shall have their wings spread out shielding the cover with their wings.” 
      Another way of looking at the Ark is that it symbolised a garden (Gan Eden) and that the two Tablets inside it symbolise the two kinds of commandments respectively, i.e. commandments to be fulfilled by one’s body  and the ones to be fulfilled with one’s intellect. This corresponds to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in the original Gan Eden. The kapporet represents the ערבות, the highest of the seven heavens, the one which covers all the other heavens. The cherubs on top of this kapporet  are an allusion to the angels above this highest of the seven heavens. The are the region from which prophecy emanates to all the other prophets. The cherubs extending their wings upwards symbolized their readiness and eagerness to receive spiritual input from G’d directly, a prophecy which was direct such as that of Moses which came directly from G’d without intermediaries. This is what the sages meant when they described the Shechinah as speaking to Moses from between these two cherubs. 
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words: “they shall make an Ark” mean that this Ark was a symbol or replica of the throne of the attribute כבוד. This is the deeper meaning of the words ואת תבנית כל כליו, “and a pattern of all its furnishings.” It means that G’d showed Moses a “sample” of all the furnishings of the Tabernacle. The reason why the Ark had to be covered with a blue colored garment was that the color blue is reminiscent of the sky and the sky in turn reminds us of the throne of G’d (Sotah 17), and this is what is meant in Numbers 4,6 that when Aaron and his sons would approach the Ark prior to the Israelites breaking camp, “they are to cover the Ark completely with a blue-colored woolen cloth and adjust its staves.” The word כליל תכלת used by the Torah in that connection  means that it was to resemble the color of the sky in its entirety. The color was to symbolize the color of the celestial spheres which is also perceived as consisting of that shade of blue. Seeing that I have explained in connection with 24,10 that the throne of G’d consisted of three foundations of three colors, Betzalel made the Ark out of three separate “boxes” to reflect that concept  (Compare Tanchuma Vayakhel 7). He based himself on the instruction to overlay the Ark with gold both from the inside and from the outside (verse 11). Although there were in fact three separate boxes, they looked as if there were only a single box. This is also why you find in this paragraph all the letters of the alphabet except for the letter ג which the Torah wanted to conceal in order to conceal the fact that the throne of G’d consisted of three foundations. Betzalel, on the other hand, hinted at this missing letter ג by constructing three Arks which looked like one. This is also the reason that in Parshat Noach the Torah wrote the word קשת, “rainbow,” three times in the paragraph where G’d explains the rainbow as the symbol of His covenant with mankind not to bring on another deluge, ever (compare Genesis 9, 13-14-16). 
  One of the peculiarities of the Holy Ark which we must try and understand has been described in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 4?) in connection with the Ark’s uncanny ability to carry its carriers as we know from Joshua 4,11. According to Rabbi Eliezer, just as the chayot appeared to be carrying (supporting) the throne of G’d whereas in fact the throne carried them (supported them), so something similar occurred with the people assigned to transport the Holy Ark. Our sages in Sotah 35 explained Joshua 4,11: “when all the people finished crossing, the Ark of the Lord carried its carriers and crossed with the priests ahead of the people.” There is another verse (Joshua 4,18) “the soles of the feet of the priests carrying the Ark of the covenant were torn away onto dry ground, and the waters of the Jordan resumed their flow.” According to this the feet of the priests were torn away backwards, raising the question how the Ark crossed the Jordan river afterwards. The only explanation is that the Ark carried its carriers across subsequent to what was reported in verse 18. The operative letter enabling us to understand all this is the letter כ which is read instead of the letter ב which is written in the verse, i.e. בעלות. This is what was meant by the words in verse 11 “the Ark of the Lord crossed and the priests were in front of the people.” Had the author of the Book of Joshua meant that the priests crossed the river on foot, he would have had to write ויעברו, “they crossed.”  Just as the throne of G’d carried the four chayot described in the vision of Ezekiel, so the Ark carried the four men who were assigned to carry it upon their shoulders. You find this spelled out in Menachot 98. We find that the Holy Ark is also referred to as אדון כל הארץ, “master of the whole earth,” in Joshua 3,11. This is so because the Shechinah cleaves to the Torah. You also find a verse in Chronicles II 6,41 in which the Ark and G’d are almost equated when Solomon said אתה וארון עוזך, “You and the Ark representing Your power.” The word עזיך, “Your might, or Your power,” is spelled with the letter י as if the word were in the plural. When we find the Ark described as ארון העדות, as “the Ark of testimony” in verse 22 the meaning is that the presence of the Ark is proof that the Shechinah is present in Israel (compare Shabbat 22). The sages in Baba Batra 99 stated that the Ark did not take up measurable space in the Temple. What they meant by this was that one of the miracles in connection with the Ark was that its presence did not diminish the space in the Tabernacle or Temple. [In other words it did not occupy the three-dimensional space which forms the basis of our measuring things. Ed.] This was another aspect in which the Ark paralleled the throne of G’d whose location or measurements we also do not know. This is why the angels are reported as formulating their blessing by saying ברוך ה' ממקומו “blessed be the Lord wherever His location” (compare Pessikta Zutrata).
  
  Verse 11
  
    וצפית אותו זהב טהור מבית ומחוץ תצפנו, “you are to overlay it with pure gold, from the inside and the outside you are to overlay it.” This verse is used by our sages (Yuma 72) to demand that Torah scholars must be able to demonstrate that they practice what they preach. They base this on the Ark which was gold on the inside as well as on the outside. Although no one actually saw the inside, it had to correspond to its exterior. Another verse which alludes to this subject is Job 29,14: “I clothed myself in righteousness and it robed me; Justice was my cloak and turban.” The repetition in this verse means that one’s inside must match the image one creates for oneself on the outside. Our sages add further on this subject: “why were the words of Torah compared to glass?, i.e. (Job, 28,17) “gold or glass cannot match its value?” Answer: just as glass is transparent and allows you to see not only the outside but also the interior, so bearers of Torah must be able to be equally transparent, not hiding character weakness not visible to their students or to their peers.
     ועשית עליו זר זהב סביב, “you are to construct on it  a golden crown all around it.” When the Torah issues similar instructions concerning the table and the altar, the wording is not עליו, ”on it,” but לו “for it.” The reason is that the table itself was a symbol of the “crown” of Royalty, whereas the altar was a symbol of the “crown” of priesthood (compare Avot 4,13). The “crown” of priest-hood as well as the “crown” of Royalty is acquired by its wearer at birth, through inheritance. The “crown” of Torah is not acquired by birth. The word לו implies that this crown is an integral part of the table or altar respectively, i.e. “it belongs.” Seeing that the crown of Torah has first to be earned by the eventual wearer, the word עליו, “upon him” indicates that it will be placed on the Torah scholar at the appropriate time, at his ordination. Hereditary Royalty in Israel was the exclusive right of Kings descended from David, whereas hereditary priesthood was reserved for the descendants of Aaron. The word לו in a similar sense is used by the Torah in connection with the duty of the King to write two Torah scrolls for himself. We read in Deut. 17,18 וכתב לו את משנה התורה וגו', “he is to write for himself  two copies of the Torah, etc.” The Torah immediately (verse 20) continues to supply the reason for this by writing למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו, “in order that the days of his dynasty be long ones, etc.” We find something similar in connection with the priesthood where the Torah writes in Numbers 25,13 after Pinchas had been elevated to the priesthood: והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “and it shall be his and for his offspring after him a covenant of an eternal priesthood, etc.” Seeing that the crown on the Ark represents a different kind of concept, one based on יחוס עצמו, “personal achievement,” the preposition the Torah chose to use in connection with it is עליו instead of לו. 
      A Midrashic approach to this wording (Shemot Rabbah 34,2): the reason the Torah writes the word עליו in connection with the crown on top of the Ark as distinct from the way it describes the crowns of the table and the altar respectively, is that the crown of Torah is considered the most superior of the three (4) crowns mentioned in the Mishnah in Avot we quoted before. By writing the word עליו, “above,” the Torah indicates that he who has acquired the crown of Torah is as if he had also acquired the other crowns mentioned in that Mishnah. This thought is also expressed in the word סביב, “around it,” i.e. the crown of Torah is all-embracing. Note that the word זר for “crown” is spelled without the letter י. This is a hint that unless a person merits wearing this crown Torah is considered alien to him, i.e. זר, “strange, uninitiated.” [The assumption is that because of the vowel tzeyreh under the letter ז, the normal spelling of the word ought to have been זיר.  Ed.]  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ונתתה על ארבע פעמותיו, “you shall place it (them) on its four corners.” Rashi writes that the word פעמותיו is to be understood in accordance with the rendering by Onkelos i.e. זויתה, “its corners.” The rings were attached at the corners close to the top of the Ark, immediately beneath the kapporet. I believe that the correct explanation of the verse is found in the commentary by Nachmanides who understands the word פעמותיו as derived from, or similar in meaning to, פסיעות, steps. The word פעמות occurs as meaning “steps” in Song of Songs 7,2 מה יפו פעמיך, “how lovely are your steps.” It is a fact that the rings were attached at the respective corners near the very bottom of the Ark as it would not have been seemly for the Ark to be sort of suspended below the shoulders of the priests who carried it. It was much more dignified and in keeping with the lofty ideals that the Ark represented that it be carried above the shoulders of those priests charged with transporting it.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   לא יסורו ממנו, ‘they are not to be removed from it.” Our sages in Yuma 72 explain that the staves were never totally removed from the rings through which they had been placed. Anyone who did remove the staves from the Ark contravened this commandment. Another comment found on that folio on the words והבאת את הבדים בטבעות is that the staves moved to and fro within the rings. You might assume that this means that sometimes they would slip out of the rings altogether? The Torah reassures you by saying לא יסורו הבדים, the staves will not be totally removed, i.e. “fall out of the rings.” Had the Torah only written these last words I would have thought that the staves never moved at all. This is why the Torah added  והבאת את הבדים בטבעות, “place the staves through the rings.” How was this to be accomplished?” Answer: they were thicker at the extremities and thinner in the middle so that they could be introduced with ease but could be extracted only with great difficulty. [If you are interested in the tricky question of how both parts of the instructions in the Torah could be observed, see Or Hachayim on our verse. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
    ועשית שנים כרובים, “you are to construct two cherubs, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that such figures of angels were placed both in the Tabernacle and in the permanent Temple is to keep alive the idea that there are such beings whom G’d designated from time to time to perform miracles on earth. Just as we have been commanded to have a firm belief in the existence of G’d Himself and the fact that He is the original Existence, and this is one of the fundamental concepts of the Torah as proven by the first words of the Decalogue: “I am the Lord your G’d, etc.,” so we are required to believe in the existence of angels as the second fundamental concept in the list of our religious beliefs. Had there not been such angels, i.e. instruments by means of whom G’d makes His will known from time to time to His prophets, there would be no prophecy, no Torah, in short no “hot line” to the Creator. This is why G’d commanded that these figures be made and installed inside the Tabernacle (where nobody could see them). The reason that two such angel-like figures had to be made  was to ensure that none of us would think that the solitary angel-like figure represented the Creator Himself, the One whom we worship and serve. If you were to reply that by making two such figures people might conclude that there are in fact two domains, i.e. that G’d shares power with another, this is not a valid objection seeing both of these cherubs’ wings were pointed upwards towards heaven indicating that they themselves were recipients of Divine input rather than original dispensers of Divine bounty. This is Maimonides’ view concerning the cherubs though I changed his wording a little (compare Moreh Nevuchim section 3 chapter 45). 
  Seeing that I believe that the cherubs represented the existence of the angels and there are many angels, we can surely say that the word כרובים was chosen to convey the idea that there are many such beings. This is also why G’d Himself is described (Psalms 80,2) sometimes as יושב הכרובים, “enthroned above the Cherubs.” G’d is described there as taking care of flocks of such cherubs. According to Sukkah 5 the meaning of the word כרוב is the same as כרביא in Aramaic, i.e. “young child.” From the above it appears that the word כרובים has two meanings, “a multitude of something,“ and ”children.” In both of these meanings the first letter כ is not part of the actual noun but is additional. It symbolises the כסא, the throne of G’d. In fact we have a tradition that the name כסא is based on the letter כ. (Compare what we wrote on Leviticus 27,2 under the heading “a kabbalistic approach.”) At the same time, the letter כ also alludes to the word or attribute כבוד, and we have already explained that it is this attribute of G’d which occupies the throne כסא. The function of some of the angels is to welcome this attribute of G’d as it is written וכבוד אלו-הי ישראל עליהם מלמעלה, “and the attribute כבוד of the Lord G’d of Israel was above them (the cherubs)” (Ezekiel 10,19). We may say further that the cherubs were positioned at a height which corresponded to the high end of the lower third of the overall height of the Tabernacle. The same was true of the position of the cherubs in Solomon’s Temple as our sages pointed out in Sukkah 5. The reason for this is that the angel is considered as “one third of the world,” this is why the cherubs were positioned only in the lower third of the Tabernacle. This was to demonstrate that though the angel’s regular habitat is in the upper third of the three parts of the cosmos, nonetheless they represent the lower third of that domain in relation to the Lord Who “rides” above them. This is not so in connection with the mezzuzah which is affixed on the upper third of the frame of the door or entrance (compare our comments on Deut. 6,9).
      When the Torah writes here: “you shall construct 2 cherubs of gold,” using the word שנים instead of שני to describe the possessive clause, the word שני denotes the equality of the two cherubs such as in שני לוחות העדות, or in שני כשבים, “the two Tablets of testimony,” or “two sheep.” In order to teach that these two cherubs were not identical, could not be interchanged, the Torah had to write the word שנים instead of שני. One of the cherubs was male, the other female. This is confirmed by the fact that once we established that these cherubs were indeed different from one another, the Torah could write in verse 22 מבין שני הכרובים. Similarly, in 37,2 the Torah was able to write ויעש שני כרובים זהב, as in these verses the Torah emphasised what the two cherubs had in common, i.e. that both of them were constructed out of gold.
      An approach based on the plain meaning of the text. The words שנים כרובים are necessary to teach that the two cherubs were male and female. The Torah wanted to teach that the Children of Israel are as beloved of Him as the love that exists between man and woman. This corresponds to what the sages said in Yuma  54: “Rabbi Ketina said that at the time when the Israelites are in the habit of appearing at the Temple on the three festivals requiring them to do so, they used to roll back the dividing curtain so as to show the pilgrims the cherubs on top of the Ark  which were embracing one another and they would say to them: ‘see how beloved you are in the eyes of the Lord, just like the love that exists between man and wife.’” There is a verse in Kings I 7,36 which expresses the words of Rabbi Ketina where we read: כמער איש וליות סביב, “joined in an embrace (of their arms) like man and woman.” 
      It is necessary to understand these similes correctly. The Rabbis meant that the very shape and position of the cherubs was such that they suggested a readiness to embrace each other. They did not mean that these cherubs performed such activities, especially not when exposed to public view. The idea the Rabbis wanted to convey was that as opposed to the Gentiles who require an intermediary in their approach to the Lord, the Jewish people are so beloved of G’d that they do not require an intermediary just as man and wife do not require an intermediary if they want to express their love for one another. For He, the Exalted, leads Israel all by Himself without the help of any intermediary (compare Deut. 32,12). The Gentiles, on the other hand, are assigned to intermediaries as we know from Deut. 4,19). It would have been possible to construct the cherubs in a way that one was the figure of an adult and the other the figure of a child. Ezekiel saw it like this in his vision (Ezekiel 10,14) “the appearance of the face of one was that of a minor whereas the face of the other looked like that of אדם, “an adult person.” In his vision the message would have been that the love of G’d for Israel was like the love of a father for a son, a very formidable kind of love. However, in the Tabernacle the intention was to describe an ongoing close relationship. Seeing that it was impossible to inform us of the type of relationship which exists between G’d and the Jewish people, the Torah decided to describe this by means of the cherubs in the Tabernacle.
      Another reason for telling us all this by means of a visible symbol is to encourage us to pray for this relationship without intermediary to be maintained. This was the reason that the Ark was placed in the Holy of Holies, the site where the Shechinah resides, the ruin towards which all the eyes of Israel focus in prayer.
      If you will study the writings of Maimonides carefully (Moreh Nevuchim 3,3) you will find that he understood the cherubs in the Tabernacle as corresponding to the cherubs which Ezekiel saw in his vision, i.e. the chayot hakodesh. Even though Ezekiel reported seeing four chayot, in reality they were really only one. We can confirm this from the wording in Ezekiel 10,20 when he refers to them in the singular, i.e. היא החיה אשר ראיתי תחת אלו-הי ישראל בנהר כבר ואדע כי כרובים המה, “they are the chayah which I had seen under the Lord G’d of Israel at the river Kevar. So now I knew they were cherubs. After Ezekiel had earlier described 4 chayot, he had subsequently realised  that they were in reality a single chayah and the same as the cherubs. After Ezekiel had understood this he mentioned a second insight he had acquired that they are the Ophanim which he had previously observed next to the chayot though somewhat lower than the chayot. The wording in the text (Ezekiel 1,15) is as follows: וארא את החיות והנה אופן אחד בארץ אצל החיות, “When I saw the chayot, and here one Ophan was on the ground near the four-faced chayot.” Already during his first insight (Ezekiel 1,4) when he had the vision of the chayot he had said:  וארא והנה רוח סערה גדולה: “I saw that there was a stormy wind,” etc. Still later Ezekiel speaks of a third insight he had, an insight superior to the previous ones, the understanding of the phenomenon called Chashmal. Concerning these three separate insights granted to him he applied the word Chashmal. He used the wordוארא  three times to indicate that he had three separate visions. These visions are what is described in Chagigah 13 as מעשה מרכבה, the traditional name for Ezekiel’s vision. There is some disagreement  as to how far the מעשה מרכבה extends. Rabbi says that it concludes with the words וארא where this word appears for the last time (1,27), whereas Rabbi Yitzchak holds that it extends only until the word חשמל, (1,4) and that what follows are headings for different aspects of what is known as מעשה מרכבה, “a description of G’d’s entourage.” [The author goes to some length to compare the construction of the cherubs, their appearance, the gold they were made of, etc., to the vision of Ezekiel. I have decided to omit this. Ed.]
      ... Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 1,20 explain that the angels were created on the second day of creation and that the heaven described as רקיע was created on the same day. They understand the meaning of the directive יהי רקיע in Genesis 1,6 as a reference to the “heaven” inhabited by the angels known as chayot. 
  It is important for us to appreciate that the habitat of these chayot is in the seventh רקיע, the one known as ערבות. Our sages in Chagigah 12 stated this specifically. 
  Some Kabbalists believe that above that region is one called מעון, i.e. an eighth heaven. This heaven supposedly contains what are known in kabbalistic circles as נהרי שמחה, “rivers of joy.” This is why in the seven benedictions and the introduction to the grace after meals during wedding festivities we speak of the heavens as שהשמחה במעונו, “the heaven called Ma-on which contains joy.” Above that region is yet another heaven, the ninth, known as מכון. All the last three heavens together are part of what is known as ערבות. The holy chayot are within the general domain known as ערבות. The region known as מעון is inclined above their heads. The ninth heaven, the one called מכון, contains the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. We know that this is also part of the general region known as ערבות from David who speaks of סולו לרוכב בערבות בי-ה שמו, “extol Him who rides the regions of heaven known as ערבות, ‘the Lord” is His name” (Psalms 68,5). We have another verse referring to the region called מכון in Kings I 8,13 where Solomon describes that region as the one where G’d has His residence, eternally.
      A kabbalistic approach to the two cherubs.  Both the cherubs in the Tabernacle and the ones in the Temple were symbolic of the fire and the thunder the Israelites experienced during the revelation at Mount Sinai. Moses had reminded the people of their experience in Deut. 4,36 when he emphasised that the origin of these phenomena had been in heaven, i.e. מן השמים. They were both constructed of gold seeing that both were recipients of input from the attributes חסד and דין, Love, and Justice. They were constructed of a single chunk of gold, מקשה, to symbolise the underlying unity of these attributes. They were male and female respectively in order to teach that these two genders represent the משפיע and the מושפע, the initiating force and the responsive force respectively. The reason they were placed at opposite ends of the kapporet (verse 19) was that one represented the “head” i.e. the beginning of the בנין in the lower, terrestrial world, whereas the other represented the סוף, the conclusion of that  בנין “construction.” This is what is implied in the wording מן הכפורת תעשו את הכרובים על שני קצותיו, “from the kapporet shall you make the two cherubs at its two ends.” והיו הכרובים פורשי כנפים למעלה, the meaning  of these words is that the cherubs are to receive spiritual input from the celestial  regions. ופניהם איש אל אחיו, “with their faces opposite each other.” Our sages (Baba Batra 89) explain that as long as the Jewish people carry out the will of their Lord the faces of the cherubs will be turned towards the kapporet like the student who lowers his eyes before the teacher out of deference and fear. We need to understand that the kapporet together with its cherubs is an allusion to the five “lower” regions who raise their wings in an upward direction, i.e. facing the five “upper regions.” 
  This concept helps you to understand how appropriate it was that the Tablets were underneath the cherubs inside the Ark. By facing the Ark with their faces (as opposed to their wings), the cherubs indicated that they looked for inspiration from the Torah (Tablets) below them inside the Ark. Just as we heard the Torah i.e. what is inscribed on the Tablets, through fire and thunder at Mount Sinai, the cherubs’ facial direction symbolised this. The reason that the Torah repeats once moreואל הארון תתן את העדות אשר אתן אליך,  “and into the Ark you shall place the Testimony which I will give you,” is a warning that the Ark is not to remain empty, without the Tablets. This is similar to the instructions (Menachot 99) that the table is not to be empty overnight of the show-breads. The Tablets inside the Ark were a symbol of G’d’s Presence as described in Isaiah 26,4 and in Exodus 23,21, where the Presence of G’d in the Tabernacle is referred to.  The cherubs which Ezekiel saw, i.e. the chayot hakodesh, corresponded to the cherubs in the Temple on the lid of the Ark. This is the meaning of what he said (Ezekiel 10,20): ואדע כי כרובים המה, “I realised that they were the cherubs.” Seeing that he had already seen cherubs which were chayot hakodesh, he realised that in a still higher region there were other cherubs, angels which he had not seen although he had seen a “sample, a pattern,” of them.
      The cherubs which Ezekiel did see as well as the cherubs in the Tabernacle and the Temple all were a pattern of the cherubs in the higher celestial regions which he knew of but had not seen. The term “cherubs” includes such phenomena as the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד; they are the ones to which Isaiah 64,10 referred when he said בית קדשנו ותפארתנו אשר הללוך אבותינו, “our holy Temple, our pride, where our fathers praised You.” You are aware that the sound of G’d’s voice was heard by Moses as emanating from between the two cherubs on the kapporet, from the single handbreadth of open space between their outstretched wings. This is where G’d had “compressed” His Shechinah. He did so although we have been told elsewhere (Jeremiah 23,24) “for I fill heaven and earth, says the Lord.” 
  You also find in Tanchuma Vayakhel 7 that Rabbi Joshua from Sakinin said: “the way to understand all this is by means of a parable: there was a cave at the beach of the sea. Whenever the sea was rough the cave was filled with water; nonetheless the sea did not appear to have lost any of its volume.” In a similar manner G’d compressed His Shechinah into a small space without impairing the truth of the statement in Psalms 148,13 הודו על ארץ ושמים, “that His splendour covers heaven and earth.”
      When we consider the framework of man you will find that  man possesses three special organs, each one of which is about the size of the space between the wings of the cherubs in the Tabernacle. These three organs contain the letters of the tetragrammaton, each organ, one of them. (The organs are מילה, פה,לשון — the male organ, the mouth and the tongue). The word הלב has the fourth letter of the tetragrammaton i.e. the second letter ה of the name “Hashem.” 
  Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,10 say that the kapporet on the Ark corresponds to the Seraphim in the celestial regions which are above the throne as we know from Isaiah 6,2 שרפים עומדים ממעל לו “Seraphim were standing ‘above’ him.” These Seraphim are “advisors” of the Shechinah. There are two of them. They too are part of the beings called cherubs.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפורת , “spreading their wings over the kapporet.” This verse refers to these cherubs which were 10 handbreadths in height; this is the source of the sages proving that the interior height of the Sukkah, exclusive of its covering must not be less than ten handbreadths (Sukkah 5). The cherubs occupied the lower third of the Tabernacle seeing that the interior of the Tabernacle was 10 cubits high and the cubit comprised 6 handbreadths. We have already shown that the height of the Ark including the kapporet but excluding the cherubs was also ten handbreadths, so that the cherubs occupied the upper ten of the lower 20 handbreadths. This is what was meant by the statement that they were standing in the “third” of the Tabernacle, i.e. the lower third. The words סוככים על הכפורת mean that there was enough space beneath their wings to form the minimum height for a Sukkah.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ועשית שלחן, “you are to construct a table.” It has already been demonstrated that there was a real need for the Ark seeing that it served to house the Tablets. The kapporet was also essential as it served as the lid for the Ark. The word כפורת is also derived from וכפרת אותה “you shall cover it,” used in connection with waterproofing the boards of the Ark of Noach (Genesis 6,14). The cherubs on top of the kapporet were needed to demonstrate that there are such beings as angels. This leaves the question of what need did the presence of the table actually fill? The question is equally relevant to the presence of the table in the Tabernacle as to its presence in the Temple.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the table was needed in order that the show-breads which the Torah commanded to be ever-present in the Tabernacle (Temple) could be placed upon it. These show-breads were necessary as the basic minimum to which G’d’s bounty could attach itself. The weekly offerings of these show-breads were consumed by the priests who performed the service in the Tabernacle or Temple during the week in question. A small part of this bread was sufficient for many priests. Our sages in Yuma 39 illustrated this point when they said that if a priest received as little as the size of a bean of that bread this would suffice to still his hunger. This then is the reason that this structure was called “table,” seeing G’d provided His blessing for the bread which was placed upon it. From this table G’d’s blessing for the food of the Jewish people would proliferate to all parts of the country, indeed to all parts of the earth. This blessing was in the nature of a יש מיש , “something based on something else.” It was of the same category as that demonstrated by such prophets as Elijah and Elisha who were able to make a minute amount of flour or oil grow into huge amounts. It was a precondition for these prophets to have something, i.e. a “יש” to work with (compare Kings II 4,2 and Kings I 17,16). Creating something out of nothing is something reserved for G’d Himself and such power has not been given to any prophet. In fact we do not know that a type of יש מאין creative activity ever occurred again after G’d commenced creating His universe in such a fashion.
      
  A Midrashic approach: the word שטים in the phrase ועשית שלחן עצי שטים, “you are to construct a table out of shittim wood,” may be understood as an acrostic of the first letters of the words שלום, טובה, ישועה, מחילה; we also find similar acrostics in connection with the Ark and the Altar, i.e. that these furnishings of the Tabernacle contained within them the essence of all the principal blessings man is in need of. In fact, the table (in each man’s house) symbolises the altar, the instrument through which man is able to achieve atonement for his errors. The bread on the table is considered as a surrogate for animal sacrifice on the altar provided man is generous and shares his blessings (food, etc.) with the poor. This is the deeper meaning of what the sages said (Berachot 55)  when they commented on Ezekiel 41,22 והמזבח עץ שלוש אמות......וידבר אלי זה השלחן אשר לפני ה', “and the altar, a wooden block, three cubits high,.....and He said to me: ‘this is the table before Hashem.” The remarkable thing in that vision is that it commenced with the altar and concluded with the table. The message to Ezekiel was that as long as the Temple was standing and the altar was functioning, man’s atonement was achieved through the sacrifices offered on the altar. When there is no altar upon which to offer sacrifices, man must achieve his atonement by means of his table. ...
  It became an accepted practice amongst the pious Jews of France to construct their caskets out of the wood of their tables in order to demonstrate the idea that their table become the means of their atonement just as death is the means to achieve our ultimate atonement. It also was to signify that man does not take with him any of the material things he enjoyed on earth. The only thing he can take with him is the evidence of the charitable deeds he performed while alive. The table was a prime symbol of such charitable deeds. This is also why the sages (Berachot 54) said  that he who spends a long time over his meal will have his life extended.” [The idea is that the poor may come to his door while he is still eating and they will be invited to share. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
    וציפית אותו זהב טהור, “you shall overlay it with pure gold.” We find here an allusion to the three basic benedictions which comprise our grace after meals which are considered as Biblical in nature. They are the acrostic formed by the respective first letters in the words זן, הארץ, בונה . forming the word זהב.
     ועשית לו זר זהב, “you are to make for it a golden crown.” In the words זר זהב you can detect an allusion to the dynasty of the Kingdom of David.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the table with its golden crown is an allusion to the attribute of Justice in the higher emanations. This is why it was positioned in the northern part of the Sanctuary which is also the “left side,” traditionally the side representing negative influences. We have a verse supporting this view in Job 37,22: “by the north wind the golden rays emerge.” The meaning of the statement that he who wishes to amass material gains should turn his attention to the north (Baba Batra 25), is that that is where the attribute גבורה is found. This is the reason that the table had two different colors in the two coverings used to transport it, i.e. red and blue (Numbers 4,7-8), The red corresponded to the attribute of Justice in the higher emanations, whereas the blue was symbolic of the attribute Justice in the lower terrestrial regions (the emanation מלכות) The procedure followed on the table was as follows: first they placed the show-breads on the table directly without anything intervening between the bread and the surface of the table. This is the meaning of the words; ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה, “and the constant bread shall remain on it.” (Numbers 4,7) They would spread a blue-coloured woolen cloth over the breads and all the various appurtenances of the table were placed on top of the blue-coloured woollen cloth and subsequently they would place the re-coloured woollen cloth on top of all this so that a symbol of the attribute of Justice in the higher emanations would be above the symbol of the attribute of Justice in the lowest emanation. The ‘Higher” attribute of Justice makes its impact on the lower attribute of Justice known as the emanation מלכות, the one alluded to by the word זהב formed by the acrostic we mentioned earlier, which hinted at the dynasty of David. [This was the procedure when the Israelites were moving. Ed.] The table thereby established a link between the concepts of מלכות in the celestial and the terrestrial regions respectively. This forms the background to he statement דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים that “David King of Israel is alive and well.” [Renewal of the moon is reassurance concerning renewal of the active dynasty of David. Ed.] It is common knowledge that the blessing connected with the supply of material welfare is dependent on the goodwill and generosity of the king (govt.) and an example of this is found in the wording of the banquet given by King Ahasverus to his people where the Book of Esther 1,7 speaks of the lavishness being כיד המלך, “in accordance with the king’s generosity.” Our sages (Bamidbar Rabbah 4,14) also say that the table is a symbol of the כתר מלכות in the celestial regions. To sum up: the livelihood for mankind and the world has its origin in those regions. Both the celestial regions and the terrestrial regions receive their requirements from that source as this is the emanation from which טרף לביתה וחוק לנערותיה (Proverbs 31,15) “provisions for her household” are provided. 
  This makes it easier to understand the height of the table, i.e. 10 handbreadths plus what is on top of it [a total of 20 handbreadths when the superstructure of twice six layers of these breads housing the show breads one above the other is included, symbolising both celestial and terrestrial regions. Ed.]
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  . ועשית קערותיו, “you shall construct its dishes, etc.” The forms in which the show breads were baked and displayed  are called by the Torah קערה. Rashi explains the word to mean “its forms.” The form was made like the forms in which bread is baked, sort of a box broken in half from both directions. It had upright elevated sides. The surface of the bread was visible from three sides; this is why these loaves were called “show-breads,” as each loaf actually had three surfaces, “u” shaped.” There were two forms, one of iron and one of gold. The breads were baked in the iron form. When they came out of the oven they were placed in the golden forms and placed on the table where they remained until the following Sabbath. וכפותיו, “and its spoons.” the frankincense was placed inside these “spoons.” There were two of them each holding a kometz, fistful, of frankincense. One spoon of it was placed on each of the shelf-like arrangement holding the show-breads. וקשותיו, “and its shelving tubes.” These were hollow tubes cut in half to allow for air to circulate between the forms with the breads. ומנקיותיו, “and its pillars;” these were upright standing golden posts extending well above the height of the actual table and forming the anchors for the hollowed shelving tubes supporting the forms on which the show-breads were positioned. There are different opinions between the commentators as to the most appropriate translation of the word, especially in view of the apparent meaning of the word having to do with “cleanliness.” Probably, and in accordance with Onkelos, the meaning is “pillars of support.”
  
  Verse 30
  
   לחם פנים לפני תמיד, “show-breads before Me, always.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word פנים, literally, “face,” is used as three sides of these breads faced the onlooker. They were positioned in such a way that they “faced” three different directions inside the Tabernacle.
      According to the Midrash the reason for the word פנים is that they were one handbreadth thick, and our sages said (Sukkah 5) that the word פנים is not used for something thinner than one handbreadth. We refer to Leviticus 16,2 אל פני הכפורת, “facing the kapporet,” and we had explained in connection with the Ark that the thickness of the kapporet was 1 handbreadth. We have another verse in Genesis 27,30 מאת פני יצחק אביו, “from the face of his father Yitzchak.” The face of a human being is never thinner than a handbreadth. 
      A Kabbalistic approach: the reason these breads were given the adjective פנים was because the Torah added לפני תמיד, “before Me, always, i.e. “facing Me always.” We have already explained the mystical dimension of the meaning of the word פנים  in connection with Exodus 20,3 on the words לא יהיה לך......על פני.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ועשית מנורת זהב טהור, “you are to construct a golden lampstand.” According to the plain meaning of the text the purpose of the Menorah in both the Tabernacle and the Temple was to establish the lofty meaning of the Temple in the minds of people and their souls. They should forever display reverence for what the Temple stood for, just as the Torah wrote (Leviticus 19,30) ומקדשי תיראו, “and you shall be in awe of My Sanctuaries.” This is why the lampstand had to be positioned outside the dividing curtain and not beyond it like the Ark. This is why the Torah emphasizes this with the words מחוץ לפרוכת העדות באהל מועד יערוך אותו, “outside the dividing curtain within the Tent of Testimony he shall position it, etc.” It should be possible to be viewed by everyone who entered the Tabernacle and who left it. Furthermore, it should also teach that the Shechinah which was beyond the dividing curtain did not need to be supplied with light from us (humans). This is also why (refers to the need to make us awe-struck) it was constructed out of gold, the most precious of all the metals. The number of lamps on it were seven in order to correspond to the middle ground between a daily and a monthly cycle. 
  It is known that the soul itself benefits when lights are lit and it derives pleasure and joy from its light. Once the soul is in a joyous state its joy spreads seeing the soul itself is perceived as if it were hewn out of the light of man’s intelligence. This relationship between light and intelligence is the reason why the soul is drawn after light which is of its own kind although basically the “light” of our intelligence is essentially physical in nature, whereas the light represented by the soul is of a spiritual nature. This is why Solomon was able to compare a lamp (physical light) to the soul (spiritual light) when he said (Proverbs 20,27) “the soul is the light of the Lord.”
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Behaalotcha 5): The Menorah with its seven lamps corresponded to the seven fixed stars which orbit the whole globe; the meaning of these words is that these seven fixed stars are perceived as separate light bodies in the skies exerting their respective influences on the creatures in the terrestrial world and providing guidance for our world both by day and by night. The seven lamps on the Menorah were burning around the clock by day and by night just as the seven fixed stars supply their light by day and by night without interruption. The middle lamp represented the sun which is constant in its light and the center of the seven fixed stars.
      A rational approach: The Menorah with its seven lamps is an allusion to the Torah which is generally known as אור, light. This is confirmed by the verse in Proverbs 20,27 we quoted earlier.  Torah comprises seven different kinds (disciplines) of wisdoms (compare an analysis by Ibn Ezra). This is why the Menorah had seven lamps. The six arms which extended from the center shaft represented the six different directions in our three-dimensional terrestrial globe. They were to be a reminder that all parts and all extremities of this globe are dependent on the Torah which was given to the Jewish people on the sixth of Sivan and for the sake of which the earth continues to exist. This is what Jeremiah had in mind when he said (Jeremiah 33,25) “if it were not for My covenant (with the Jewish people through the Torah)  which is the basis of day and night, etc.” שלשה גביעים משוקדים בקנה האחד, “three “cups” engraved like almonds on the one arm.” On each arm there were 3 such “cups.” This gives us a total of 18 “cups” for the six arms. The centre shaft of the Menorah had 4 “cups.” This means there were a total of 22 “cups.” This number corresponds to the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These 22 letters are symbolic of 22 parts of the universe: wind, water, fire, the seven fixed stars, and the 12 signs of the zodiac. These letters in the Hebrew alphabet also are symbolized by the 22 parts of the human body: head, heart, kidneys, seven orifices of the body; 12 organs (compare Sefer Yetzirah). We note that the Menorah and its arms had 3 different “decorations;” there were “knobs,” “cups” and “flowers.” The “knob” was like a round apple which protruded from the centre shaft in every direction. The “knob” symbolized the world of the angels who are basking in the radiation of the Shechinah’s brilliance in uninterrupted delight. The roundness of the “apple” symbolized the idea that something was never ending, everlasting. Our sages in Taanit 31 alluded to this delight when they said: “in the future G’d is going to make a ‘circle’ for the righteous and His glory will be amongst them.” The word used by the sages is  מחול, something round which has no beginning and no end. This is the reason spiritual delights are always described in such terms to remind us that they are something enduring, something permanent. The “cup” is a vessel which is a receptacle, it irrigates and provides water. This corresponds to the world of the planets  and the atmosphere which at one and the same time receive beneficial input from the world of the angels and in turn distribute it beneficially to the inhabitants of the lower, terrestrial part of the universe. The “flower”  symbolizes our terrestrial part of the universe on which all the outstanding people of earth spend their lives. They are characterized as flowers, plants, etc. The overall idea gained from  the appearance of the Menorah is that the 22 letters of the Torah (alphabet) enable man to achieve this greatness in all three parts of the universe.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   ומלקחיה ומחתותיה, “Its tongs and its fire pans,” it is well known that עצה ומחשבה, deliberation (counsel) and thought, are “tongs” with which to extract Torah-knowledge. This is what is meant by Proverbs 1,5: ונבון תחבולות יקנה, “and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel.” מחשבה, “thought,” originates in the heart. The Torah here compares the heart to a fire pan as just as the fire pan is a vessel from which one takes the fire to light the lamps so the heart is the instrument of the intelligence which a person employs in studying Torah. The lampstand's  weight was a talent of gold (verse 39) neither less nor more. The reason the weight had to be precise was to remind us that one is not free to add or to detract from Torah in any manner. This is the meaning of Psalms 19,8 that תורת ה' תמימה, that “G’d’s Torah is perfect.” It was constructed out of a single chunk of gold to teach the unity of the Torah as is written (Exodus 12,49) תורה אחת, “a single Torah.” It was placed in the southern half of the Tabernacle as most wisdom is found in the south (Baba Batra 25). The land of Israel is known as ארץ הדרום, “the land of the south,” as it is situated climate-wise in the choicest locations of the earth’s seven climatic belts (compare author’s comment on Exodus 1,2-3). It is protected from extremes of heat and cold thus enabling people in it to think more clearly. This is the meaning of Bereshit Rabbah 16,3 that “the gold of that place is good” (Genesis 2,12). The Rabbis there comment that there is no ethical moral teaching (Torah) comparable to that of our Torah just as there is no wisdom comparable to the wisdom found in the land of Israel. Furthermore, the sages in Baba Batra 155 also taught that  the very air one breathes in the land of Israel is causing one to become wiser.
      It is worth reflecting on the fact that the table and the Menorah respectively were placed opposite each other (south and north) as the two spiritual “winds” represented by these two directions complement each other. This is why the Torah wrote (26,35) “you are to place the table outside the dividing curtain and the lampstand opposite it.” The reason for this is that in order for wisdom to endure its owner has to have the physical wherewithal, i.e. food and drink, etc. The table in the north is a symbol of material wealth as we have pointed out previously.
      A kabbalistic approach: The Menorah alludes to all levels of emanations, excellence, superiority. The fact that it was made of a single chunk of gold symbolises the concept of perfect unity. The six “arms” protruding from the centre shaft in both directions symbolise the six proliferations from the centre line of the diagram of the emanations, ספירות. The lamp which burned on top of these arms symbolised בינה, insight, an emanation above the lower six and supplied with direct input from the essence of G’d. It is the lamp (light) which is described by Solomon as (the origin of) man’s soul (Proverbs 20,27). It was placed in the south opposite the emanation wisdom. This is the mystical dimension of the statement in Baba Batra 25 that “he who wishes to become rich should turn south.” The oil is also known as יצהר, corresponding to the crown, which is another word for the מאור הגדול, “the great luminary.” This is the mystical dimension of the significance of the oil used for anointing the High Priests and the kings (of the Davidic dynasty). When doing the anointing the figure of the letter כ was painted on the heads of the recipients (in oil), to symbolise the shape of the letter כ for כתר in that ceremony. Some hold that the pattern described during this anointing was the letters כ'י which would symbolise that the recipient was endowed with the emanations from “head to toe.” [According to Horiot 12 there were different patterns of oil traced on the heads of the priests and the Kings respectively. Ed.]
      The word מנורת (in the possessive clause in verse 31) with the tone-sign tipcha underneath, an unusual use of the possessive clause at the beginning of the whole subject, may be understood to mean here that the whole concept of the Menorah is secondary (possessive clause)  to our light. The possessive clause makes no sense unless there is at least another Menorah (or independent source of light) to which it can be compared. The “other” Menorah is the light provided by us humans studying the Torah. The possessive clause inherent in the word מנורת instead of מנורה does not only apply to the word זהב טהור, “pure gold,” of which the Menorah is to be constructed, Had this been the Torah’s intention there should be a connecting makkaf between the words מנורה and זהב. We find, for instance, that also the prophet Zecharyah mentions the Menorah in the possessive clause at the very first occasion when it is mentioned (compare Zecharyah 4,2 ראיתי והנה מנורת זהב כלה), and even though it is mentioned in the possessive clause the tone-signs there clearly indicate that the words מנורת זהב do not belong together but that the word מנורת is to be read as belonging to what was written before, i.e. ראיתי, and not to the words זהב כלה “all made of gold.” The reason for this is that the author wanted to emphasise that the material aspect of the fact that the Menorah in the vision was made of gold was of very subordinate significance. The possessive clause was used only to draw attention to the fact that there was another luminary which served as the inspiration for this physical luminary, the golden Menorah. The possessive clause was to alert the reader to some hidden Menorah which is in some relationship to the one mentioned in this verse. The deliberate separation of the word “gold” and “Menorat” is designed to show how different the “other,” unmentioned Menorah is from the one mentioned in the verse.
  
  Verse 39
  
  . ככר זהב יעשה אותה את כל הכלים האלה, “he is to make it out of a talent of gold with all these vessels.” The Menorah with its lamps comprised a total of one talent (weight). The other subsidiary vessels such as the tongs, etc., were not included in the weight given here by the Torah (Menachot 88). The verse is to be read as follows: “he shall make it out of one talent of gold together with its integral parts, i.e. the arms protruding from its centre shaft; all of these vessels are to be made of pure gold.” 
  This is also the way the Torah reports the execution of these instructions in 37,24: “of a talent of pure gold he made it and all its utensils.” The words: “and all its utensils” refer to the fact that they were of pure gold, not to the fact that they were part of the talent of gold mentioned. The weight measurement “one talent” refers only to the lampstand and the lamps. This is what the Talmud taught in Menachot 88. The Talmud there says expressly that the words must be read in such a way that the extra words את כל כליה, mean that all its utensils were to be made of gold, whereas only the Menorah itself and its lamps were to be part of the talent of pure gold mentioned.
      Rabbeinu Chananel, in connection with the symbolic/moral meaning of these various furnishings of the Tabernacle writes that the Ark was an allusion to the truly righteous and learned individual whose interior matches his exterior and vice versa. This is the meaning of the Ark being covered with gold both on the inside and on the outside. Just as the bottom of the Ark had an area of two and one half cubits by one and a half cubits giving us a total of 4 square cubits minus one quarter cubit square, so the righteous person should remain constantly aware that the four elements which make up his physicality should not become the sum total of his existence but should be augmented liberally with physical matters such as the performance of good deeds for others, etc. Just as the walls of the Ark when combined were twelve cubits (when measuring the combined total of the outside dimensions 1.5x2.5 1,5+2.5 +1,5+2.5) seeing the long walls measured a total of 7.5 cubits and the shorter walls forming the sides measured 4,5 cubits, so the righteous person is expected to fulfill all the 12 conditions mentioned in Psalm 15,1 as the qualifications for dwelling in G’d’s holy precincts (the entire Psalm is devoted to listing these 12 requirements). If one wishes to attain a loftier level of relative perfection than that of a “mere” righteous individual, the next step up is becoming a נביא a prophet, or at least acquiring the spiritual level expected of a prophet. This is symbolised by the kapporet above the Ark. The fact that the entire kapporet was made of pure gold, that it was not only overlaid with gold, indicates that it symbolises something even purer than the Ark itself. We know that a prophet is considered as כלו צדק, “totally righteous” from Proverbs 8,8 “all the words of my mouth are with righteousness.” The cherubs above the kapporet are an allusion to the angels, beings on an even higher spiritual level than the prophets. They were spreading their wings heavenward in an allusion to their striving to be near the Shechinah which is higher than the angels seeing the angels are the throne, ever ready to welcome the attribute of כבוד, occupant of that throne. This is the meaning of the words in verse 20 אל הכפורת יהיו פני הכרובים, “the faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the kapporet.” They had to look downwards towards the lid and were forbidden to gaze at the Shechinah. Above everything is G’d Himself as is written in Samuel II 6,2: אשר נקרא שם שם ה' צבאות יושב הכרובים עליו, ”to which the Name was attached, the name of the Lord of Hosts Enthroned on the cherubs.” Solomon also constructed the cherubs in the Temple out of wood as is written (Kings I 6,23) “he made in the sanctuary two cherubs out of olive wood.” The table represented the kings of Israel who entertain the scholars of Israel at their table. This is what David told his son Solomon on his death-bed: “Barzilai‘s sons shall be amongst the people who are regular guests at your table” (Kings I 2,7). We also have a verse in Kings I 5,2 describing the lavishness of King Solomon’s table and the quantities of food consumed on a daily basis. The Torah, in describing the table in the Tabernacle as overlaid with gold, illustrates that the function of Royalty was primarily to make a great impression on the outside world. After Samuel had told Saul that he would be replaced as king by someone more worthy, Saul still begged the prophet to honour him at least in public as he wanted to maintain the appearance of power although he knew this was no longer his position (compare Samuel I 15,30). The reason that the length of the table was two cubits was in order to symbolise two requirements of every king. 1) He must be competent in meting out justice; 2) he must be competent in waging war. This is what the people had told the prophet Samuel when they asked him to appoint a king for them (Samuel I 8,20). They said: “that we may be like all the other nations; let our king rule over us and go out at our head and fight our battles.” The size and height of the walls which amount to nine cubits symbolise the nine commandments specifically addressed to a Jewish King. They are: 1) “he shall not keep many horses,” or 2) “send people back to Egypt to add to his horses;” 3) “he shall not have too many wives.”  4) “He shall not become haughty,” and 5) “he must not turn away from G’d’s commandments to right or to the left.” 6) “he shall write for himself 2 copies of the Torah.” 7) “He shall  read in the Torah every day of his life.” 8) “He shall not amass too much silver and gold.”  9) “He shall not turn away from the commandments.” (Deut. 17,8-20.) The purpose of the border around the table was to prevent the show-breads sliding off it for whatever reason. It was intended to protect the show-breads just as the priests and the Levites are supposed to be on guard against the kings deviating from the path of the Torah. We have an example of this in Chronicles II 24,2: “Yoash (the King) did what was right in the eyes of the Lord as long as Yehoyadah the High Priest was alive.” In connection with King Uzziah we read in Chronicles II 26,5: “he applied himself to the worship of G’d during the time of Zechariah, instructor of the visions of G’d.” All the details that the Torah writes about in connection with all the vessels of the Tabernacle have similar moral allusions. The Ark represents the righteous people. The table corresponds to the kings of Israel. The Menorah corresponds to the scholars of Israel. The golden altar corresponds to the priests, whereas the copper altar corresponds to the people of Israel at large. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
  
  Verse 40
  
  . וראה ועשה בתבניתם , “See and construct according to their pattern, etc.” It would seem that the preposition כ would have been more appropriate here than the preposition ב seeing that this is the preposition always used when two matters are being compared as being similar in some respects though not in all respects. Seeing that what Moses had been shown was only a mental image and he had not seen a physical pattern or miniature, it would therefore appear to have been appropriate for the Torah to write כתבניתם. Why then did the Torah write בתבניתם as if the construction of the Tabernacle and everything connected with it corresponded in detail to all he had been shown on the Mountain? This argument is also reflected in our sages quoting Moses as saying to G’d: “from where am I going to take all the red fire, white fire, green fire, and black fire which You have shown me as the pattern?” (Bamidbar Rabbah 12,10)
      It is important to understand the difference between the preposition ב and the preposition כ in Hebrew. The best way to illustrate this is to look at the words בצלמנו כדמותנו, “in our image and in our likeness.” Why do we have two different prepositions in that verse in Genesis 1,26? The answer is that the word צלם refers to a “form” which is a strictly abstract term, describing something in the mind, something spiritual in nature. The word applies to disembodied creatures, creatures whose essence is spiritual. The word דמות on the other hand, refers to the corresponding idea in the physical world, describing creatures with bodies. When G’d created man He said that in some essential respects man would be like the disembodied beings in the heavens, like the angels. In other, less essential respects he would be different seeing that he would have a body. This difference is indicated by the use of two different prepositions when referring to צלם and דמות respectively. Seeing that man’s likeness to the angels was primary, the “face,” the preposition ב reflected this when the Torah writes בצלמנו. Seeing that what Moses saw and what was constructed corresponded in essence to what he had been shown, the Torah was correct in writing בתבניתם. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . ואת המשכן תעשה עשר יריעות, “you shall construct the Tabernacle out of ten curtains, etc.” The word משכן is spelled with the letter ה in front, indicating that it was a building we had heard about previously. This shows that the מקדש mentioned in 25,8 and the משכן mentioned here are one and the same thing. By rights the details of the construction of the Tabernacle should have preceded that of its furnishings; however, due to the lofty nature of the Ark the Torah decided to first mention its construction, and, having commenced with one of the interior furnishings it also listed details of the table and the Menorah. When you will examine the report of the actual construction (36,8) you will notice that Betzalel constructed the Tabernacle before he constructed the furnishings it was to house. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   אורך היריעה האחת שמונה ועשרים באמה, “the length of a single curtain was approximately 28 cubits.” It is common knowledge that the entire Tabernacle and its components were meant to be sort of a replica of what exists in the heavens (primarily the parts we can see). Seeing that the luminaries are fixed in the sky, and all their activities inasmuch as they have impact on our terrestrial world are decreed to occur at predetermined times, the Torah called the Tabernacle, i.e. the covering, the ceiling of the structure, by the name יריעה, “curtain.” David uses the same expression to describe the heaven in psalm 104,2 where he speaks about G’d as נוטה שמים כיריעה, “spreading the heaven like a tent (curtain).”    There were a total of ten such curtains corresponding to ten different גלגלים, i.e. the seven fixed stars, plus what is known as the גלגל השכל, גלגל המקיף, and the גלגל המזלות, the domain (orbit) of ‘intelligence,’ a domain which surrounds all the planetary systems, near the domain of the sign of the zodiac. The reason that the length of each curtain was to be 28 cubits was that it was  to correspond to the 28 times Solomon mentions the word עת in Kohelet chapter three. With regard to the significance of that word עת, we read in Chronicles I 12,32 that the men whom the tribe of Issachar dispatched to participate in the crowning of King David were all יודעי בינה לעתים, “conversant with the meaning of these different periods described as עת.” David himself said concerning the significance of each different time period: אברכה את ה' בכל עת, “let me bless the Lord in each one of these time periods” (Psalms 34,2). Another occasion when David mentions the word עת specifically is in Psalm 31,16 בידך עתתי, “my times are in Your hands.”    Another reason for the number 28 may be connected to the lunar cycle, i.e. the number of days the moon either gains or loses size (according to our observation). 
  Midrash Tanchuma (Terumah 9) in referring to the length of 28 cubits of each of these curtains claims that there was a basic miracle involved here as we never find curtains of this length (about 56 feet). According to Rabbi Nechemyah this was a miracle that occurred only in connection with the weaving of these special יריעות. Actually, miraculous occurrences took place not only in connection with these curtains but also in connection with the קרשים, the upright beams forming the walls of the Tabernacle.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
    ועשית יריעות עזים לאהל על המשכן, “and you are to construct curtains of goats’ hair above the Mishkan.” The Torah had first commanded: “construct the Tabernacle out of ten curtains of twisted linen and blue and red-colored wool.” Concerning these curtains the Torah instructed that they were to be approximately 28 cubits long each. Now with the curtains made of goats’ hair, the instructions were that they were to be approximately 30 cubits long each. There were to be 10 curtains called משכן, whereas this second layer of curtains consisted of a total of 11. 
  I will now give you an explanation of a general nature:    Remember that the Tabernacle was 30 cubits long and 10  cubits wide. Its height was also 10 cubits. We know that it was 30 cubits long as in connection with the upright beams, קרשים, which formed the walls, the Torah wrote that 20 such beams be constructed for the wall for the south side (verse 18). Each beam was 11/2 cubits wide (verse 16) and its height was 10 cubits (verse 16). There were 20 such beams for the north wall and 20 for the south wall. The combined width of these 20 beams was 30 cubits, giving the Tabernacle an overall length of 30 cubits. We know that the Tabernacle’s width was 10 cubits as the Torah writes (verse 22) that for the back of the Tabernacle 6 beams were to be constructed. Add to this the fact that the Torah describes the western wall as comprising 8 beams (verse 25),  plus the fact that two beams had been constructed to form the corners (verse 23) and you know that the two corner beams were positioned so that their width was facing west whereas their thickness was facing north and south respectively making the outside width of the Tabernacle 12 cubits. In other words, the inside measurement of the Tabernacle was 30 by 10, whereas the outside measurement was 31 by 12 cubits.    Onkelos translates the word ולירכתי, in verse 22 as ולסיפי, “and for the end of.” The reason he does so is that the western wall is the “end” of a process which began in the east, with the pillars and the curtain at the entrance to the Tabernacle. There were no beams at the eastern end of the Tabernacle. The five pillars which supported the מסך, “screening curtain,” formed the entrance to the Tabernacle on the eastern side (compare verse 36).
      It is well to remember that the length of the various curtains mentioned by the Torah was placed across the top of the Tabernacle. This meant that if the beams were ten cubits high and the width of the Tabernacle from the outside was 12 cubits (the inside being ten cubits), the 28 cubits of the inner curtains most certainly did not extend all the way down the beams, not even to the level of the silver sockets the beams were encased in. Approximately 2 cubits of the lower ends of the beams including the sockets remained exposed after the inner curtains which had been joined together were placed across the top of these beams. This explains why a second set of curtains made from goats’ hair was necessary in order to cover the one cubit left exposed on each side above the silver sockets of the beams.    Our sages (quoted by Rashi) used the fact that the lower cubit of the beams remained exposed as a lesson in good manners. The costly curtains were not to touch the earth and become soiled. The elevation would protect them also against being splashed by raindrops, etc. Seeing that the materials used for the second layer of curtains was less expensive, it did not matter that these would be more exposed to dirt and splashing by rain drops. There were a total of eleven curtains of those made of goats’ hair. When the Torah comments that there was an ”overhang” (verse 23) on either side of the curtains of one cubit on either side after they had been stretched out, this means in the direction of north and south. The “overhang” was relative, i.e. it covered areas previously left exposed by the curtains made of blue and red wool and twisted linen. The curtains did not drag on the ground, as did the ones trailing down on the western side of the Tabernacle. When verse 9 speaks of “the sixth” curtain being “folded over,” the reference is to the sixth out of the eleven goats’ hair curtains which had been joined together in two lots, one of five and one of six curtains joined lengthwise side by side to cover a total area of 30 by 44 cubits. The so-called sixth, is really the “eleventh.” It was called “sixth” as it is the last of the second carpet formed by five and six curtains respectively. Half of that curtain was folded over at the entrance of the Tabernacle covering the upper cubit of the מסך, “screening curtain,” there. Our sages described this as a sign of chastity comparable to the bride who veils her face under the wedding canopy. The other half of that curtain which was also excess was at the western end extending 2 cubits on the ground like the train of a bridal gown. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
    ועשית את הקרשים, “you are to construct the beams, etc.” The Torah really should have written ועשית קרשים, “you are to construct beams,” just as the Torah had written ועשית יריעות, not היריעות. The letter ה in front of the word קרשים, suggesting that we had heard about these beams previously seems quite unjustified. Our sages therefore found support in the letter ה for the tradition that Yaakov had already brought acacia trees to Egypt with him and had told his sons to take the trunks with them out of Egypt when the time would come as they would be needed by the Israelites in the desert.
     עצי שטים עומדים, “of acacia wood standing upright.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word עומדים, “upright,” indicates that contrary to common practice these beams were to be used in the same way they had grown, facing upwards, not like boards which are usually used horizontally.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Terumah 9): the word עומדים, describes a particular kind of acacia tree. There are many varieties of trees called “acacia,” so that the adjective עומדים helps in defining which sub-species of acacia wood was meant. The reason the Torah specified precisely what kind of wood to take may be connected with the sin the Israelites committed during the last year of their wanderings in a place by the same name, Shittim (Numbers 25,1). Seeing their sin was bound up with Shittim, G’d wanted that a different kind of shittim should become instrumental in their atoning for their sin. In Numbers 25,9 we have been told that no fewer than 24.000 Israelites died in a pestilence G’d sent against the people who had sinned on that occasion. The whole idea of Yaakov bringing the shittim trees to Egypt already foreshadowed the time-honored principle that G’d arranges for the cure before the onset of the disease as we know from Jeremiah 30,17: “but I will bring healing to you and cure you of your wounds.” The prophet speaks about the cure before he even spoke about any wounds which need healing.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words עצי שטים עומדים parallel the words שרפים עומדים ממעל לו “Seraphim stood in attendance on Him” (Isaiah 6,2). The word עומדים was mentioned as an allusion to the celestial forces. There is nothing in the Tabernacle which does not somehow reflect concepts and beings of the celestial realms. To quote just a few verses from the Bible in which this thought has been expressed, even though obliquely at times. 1) (Exodus 25,9) את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו, “the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels.” The matching verse is found in Chronicles I 28,19 הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל כל מלאכות התבנית, “All this the Lord has made me understand by His hand on me, the works according to all its pattern.” 2) (Chronicles I 28,12) ותבנית כל אשר היה ברוח, “and the pattern of all that he had by the spirit.” The point of all this is that although the Tabernacle, the Temple, and all the holy vessels would be destroyed or lost, we must never believe that the destruction of physical symbols meant that their counterpart in the celestial regions also ceased to exist. Rather, they remain in an upright standing position. This is the thrust of what we have been taught in Sukkah 45 and Yuma 72 that the mystical dimension of the words עצי שטים עומדים is מעמידין את צפוין, שמא תאמר אבד סברן, בטול סכוין, תלמוד לומר עצי שטים עומדים, שעומדים לעולם ולעלמי עולמים’ The meaning of the words: “upright standing acacia wood,” is that these woods lend hope and spiritual fortitude to those who look upon them. If you perchance would think that after all they have now been lost to us and just as they have been lost so has our hope faded, the Torah described them as “standing,” i.e. in the present tense, to reassure you that the concept they represent will endure forever and ever.” The word צפוין in the Talmud there means “the power which is expected of them by those looking at them with hope.” The meaning of the words מעמידין אותו הכוח is תלה גדול בקטן, “that the great was made dependent on the small,” The wood of the shittim trees held the gold overlay in place instead of vice versa.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   והיו שמונה קרשים, “there shall be eight beams, etc.” Two of the eight beams overlapped with the beams forming the long sides of the Tabernacle, one at the southern end and one at the northern end. There were therefore six beams left which formed the western wall without any part of them serving as extensions of the long walls. This is what was meant by verse 22 ולירכתי המשכן תעשה ששה קרשים, “and for the end of the Tabernacle you are to construct 6 beams. This verse reveals a mystical dimension. Seeing that the Shechinah which is situated in the west is composed of 6 extremities, the west is referred to as ים in order to allude to this fact. The west is known as ים, “ocean” because the ocean is a collection point for all the waters just as the Shechinah is a collection point for all the directions of the globe from the farthest extremities.    The order of the four geographical directions of the world in the celestial entourage, מרכבה, are: the three patriarchs of the world (Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov), and David. South ranks first as Avraham was the first of the patriarchs, and it is written of him that Avraham journeyed southwards to the land of the south (Genesis 20,1). This is followed by north, as Yitzchak made a supreme effort at the time he was bound on the altar. This is followed by east seeing it is written of Yaakov that the sun shone for him (Genesis 32,32), and his son Joseph has also been compared to the sun (Genesis 37,9). Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,11) have said quoting Yaakov: “who told this one (Joseph) that my name is “sun?” West is the סוף, the end; it is the harp on which David played which used to play all by itself on occasion (Berachot 3). This direction was called ים, i.e. the sea known as ים האחרון, the westernmost sea. In order to allude to these four great men the directions of the earth have been identified with these people through their names.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   והבריח התיכון בתוך הקרשים מן הקצה אל הקצה, “and the middle bar inside the beams shall extend from end to end.” Rashi explains on this verse that five of the bars were on the northern wall, five on the southern wall, and five on the western wall. These “five” were in reality only three, as the upper and lower bars respectively consisted of two bars each (on the same level), whereas the middle one was a single bar joining all the beams  on its respective side. It was thirty cubits long. This is the meaning of the words: “from one end to the other end.” The western wall’s middle bar then was 12 cubits long, from east to west. [Our version of Rashi differs from that quoted by the author. Ed.]    According to Shabbat 98 the middle bar stood miraculously. Tosafot on that folio say that the middle bar extended through all three directions, i.e. one bar which made two 90 degree turns and must have been 70 cubits long. The two corner beams which overlapped detracted from what otherwise would have been 72 cubits.
   It is well to remember that this middle bar which joined every one of the beams to one another in the manner of a belt symbolized the קו האמצעי, the “center line” we have often mentioned as part of the diagram of the ten emanations. In this instance it stabilized and supported all the extremities of the Tabernacle providing input from earth into the celestial Sanctuary by symbolizing the spiritual force generated on earth by Yaakov and his 70 family members (descendants) who emigrated to Egypt. This is why it was Yaakov who was chosen (by history under G’d’s guidance) to be the one to bring all these people down to Egypt. In fact we have a Midrash Tanchuma (Terumah 9) according to which the בריח התיכון this “middle bar” descended to Egypt with Yaakov at the time. He told his sons that when the time would come to leave Egypt they should make sure to take it with them.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   והבדילה הפרוכת לכם בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים , “and the dividing curtain shall separate for you between the Holy and between the Holy of Holies.” The Ark and the kapporet were beyond the dividing curtain in the Holy of Holies. During the period of the second Temple, the אבן השתיה, the stone covering the “navel of the earth” (Yuma 45) stood there in its place in the westernmost part of the Sanctuary. Beyond the dividing curtain but in front of the Ark (during most of the years of the first Temple) was kept the bottle of manna which had been filled by Aaron in the desert. They also kept a bottle of the anointing oil there as well as the staff of Aaron which had sprouted almonds after the suppression of the revolt of Korach (compare Yuma 37). The author claims that the garments of the High Priest were also stored there. The other furnishings of the tabernacle/Temple such as the table, the lampstand, and the golden altar, were kept in front of the dividing curtain in the part known as היכל. The table stood in the north, the lampstand in the south, and the golden altar of incense was between the two, slightly closer to the entrance of the Tabernacle (Yuma 33).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועשית את המזבח עצי שטים, “You are to construct the altar of acacia wood.” This was the altar for the regular offerings, better known as מזבח העולה. It was positioned in the courtyard of the Tabernacle and most of the sacrifices were offered up on it. It was overlaid with copper and was square, symbolizing the fourth leg of the מרכבה, the Divine entourage. It represented the fourth letter in the Holy name of the Lord, the tetragrammaton. This is the reason the Torah wrote the words רבוע יהיה, as the fact that it was square was already evident from the measurements given as five cubits by five cubits. 
  You should know that the overall height of this altar was ten cubits (not three as written in our verse, compare Zevachim 59). If the Torah wrote that its height was three cubits, this is a reference to the area on which the actual offerings were presented (from the סובב, “ledge” upwards to the corners).    Proof that the overall height from its foundations was ten cubits is offered in Bamidbar Rabbah 6,3 where the Midrash examines the words רבוע יהיה, “it shall be square.” The words are considered superfluous. Therefore the Midrash considers them as providing a lesson comparable to another similar expression  used in connection with the altar of the incense (30,2). There the Torah writes that its width and length was to be 1 cubit each and its height was to be 2 cubits. There too the Torah adds the words רבוע יהיה, “it shall be square.”  We are entitled to conclude (thanks to the two expressions “it shall be square,”) that just as the altar for incense was twice as high as it was wide and long, so the copper altar should be proportioned similarly. Seeing it was five cubits wide and long, it would have an overall height of ten cubits. In view of this we remain with the problem that in our chapter the Torah described the height of the copper altar as being three cubits. Is this not a contradiction? Answer: the three cubits measured by the Torah in connection with the copper altar begin from the ledge which ran around it on which the priest would stand.    Furthermore, it is worth studying what the Talmud (Sukkah 45) tells us about the willow branches which would be placed around this altar on the festival of Tabernacles. According to the description in the Talmud the tops of these willow branches would be right next to the top of the altar, bending down a little towards its top. These willow branches are described as having a length of eleven cubits. They were of that length in order to be able to exceed the height of the altar by a little, i.e. by one cubit.   In Zevachim 59 our sages explained that the altar which Moses erected was 10 cubits high as it has been compared to the altar in the Tabernacle according to what is written (Numbers 4,26) “and the lace-hangings of the Courtyard and the Screen of the entrance of the gate of the Courtyard which were around the Tabernacle and the Altar, etc.” Just as the Tabernacle itself was ten cubits high so the altar was ten cubits high also. There is also a clear verse in connection with the altar erected by Solomon for his Temple which describes its height as being ten cubits (Chronicles II 4,1). [In that instance the height of the altar was half that of its width and length rather than double. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Terumah 11): when the Torah wrote: “you shall make an altar of shittim wood and overlay it with copper,” what was this altar to atone for? For the effrontery characterized by a “copper-hard forehead.” We have a verse in Isaiah 48,4 where this simile is used for stiff-necked behavior. The prophet writes: ”because I know how stubborn you are; your neck is like an iron sinew, and your forehead bronze.” It is also worth noting that the letters in the word מזבח, “altar,” may be understood as an acrostic of the first letters in the words מחילה, זכות, ברכה, חיים respectively. The word שטים may also be understood as an acrostic of the first letters of the words שלום, טובה, ישועה, מחילה respectively. The measurements of five by five cubits for the length and width of the altar corresponded to the two Tablets of the covenant on each of which five of G’d’s directives had been engraved. The height described by the Torah, i.e. three cubits, is an allusion to the three redeemers of the Jewish people, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Thus far the Midrash.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועשית בדים למזבח, בדי עצי שטים , “you are to construct staves for the altar, staves made of shittim wood.” It would have seemed more appropriate for the Torah to write: ועשית בדים למזבח עצי שטים, without repeating the word בדים once more. Alternately, the Torah could have written: ועשית למזבח בדי עצי שטים, which would have been the shortest way to express the same instruction, just as the Torah did in connection with the ark where the Torah wrote: ועשית בדי עצי שטים. Why this peculiar wording then? It was to allude to the fact that these staves were to be extremely long-lasting (compare Kings I 8,8). There was a miracle involved in all this as our sages (Tanchuma Terumah 17) have mentioned that G’d said that “in the future these staves would be 487 years ‘long’”. The idea was that from the time of the original construction of the Tabernacle until the dedication of Solomon’s Temple 487 years later no other staves would be used to transport the altar.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   נבוב לוחות תעשה אותו, “you shall construct it  hollow, of boards.” It was square. as the Torah had written: “it shall be square” (verse 1). The wooden boards surrounded its four sides, the inside being hollow. This is in accordance with the translation by Onkelos, חליל לוחין. The expression נבוב is found in Job 11,12 ואיש נבוב ילבב, where it means “a hollow man will get understanding.” [The author meant that as opposed to G’d man is hollow, lacks understanding at birth and has to acquire it as he grows older. Ed.] 
  The hollow part inside the altar would be filled with earth every time the Israelites made camp in order to enable them to offer sacrifices upon it. In this way the instruction of Exodus 20,21: “you shall construct an earthen altar for Me” was fulfilled.    A great miracle occurred on a regular basis on this altar. Although the fire on the altar burned around the clock, neither the wooden boards nor the copper overlay burned or melted. This was also one of the miracles mentioned in Avot 5,5 that even when it used to rain the fire on the altar where the wood was stacked would not be extinguished by the rain. It (the altar during the period when the Temples were standing) was standing in the area called עזרה, an enclosure without a roof, corresponding to the courtyard mentioned in connection with the Tabernacle.    In Tanchuma Terumah 11 we find the following comment:. Moses was afraid that the fire might burn the wood of the altar. G’d reassured him, saying: “why are you afraid Moses? Who ordered fire to burn? You should learn from your own experience. When you came up to the mountain and you entered the ערפל, and you walked between rows of fire you did not get burned. Moreover, you entered My domain, and I Myself Am consuming fire (Deut. 4,24) and you remained unscathed. Similarly, the altar’s boards and covering will not be burned either.” If someone were to say that the copper overlay over the boards of the altar was so thick that no miracle was required to protect it form melting, Rabbi Nechemyah said that it was no thicker than the coin called a דינר. Rabbi Pinchas, son of Bar Chama, said that the altar constructed by Moses (Betzalel) was more beloved by G’d than that constructed for Solomon’s Temple even though Solomon’s altar was much larger, seeing that we read in Kings I 3,4 that Solomon’s altar could accommodate 1.000 burnt offerings (presumably at one time).
  
  Verse 9
  
   ועשית את חצר המשכן לפאת נגב תימנה, “You are to construct the courtyard of the Tabernacle on the southern side, etc.” When explaining the length of the courtyard it was necessary for the Torah to mention the south side first to inform us that the hangings were 100 cubits long. The hangings opposite it to the north were of the same length. Later on, when the Torah describes the erection of the Tabernacle it also mentions the south side first  followed by the north side opposite it (compare 26,18 and 26,20 respectively). Here the Torah explains that the dimensions of the courtyard were 100 by 50 cubits. The outer fifty cubits of these 100 cubits length formed  the courtyard in front of the Tabernacle, whereas the inner (western) 50 cubits of that enclosure commenced at the level of the entrance of the Tabernacle so that it extended 20 cubits behind it. The width of the Tabernacle, i.e. the ten cubits were in the centre of the 50 cubits of the width of the courtyard so that there were 20 cubits of courtyard (width) on either side of the Tabernacle. (actually only 19 after allowing for the thickness of the beams forming the walls of the Tabernacle). At any rate, from the description provided in the text it is clear that it was the second half of the courtyard which “surrounded” the Tabernacle. In view of all this, it is easy to understand why the Torah first mentioned the south and the north to give us a clearer view of the length of the courtyard. When the Torah wanted to tell us the width of the courtyard it had to mention the fact that it extended in a western-easterly direction seeing that the entrance of the Tabernacle was in the middle of it. The unusual fact that the westerly direction is mentioned first is accounted for by the fact that three sides including the western side of the Tabernacle were surrounded by the hangings of the courtyard whereas the eastern end which was at least partially open was of a different character. Only the first 15 cubits on either side were an extension of the hangings of the long sides. The entrance gate to the courtyard was 20 cubits wide. When the Torah mentions all four sides of the courtyard and their hangings, it makes sense that seeing the eastern side was incomplete it should have been mentioned last, although generally speaking the Torah mentions east before west. The sequence followed by the Torah here is that first the two longest sides are mentioned followed by the western side which was still made up of an uninterrupted length of 50 cubits of these hangings, whereas the eastern side which had much shorter hangings on either the northern or the southern side was mentioned last.     Whenever the Torah lists the directions, the sequence is: east, west, north, south. One of the reasons why south is sometimes mentioned last is the fact that the south is relatively uninhabited due to its being very hot. The principle of listing the four major directions in a certain order is taken from Job 23, 8-9. We read there: “But if I go East- He is not there; West- I still do not perceive Him; North- since He is concealed I do not see Him; South-He is hidden and I cannot see Him.” 
  Job mentioned south last for the aforementioned reason. In our verses here the fact that it was less likely to find whoever one is looking for in the sparsely inhabited south is irrelevant. We are assumed to be facing east unless the Torah mentions otherwise. [The encampments of the Israelites around the Tabernacle in Numbers on the other hand follows a circular pattern beginning with east, followed by south, followed by west ending with north. Ed.]. Someone facing east has the south on his right. Seeing that in our instance it did not make sense to begin with the east seeing that the east was a broken sequence of hangings, the Torah mentioned south first. Once it had mentioned south, the opposite, i.e. north, follows next. This was logically followed by west as east had to be last.   The true sequence of the directions in our terrestrial world differs from the sequence in the celestial regions. In the celestial regions the sequence is: south-north-west-east, whereas in our terrestrial world the customary sequence is east-west-north-south. I have already mentioned the subject of the sequence of this matter in connection with 26,28. The hangings discussed in our verses were sort of netting providing a kind of wall around the courtyard.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
     שמן וקטרת ישמח לב ומתק רעהו מעצת נפש, “Oil and incense gladden the heart; the sweetness of a friend is better than one’s own counsel” (Proverbs 27,9). 
  In this verse Solomon warns man to have pity on the stranger who has been exiled from his birthplace and from his homeland. Seeing that the Torah has already warned us on numerous occasions not to take unfair advantage of aliens neither with words nor with money, as is written in (Exodus 22,20 as well as 23,9), Solomon adds some additional dimension to this legislation.    When meeting people who have been uprooted from their homeland and families we owe such people that we 1) provide them with the physical requirements such as food, clothing and lodging, as well as 2) to help their mental state by treating them in a friendly manner. Solomon uses the verse preceding the one we have quoted to compare wandering birds to wandering, homeless strangers. A person who had to leave his home environment is compared to a bird which had to leave its nest. The simile of “oil and incense” used by Solomon in Proverbs refers to the physical sustenance we have to give to strangers, while the simile of “sweetness of a friend” represents the friendly attitude we are to display towards the stranger. This is to be augmented by friendly encouraging words on our part. One should not merely flatter the stranger by paying lip-service to these warnings but to be genuinely concerned about the stranger integrating in his new home. The words “better than one’s own counsel,” reflect Solomon’s comparison between physical sustenance and words of encouragement. He considers the latter as even more important than the former.    Our sages in Ketuvot 111 state that he who “shows the white of his teeth” i.e. smiles at him, has done a better service (to the stranger) than the one who fed him milk to drink. The statement is based on Genesis 49,12: “his teeth are whiter than milk.” The sages play on these words, saying: “do not merely read them as ולבן שנים but as ולבון שנים, ‘and the white colour of teeth.’” This sentiment has been echoed by Isaiah 58,7 who compares fasting with performing loving deeds and says that sharing one’s bread with the hungry impresses the Lord more than the kind of piety such as fasting which is not accompanied by good deeds. In Isaiah’s opinion that verse reflects what Solomon meant by שמן וקטרת, supplying the needy with physical needs and comforts. Isaiah continues in the same chapter verse 10, saying: “and to offer your compassion to the hungry.” He meant that merely offering to alleviate his physical hunger is not enough. This is what Solomon meant when he spoke about מתק רעהו.
      A Midrashic approach to the words: “oil and incense gladden the heart.” The oil of the Menorah  was kindled, i.e. “offered” close to the time of the incense being offered as we know from 30,8: “and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps, a regular incense offering before the Lord throughout the ages.” This is something which gladdens the heart of G’d. Our sages in Tanchuma Nasso 11 elaborate that just as the Torah mentioned G’d‘s joy (satisfaction) after He reviewed His handiwork as described in Psalms 104,31 “may the glory of the Lord endure forever; may He continue to rejoice in His works,” so He would rejoice when the Israelites perform the incense offering and the burning of the oil in the Menorah. Solomon described this joy of G’d in the words: “oil and incense gladden (His) heart.” We have learned repeatedly that the whole construction of the Tabernacle and all that belongs to it was considered by G’d as equivalent to a re-enactment of the work of creation on a minuscule scale. If G’d rejoiced on the occasion of the completion of His universe, He surely also rejoiced when the Tabernacle reflected all His instructions. Just as at the end of creation G’d created man in order to administer the earth on His behalf, so, at the end of the building of the Tabernacle, G’d appointed Aaron as High Priest, to perform all the tasks which were part of the service in the Tabernacle ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of this Sanctuary.    Seeing that the Shechinah was constantly residing over the Tabernacle as a result of the incense offering, Solomon referred to oil and incense in the verse we quoted at the opening of our commentary. 
  You are also aware that the reason the incense offering is known as קטרת is that its fragrance attaches itself to the various attributes (character traits) and when these attributes rejoice this elevates the person offering the incense to an even higher spiritual level. Also, this joy increases further through the bounty of G’d which man (the inhabitants of earth) receives. The oil which was being offered at about the same time as the incense was made from olives seeing that the olive is the symbol of what provides light in our world. This is a mystical dimension of Genesis 8,11 that “when the dove returned to the ark it had a leaf of an olive tree in its beak.” This is the reason that only olive oil had to be used to burn in the lamps of the Menorah.
  ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך כתית למאור להעלות נר תמיד, “As for you, you are to command the Children of Israel that they take for you pure, pressed olive oil for illumination, to kindle the lamp to burn constantly.” The words “they shall take for you,” mean that this instruction even applied immediately. It was necessary to write these words as we might have misunderstood, seeing that at the end of verse 21 this commandment is described as חקת עולם, “an ongoing statute,” not subject to change or relaxation. The Torah mentioned the words “olive oil” to exclude any other kind of oil. The reason the Torah specifies the grade of olive oil, i.e. זית זך, was to let us know it was to be from the first part of the oil extracted from the olives. The word כתית, pressed, was to tell us that the olives were to be squeezed, i.e. crushed, to extract the oil. Any oil which simply oozed out of the olives without their having been crushed first was not acceptable. The word למאור, “for illumination,” indicates that only for illumination did all the aforementioned restrictions apply. The olive oil used in the preparation of certain Minchah-offerings did not have to conform to similarly stringent conditions. The second category of oil, the one which is one grade below that of oil fit for the Tabernacle/Temple was good enough for the offerings. Normally, people who possess two different qualities of oil, use the inferior type for burning in lamps and the superior kind for their food. (Tanchuma Tetzaveh 6). In this instance, the Torah legislates exactly the reverse.
      A Midrash points out that the numerical value of the word כתית is 830, suggesting the combined number of years that the first and second Temples were standing, i.e. 410 and 420 years respectively, in that order. Strangely, that Midrash alludes only to the existence of two Temples. Why is there no reference to a third Temple?
   Perhaps the Midrash was concerned only with the Temples whose function was limited in time, whereas the third Temple which will endure indefinitely did not concern the author as the word כתית, another word for “destroyed,” most certainly would not apply to the third Temple. Perhaps the third Temple is alluded to in the word למאור, “as illumination,” seeing that the redemption and what follows have been characterised by the prophet Isaiah 60,1 as אור, light, when he wrote: “Arise, shine, for your light has dawned, etc.” There are more such verses such as Psalms 27,1: “G’d is my light and my salvation,” or Psalms 118,27: “the Lord is G’d and He lights up for me.” These verses are implied assurances that there will be a third Temple and that it will endure.
      The words להעלות נר, are sort of a headline. The word נר means “lamps” (pl.) just as when Yaakov told Esau that he had acquired שור וחמור  (Genesis 32,6) he did not mean that he had acquired only one of each, but that he had made acquisitions of these respective species of domestic animals. We find a similar use of the “singular” אשה, in Judges 21,16, where the words כי נשמדה מבנימין אשה do not mean that “a woman of the tribe of Benjamin had been killed,” but that ”all the women of Benjamin had been destroyed.” 
  Similarly here; the Torah means that  there must never be a time when not at least a single light burns in the Tabernacle. Anyone who thinks in terms of the “eternal flame,” errs. An alternative meaning of the word נר תמיד could be that it is indeed a reference to what is known in Talmudic parlance as the נר מערבי,  the “western light,” the one lamp out of the seven on the Menorah which was kept burning around the clock and was never allowed to be out except when its wick or its oil were being replaced. It was the light in the centre of the Menorah, hence its name as the “western” light. All the other lamps faced either north or south, only this light pointed straight up.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Tetzaveh 2): the words להעלות נר תמיד are reminiscent of Job 14,15: “You would call and I would answer You; You would yearn for (the deeds of) Your handiwork;” for it is written (Isaiah 46,4) “I was the Maker, and I will be the Bearer; and I will carry and rescue you.” The meaning of our verse is that Moses is to command the sons of Kehat to carry the furnishings of the Tabernacle on their shoulders as we have read in Numbers 7,9. The service of these Levites reflects a response to what G’d had done for the Jewish people. Similarly, seeing that G’d provides man with food and all his needs, the priests by offering the sacrifices described by G’d as קרבני לחמי, “My offering, My bread,” reflect the appropriate response by man in recognition of what G’d had done for him. Seeing that G’d provides light for the entire universe, it is no more than fair that man, i.e. the High Priest, light the Menorah as an appropriate response. This is what Job meant when he described G’d as: “yearning for your deeds (the deeds of His creatures).”    G’d responded: “Do not think that My ‘yearning’ reflects My need for your deeds,” I certainly do not need light supplied by mortal human beings seeing it is I Who supplies light for the entire cosmos. My purpose in commanding these laws is to enable you to elevate yourselves and to acquire merits.” Furthermore, Rabbi Meir is quoted as saying that G’d says: “the lights which Aaron is kindling are very beloved of Me, more so even than the ones which I have set up in heaven.” The reason for this is that at the time when the princes offered their respective offerings at the inauguration of the Tabernacle the tribe of Levi had not been assigned participation in that procedure and Aaron felt quite saddened at this. G’d told him that he would be given the task of doing much more in the Tabernacle than the princes had done. They had offered an offering once, entering the holy precincts; Aaron, on the other hand, would be allowed to perform service in the Tabernacle every single day. This is the meaning of the verse in Psalms 10,17: “You have responded to the yearnings of the humble,” as well as the meaning of the words: “outside the dividing curtain in front of the Testimony he and his sons shall arrange them (the lights).” Thus  far the Midrash. This was also an allusion to the lights rekindled by the Hasmoneans in the Temple. If so, this accounts for the words “from evening to morning a permanent statute” in our paragraph applying both in the immediate present and in the distant future.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
    לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendor.” According to the plain meaning of these words the meaning is that the wearers of these garments will be honored and glorified by them. Seeing that in the eyes of even the distinguished individuals among the people the High Priest is considered like an angel of the Lord as far as his performing the sacrificial service is concerned, the Torah now commanded that his external appearance be comparable to that image which these people have of him by dressing him in garments reflecting his lofty assignment. The garments he was to wear were typical of Royal garments as we know from a number of verses in which these garments are associated with Royalty. Compare Samuel II 13,18: “she (David’s daughter the princess Tamar) was wearing an ornamented tunic מעיל, for maiden princesses were customarily dressed  in such garments.” The word כתונת תשבץ is reminiscent of the garment Yaakov had made for his favorite son Joseph which the Torah described as a כתונת פסים, The מצנפת is also known to us as a headgear worn by rulers such as in the Arab countries even in our own days.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words לכבוד ולתפארת describe the task Aaron and his sons are to perform when performing their duties in the Tabernacle. It is their task to reflect credit on the Jewish people in the eyes of the Lord when they perform their duties dressed in these garments. You are aware already that the Tabernacle on earth was a model of the Sanctuary of the future. 
  Isaiah 64,10 referred to the Temple as בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, “the House of our sanctity and glory.” What he meant when referring to “our sanctity” was the honour, and by the word “our glory” he referred to the glory that is Israel. The same idea is expressed by King Amatziah in Amos 7,13: “for it is a king’s sanctuary and a royal palace.” [He forbade the prophet to prophesy in the temple at Bethel. Ed.] The reason that the word לכהנו in לכהנו לי is spelled with the letter ו at the end is to allude to the sixth emanation which is called תפארת. The word לי is equivalent to לה’, i.e. G’d’s attribute כבוד.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, “and you shall speak to the wise-hearted people, etc.” The  word ועשו which appears close to the word חכמה hints that the making of these garments required an exceptional degree of wisdom meaning that they had to be made לשמם, i.e. the people making them had to remain constantly aware of the purpose of these garments and the function of the people who were to wear them. The Torah wrote the word ועשית, in addition to the word ועשו to underline how important the כוונה was which had to be present in the weavers, embroiderers, etc. You will note that this short paragraph contains the words לכהנו לי three times. Each time it would have sufficed for the Torah to write לכהן לי, “to be a priest for Me.” The three extra letters ו whose numerical value totals 18 is a veiled reminder of the 18 High Priests which served during the 410 years which the first Temple remained standing.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, “These are the garments they are to make, etc.” Our sages in Erchin 16 say that just as the sacrifices themselves were instruments of atonement for the Jewish people, so the priestly garments (when worn at the right time in the right place by the right people)  were also instruments helping the Jewish people to achieve atonement. This is the reason that the section dealing with the priestly garments was written right next to the section dealing with the sacrifices themselves (the consecration offerings 29,18). The breastplate would atone for sins committed erroneously by judges, as is written: ועשית חושן משפט, “you are to make the breastplate of judgment” (verse 15). The ephod would secure atonement for the sin of idolatry committed inadvertently as we are reminded by Hoseah 3,4: “and there will be no ephod and no teraphim.” It is also written in Judges 8,27 that Gideon converted gifts of gold given to him into a garment called ephod, something that was accounted a sin for him [seeing he did not treat it as a garment but as a sort of monument. Ed.]. The robe called מעיל secured atonement for loose use of one’s tongue, לשון הרע; this is symbolized by the bells at the lower hem of that tunic, מעיל. This robe had a number of bells at the lower edge of which could be heard when the High Priest wearing it was approaching. Just as the evil tongue is something that was spread in public, so the atonement procedure was by means of a garment heard in public. When evil was spoken in private by someone, (who was unaware that he was guilty of unfair comments) the means of atonement for this was the incense. The checkered tunic, כתונת תשבץ, would secure atonement for blood spilled inadvertently. This has been alluded to in Genesis 36,31: “they dipped the tunic in blood.” This tunic resembled a type of shirt and was worn next to the skin (like a T-shirt with sleeves). It was embroidered with gold threads designed in a checkered manner so that it appeared to have “stripes” through it. This is what is meant by (28,39) “you shall make the tunic of a box-like knit of fine linen.” The word תשבץ is the same as משבצות זהב (compare Maimonides Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 9,19). The headgear worn by the High Priest, i.e. the מצנפת, would obtain forgiveness for haughty bearing and deportment. It was appropriate that something worn high on top of one’s head should be the symbol by means of which haughtiness could be atoned for. The אבנט, belt, would secure atonement for lewd fantasies and other sinful thoughts. Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7,3 claim that the length of this belt was 32 cubits (about 20 meters) The golden head band, ציץ, worn by the High Priest on his forehead would atone for effrontery. We have a verse in Jeremiah 3,3 describing effrontery as associated with the forehead. The prophet speaks of the “brazenness of a harlot,” using the word מצח to define brazenness. Aaron had a total of eight garments of which the Torah lists only six. The Torah did not mention his linen trousers as only the garments Moses was to dress him in qualified for this paragraph. The headband, being made of pure gold, is also not enumerated as one of the garments, as, strictly speaking, it was an ornament rather than a garment. The instruction for Aaron to wear linen pants was given only in verse 42 after Moses had already been instructed to dress him in his garments. Had Moses been meant to dress Aaron in his pants the instructions to dress Aaron would not have been written only at  the end of verse 42 The function of the pants as a means of securing atonement extended to sins of a sexual or incestuous nature as man is perceived as using his legs to run after chances to obtain sexual gratification.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועשו את האפוד, “they are to make the ephod.” In view of the fact that the Torah had made mention of the breastplate before the ephod in verse 4, it should have taken precedence here as well. 
  It is clear that the reason this garment is mentioned first is that it was the most important of all the special garments of the High Priest. The breastplate was worn immediately beneath the ephod as an appendix to it, the ephod being the principal part of that combined garment. Seeing this was so, the Torah wrote about the making of the ephod before it wrote about the construction of the breastplate. At the time of the actual construction, the ephod is mentioned in verse 6, whereas the actual making of the breastplate is mentioned only in verse 15. If, nonetheless, in verse 4 the breastplate was mentioned first this was because the urim vetumim  were to be housed in part of that breastplate, and it was these which represented the “hot line” to G’d of the High Priest who could receive answers from the celestial regions to his inquiries by means of that device.
      It is well to remember that the three garments (breastplate, ephod and belt) were made of a mixture of linen and wool even though the Torah had specifically issued a prohibition to the Israelites to wear any garment which combined these two materials (Deut. 22,11). Priests (only during the time they performed service in the Temple) were exempt from this prohibition. This is why the Torah wrote specifically in connection with the ephod: “they shall make the ephod of gold, blue wool, purple and scarlet wool and twisted linen.” In connection with the breastplate in verse 15 the Torah describes the very same materials again and in the same sequence. In Exodus 39,29 the Torah describes the belt as being made of “twisted linen, blue wool, purple wool and scarlet wool” (no golden thread).    The word תכלת describes wool dyed the colour of the sky; the word ארגמן describes wool dyed a purple colour, whereas the word תולעת שני describes wool dyed a scarlet colour. The expression שש  describes a kind of fabric made of linen. 
  You should know that the ephod and breastplate contained five different kinds of materials whereas the פרוכת, the dividing curtain, contained four different kinds of materials. The pomegranate-like apples at the bottom of the robe contained three different kinds of materials. The breastplate of the ephod is described as containing: gold, blue wool, purple wool, scarlet coloured wool, and twisted linen (verse 15). Of the dividing curtain the Torah writes that it contained blue wool, purple wool, and scarlet coloured wool plus twisted linen (36,35). Of the pomegranates the Torah writes (39,24) that it contained blue wool, purple wool, and twisted scarlet coloured wool. No mention of linen is made in connection with the robe.    Our sages in Yuma 71 say that wherever the Torah mentions the word שש in connection with garments the meaning is that the strand consisted of six threads of that material. If the word שש is followed by the word משזר, however, the Torah refers to strands of eight threads. If the word משזר occurs without the word שש in front such as in connection with the רמונים, the pomegranates of the robe, then the meaning is 12-threaded strands. These descriptions refer to the various threads of each material, so that you find that the dividing curtain was made of a total of 24-threaded of material, the breastplate and ephod of 28, seeing that the dividing curtain had four different kinds of materials each of which was described as שש and four times 6 equals 24. The robe, on the other hand, was constructed of a total of only 12-thread thick strands seeing it was comparable to the פרוכת (verse 31). On the one hand, it was made of only a single material, i.e. blue wool, seeing the Torah writes כליל; on the other hand, seeing the word כליל is understood to mean גדיל, a certain type of strand woven or spun out of a double thread, the robe would have 12 threads of blue wool per strand instead of the 6-threaded strands used with the dividing curtain. This is why the מעיל, the robe, had thicker strands consisting of 12 threads each. The breastplate and ephod which had yet another variety of material in addition to  any other garment had a total of 28-threaded strands. It is impossible to say that  the golden strand also consisted of six threads (so that it would have 30-threaded strands) as the expression וקצץ פתילים is mentioned in connection with it (39,3) and we know that the word פתיל refers to something only twofold, so that if it was folded over it would be four-fold. This gives us 4 varieties of six-threaded strands and one variety of a four-threaded strand for the materials used on the חשן האפוד.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
    ששה משמותם, “six of their names, etc.,” according to how their father had named them, in the chronological order of the births. The verses teaches that the names of the tribes were to be inscribed in order of their births, i.e. Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Dan, Naftali. These six were to be inscribed on one of the two gemstones on the shoulder epaulette of the ephod; on the second gemstone the order was: Issachar, Zevulun, Gad, Asher, Joseph, Binyamin. These twelve names were engraved on the two shoham-stones seeing the Torah describes the work as that of a lapidary (engraver of gemstones) (Verse 11). When describing the names on these 2 stones the word במלואתם which we find in connection with the 12 gemstones on the breastplate is missing. On the other hand, the words מעשה חרש אבן do not appear in connection with the 12 stones of the breastplate. 
  This was clear as it is a physical impossibility to describe stones which have been engraved by a lapidary as still being במלואתם, “in their original completeness,” i.e. no chips having been removed. The only way those stones could have been “engraved,” or rather “inscribed,” while retaining all their original mass was by means of the chemical secretion from the shamir worm which was skillfully applied to write the names in question. This is the reason our sages in Sotah 48 said that Moses needed the shamir worm at that time whereas he did not require it in connection with the stones on the shoulder-pads of the ephod.
      The workmanship of the ephod could be described as follows: its overall width was about the size of a grown man’s back extending from shoulder to shoulder. Its length extended from under the armpits to the legs; the two shoulder-pads were sewn onto it above. This is the meaning of the words שתי כתפות חוברות. The reason was so that it could be worn as suspended from the High Priest’s shoulder. On each shoulder-pad (strap) one of the two  square shoham-stones were recessed into a golden setting and each contained 6 of the 12 names of the tribes of Israel (compare Maimonides Klei Hamikdash 9,9). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ועשית חשן משפט מעשה חושב, “you shall make a breastplate of judgment of a woven design.” He would weave a cloth made of blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool and linen. He would take one thread of gold and make a strand of the other six-threaded strands of materials so that each would have a seventh golden thread. This is the meaning of the words: תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני ושש, (compare Maimonides Klei Hamikdash 9, 5-6). This is based on the words וירקעו את פחי הזהב וקצץ פתילים לעשות בתוך התכלת ובתוך הארגמן וגו', “they hammered out sheets of gold and cut threads to be worked into designs among the blue, the purple,” etc. (39,3). This teaches that the golden thread was folded over amongst the other materials, like a double thread.    The length of the breastplate was 2 zeratot, (22 cm approx), its width 1 eret. It was folded over so that it would look square from the front. There were four rows of three gemstones on it, each gemstone being square. The names of the tribes were “inscribed chemically” each tribe’s name in accordance with the colour gemstone reflecting its individuality. Reuven’s name was inscribed on the stone called אודם, Shimon’s on a stone called פטדה, etc., etc. In addition to the names of the twelve tribes the names of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov were also inscribed plus the words שבטי ישורון. These additional words were distributed between the various stones so that, for instance, the stone אודם with the name Reuven had an additional letter א as part of the name אברהם, whereas the stone פטדה which had the name שמעון inscribed on it also had a letter ב added as the second letter in the name אברהם, and so on. A stone with a short name such as גד, for instance, had the word שבטי of שבטי ישורון added seeing that there was enough space for this. The stone with the name אשר had in addition the letters ישר of the word ישורון inscribed on it, whereas the stone with the name יוסף had the last three letters of the word ישורון inscribed on it also, so that each stone had a total of six letters making an overall total of 72 letters. These 72 letters corresponded to the great name of the tetragram when it is spelled in all its 24 permutations. The six days of creation comprised a total of 72 hours of daylight, the number of hours during which the universe and all that is in was created (no creation took place at night.). We know this as the Torah speaks of ביום עשות ה' אלו-הים ארץ ושמים (Genesis 2,4), “on the ‘day’ Lord G’d made earth and heaven.” This number 72 has also been alluded to in Psalms 89,3 where David speaks about the world having been built on the attribute חסד, loving kindness. The numerical value of the word חסד is also 72. We infer from these verses that the world which has been created in 72 hours of creative activity by G’d is maintained due to the merit of the twelve tribes of Israel, i.e. the 72 letters inscribed in the breastplate of the high Priest.
      It is remarkable that the stone with the name בנימין which was spelled plene, i.e. with two letters י (as opposed  to Exodus 1,3 or Genesis 42,38 et al) where there is no letter י before the final letter ן filled out its stone seeing his name had six letters. It was therefore impossible to add a letter from the patriarchs’ names on his stone. The reason that this was so may be connected to a historical occurrence in the time of the Judges when the tribe came close to extinction, only 600 young men surviving after the civil war described in Judges 20-21. Had his name not been spelled with six letters on the breastplate, even the six hundred young men who survived might not have done so.
      Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function.    Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness  committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia.   The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is  so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts.    Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation <i>azmoragdin</i>, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth  he will kill the wicked.”     Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah.    The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was  that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.]    The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or <i>ashtefassis</i>. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel.    The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while  riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8).   The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.”    The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20.    The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received.    The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph.   This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.
      I have seen in a book by Aristotle devoted to stones that the stones require the wearer of them to be pure in order for each of them to effectively carry out its special function, the properties we have listed above. If the wearer is ritually impure, they either lose their power altogether as far as he is concerned, or their power is greatly reduced. As soon as the wearer undergoes purification rites, the gemstone around his neck will recover its power. It is perfectly in order to accept what Aristotle says as there is no gemstone which does not contain some power given to it by celestial sources. Just as we have been taught in Bereshit Rabbah 10,7 that there is no herb on earth which does not have its counterpart in the celestial regions providing it with its individual mazzal, so the same is true of the precious stones. Having carefully absorbed what we have written about the gemstones in the garments of the High Priest you will note that he was surrounded by the names of the tribes of Israel both in front and behind, seeing these names were inscribed both on the breastplate and on the shoulder pieces of the ephod. [I suppose the fact that the ephod was closed from behind makes the whole garment appear as if it were worn on the back. Ed.]  Whenever the High Priest put on his special vestments, he would put on the ephod and the breastplate at the same time, seeing that they were joined together and the Torah had instructed (verse 28) that the breastplate not be detached from the ephod. The band (belt) was tied together under the High Priest’s heart. The two shoulder-straps were inserted in the two rings at the upper end of the breastplate and two threads of blue wool cord were fed to beneath his armpits from the rings at the lower ends of the shoulder straps of the ephod.
  A Kabbalistic approach: ...
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   משובצים זהב יהיו במלואותם, “set in gold they shall be in their mountings.” The meaning of the words is that the stones should remain whole, in their golden settings. The principal instruction of this verse is that the stones should be on top of the gold and the inscriptions on top of the stones. There were a total of 72 letters corresponding to the 72 (lettered) name of Hashem (as pointed out at the beginning of verse 15). 
  This reflects a great spiritual awakening reminding people of the great value of Torah which supersedes even all the accumulated gemstones found on the breastplate of the High Priest. By placing the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. the letters of the Torah, above the gemstones, and the gemstones above the golden mountings, the point that Torah values are supreme was made for all to see. The gold was the basis of the gemstones and the gemstones in turn were the basis of the letters of the Torah. Without the letters inscribed on top of the gemstones the gemstones and the gold would not have been of much significance. The significance of the letters lay in the fact that it was these which G’d employed in order to create this universe.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ונתת אל חושן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים , “you are to place within the breastplate the Urim and the Tumim, etc.” The Torah introduces both the Urim and the Tumim with the letter ה in front as if we were dealing with known phenomena whereas in fact they have never been mentioned before. They had never been mentioned as being either part of the furnishings of the Tabernacle or as being part of the priestly vestments. Seeing that later on when the various furnishings and vestments are being described as having been made, we never read of ויעש את האורים ואת התומים, “he made the Urim and the Tumim,” it is clear that they were not something fashioned by craftsmen. They were something fashioned directly by celestial input. This is the reason they were introduced as a known quantity, something which had been in existence already. We observe something parallel in Genesis 3,24 when the Torah reports וישכן מקדם לגן עדן את הכרובים, “He positioned east of Gan Eden the cherubs, etc.” We had never been told of the existence of cherubs. There too the letter ה in front of the word כרובים taught us that such cherubs had already existed though we did not know of them seeing they had come from an extra-terrestrial domain.    The fact is that the words Urim ve-Tumim are the description of the names of holy beings by means of whom the High Priest was able to divine certain events in the future and to announce them to the people who had inquired about them. The two names Urim, Tumim, represent two different parts of such divine messages. The first refers to the lighting up of letters on the breastplate which were visible to the High Priest and enabled him to place the respective letters into sequences which formed an intelligible message. The flashing of the respective letters on the breastplate was called Urim, whereas the combining of these letters into an intelligent message by properly arranging the letters in question was called Tumim [from the words אור, light, and תמים, perfect, whole. Ed.] The holy name of the Lord was written on a parchment the High Priest folded underneath the breastplate so that the parchment was covered by the stones above and the fabric underneath. Moses placed the parchment inside the breastplate only after he had dressed Aaron in his vestments. This is the meaning of  the verse in Leviticus 8,8: “He placed upon him the breastplate and he put inside the breastplate “the Urim and the Tumim.”    It was one of a number of levels of divine revelations such as  Ruach hakodesh, Holy Spirit, which is considered a higher level than the revelation called Bat kol, “heavenly echo.” The communications received by the High Priest by means of the Urim ve-Tumim ranked below that called Nevuah, prophecy. We have been told in Berachot 4, that the reason the Urim and Tumim were called by these names is that the first word, i.e. Urim refers to their ability to convey what they had to say by means of light, i.e. the flashing of the letters we mentioned. The word Tumim, on the other hand, means that they would bring their message to an intelligible conclusion, i.e. their predictions would come true. These two phenomena were also known as כרתי ופלתי as we know from Samuel II 20,23, the names suggesting that the answers given to questions directed to these High Priests equipped with the breastplate were clear and unmistakable. When someone asked the High Priest concerning a future event and he received an answer based on the pronouncement of the Urim and Tumim as interpreted by the High Priest he would find that the event forecast would indeed occur. The High Priest would stand with his face towards the Holy Ark when referring the petitioner’s question to G’d for an answer. The person making the inquiry would stand behind the High Priest. He would not phrase his question or inquiry in a loud voice but would speak like people who engage in prayer not expecting anyone near them to hear the details of their prayer. Immediately after the petitioner had uttered his request the High Priest would be granted a measure of Holy Spirit and he would look at the breastplate and he would see the prophetic message flash on the breastplate’s letters, (such as עלה or לא תעלה in the event that the king had inquired if to engage in a certain war and if he would be successful.) The only people entitled to use this facility were the King or the community as a whole as has been pointed out in Yuma 71.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ועשית את מעיל האפוד, You are to make the robe for the ephod.” The wording of the text teaches that the robe was attached to the ephod. Rashi also wrote that the ephod was placed over the robe much like a belt.
     כליל תכלת, “entirely of blue wool.” This teaches that the robe was made completely of blue without any other color being mixed into its fabric. Its shape was similar to a garment known as גלימה, i.e. mantle, or cloak. Its top had a circular opening so that it was not buttoned along its front in order to close and open it. (It was slipped overhead when putting it on or taking it off). It had two wing-like flaps which the High Priest could open or close as he liked. At his hem, all around the hem there were 72 pomegranate shaped woolen balls made of blue purple and scarlet red wool, 36 on either side of the wings we mentioned. These pomegranates were hollow containing 72 bells with tongs and clappers. This is what our sages explained in Zevachim 88. According to this interpretation [which differs radically from Rashi, see below. Ed.]  the words פעמון ורמון, פעמון ורמון  have to be understood as meaning “each bell was concealed within the pomegranate.”
  
  Verse 32
  
   והיה פי ראשו בתוכו, “and its head-opening shall be folded over within;” it appears to me that when the sages explained in Zevachim 88 that “let something involving sound be the instrument of atoning for a sin committed involving sound,” they had in mind such sins as evil gossip, lies, refusal to honor verbal undertakings, etc. This is why the wording of the Torah in describing the “collar” of the robe as והיה פי ראשו בתוכו sounds so stilted. 
  The wording contains a hint that what a person says should reflect what is in his heart. His pronouncements should not be at variance with his true feelings and intent. The lips which form the frame of his mouth should have prevented him from abusing the power of speech; whereas instead of doing so the sinner made his mouth a מעשה אורג, “weaver’s work,” i.e. he fabricated all kinds of embellishments to the truth. The words כפי תחרא, “like the opening of a coat of mail,” also hint at the manner in which the sinner used the mouth to reinforce his lies, just as the armor of the knights of old consisted of overlapping pieces of metal to allow both for protection and flexibility. The robe was designed to atone for the kinds of sin which estrange the sinner to his G’d. Concerning such people David said in Psalm 101,7: ”he who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes.”
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ונשמע קולו בבואו אל הקדש, “and its sound will be heard when he enters the holy precincts.” When Aaron enters the Sanctuary dressed in his eight special vestments his voice in prayer will be heard by G’d and his prayers will be accepted. In addition to the sound of his voice in prayer there will also be heard the sound of the bells at the hem of his robe. This little verse is a lesson in manners. When a person wishes to receive an audience he first knocks on the door of the king or prefect from whom he requests the audience. Aaron (the High Priest) would announce his intention to pray by means of the chiming of the bells at the hem of his robe. What is customary as a sign of deference to a mortal king must also be observed when one petitions the King of Kings. When one arrives unannounced in a mortal king’s palace, enters without preamble, one incurs the death penalty. Similarly, when the High Priest enters G’d’s Sanctuary it behooves him to give notice of his intention to enter. The matter is best illustrated in Esther 4,11 from where we know that King Ahasverush looked with great suspicion on anyone who came unannounced, and, generally speaking, he had such persons executed as he thought they were bent on harming him. Even though G’d, of course, is fully aware of the intentions of the “intruder,” the same rules of etiquette apply in the Sanctuary.    Another reason why the High Priest “gave notice” in this manner of his intention to enter the Sanctuary was to ensure that none of the angels would at that time interfere with his prayer, i.e. interpose themselves between him and G’d. Had he entered unannounced this could have happened. He himself might even have been harmed by the angels who were unaware of his intentions.    Actually, the sound of the bells was not meant to give warning either to the Shechinah or to the angels that the High Priest was approaching. it was intended to warn the angels that the approaching High Priest desired to have privacy during his audience with the Shechinah. Additionally, it was meant to head off any chance that some angel would harm him as an unwanted intruder (as happened to Nadav and Avihu). The same sound of these bells chiming when the High Priest had completed his audience in the Sanctuary served the angels notice that they could again resume their customary positions inside the Sanctuary. When the Torah writes the words ולא ימות, “so that he will not die,” at the end of our verse, this was a warning that if the High Priest were to enter the Sanctuary without the bells on his robe being audible, the attendants around the Shechinah would kill him as an intruder. This matter is elaborated on in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 1,5 and quoted by Nachmanides in connection with Leviticus 16,17: “that no person (אדם) should be in the Tent of Testimony,” that this wording includes even the angels which were described in Ezekiel’s vision as having a ”human face” (Ezekiel 1,10). This is why the High Priest was instructed to make certain that his approach would be heard by means of the bells in the hem of his robe chiming. The idea is reflected in Psalms 55,15 “sweet was our fellowship; together we walked in G’d’s house when there is turmoil.” What we have described applied during all the days of the year when the High Priest entered the Sanctuary; it did not apply on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies, as on that day he was not allowed to wear the “golden garments” when inside the Sanctuary. 
      We are told in Midrash Shemot Rabbah 38,8 in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the reason the names of the twelve tribes were inscribed on the breastplate can be understood by means of  a parable. A king’s son had a tutor, a pedagogue. He went to the king to intercede on behalf of his pupil the prince. He was concerned lest the various officials attending the king might utter some negative comment concerning the prince while he was engaged in defending him. What did the tutor do? He dressed himself in his most impressive uniform, an attire designed to cause respect and awe in those who would see him wearing it. In a similar manner, Aaron would enter the Sanctuary to intercede with G’d on behalf of the Jewish people dressed in the kind of garments which would be sure to keep unwelcome listeners away. If he had not had many merits he could not have survived such an encounter. By wearing the breastplate with the names of the twelve tribes (and the names of the patriarchs) inscribed on them he felt sure that whatever personal merit he might lack would be made up for by a reminder of the accumulated merits of the patriarchs and Yaakov’s sons. G’d enabled him to neutralise any attacks by the angels upon him through providing him with these priestly vestments and giving him a holy appearance. This is alluded to in Isaiah 59,17: He ”wrapped Himself in zeal as in a robe.” Thus far Midrash Rabbah. [This parable raises more questions than it solves: 1) the High Priest was not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies at will (Leviticus 16,2). He could only enter on the Day of Atonement during certain times of the day. 2) on that day he wore only white linen garments when inside the Sanctuary (Leviticus 16,4). Ed.]
  
  Verse 36
  
   ועשית ציץ זהב טהור, “you are to make a head-plate of pure gold.” The head-plate was made as follows: Betzalel took a flat strip of gold two fingers wide which would be worn around Aaron’s forehead from ear to ear and on which were inscribed the words קדש לה', “holy unto the Lord.” The word קדש was written on the lower line, the word לי-ה-ו-ה on the upper line. The letters in these words were protruding. (Maimonides Klei Hamikdash 9,1-2 explains the technique used). The two ends of the ציץ were pierced so that below the holes a strand of blue wool would be fastened which in turn would be tied behind the High Priest’s neck.   According to the view of Raa’vad  the inscription on the lower line was קדש ל so that only the name of the Lord i.e. י-ה-ו-ה was inscribed on the upper line. That letter ל was at the end of the upper line whereas the name of the Lord appeared at the beginning of the lower line near the end at the right. The reason Maimonides calls the upper line “lower” and the lower line “upper,” is because he considered what is at the end of the line as “lower,” and what is at the beginning of the line as “upper.” (At any rate, according to Rabbi Shlomoh Aderet’s interpretation the words קדש לה' could be read sequentially in the normal order, and not as the impression first created by the words of Maimonides.
      The ציץ, head-plate, was also considered as one of the eight vestments of the High Priest. However, strictly speaking, it was not a garment but a decoration, a kind of jewelry. If our sages always speak about eight vestments which the High Priest would adorn himself in, they simply included this adornment with the other seven which are garments in the true sense of the words. 
  The other seven garments symbolized the seven heavens; I will explain this in greater detail at the end of Parshat Tzav (Leviticus 8,7). The golden head-plate represented the highest of all the heavens. The very words inscribed on the head-plate are an allusion to the principle that the glory of the princess is best seen by the fact that she stays out of the limelight, as Psalms 45,14 phrased it כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה ממשבצות זהב לבושה, “the royal princess, her dress embroidered with golden mountings, (is led inside to the king.”) The chamber (heaven) referred to is the tenth, innermost. This is why the ציץ was made of pure gold and why it was appropriately inscribed with the words קדש לה'. This is also the meaning of the words פתוחי חותם קדש לה', “engraved like a signet ring ‘holy unto the Lord.’” The Torah writes in verse 38 that the ציץ is to be worn on Aaron’s forehead, and that it is to be on his forehead תמיד “always.” How are we to understand the latter word “always?” The word refers to the periods during which the High Priests fulfills his specific functions in the Temple or within the holy precincts. As you are already aware the High Priest served as a symbol and so did his vestments while he wore them during the performance of his duties. This is the reason why the Torah wrote the word לזכרון, “as a remembrance,” i.e. as a symbol, in connection with the gemstones on the ephod and with the gemstones on the breastplate (compare verse 12 and verse  29). The word לזכרון is very close in meaning to the word לדוגמה, “as an example, a model, a symbol.” The word ציץ itself is reminiscent of Song of Songs 2,9 מציץ מן החרכים, “He was peering through the lattices.” Aaron’s inspiration came from the Shechinah which peered through the lattices (shuttered windows of the highest heaven) observing him performing his functions. The word is related to ויצץ ציץ, “it sprouted a bud,” i.e. the topmost part of the fruit. Wherever the word occurs it alludes to the highest of something. Just as this particular ornament symbolized the highest emanation, the highest attribute of G’d, so all the vestments  symbolized something of that nature. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   והיו על אהרן ועל בניו, “and they shall be (worn) by Aaron and his sons, etc.” The meaning of the verse is that Aaron should wear the eight priestly garments mentioned since the beginning of our portion. They are: the breastplate and ephod, the robe, the chequered tunic, the turban, and the belt, the head-plate and the linen trousers. His sons are to wear four priestly garments when performing their part of the service. This is the meaning of the words: “so that they shall not bear guilt and die.” A High Priest performing the service with fewer than eight priestly garments, or an ordinary priest performing the service with fewer than four priestly garments commits a capital sin. He is called in Talmudic parlance מחוסר בגדים, “devoid of clothing,” his service is null and void, and he is guilty of death at the hands of heaven just as a non-priest who undertook to perform service in the Temple/Tabernacle (compare Sanhedrin 83). This is based on 29,9: “You shall girdle them with a sash,- Aaron and his sons- and you shall wrap the headdresses on them. The priesthood shall be an eternal duty for them.” At the time when they wear the garments the priesthood is part of them. At times when they do not wear these garments their priesthood is not part of them, and they are no better than non-priests. Of non-priests performing service in the Temple the Torah has written והזר הקרב יומת, “and the non-priest who approaches (to do service) shall be killed” (Numbers 18,7).
     חקת עולם לו ולזרעו עד עולם, “an eternal statute for him and his descendants forever.” The statute that the High Priest wear the eight priestly garments at the time he performs the service is an eternally valid statute; similarly, an ordinary priest must wear four priestly garments whenever he performs the priestly duties assigned to him. They are: linen trousers, a tunic, a cap-like headgear, and a belt. The ordinary priests who performed service on a daily basis experienced a great miracle. Although the only garment covering their bodies was the tunic, i.e. a shirt, and they were exposed to rain and cold, they did not die from exposure. This is why our sages (Shekalim 5,1) said that they used to appoint one of the priests whose duty it was to visit sick priests and to heal them from intestinal disorders seeing that this was an occupational disease suffered by many of the priests. Moreover, the fact that they had to perform their service barefoot standing and walking on cold stone floors contributed to their suffering these diseases. [According to Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 5,1 a contributing factor was the consumption of much meat and the drinking of water (instead of wine?)  Ed.])
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וזה הדבר אשר תעשה להם, “This is the matter that you shall do for them:” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: זה אשר תעשה להם, just as the Torah wrote in verse 38: וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, where the word הדבר does not appear. The reason the word הדבר has been added in our verse is that seeing this paragraph introduces the whole subject of sacrificial offerings and there will be times when such offerings cannot be brought due to the absence of the Temple, the substitute of prayer, i.e. “words” or דבר, is a hint of such future developments. This is what Hoseah 14,3 is all about when he said קחו עמכם דברים ועבדו את ה', “take with you words and serve the Lord.” Another verse conveying a similar message is ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, “and let us substitute with our lips for bulls.”
     לקח פר אחד בן-בקר ואילים שנים, “take one young bull and two rams, etc.” these three animals are symbolic of the three patriarchs of the world; Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.    A Midrashic approach: The word פר refers to Aaron whereas the words “two rams” refer to his surviving sons Eleazar and Ittamar. The Torah here forecast in an oblique way that Nadav and Avihu would not perform priestly functions.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואת בשר הפר, ”and the flesh of the bull, etc.” The sin-offering of a bull was meant to atone for the sin of the golden calf. When the Torah writes: “you shall burn its flesh by fire,” this expression is very similar to the one used for the red heifer’s flesh (Numbers 18,7). The mystical dimension of these procedures is known already from the scapegoat in Leviticus 16. The reason for assuming that this bull was to atone for the sin of the golden calf is that the High Priest when guilty of a sin involving idolatry has to offer a bull as sin-offering as described in Leviticus 4,3. The reason Aaron’s sons also had to place their hands on that bull prior to it being slaughtered (verse 10) was that seeing that G’d had been angry at Aaron for his part in the sin of the golden calf (Deut. 9,20), and He meant to kill him and his sons, it was critical that they become part of the atonement process. The word להשמידו which Moses used in that verse in Deut. 9,20 meant that Aaron’s  sons would be killed also.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  . כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש, whatever touches the altar becomes sanctified.” The wording of this statement suggests that regardless of whether something is suitable for the altar or not, mere contact with it makes it holy. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion, the Torah wrote in the next verse: וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח כבשים בני שנה, “and this is what you shall prepare on the altar: sheep within their first year, etc.” Just as year-old sheep are suitable as sacrifices on the altar, so everything else which is suitable as a sacrifice on the altar will become sanctified by contact with it. Another law to be derived from the wording of our verse is that  any priest who arrives first in order to offer the sacrifice will have some priority, i.e. he has been sanctified in respect of priests arriving later. Seeing he has been on the altar in order to perform sacrificial service he is not to be replaced in favour of someone else without having had a chance to perform his task.
  
  Verse 38
  
  . וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, “and this is what you are to do on the altar, etc.” the word עשייה here refers to the arranging of the various parts of the animal on the altar and the pile of wood which occurred at sunrise. The actual slaughtering of the daily burnt-offering had taken place earlier as soon as the eastern sky had begun to become light. Six priests participated in that sacrifice (Yuma 24). One would carry the legs and the head, the other the two forelegs; the third the rear end and hind leg, the fourth the chest and the stomach; the fifth would carry the rib-cage, and the sixth would carry the entrails.
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ונסך רביעית ההין יין לכבש האחד, “and a drink-offering of one quarter hin wine for the one sheep.” Rabbeinu Chananel  writes that as soon as the priest had bowed down in order to offer the libation the deputy High Priest  would wave the flag-like cloth to signal to the Levites to begin to chant their hymns. A the time of the Mishnah, a certain ben Arza would then strike the cymbal as a further signal and the Levites would commence reciting their hymns. All the assembled people would bow down and after every section the tekiah blast of the shofar would be blown and the trumpets would be blown until the end of the offering of the burnt-offering. At the end of that procedure the King and all those present with him would prostrate themselves (Chronicles II 29,28-40; compare also Tamid 7,3). The Levites would follow this procedure every day, varying the hymn they would sing.     On Sundays they would recite Psalm 24,1 as that psalm dealt with aspects of the creation of the universe, recalling that everything had been void and empty before. The psalm concludes with the words ויבא מלך הכבוד to commemorate the directive “let there be light.” The attribute כבוד also known as Shechinah is a great light. On Mondays the Levites chanted psalm 48. In verse 4 of that psalm the separation between different levels of holiness is alluded to. In the Holy Temple there were different levels of sanctity such as the Azarah, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. On the second day of creation the Torah speaks of separation between upper and lower waters (Genesis 1,6). These various levels of sanctity are referred to in verse 4 of our psalm by the word ארמנותיה, “its various citadels, palaces.” On Tuesdays the Levites would chant psalm 82 which features a verse (3) speaking about judging the poor etc. This corresponds to the directive that all the waters in the terrestrial world were to concentrate in one area so that the dry land could become visible (Genesis 1,9). This was an allusion for the judges to congregate when they sat in judgment and to pronounce judgment for each individual supplicant. On that day the Torah (G’d) also directed that the earth should produce trees, etc., each according to its own kind (Genesis 1,12), an allusion to the individuality which is to be preserved on earth. When we read in that psalm that alas, man had to die, unlike the angels, the reference is to the sin committed in that garden in which all these beautiful trees had grown. This is why the psalm recited by the Levites on the fourth day i.e. psalm 94, which commences with the reminder that G’d does take revenge on those who hate Him, is appropriate for Wednesday, the day the sun and moon were placed in orbit. The psalmist refers to the people worshipping sun and moon. On Thursdays the Levites used to chant psalm 81 which amongst other matters deals with the Exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh was compared to a sea-monster, תנין, and on that day the great sea-monsters had been created (Genesis 1,21). On Fridays the Levites chanted psalm 93 describing how even G’d robed Himself in splendor. It was the day that man, the most perfect of the creatures was created, a creature combining within himself some divine attributes (created in the image of G’d). He had been assigned dominion over the animals and even nature, i.e. was liable to similarly regard himself as sovereign in his domain on earth. Chanting that psalm then was in keeping with the significance of the day. On the Sabbath the Levites chanted psalm 92, a hymn in which the righteous are described as firmly planted in the House of the Lord, a reference to the Holy Temple. It is entirely possible that there are still more allusions in these various psalms chanted by the Levites on the different days of the week. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
  
  Verse 41
  
   כמנחת הבוקר וכנסכה תעשה לה, “like the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you prepare it.” In Numbers 28,8 where the Torah speaks about the same offering the wording is כמנחת הבוקר וכנסכו תעשה אשה ריח ניחוח לה'. Why is the masculine pronoun used there in connection with this offering? Answer: in Numbers the reference is to the word בוקר, morning, whereas in our verse here the reference is to the word מנחה, i.e. the nature of the sacrifice mentioned here being a מנחה, gift-offering though it was totally consumed on the altar. The word לה in this connection is quite unique; we do not find this formulation elsewhere. It is possible that it refers to the tenth emanation which this offering was aimed at. [The word would not then be understood as the ordinary “for it,” but as directed at what the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton represents (based on Torat Chayim)]
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   ונועדתי שמה, “I shall make My meeting there.” The word שמה, “there,” refers to the altar mentioned earlier. This is what prompted our sages, quoted by Rashi, to say that as soon as the Tabernacle had been erected G’d would communicate with Moses from the copper altar. 
  Other sages claim that G’d spoke to Moses from between the wings of the cherubs on the kapporet as mentioned specifically in 25,22. According to that view the word שמה in our verse does not refer to the altar but to the Tabernacle as mentioned in verse 42 פתח אהל מועד, “at the entrance to the tent of Meeting.”
     ונקדש בכבודי, “it will be sanctified by means of My attribute כבוד.” The fact that My Shechinah will rest on it will make it holy (compare Rashi). A Midrashic approach based on Zevachim 115 reads the word as במכובדים שלי rather than as בכבודי. The difference is that G’d feels Himself honored and glorified by those near Him. We would be dealing with an allusion to the death of Nadav and Avihu which had been characterized by Moses as an example of the type of death granted only to those who are especially near and dear to the Lord (compare Leviticus 10,3).
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   וידעו כי אני ה' אלוהי-הם אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים לשכני בתוכם, “They shall know that I am Hashem, their G’d, Who took them out of the land of Egypt to rest My Presence amongst them.” The verse means that the purpose of the Exodus was to bring about that G’d’s Shechinah would rest amongst the Jewish people. This is perceived as a requirement by G’d’s attribute of כבוד rather than as a requirement of the Jewish people. This is a mind-boggling concept, meaning that unless G’d’s Presence manifested itself amongst the Jewish people His Kingdom would not be visible amongst mankind. Expressed differently: the whole Exodus was orchestrated in order for the first of the Ten Commandments, “I am the Lord your G’d, etc.,” to be acknowledged by the Jewish people. This is the reason why the words מארץ מצרים appear in he middle of this verse.
   I have also found words to this effect in Midrash Tehillim on the verse בצאת ישראל ממצרים on Psalms 114. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt through the merit of the Tabernacle. He bases this on the words וירא אלוקים את בני ישראל in Exodus 2,25, and compares them with the words וירא משה את כל המלאכה, “and Moses saw the entire work” (Exodus 39,43). The words וירא in the respective verses teach that G’d’s purpose in Exodus 2,25 was to achieve what Moses saw in Exodus 39,43. The words אשר הוצאתי אותם, may mean that the condition of  taking the people out of Egypt had been in order for what is reported at the very end of the Book of Exodus to occur. ...
  In Psalms 132,13 this concept is expressed in the words אוה למושב לו, “He has desired it for His seat.” There is another mention of this concept in the very next verse in that psalm where the psalmist says: “here I will dwell for I desire it.” There are numerous other verses scattered throughout the Bible as I have mentioned in my commentary on Exodus 20,1.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועשית מזבח מקטר קטרת, “You are to construct an altar on which to bring incense up in smoke.” Nachmanides writes on this verse that the Altar for incense was one of the interior furnishings and as such it should have been mentioned earlier where the Table, and the Menorah and their respective measurements and the materials they were made of were described. They were mentioned together in Exodus 37,25  where the actual construction of these furnishings is reported. The reason that the Altar for incense is mentioned here only at the end of all the instructions and after G’d having said that He would dwell amongst the Jewish people, is that the Torah wanted to wait with this seeing it (the incense) was the instrument of arresting pestilence amongst the Jewish people. In essence, the Altar of incense represented the attribute of Justice. Moses referred to this aspect when he blessed the tribe of Levi (Deut. 33,10) referring to the time when ישימו קטורה באפיך, “they would place incense to counter Your anger.” We know that the word אף is a description of anger when it is used in connection with G’d, such as in Deut. 31,17 וחרה אפי, “and My anger will be kindled, etc.” When the sons of Aaron offered unauthorized incense they died on the spot (Leviticus 10,3). There are numerous verses alluding to the extreme caution to be used when offering incense.    Seeing that Nachmanides has already touched on this difficult subject, it is in place to comment on something Maimonides has written in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3 chapter 45 in connection with the purpose of the incense. He explains that the many animals which were burned on the Altar left behind a very unpleasant odor and that the fragrance of the incense was designed to offset this bad odor. 
  Seeing that Maimonides has made it his task to make Torah legislation and its reason more palatable to people who are far from tradition, he was forced to adopt this kind of explanation in presenting the reason for this legislation. This does not mean, however, G’d forbid, that the entire legislation of incense and its very strict rules had such incidental considerations as its purpose. Maimonides was well aware that the karet penalty would not be decreed against someone who copied the composition of the ingredients of the incense and its proportions if all such a person had been guilty of was to alleviate bad odors by doing so (compare 30,37-38). I will have more to say about the subject of incense when we shall discuss the sin of Nadav and Avihu.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . בבקר בבקר, “morning after morning.” in connection with the daily communal offering known as תמיד, the Torah uses the word “morning” only once. We read in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד תעשה בבקר. The reason was that the incense would be offered before the תמיד sacrifice of the morning, so that it was not the first offering of the day.
  
  Verse 8
  
   בין הערבים יקטירנה, “he shall bring it up in smoke in the afternoon.” It is a well known fact that the fragrance of incense burned in the late afternoon lingers longer than its counterpart burned in the morning. This is already referred to in Psalms 141,2: “take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice.” David emphasizes that which is offered in the afternoon/evening. When referring to his offering he did not mention such offerings as sin-offerings or guilt-offerings or even burnt-offerings, but asked G’d to look kindly on his offering of incense. All the other offerings are in expiation of some sin, even sins committed only in one’s thoughts and never carried out which are atoned for by the עולה, the burnt-offering. The incense offering has no connotation of sin associated with it at all. David asked that his prayer be accepted by G’d as if it had been incense. This is also why he said in the verse following שיתה ה' שמרה לפי, “O Lord set a guard over my mouth.” I believe that the word שיתה belongs together with the word לפי, as if  David had said: שיתה ה' לפי, שמרה לפי, he meant that G’d should put suitable words in his mouth. David thereby alluded to what G’d had said to Moses in Exodus 4,11 מי שם פה לאדם, “who has provided man with a mouth?” David requested that G’d help him not to utter words which are not appropriate. This is the meaning of the latter half of the verse in Psalms 141,3 נצרה על-דל שפתי, “set a watch at the door of my lips.” The word דל is short for דלת שפתי. The idea of a mouth having a door is already described in Micah 7,5 where the prophet says שמר פתחי פיך, “be guarded in your speech.” He used the word פתח to describe the mouth which opens and closes just like a door. G’d uses similar language in Job 41,6 saying of Leviathan: דלתי פניו מי פתח, “who can pry open his face?” The word נצרה in Psalms 141,3 is in an imperative form just like מכרה in Genesis 25,31, or in Genesis 43,8 when Yehudah told his father Yaakov שלחה הנער אתי, “send the lad (Binyamin) with me!” The dagesh in the letter צ of the word נצרה is merely for aesthetical purposes to make the reading of the word more pleasant-sounding. It is similar to the dagesh in Exodus 15,17 in the letter ק of the word מקדש of the line מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך. It results in doubling the sound. The psalmist could have written נצור just as easily as he wrote נצרה.    Concerning the words משאת כפי מנחת ערב, “my upraised hands as a gift of the evening,” David requests here that his prayer at this time be even more welcome to G’d than an offering of incense in the morning. The reason he describes his prayer as “his outstretched palms,” is to compare it to the incense which is born on one’s hands, having in mind Leviticus 16,12: “and his cupped handfuls of finely ground incense.” Another thought David may have had in mind when he referred to מנחת ערב may have been related to the meaning of the word ערבות, “pleasing,” as in Maleachi 3,4, וערבה לה' מנחת יהודה וירושלים, “then the offerings of Yehudah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, etc.” Seeing that of all the sacrifices none is as welcome to G’d as the incense, its smoke begins to rise heavenwards immediately it is placed on the altar. This is why at the beginning of this hymn David describes it as קראתיך חושה לי, “when I call You hasten to me.”
  
  Verse 9
  
   לא תעלו עליו קטרת זרה, “You must not offer on it alien incense, etc.” There is a warning contained in this verse not to offer any other sacrifice on the altar before the incense has been offered. Not even other incense offerings by individuals or groups must be offered before the daily incense offerings prescribed by the Torah to be offered on behalf of the whole people by the High Priest. Most certainly no other sacrifices of any kind are to precede the incense offering. Anyone who contravenes this instruction is guilty of violating one of the 365 negative commandments of the Torah [although such offerings are offered on a different altar, the one in the courtyard. Ed.].   ועולה, “or a burnt-offering.” Even merely a libation of water as an offering is prohibited before the incense is offered. The precise time frame legislated by the Torah as the correct one for offering the incense is the time when the oil (of the Menorah) starts cooling. We know this from the words in verse 7 בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות יקטירנו, “every morning when he cleans out the lamps he shall bring it up in smoke.” This verse is followed by similar instructions concerning the evening portion of the incense offering. This may be the reason that Solomon characterized the oil and the incense as things which cause the heart to rejoice (Proverbs 27,9). 
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Tetzaveh 15): The meaning of the words in that verse of Proverbs, i.e. שמן וקטרת ישמח הלב, that “oil and incense gladden the heart,” is that the anointing oil is used to anoint the High Priest at which time all of Israel rejoice that they have evidence that G’d has forgiven their sins and that the service by the High Priest has been accepted by G’d on behalf of the people. You will find that no one’s offerings have been praised as much as those of the princes. The reason is that the first thing they offered was the incense, as we read in Numbers 7,14: “one spoonful of incense.” Only afterwards does the Torah report that the princes also each offered a bull, etc., etc. This is the reason G’d Himself praised their offerings by mentioning the name of each prince separately together with the details of his offering although all twelve princes brought exactly the same offering and the Torah could have saved itself at least 60 verses in summarizing these offerings.   You will find that King Achaz (father of the famous good King Chizkiyah) was guilty of annulling large parts of the Torah and Temple service as described in Chronicles II 29,7-8. When Ezra describes how Achaz’ son Chiskiyah restored the Temple service, repaired the building, etc., special mention is made of the restoration of the daily incense offering. (Compare Isaiah 8,16: צור תעוד, חתום תורה בלמודי, “Bind up the message, seal the instructions with My disciples.”) The prophet refers to the evil doings of Achaz. He did not only serve idols because he believed in them but only in order to anger the Lord G’d of Israel. Whereas G’d was prepared to forgive him for all his various sins, the unforgivable sin was the cancellation of the incense offering. This is why Ezra had added the words: ”they also shut the doors of the porch and put out the lights; they did not offer incense and did not make burnt-offerings, etc.” This is followed by: “The wrath of the Lord was on Judah and Jerusalem. He made them into an object of horror, amazement, etc.”    Proof of how beloved the incense offering was to G’d is supplied further by the fact that in spite of all the contributions, the building of the Tabernacle, the offerings of animals, the Shechinah did not manifest itself until after the incense had been offered as we know from an allusion in Song of Songs 4,16:  “Awake from the north, (location where burnt-offerings were slaughtered) and come from the south (where peace-offerings were slaughtered) ....let their fragrant goodness flow in Jerusalem!”
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
     יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה, “The fear of the Lord prolongs one’s days; but the years of the wicked will be shortened” (Proverbs 10,27).
   In this verse Solomon teaches that a person’s life span is extended or shortened in accordance with his merits or the punishment for which he has qualified. Such results are due to נס נסתר, intervention by G’d in a person’s fate by miraculous ways which are not visible to us. The various types of miracles are divided into two groups. 1) There are clearly manifest miracles; 2) there are miracles which are totally concealed from man as the onlooker. The miracles which are recognized as such are the extraordinary occurrences which have befallen people or which have occurred for the benefit of people such as the producing of water from a rock, the descent of bread from heaven, i.e. the manna; even the sudden appearance of the quails in large numbers after their appearance had been predicted was a clearly manifest miracle. When Avraham overcame the four mightiest kings and their armies in battle having with him only 318 men, this too was a clear miracle. Even though no specific supernatural event occurred at that time the victory was a נס נסתר, a “hidden” miracle, i.e. it became clear to everyone who knew what happened that G’d must have intervened in the outcome of that military encounter.    Lengthening someone’s life span or shortening it is also a hidden miracle. This is what Solomon said here. Although constant worries are by definition factors which weaken a person and undermine his health, and such people could be expected to die after less than a normal life span, Solomon says that if the worry was due to their being righteous people this will contribute to their normal life span being extended rather than shortened. The reverse is true of the wicked. Although their carefree and worry-free mode of life could be expected to result in their living longer than their righteous counterparts, the facts are the reverse. Such wicked people will enjoy fewer years than the righteous who constantly worry about their sins and the retribution they will have to face eventually. The essence of Solomon’s teaching here is that the only true yardstick for who enjoys long life and who dies (apparently) prematurely, are considerations of merit and lack of merit. Our sages illustrated the truth of Solomon’s statement by pointing out that during the entire 410 years that the Temple of Solomon stood there were only 18 High Priests, whereas during the 420 years of the second Temple there were a total of 300 High Priests. The reason was that the high Priests during the first Temple were all righteous individuals whereas most of the High Priests during the second Temple were not righteous. This is why there were so many of them.
      One must not understand the verse we quoted from Proverbs as meaning that the wicked will absolutely always live short lives, and that the righteous will always live to a ripe old age. After all, we witness every day that certain wicked people live extraordinarily long lives, whereas very saintly people sometimes die very young. One of the best examples was king Chizkiyah who was about to die at the age of 39 and even after G’d had listened to his plea and added 15 years to his life he still died at a much younger age than the average (compare Kings II 20,6). Just as G’d does not lengthen the life span of every righteous person, He does not cut short the life span of every wicked person. Perhaps we may conclude from the death at a relatively young age of a person who appears to have been a great צדיק, that he was not totally righteous, and that if a wicked person lived for many long years that he was not totally wicked but had merits which enabled him to enjoy extra years. The fact is that the addition of extra years or the cutting short of one’s life span is in the category of a נס נסתר, a “hidden miracle.” It proves G’d’s intervention in nature without giving us details as to what precisely caused the intervention and to what degree G’d intervened.    In fact it is axiomatic to remember that a person is not a true believer, i.e. does not really have a share in Moses’ Torah unless he is absolutely convinced of the fact that G’d performs such hidden miracles all the time, that there is no accident and no coincidence in the universe. G’d is aware of all that occurs and has had a hand in it (See Nachmanides at the end of Parshat Bo.)  The second part of this absolute faith that is required of each Jew is that he must be convinced that every one of his good deeds will qualify for reward and every one of his sins will be subject to punishment. The whole matter of blessings and curses which was already  spelled out in Deut. 27,15-26 and some of which has been debated in Niddah 31, i.e. that the person who is subject to a miracle being performed for him is unaware of that at the time, is the reason our sages said in Baba Metzia 42 that when one enters one’s grain storage chamber in order to measure the size of one’s crop, one should pronounce a benediction asking G’d to bless one’s store. If one first measured the size of the stored grain and pronounced this benediction only subsequent to having measured it, such a prayer is considered as using the name of G’d in vain as G’d had already decreed either blessing or curse on that grain. We have a principle that blessings are not bestowed on matters which have been measured, weighed, or counted. Only matters which have escaped our eye and its ability to measure it are subject to blessings. This is another way of saying that the principle we have called נס נסתר, the “hidden miracle,” is constantly at work. If such blessings could be applied to matters we have weighed or measured such a miracle would no longer be “hidden.” This was one of the major reasons the Torah forbade head-counts of people to ensure they would not be exposed to the “evil eye,” As long as the blessings apply to people in a manner which cannot be checked, the עין הרע, the evil eye, the negative influence brought to bear, does not have a precise target on which to focus. The evil eye can influence only matters which have been measured, weighed or counted. Having appreciated this you will understand why the count of the males over 20 years of age which is the subject of the early part of our Parshah had to be conducted by means of a coin, i.e. the half-shekel. 
  כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקודיהם ונתנו איש כופר נפשו לה' בפקוד אותם ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקוד אותם. “When you take a census of the Children of Israel according to their numbers, every man shall give Hashem an atonement of his soul when counting them so that there will not be a plague amongst them when counting them.” 
  According to the plain meaning of the text, the words כי תשא which do not contain a command are phrased in such a manner that it can be considered applicable for all future times as well as for immediate application. The words כי תשא certainly imply that at this time a census would take place. However, they also implied that a future census if and when it would occur would be performed in a similar manner. The Israelites were not to be counted by counting their heads.    The reason that David erred when he ordered a head count as reported in Samuel II 24,2 was precisely because the wording of the Torah at this point sounds ambiguous. He ordered Yoav at the time to count the people without resorting to shekalim or similar devices when he said: שוט נא בכל שבטי ישראל מדן ועד באר שבע ופקדו את העם וידעתי את מספר העם, “Make the rounds of all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beer-Sheba and take a census of the people, so that I may know the size of the population.” It is written further (verses 3,4, and 10) Yoav answered the king: “May the Lord your G’d increase the number of the people a hundredfold, while your own eyes see it! But why should my lord king want this? However, the king king’s command to Yoav and to the officers of the army remained firm; and Yoav and the officers of the army set out, at the instance of the king, to take a census of the people of Israel. But afterward David reproached himself for having numbered the people, and David said to the Lord: ‘I have sinned grievously in what I have done. Please, O Lord, remit the guilt of Your servant, for I have acted foolishly.’”
      A Midrashic approach to the words כי תשא, based on Pessikta Zutrata on our verse. G’d said to Moses: “how are you going to raise the stature of the Jewish people? By the words כי תשא,  seeing that it is written (Proverbs 14,34) ‘charity exalts a nation, the kindness of a nation is a form of sin.’” Rabbi Yehoshua interpreted this verse to mean that the nation mentioned first are the Jewish people who are elevated spiritually by giving charity. They are described in Samuel II 7,23 as “who else is like Your nation Israel unique on earth?” The second half of the verse contrasts the behaviour of the Gentile nations with that of the Jewish people, saying that whatever apparent kindness they perform is only a form of hidden sin. They do not perform good deeds for altruistic reasons but only in order to promote their own image. This perception is confirmed by Daniel 4,24 advising Nebuchadnezzar after explaining his dream to him: “redeem your sins by beneficence and your iniquities by generosity to the poor; then your serenity may be extended.”
     ונתנו איש כופר נפשו בפקוד אותם, “every man shall give an atonement for his soul when counting them.” This refers to the census in the desert. ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקוד אותם, these words refer to counting the people in future generations. This is  why the words בפקוד אותם were necessary a second time. It is also possible that the first time the expression בפקוד אותם was mentioned it means actual counting, whereas the second time the meaning of the word is: “supervising the fate,” just as in Jeremiah 10,15 בעת פקדתם יאבדו, “in their hour of doom they shall perish.” In that event the translation of the verse would be: “they shall each give an atonement for his soul to G’d when they are being counted so that there will be no plague affecting them when G’d exercises His supervision over their fates.” 
  The most important revelation of our verse is that all the people that were counted each enjoy individual supervision of their fates by the Lord G’d. All the deeds performed by any individual are recorded. This is why these people become potential victims of a plague. As long as they had only been part of a whole, and not individuals in their own right, the evil eye had not been able to focus on them, seeing they were not a number in themselves. The whole idea of enjoying  individual supervision of one’s fate by G’d carries with it also the awesome responsibility of ensuring one does not become a candidate for punishment by G’d.    When the woman of Shunem for whom the prophet Elisha had offered to intercede  with the king  (Kings II 4,3) declined his offer by saying: “I live amongst my people,” (I do not need to be singled out), she had exactly this thought in mind. Once she would have become a known quantity at the king’s court, she was also liable to draw unwelcome attention to herself if she committed a mistake. As long as she was more or less anonymous, no trespass would be accounted as her personal fault specifically.    The day on which all our actions are reviewed by G’d is Rosh Hashanah, New year’s Day. On that day each one of us is treated as an individual and this is why it is such an awesome day. On that day our deeds are isolated from the fact that all of us are also members of the community at large (compare Jeremiah 32,19). We also find this thought in Ruth 1,1 where the prophet Samuel begins the Book by stressing the individuality of Elimelech and how by trying to be different from the community and suffering their collective fate he set himself up for punitive action by G’d involving both him and his sons. The Book stresses his name both when his emigration is reported and when he died (one verse later). [It would have sufficed to write “this man died,” without his name being mentioned again as there had not been a change of subject after his name had been mentioned first in verse 2.]
  
  Verse 13
  
   מחצית השקל בשקל הקדש, “one half shekel of the sacred shekel.” According to the plain meaning of the text we have to consider that Moses’ position amongst the people was equal to that of crowned heads of government in other nations as it states in Deut. 33,5: “he was king in Yeshurun.”  This is why a silver coin had been minted in his honor. This coin was of a certain weight and the silver it was cast from was free from impurities. The reason this coin was called קדש, “sacred,”  was because all the commandments are “sacred,” and for the performance of some of the commandments it is necessary to pay out such a coin or multiples of it. In other words, the coin basically served a sacred purpose. One example of the need for such coins was the redemption of firstborn male babies of the average Israelite who had to be redeemed by a priest in exchange for 5 such coins (or its equivalent weight in silver). Most of chapter 27 at the end of the Book of Leviticus is devoted to the ערכין legislation which stipulates that people having made vows involving the evaluation of their own persons or others have to discharge these vows by paying varying amounts of multiples of such a coin as described here. When we call our Torah the “sacred Torah,” we are motivated by similar considerations. Even the Hebrew language is called לשון הקדש, “the sacred tongue,” as it is the foremost language in which sacred matters are written about and are discussed by the scholars.    Even the names of the angels have the adjective “sacred” attached to them. Names of angels such as Gavriel, Rafael, etc., all reflect their association with the sacred name of G’d, hence the letters א-ל at the end of their respective names. This is also reflected in Psalms 68,18 רכב אלו-הים רבותים אלפי שנאן ה' בהם, “G’d’s chariots are myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them.” [The idea of calling chariots owned by man “G’d’s chariots” is justifiable only when such chariots are placed in the service of sacred duties. Ed.] Hebrew is also the tongue in which the universe was created. [The directives were issued in Hebrew. Ed.] Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 18,6) are on record saying that the world was created with לשון הקדש, the sacred tongue. They base this on Genesis 2,23 לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת “this (woman) shall be called אשה, as it has been taken (derived) from איש.” The various names Adam gave to his wife and sons such as חוה, קין, הבל all indicate that their meanings are based on the Hebrew language which therefore must have been the original language spoken after Adam was created. All the other names mentioned in the Book of Genesis (at least prior to the building of the Tower) were based on meanings in the Hebrew language.    Eventually, all the other nations will revert to the use of Hebrew as all peoples had done prior to G’d confusing man’s languages at the time of the building of the Tower (Genesis 11,7). We know this on the authority of Tzefaniah 3,9: “for then I will make all the peoples pure of speech, so that they will all invoke the Lord by name, etc.”    The reason the Torah legislates that the males to be counted contribute “half” a shekel (instead of a whole one), is because when the Israelites served the golden calf they had violated the Ten Commandments, and the coin called “half shekel” weighs ten geyrah. This is why every male Israelite who had reached the age of accountability vis-a-vis the celestial court, i.e. the age of 20, had to pay the ten geyrah as a symbol of the sin of which he had been guilty. Remarkably, this half shekel amounted in value to only one tenth of the value of the five shekalim needed to redeem a firstborn son of an Israelite as the Torah wrote: “and the amount he is to be redeemed by is the value of five shekalim which is twenty geyrah each, ” (Numbers 18,16).
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 10): Seeing the sin of the golden calf took place at noon or immediately thereafter (seeing the people had been prepared up to that hour for Moses to return from the mountain), the sum fixed for the symbolic atonement was a half-shekel corresponding to the half-day. When the Torah writes in 32,1 וירא העם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר, “When the people saw that Moses was tardy in descending from the mountain,” etc., the word בשש may be read as ב-שש, “at six (hours)” i.e. at noon. 
  A rational approach: The reason the Torah stipulated a half-shekel when the Torah could just as easily have demanded a whole shekel of ten geyrah weight, was to hint to every intelligent person that he must weigh his actions in life so as to give due weight to his spiritual needs as well as to his physical needs. Ideally, he should be able to give full weight to both these requirements each, i.e. a full shekel to each. In fact, he ought to be able to use his body exclusively in the service of the Lord. However, on the other hand, sometimes attention to the physical needs such as eating, drinking, sleeping, provision of clothing, etc., is essential for the continued ability to serve the Lord. Keeping these factors in mind, the Torah, by speaking of a half shekel, hinted that it is aware that we suffer from this dichotomy of demands made upon us. We have numerous sayings of our sages in which they interpret verses in the Torah as reflecting this dual-duty of the Jew to look after both his body and his soul. Examples are Pessachim 68 where the verse in Deut. 16,8: וביום השביעי עצרת  תהיה לה’ אלו-היך, “and on the seventh day there shall be a an assembly for the Lord your G’d,” is contrasted with Numbers 29,35 עצרת תהיה לכם, “it shall be an assembly for you.” Rabbi Yehoshua is quoted as saying that the Torah means that on these festivals we are to divide our time equally between religious activities and mundane activities such as eating and drinking. It goes without saying that even when indulging in mundane activities one should strive to perform this with a view to benefiting one’s soul, one’s spiritual level as a personality. This very donating of the coin, i.e. using money, must be לה', devoted to divinely inspired purposes. When this is the case then one has achieved the degree of sanctity described by the Torah when it calls the coin “sacred.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The mystical dimension of the atonement by means of a “half” shekel was to parallel the attempt to divide between what the people had seen (i.e. the fire), and what they had heard (the thunder and G’d’s voice) at Mount Sinai. The sin of the golden calf was that they related incorrectly to the two phenomena they had seen at Mount Sinai. [Remember the Torah spoke of the people having “seen” sounds, Ed.] The root of the sin at the golden calf episode was doubting or undermining the Unity of G’d, His indivisible nature, in spite of the manifold ways in which He manifested Himself. Seeing that the sin involved one of the TEN commandments it was appropriate that the act of atonement would be performed by a coin worth TEN geyrah, by a half-shekel and not by a whole shekel even if it had the same weight as this half-shekel. The reason that the silver for the shekel was also described as בקע, “valley,” was that they had made a bottom of the head and a head out of a bottom when they became guilty of idolatry. [According to Torat Chayim, quoted by Rabbi Chavell, the words “making a head of the end and an end of the head,” refer to reversing the meaning of the letters of the attributes of G’d in His tetragrammaton. By committing idolatry the final letter ה in the tetragrammaton had been treated as separate, treated entirely out of context in which it had been when spelled correctly. Ed.]   As a result of such considerations, the silver given for this census was used to construct the sockets (bottom) of the walls (upright beams) of the Tabernacle in order to serve as an ongoing warning how the people had committed a theological reversal in worshipping the golden calf, or considering it as a symbol of the attribute of G’d which had taken them out of Egypt (compare what we have written on Exodus 38,28). Seeing that the Israelites were “weighed” in terms of the “sacred shekel,” they were found wanting. This is perhaps best illustrated by a verse in Daniel 5,27:  תקל תקלתא במאזניא והשתכחת חסיר, “you were weighed in the scales and found wanting.” (the meaning of the writing on the wall in Belshazzar’s palace). Seeing the sin committed by the Israelites at the golden calf episode had been so grievous an error, they were required to give this sacred half-shekel to G’d in atonement for their souls.
     תרומה לה', “an offering for G’d.” The expression תרומה, gift, heave-offering, occurs three times in this paragraph. The Torah wanted to remind us that there were in fact three distinct such gifts. The first gift was the contribution of the materials for building the Tabernacle. The second contribution was the half-shekel mentioned here; the third תרומה, contribution, was the money (shekel) for the public offerings on the altar in the Tabernacle. I have already mentioned the details of this in connection with 25,2.   The half-shekel mandatory contributions mentioned here were the ones from which the silver sockets containing the beams of the Tabernacle were constructed. Each socket was made of a whole talent of silver (38,27) so that between the 100 talents of silver contributed by 600,000 men over the age of 20 almost all of it was used up for these sockets, seeing each beam had two sockets and there were a total of 48 such beams. The pillars supporting the dividing curtain, four in number, also had one such socket each. Any overage, i.e. the shekels of the 3000 plus people over the number 600,000 was used to support the hangings of the curtains around the courtyard of the Tabernacle.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד, “you are to give it for the work of the Tent of Meeting, etc.” I have already explained in detail how the use of these silver shekalim symbolized the sin committed during the episode of the golden calf. There had to be a visible reminder of this sin to ensure it would never be repeated. Only by being reminded of a sin, especially in such an oblique way would one continue to be full of remorse about it. This concept has been spelled out in Psalms 51,5 where David describes his sin involving Bat Sheva as one he would remain conscious of forever. At the same time, the very words לפני ה' are the reassurance by G’d to these people that they were again in His good graces. When the people are out of favour they are not לפני ה', “before, or in the presence of, the Lord.” All of this is why this silver (money) was called כסף הכפורים, “the silver (money) of atonement.”
   The reason the paragraph dealing with the construction of the copper basin from the waters of which the priests were to wash their hands and feet is mentioned immediately after the paragraph dealing with the census, etc., is that we have a tradition that the waters in that basin were instrumental in attracting sufficient quantities of rain water for the land of Israel. Seeing that the  contributions of the shekalim were in the nature of charity, and charity is instrumental in increasing the amount of beneficial rainfall, whereas withholding promised charity results in G’d withholding rainfall, there is a conceptual linkage between these two subjects [although on this occasion only the donations of the shekalim was mandatory and had an additional function, i.e. to secure atonement. Ed.]. Proverbs 25,14 is a source for the claim that unfulfilled charity vows result in suspension of beneficial rainfall. Solomon said: “He who boasts falsely of giving, is like clouds and wind that do not bring rain.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ובין המזבח, “and between the altar.” Rashi writes that the altar mentioned in this verse is the copper altar outside the Sanctuary. Accordingly, this basin was positioned slightly to the left of the entrance to the Sanctuary so as not to block it but at the same time between the west side of the altar and the Sanctuary. There was nothing blocking the view from the altar to the entrance of the Sanctuary. This is made plainer in 40,6. The whole subject is discussed in Zevachim 59. The basin itself had 12 spouts (like the teats on the udder of a cow) so that the 12 priests who were on duty when performing the daily communal offering could wash their hands from it simultaneously (Yuma 37). [These details referred to the Temple, not the Tabernacle in the desert when there were not yet 12 priests altogether. Ed.] Actually, there were a total of 13 priests involved in the daily communal offering as the Mishnah lists 13 different tasks being performed by these priests (Yuma 25). However, seeing that from a ritual point of view the actual slaughtering of the sheep could be performed by a non-priest, only 12 priests were actually required for the service  under discussion. Even a priest did not need to wash his hands and feet prior to slaughtering the sacrificial animal.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ורחצו אהרן ובניו ממנו את ידיהם ואת רגליהם, “and Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet from this basin and the water therein.” The priest would wash his hands and feet at the same time, as has been explained in Zevachim 19. He would place his right hand on top of his right foot and his left hand on top of his left foot and would wash them. 
  According to the plain meaning of our text, the need for performing this washing (assuming the priests had not entered the holy precincts with dirty hands or feet) was that it was an accepted ceremony before facing Royalty. Any of the king’s attendants who served food at his table had to wash his hands immediately prior to serving the food, seeing that hands are by nature busy with many activities of which the owner is often even unaware. The reason the priests also had to wash their feet immediately before performing sacrificial service was because they were barefoot (Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 5,1).
      A Kabbalistic approach: the washing of the ten fingers and ten toes was an allusion to the ten emanations which enabled the physical universe to be created out of a totally abstract domain. When man raises his hands above his head he raises ten fingers, i.e. alludes to these ten emanations. By standing on the ground with his ten toes he demonstrates that his beginning and end (in our parlance “top to bottom”) is all a reminder of these ten emanations. This is also the reason that the sages decreed that  prior to praying one ought to wash one’s hands (Berachot 15).  The expression נטילת ידים for “washing one’s hands,” [as opposed to רחיצת ידים] is an allusion to Psalms 134,2 שאו ידיכם קדש, “elevate, raise your hands (before) performing something sacred and proceed to bless the Lord.” A similar expression to the word שאו is found Psalms 119,48 where the psalmist says: “I raise my hands (elevate) towards Your commandments.” This is why Onkelos translates the word ורחצו, “they shall wash,” as ויקדשון, “they shall sanctify.” Elsewhere Onkelos translates the word ורחצו as: ויסחון such as in Genesis 18,4 where Avraham asks his guests to wash their feet. The Torah hints that the priest who performs service in the Tabernacle/Temple “clothes” himself in the sanctity of the ten emanations by the act of washing his hands and feet from the basin. Nachmanides views the covenant with G’d which was both oral (mouth) and on man’s flesh (circumcision), as symbolically interposed between the ten fingers of the two hands and the ten toes of the two feet respectively. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואתה קח לך בשמים ראש מר דרור, “and you take for yourself choice spices, pure myrrh 500 shekel-weights.” In this paragraph G’d commanded how to prepare the anointing oil out of five different components. They were: myrrh, cinnamon, fragrant cane, cassia, and olive oil. Moses was commanded to use the mixture of these ingredients to anoint Aaron, his sons, the Tabernacle, and its furnishings. It was forbidden to reproduce this mixture for other purposes. They called this mixture קדש, “sacred.” This is the reason the Torah speaks of שמן משחת קדש, “oil of anointment of sacred things.” The various commentators and Maimonides are agreed that the spice called מר דרור is identical with <i>Almoshk</i> (congealed blood of a certain free roaming musk deer in India).  Rabbi Saadyah Gaon also identified בשמים ראש as this musk. 
  This is blood congealed near the throat of this free-roaming beast resembling a deer and in the summer when it is very hot and that beast walks amongst trees and its coat rubs involuntarily against the bark of the trees, some of this congealed blood leaves its body and is collected by people for the sake of its fragrance. People find it amongst the herbs. This is why in Song of Songs 5,1 Solomon describes G’d’s response to Israel as “I have already come to My garden, etc.” אריתי מורי, “I gathered My מור.” The reason the Torah describes it as דרור, “free,” is to indicate that it was to be pure and unadulterated.
      Nachmanides understands the word דרור as not referring to the spice called מר, but as describing the free uninhibited nature of the deer-like animal from which it is derived. Accordingly, the substance would have to be removed from the animal directly, while it is in its original undiluted form at a time when the animal continues to enjoy its unfettered lifestyle. If it were to be taken from the animal after same had been captured and domesticated, there would not only be very little of it available quantity-wise, but it also would already have lost its distinctive fragrance. All of the foregoing is based on the opinion of those experts who identify myrrh as an animalistic substance.
     [Continuation of Nachmanides:] I believe that this interpretation is completely untenable seeing that the Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,13 (on the words צרור המור), has described the words in Song of Songs 5,1 which we quoted earlier as applying to our patriarch Avraham who was the ראש, the head, i.e. the first of all the righteous people. Just as myrrh was considered the head (best) of all the spices, so Avraham was the best of all the righteous people. [His deeds were as fragrant in the eyes of the Lord as is the perfume made of מור in the nostrils of people inhaling it. Just as myrrh does not exude its fragrance except when exposed to light, so did Avraham’s name as a person of religious integrity not become known until after he had been thrown into a furnace of white-hot fire. Just as anyone who collects myrrh with his hands experiences that the skin of his hands becomes rough and bitter, so Avraham subjected himself to a variety of self-flagellations. This Midrash is proof that מור and musk cannot be identical as musk exudes its fragrance also when there is no light. The author quotes Nachmanides as believing that the word מור refers to a herb called myrrh in Latin, and armanon (or similar) in Persian. Most languages know the herb producing this fragrance by the name myrrh. When the Midrash claimed that the hands of anyone collecting this herb become rough and bitter tasting, it referred to a taste similar to לענה, wormwood. When the authors of the Midrash described this spice as ראש כל מיני בשמים which we previously understood as “the best of the various kinds of spices,” a description hardly applicable to wormwood, the Midrash refers to the fact that it was listed as the first category of the ingredients of the anointing oil. It is not a description describing its quality as a fragrance. The word דרור, refers to the need for this מור to be pure, unadulterated, precisely because people use it in an adulterated form to counteract its negative qualities. The reason the Torah lists it first is because in the list of the ingredients for the incense offering which are enumerated later in this chapter it represents the most potent ingredient. It produced a copius cloud of incense. When we read about the preparation of the girls aspiring to become Ahasversus’ queen, we are told that they were first treated for 6 months with oil containing this myrrh. This shows how important an ingredient this spice was as a cosmetic treatment (compare Esther 2,12). Clearly the herb “myrrh” was one from which oil for perfume could be extracted also. According to Nachmanides this oil would be extracted from the bark of the myrrh plant. [According to the Encyclopedia Britannica myrrh is an agreeably aromatic but bitter-tasting resinous substance obtained from small thorny trees that belong to the genus Commiphora. The name is derived from the Arabic word for “bitter.” You will note that all the remarks made in the Midrash are reflected in that definition. Ed.]. So far Nachmanides.    I do not believe that the case has been proven. It is entirely possible that when the Torah speaks of מור in our verse, the reference is to the substance mentioned by Maimonides and Rav Saadyah Gaon. At the same time, the expression צרור המור which we find in Song of Songs 1,13 may be the myrrh that Nachmanides is speaking about. Each one may be correctly described as ראש, “head” of all kinds of spices. The latter as the leading spice in preparing the incense, and making smoke rise, the former as the principal ingredient in preparing the oil of anointment effective also in the absence of light. Psalms 45,9 speaking of מור ואהלות קציעות כל בגדותיך, “all your robes fragrant with myrrh and aloes,” would indicate that the fragrance of מור does not necessarily depend on the presence of light.
     מחציתו חמשים ומאתים, “half its quantity, i.e. 250.” Who did not know that half of 500 is 250? Why did the Torah not merely say: “half the amount?” Our sages in Keritut 5 have had a tradition that the weight of the cinnamon was actually 500 just like the weight of the מור דרור. The Torah stipulated for reasons unknown to us that whereas the quantity of the former was mixed in all at once, the cinnamon was divided into two lots of 250 each and weighed separately each time before being mixed into the oil.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
    שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי, “this shall remain for Me oil of sacred anointment.” Nachmanides explains that actually we would have expected the Torah to write יהיה לאהרן ולבניו, “it shall be for Aaron and his sons.” The reason that he Torah did not phrase it in this manner but wrote: “it will be for Me (G’d),” is to make plain that in future generations High Priests and furnishings of the Temple, etc., would also have to be consecrated by the same mixture. We might have misunderstood the words “anyone who compounds its like or uses it to anoint a non-priest shall be cut off from his people,” as applicable to anyone not directly descended from Aaron. Had this been the correct interpretation the question would be how any of the kings of Israel (Yehudah) who were not descended from Aaron but from David could have been crowned using this oil? This is why the Torah wrote: “it shall be for Me,” to teach that the title כהן could also be applied to kings approved by G’d. Both descendants of Aaron and kings descended from David are to be treated as “anointed by the Lord.” We have a specific verse in which G’d commanded the prophet Samuel to go to Chevron and there to anoint one of Yishai’s sons i.e. David, as king (compare Samuel I 16,12). We have a further reference to this event in Psalms 89,21: “I have found David, My servant; anointed him with My sacred oil.” David meant: “with oil which is sacred for Me.” Keeping this thought in mind, the Torah added in verse 32: “it shall not be smeared on human flesh.” The word אדם in this verse makes sense only if it means “a person who is neither a priest nor a king descended from David.”   We need to understand why the Torah first wrote the paragraph about the anointing oil and only afterwards the paragraph about the components of the incense, [something that was offered on the altar twice every day. Ed.] The two different kinds of oil and incense respectively correspond to the “head and the foot.” The people who were smeared with the anointing oil were the heads of the nation, i.e. the spiritual head, the High Priest and the temporal head, the king. Heads wore crowns, i.e. the oil was smeared on in an arc describing the shape of the letter כ as symbolizing the shape of a crown. Oil is the choicest of all liquids. It was certainly appropriate to make the anointing fluid out of olive oil, appropriately aromated. We have pointed out earlier that the verse שאו ידיכם קדש describes hands raised above the head. The incense, which, as we also mentioned earlier, represents the attribute of Justice and the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton as the symbol of that attribute, is fittingly mentioned at the end of this legislation. You will note that in connection with the compounding of the oil of anointing G’d used the relatively harsh word וידבר when commencing His instructions to Moses. When He began the instructions about the incense and its components, etc., He began with the softer word ויאמר. This was probably in order to soften the impact of the fact that the קטורה appears usually in connection with G’d’s anger. The fact that it was used to assuage G’d’s anger, whether actual or potential, is reflected in the softer introduction with the word ויאמר.
      A Midrashic approach (Keritot 5b): On the words שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Ila-ah taught that the anointing oil compounded by Moses was of very miraculous quality. From its beginning to its end it was totally miraculous. To start with, the quantity made was only 12 logim (about 3,3 liter). We know this as the Torah writes (verse 24) “1 hin of olive oil.” (1 hin equals 12 login). If you consider merely the fact that 100 beams of a surface of one and a half cubits by 10 cubits each ( a cubit is approx. 60 centimeters) had to be smeared with that oil, (assuming the oil was applied only to the outer side) how could 3,3, liters have been sufficient? Never mind that all the other furnishings as well as Aaron and his four sons had to be smeared with it. Consider also the fact that the oil would penetrate the wood and therefore not only the mere surface would be smeared with oil. The carpets were being smeared; the sons of Aaron and Aaron himself would be consecrated on seven consecutive days, i.e. seven times each! At the end of all this we have been told that there was enough oil left over for future applications as the Torah wrote: “it shall be” יהיה (future tense).     The Talmud Keritut 5 claims that the word זה with its numerical value of 12 indicated that after completion of the anointments there would remain a quantity of 12 login of this oil! On the same folio the sages state that there were 11 ingredients making up the components of the incense. The word סמים (which appears twice) in verse 34 is understood as referring to two spices; the ingredients called נטף, שחלת, חלבנה, לבונה זכה make six. Add the five ingredients of the oil for anointing and you have a total of eleven. Alternatively, the second word סמים refers to a number of unnamed spices.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
    בד בבד יהיה, “they shall all have equal weight.” Here the Torah does not spell out the individual weight of each component as it had done in connection with the oil for anointing. The reason that only four ingredients have been clearly identified is that it was these which provided most of the smoke of the incense. It was important to the Torah that these ingredients would provide a cloud of smoke whereas it did not matter if the other ingredients also resulted in their smoke rising after they were being burned up.
      Nachmanides writes that the words קח לך סמים, “take spices for yourselves,” mean: “spices with which you are familiar because they have been mentioned previously,” i.e. the ones mentioned in verses 23-25. According to Nachmanides the words סמים and בשמים are used interchangeably as they mean the same thing. All the spices used in the mixture of the oil of anointing also formed part of the incense. According to this there would have been a total of eleven ingredients making up the composition of the incense: the ones (5+4) spelled out in the Torah plus two  mentioned only as סמים when that word is used the second time in our verse. According to tradition these latter two were שבולת נרד and כרכם. The title the Torah accorded to the finished product of the incense is טהור קודש, “something pure and holy.”
     נטף ושחלת וחלבנה, “stacte, onycha and galbanum; נטף is the same as צרי, balsam, which Rashi translates as theriaque.  Nachmanides disagrees and writes that it is a tree’s resin called gome. According to him it is a single kind of spice, supposedly similar to שחלת, חלבנה and לבונה, frankincense. The spice (mixture) called theriaque mentioned by Rashi is a mixture of a variety of spices. It includes honey, yeast, and the ashes of dead scorpions as well as the flesh of the hyena. It is quite inconceivable that such a mixture should have been included in incense which the Torah has described as טהור קודש, “something pure and holy.” How could the remains of reptiles or creeping animals which are the epitome of ritual impurity be part of such a mixture? Even honey and yeast (leavening) are matters which the Torah has expressly forbidden as being offered on the altar (compare Leviticus 2,11). To believe that they could be part of the incense is sheer nonsense! The resin called נטף (from “drippings”) which is from the balsam tree is a single ingredient of a specially aromatic quality.  The tree is called קטף, as one plucks the leaves which are dripping with resin. All of this accounts for Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar saying in Shabbat 25 that one must not light the Sabbath lamp with resin from the balsam tree as its fragrance is strong (and one may be tempted to use some of that oil for himself thus diminishing the supply for the lamp and causing it to be extinguished prematurely).    The incense called חלבנה is foul-smelling (Keritut 6); nonetheless the Torah saw fit to include it in the list of spices for the incense. It suggests the lesson that on a fast-day, a day of supplication we must not congregate in prayer without also including people whose conduct stamped them as sinners. Our sages (in Keritut) have taught us that any congregation which does not include sinners is not really called a congregation. The meaning of this strange statement is that G’d’s “reputation” is enhanced at a time when sinners join the righteous in prayer indicating that they are becoming penitents. This also reflects positively on the righteous assembled in prayer. If there were no potential penitents in that congregation the “righteous” would share the fate of the sinners as they share responsibility for the conduct of all the Jews, not just for themselves. Every Jew has a responsibility to help the sinners return to the fold. This is the reason that the willow branch, a plant without fruit or pleasant fragrance, must make up one of the four species of plants over which we recite a benediction on Sukkot. The willow branch symbolises the Jew who neither observes the commandments regulating life between people (good deeds) nor the commandments regulating our relationship vis-a-vis G’d (performance of religious ritual) and His requirements of us directly.
  
  Verse 35
  
  . ממולח, “salted.” This is what our sages referred to when they said (Keritut 6) that a quarter measure of salt from the Dead Sea was added to the mixture. It is also possible to understand the word ממולח as meaning “thoroughly mixed,” as Onkelos translates it. The purpose was to make it impossible to recognise any one of these spices separately. This may be the reason that sailors are called מלחים, as they thoroughly mix up the waters of the sea with their oars. The word occurs in such a context in Ezekiel 27,27 מלחיך וחובליך, “your sailors and your pilots.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל, “See I have called by name Betzalel, etc.” When Moses informs the Israelites of G’d having appointed Betzalel as chief architect for the construction of the Tabernacle and all that was connected with it, he repeats this formula i.e. ראו קרא ה' בשם בצלאל. This had to be mentioned as it was quite impossible to find amongst the Israelites who had been bricklayers of a primitive kind anyone who could possibly excel in the disciplines required to master the task of constructing such a portable Sanctuary. Even if by chance there had been the odd individual who had some expertise in one of  the many arts and crafts needed for this project prior to becoming enslaved, he would long ago have forgotten it. When the Torah lists the various disciplines in which experts were required for this work this teaches us that only someone divinely inspired could possibly have mastered all these arts. It is not surprising therefore that our sages have said (Berachot 55) that Betzalel knew how to employ the letters of the alphabet and to arrange them in a way G’d had arranged them when He used them to create the universe. In our paragraph the Torah writes that G’d had filled Betzalel with “a divine spirit, with wisdom, with insight, and knowledge etc., etc.” Solomon used similar language when describing how G’d created the universe (Proverbs 3,19-20) “The Lord founded the earth with wisdom, He established the heavens with understanding; by His knowledge the depths were broken up, and clouds drop down the dew.” The words: “see here how I have called Betzalel by name,” mean that the Israelites should marvel that already at the time of creation G’d had made provision for a man of the wisdom of Betzalel to be on earth, to be part of the Jewish people, at a time when his talents would be required. The literal meaning of his name is that “he was in the shade or shadow of the Lord.” The word בשם has a dual meaning, telling us also that He had been an intimate of G’d just as G’d would say to Moses (33,17) ואדעך בשם, “I have known you by name,” i.e. “I have given you a glimpse of part of My Holy Name (essence).”   Not only Betzalel, but most certainly all the prophets, had all experienced emanations from this great and Holy name of Hashem.
   This is the meaning of the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 40,2) in which G’d is reputed to have shown Moses “the book of Adam the original man,” a book in which there was a list of all the kings, the leaders both temporal and spiritual, the prophets, etc., who would make their mark between the time of Adam, and that of the resurrection. G’d explained to Moses that already at that time He had arranged that each one of these prominent people would be able to carry out the contribution he had to make to mankind when he would appear on earth. He showed him that the name of Betzalel had long ago appeared in that book. The background to the Midrash is the word ראה in our verse, a word which appears superfluous. The very expression בצל אל was an indication that the name of this soul had long ago been engraved in the list of those to receive this kind of emanation. When his soul was assigned a body, he sat “in the shade of the Lord,” learning how to construct the Holy Ark which is another word for “the shadow of the written Torah.” The Ark together with the kapporet and the cherubs had been a task awaiting Betzalel ever since the six days of creation. 
  Another illuminating Midrash (Tanchuma Pekudey 3) focuses on the difference between the word ראה, “see” (sing.) in our verse and the word ראו, “see” (pl.) in 35:30. According to that Midrash the former word was addressed to the celestial beings whereas the latter word was addressed to the creatures on earth. The fact that we make such distinctions we know already from Proverbs 3,4: -ומצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלו-הים ואדם, “and you will find favor in high esteem in the sight of G’d and man.”
      You should know that at the time Betzalel undertook this project he was 13 years of age. Our sages in Sanhedrin 69 figured this out seeing Betzalel was the son of Uri, who in turn was the son of Chur, and Chur had been born for Calev after his first wife Azuvah had died and he had married Efrat as we know from Chronicles I 2,1. Calev himself, by his own testimony in Joshua 14,7 had only been 40 years of age at the time he was chosen to be one of the 12 spies who were to find out details about the land of Canaan and its inhabitants during the second year of the Israelites’ wanderings (Numbers 14). Seeing that Betzalel was Calev’s great-grandson he could not have been older than 13 years at this time. Even allowing for this we must assume that Calev, Uri, and Chur all fathered a son at eight years of age in order for Betzalel to have been 13 years old at this time.
  According to the Midrash (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 13): G’d showed Moses “the book of Adam the original man,” and explained to him that already at the time of creation He had arranged that each one of the prominent people destined to be born would carry out the contribution he had to make to mankind when he would appear on earth. He showed him that the name of Betzalel had long ago appeared in that book. That is the meaning of our verse ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל “See I have called by name Betzalel, etc.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
    ואני הנני נתתי אתו את אהליאב בן אחיתמך למטה דן, “As for Me, here I have given him as an assistant Oholiav son of Achisamach of the tribe of Dan.” We read in the name of Rabbi Chanina in Shemot Rabbah 40,4 that no tribe was more exalted than Yehudah and none was less regarded than the tribe of Dan, seeing he was descended from one of the maidservants of Yaakov. G’d decided that Betzalel and a descendant of Dan should partner each other so that neither Betzalel nor his tribe should become haughty. All human beings are equal before G’d. The fact that the Tabernacle was built by these two architects was an important object lesson teaching this parity between the tribes in their social standing. Interestingly enough, when Solomon built the Temple this pattern was repeated seeing that the principal participants in constructing it were Solomon of the tribe of Yehudah, and Chirom the son of a mother from the tribe of Dan (compare Chronicles II 2,13).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ואת בגדי השרד, “and the vestments of service.” The meaning corresponds to the translation by Onkelos: לבושי שמושא, “garments for performing their tasks.” These “garments” were used to cover the furnishings of the Tabernacle (the Ark, the table, the menorah, the golden altar) when the Tabernacle and its components traveled with the people. The different furnishings were covered by “cloths,” or (“garments”) of different combinations of wool in different colors as has been detailed in the Book of Numbers 4,13, 4,6 et al.
      It is surprising that the Torah speaks of the respective function of these various covers without having first told us that they existed and that they were to be made of certain materials and of certain combinations of colours. Actually, these sacred covers or garments which are referred to here with the letter ה in front indicating that we are familiar with them already, were not previously mentioned anywhere. How is it that they are referred to here as if they were already familiar to us? 
  Nachmanides writes that he does not know why we do not find anywhere in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle or its furnishings any directive that such coverings were to be made.    Who would dare to quarrel with Nachmanides? (The author uses a more oblique reference used by Solomon in Kohelet 2,12 “who is able to wear the king’ boots” improve on G’d’s work?) Still, with all due respect to Nachmanides it seems to me that according to the plain meaning of the text we already have a hint of the existence of the בגדי השרד at the beginning of Parshat Tetzaveh (28,2) where the Torah commences to tell Moses ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך לכבוד ולתפארת, “you are to make the sacred vestments for your brother Aaron for glory and for splendour.” This is followed by ועשו את בגדי אהרון, “they shall make the vestments of Aaron.” This suggests that the appearance, number, as well as the materials used for these vestments were something already known. This is why in verse 4 the Torah could apply the definitive article ה at the beginning of the wordהבגדים  in the phrase ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, “and these are the garments they are to make.” At the end of verse 4 the Torah repeats once more ועשו בגדי קדש לאהרון אחיך, “they are to make sacred vestments for your brother Aaron.” In that instance  the Torah was careful not to describe these vestments as the ones mentioned previously otherwise it should have written את בגדי הקדש, “the (previously mentioned) sacred vestments,” just as the Torah wrote in verse 3 את בגדי אהרן. It appears therefore that at the end of verse 4 the Torah speaks of different sacred vestments than the ones mentioned previously. This was an allusion to the בגדי השרד in our verse which are presumed as a known quantity. This leaves us with the question why the בגדי השרד whose function was merely to act as covers for holy furnishings when same were not in their regular place in the Tabernacle have been described and introduced as בגדי קדש, “sacred vestments” equal in rank to the priestly vestments? These covers were given such a distinguished title because they did for the holy furnishings what the sacred vestments did for the priests when the priests wore them. They drew attention to the fact that what was underneath them must be holy, just as when people see men wearing priestly garments they assume that the people wearing them are holy. [I have paraphrased this. Ed.]  Our sages (Rashi) say that these בגדי שרד were made in the shape of hanging curtains, drapes, like the קלעים, a word which Onkelos translated as סרדין, “nets.” This is the reason the Torah uses the word שרד to describe the material woven out of the components stipulated by the Torah.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Yuma 72): we learn from the words ואת בגדי השרד that had it not been for them not a single Israelite would have survived the journey through the desert, [as without the sacrifices which atoned for their sins they would have perished (Rashi)]. It happened once in the days of Alexander the Great that the High Priest Shimon the Just went out to welcome him (when he was about to conquer Jerusalem). As soon as the mighty king saw him he descended from his chariot and prostrated himself in front of the High Priest. When Alexander’s attendants asked him about the meaning of their king’s strange behavior he told them that he had seen the image of the High Priest in a dream every time before he went into battle and that this angel-like figure had assured him that he would be victorious in battle. [In the Talmud the word שריד is used to describe that not a single Jew would have “survived, escaped alive.” The meaning of בגדי שרד then would be “garments assuring survival of the Jews.” Ed.]     Another meaning of the expression בגדי שרד, also mentioned on that folio in Yuma, is that they used to knit the garments (all the priests’ garments) in such a fashion that there was no need to stitch anything afterwards in order for there to be no loose ends, etc. [At any rate according to the Talmud the expressionבגדי שרד  applied equally to the garments worn by the priests, not just to the covers of the holy vessels inside the Tabernacle. Ed.]. According to Targum Yerushalmi the words בגדי שרד simply mean: “woven garments.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: it is possible that the letter ה in the word השרד is an allusion to the final letter ה in the tetragrammaton. It would be logical for this to be so, seeing that they were covers for the holy vessels. Holy vessels, by definition, are hidden, concealed under these covers and eventually become revealed when the covers are removed. The final letter ה also “conceals” the three basic letters of the tetragrammaton i.e. י-ה-ו, allowing it to be revealed when the occasion demands it.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אך את שבתותי תשמרו, “However, My Sabbaths you must observe.” This verse teaches that the construction of the Tabernacle did not supersede the laws of the Sabbath. Our sages in Sifra Kedoshim 3,7 explain that the sequence of the words את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו, “observe My Sabbath days and revere My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 19,13), clearly shows that Sabbath observance takes precedence over the commandment to construct the Sanctuary. This is why the word אך in our verse should be translated as אכן, i.e. ”surely, indeed.” The meter of the verse is: “I have indeed commanded you to proceed with the construction of the Tabernacle; however you must continue to observe the laws of the Sabbath inasmuch as they interfere with construction of the Tabernacle.”
   Seeing that the word אך always is used to exclude something, (compare Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 9,7 that the words אך, רק are always used to exclude something), it seems to me that also in this instance the use of the word אך conforms to that Talmudic principle. The Torah teaches with the word אך that here too it conforms to the principle mentioned by the Talmud and that certain communal sacrifices which are brought at a certain time as directed by the Torah override the Sabbath legislation. Whenever the rules about such offerings are accompanied by the word במועדו, “at its appointed time,” this means that the offering overrides the restrictions imposed on such work on the Sabbath (compare Pesachim 66 on Numbers 28,2). We have another example of the word אך being used in such a context in Leviticus 23,27 where the Torah writes אך בעשור לחודש השביעי הזה יום הכפורים הוא which is also an exclusion. The Talmud explains that the word אך excludes atonement being granted on the Day of Atonement to people who are unrepentant. Delving still further into the meaning of the restrictive אך, the Talmud reasons that if we took the lesson from the word אך in our verses at face value then even violating the Sabbath in order to save a life would be forbidden; in order for us not to make this mistake, the Talmud points out that the word אך was placed in a position where it restricts the application of the very commandments it promotes (Yuma 85). 
      Sabbath is the first commandment given to Israel before the Torah was given. It is the basis of our faith and is equated with all other commandments combined. The Sabbath affirms our belief that G'd created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Our sages (Shabbat 119) state that Jerusalem was destroyed only on account of desecration of the Sabbath. They derive this from Ezekiel 22,26: ”they have closed their eyes to My Sabbaths so that I became profaned in their midst.” Jeremiah 17,27 warned the Jewish people concerning the observance of the Sabbath telling them that both Jerusalem and the dynasty of the house of David would survive only by merit of Sabbath observance. Failing such observance, the prophet warns that the city would be burned and that the fire would not be extinguished.    Concerning the positive value of Sabbath observance, we are told in Shabbat 118 that if the Israelites (all of them) were to observe only two Sabbaths they would be redeemed from exile immediately. They base this on the wording in Isaiah 56,4אשר ישמרו את שבתותי , “who will observe My Sabbath days.” Even as few as two such Sabbaths qualify for the plural used by the prophet in describing the result of such observance as being: “I will give them My house and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, etc.” The passage concludes with the words: “I will bring them to My sacred mount and let them rejoice in My house of prayer.”    On the subject of Sabbath observance our sages in Shabbat 118 continue that if someone observes the laws of the Sabbath meticulously he will be forgiven such sins as the type of idolatry committed by the first generation of idolaters, the people at the time of Enosh, seeing that the prophet said אשרי אנוש יעשה זאת...שומר שבת מחללו, “hail to (even someone like Enosh) who does this and makes sure not to desecrate the Sabbath” (Isaiah 56,2). The sages substitute the word מחול לו, for the word מחללו, in the verse, i.e. he who does not desecrate it (מחללו), will be forgiven (מחול לו) for his sins.    The plain meaning of the text, i.e. why the Torah here speaks about the Sabbath in the plural, is simply because there are many Sabbath days in the course of a year as distinct from the other festivals which occur only once a year.
      A Kabbalistic approach: The reason for the plural, i.e. שבתותי is that each Sabbath is in fact 2 Sabbaths, seeing that it consists of the commandment to remember it and the negative commandment not to violate it, i.e. זכור ושמור, respectively. Pay careful attention to how the Torah phrased this paragraph. It says of שבתותי, “My Sabbaths,” אות היא, “it is a sign,” i.e. the Torah speaks of a single day in reality, as otherwise how can several Sabbaths be described as a single אות, sign? The Sabbath as an institution is equated with Israel as an institution, i.e. the concept known as כנסת ישראל. This “institution” in turn is an allusion, or אות, to the שבת הגדול; in other words, every week there is a day which is a signאות  of something spiritual. This day is the regular שבת. Over and beyond that there is the fact that the Sabbath itself  (not just as the seventh day of the week) is a concept representing a supreme spiritual domain, such as we are to experience by means of the נשמה יתרה, the additional soul we are given for the duration of that day. This is the “sign” which is not merely an אות, but an אות לעולם an allusion to concealed higher worlds. It is something which reflects a bond (ברית) which exists only between G’d and Israel. When the Torah wrote (Exodus 14,31) וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה, this יד הגדולה was a reference to the כנסת ישראל which was also an אות a “sign, reminder” of Hashem as we read that as a result of the Israelites realizing that they were an incarnation of the כנסת ישראל, they developed true reverence for the Lord, i.e. וייראו את הי-ה-ו-ה. The Torah describes that realization of spiritually higher concepts as something which occurs by means of intermediaries here described as אות, “sign,” or “symbol.” I have already elaborated on these ideas in connection with my commentary on Exodus 20,8. You will find the mystical dimension of the subject explained there.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושמרתם את השבת, “you shall observe the Sabbath.” After the Torah had already written את שבתותי תשמרו, “observe My Sabbaths,” why was this commandment repeated? It teaches that there is an aspect to Sabbath observance prior to the Sabbath’s commencement just as there is an aspect of Sabbath observance immediately after the sun has already set. We are to add to the sanctity of the Sabbath by commencing to observe it even before sundown and we are to add to its sanctity at the end of the day by waiting until it is completely dark before declaring it over. Our sages in explaining the verse: “the column of cloud would not depart by day nor the column of fire by night,” (Exodus 13,22) explained in Shabbat 23 that the wording implies that the column of fire did not withdraw from its position until the column of cloud had taken up its position, whereas similarly, the column of fire did not depart from its position in the morning until the column of cloud was firmly in its assigned position. [There was no vacuum when neither column was in its place to perform its task for the Israelites. Rashi explains that the entire verse was unnecessary as the previous verse had already spelled out the function of each ”column.” Ed.].    Our sages (Yuma 81) also commented on the verse מערב עד ערב תשבתו שבתכם, “from evening till evening you shall rest on your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23,32), that at first glance we might have thought that this directive applied only to the Day of Atonement (where it was written). However, seeing that both the word תשבתו and the word שבתכם were really not needed to teach us this for the Day of Atonement, the extra words mean that the same rule applies to the festivals generally as well as to every Sabbath day. The extra word שבתכם means that every day of rest you observe shall be earmarked by a slight addition both at its commencement and at its end.
     מחלליה מות יומת כי כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “anyone desecrating it shall be put to death; for anyone performing work on it, that soul shall be cut off, etc.” The meaning of the verse is that the penalty for deliberate desecration of the Sabbath is death by a human tribunal, provided there are witnesses who have warned the guilty party. If there were either no witnesses or no warning, the penalty is death at the hands of heaven (based on Rashi).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . לעשות את השבת, “to observe the Sabbath actively.” The plain meaning of this line is: “to provide himself with the necessities required on the Sabbath.” The expression לעשות is found in this context in Genesis 18,7 and 18,8 where the Torah reports Avraham as preparing the luncheon for the three angels who had come to visit him. The basic meaning of the verse is to encourage people to prepare for the Sabbath in time so that they can enjoy the day when it occurs. Our sages (Beitzah 16) understand the exhortation to mean that one is to plan from one Sabbath for the next, and that this is the implied meaning of the prophet (Isaiah 58,13) who said: “you shall call the Sabbath ‘a delight.’” When the prophet employed the word וקראת in that verse, as if one were to “call towards the Sabbath,” he meant we should “invite the Sabbath” as one invites guests to one’s table.
      A Midrashic approach: anyone observing the Sabbath properly on terrestrial earth is considered as if he had “made” it in the celestial regions. What is meant by this Midrash (Mechilta Ki Tissa) is that keeping the Sabbath is testimony that a person is a true believer in G’d and His Torah. Anyone who ignores the laws of the Sabbath thereby testifies that he is an heretic and does not believe. 
  This is also why the word לעשות was used here instead of the more common לשמור אותה. The Torah wanted to allude to the fact that Sabbath observance is a concept which also exists in the celestial regions.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ביני ובין בני ישראל אות היא לעולם, “between Me and the Children of Israel it is an everlasting symbol.” It is possible to understand that the word לעולם in this verse means that the Sabbath is a symbol attesting to the fact that G’d created the world out of nothing. This is why our verse describes how the Sabbath functions as a sign (proof) for the entire world. Cessation of creative activity signals that the person so refraining believes that G’d made the world in six days (without drawing on existing raw materials).    The words ביני ובין בני ישראל, “between Me and between the Children of Israel,” teaches that there was a hidden aspect which had been conveyed to the Israelites privately. There is a mystical, hidden aspect to the Sabbath.” When a king issues a command to a son or trusted servant, something not everyone knows about, he is apt to say to his son: “remember the thing that is between me and you.” These are the things which had been agreed upon between father and son without any written protocol having been made of them. This is the reason our sages explained in Beitzah 16 in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that G’d gave the Israelites all the commandments in public with the exception of the Sabbath. He based himself on the words in our verse [the word לעולם, derived from נעלם, “hidden, secret,” is probably the way Rabbi Shimon understood our verse. Ed.]. Seeing that the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and as such was certainly given to the Jewish people in public at Mount Sinai, what did the Rabbi mean when he spoke of the Sabbath having been given secretly, in private? Moreover, Isaiah 48,16 states specifically that “from the beginning I did not speak to you in secret, etc.” How do we reconcile his words with those of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai? Also, in Psalms 138,4 David exclaims: “All the kings of the earth shall praise You, O Lord, for they have heard the words You spoke.” What did Rabbi Shimon have in mind? The sages referred to a hidden, mystical element which is part of the entire complex of the Sabbath laws and concept, not to the actual positive and negative commandments which have all been spelled out in public.”
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויתן אל משה, “He gave to Moses, etc.” The meaning of the line is: “G’d gave to Moses, etc.” [although it is a new paragraph the Torah omitted mentioning the subject. Ed.]. Seeing that the last-named subject had been Hashem, the Torah did not bother to repeat His name once more at this stage. Furthermore, the name of the subject, i.e. אצבע אלו-הים as the One who did the writing on the Tablets is mentioned at the end of our verse. It was quite clear that everything which occurred at Sinai, the word, the writing, the tablets, were all orchestrated by and originated with G’d. (Compare my comments on Exodus 20,1, where I dealt with the reason why different attributes, names of G’d, are used there and here).
   I have also explained that at the time the universe was created the attribute Hashem was “co-opted“ by the attribute of Justice as demonstrated by the letter ה in the word בהבראם in Genesis 2,4. 
     ככלתו, “when He had completed, etc.” The reason the word is not written plene, i.e. ככלותו, is to draw our attention to the word כלה, bride, which is part of the spelling ככלתו, “like His bride.” The handing over of the Torah to the Jewish people was in the nature of the groom receiving his bride as a gift. Had this not been the case Moses could not have learned the whole Torah in forty days. 
      In fact, a Midrash (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 16) asks: “how could Moses possibly have learned the entire Torah within forty days? Is it not written (Job 11,40) ‘its measurements are longer than the earth and its width wider than the oceans?’” We are forced to answer that what G’d taught Moses during these forty days were the rules governing study of the Torah and their application. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, extrapolating on the spelling of the word ככלתו in our verse said that anyone teaching Torah who does not succeed in making its words as beloved as a bride is to her groom would have done better not to lecture at all. At the time when the Torah was received by the Jewish people it was as beloved to them as a bride to her groom. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish added that just as a bride requires no fewer than 24 different kinds of ornaments, as mentioned in Genesis 2,22 ויבאה אל האדם, “G’d brought her (Chavah) to Adam,” so the Torah requires 24 ornaments [the numerical value of the letters in the word ויבאה is 24. Ed.]. G’d had decorated Adam’s bride with 24 ornaments. The ornaments are listed in Isaiah 3,18-23. Similarly, a Torah scholar needs to be decorated (thoroughly familiar) with 24 books; (the books of the Bible). Seeing that the Sabbath is perceived as the bride of the Jewish people, this may be the reason that the authors of the oral Torah divided tractate Shabbat into 24 chapters.     Another reason that the Sabbath is called כלה, “end, completion,” is that it occurred for the first time at the end of the six days of creation. It had been the objective, “end purpose,” of all that had been created before both in the heavens and on earth. The Sabbath in the celestial regions is perceived as the end of emanations. It is customary in our terrestrial world that as a man prepares for adulthood the final stage is that he picks a bride (after having established an economic base, acquired a field, or something like it, built a house). Solomon instructed us in this sequence of events when he wrote in Proverbs 24,27: “prepare your outside work; make ready what you have in the field; and after that build yourself a house.” The word אחר “afterwards,” in that verse is not a preposition but a command and refers to the founding of a family as making the acquisition of a bride the last of these endeavours. A similar construction is found in Psalms 55,10 פלג לשונם, ”confound their speech!” [where this root is used as a verb in the imperative instead of as an adjective or preposition. Ed.]
     שני לוחות העדות, “the two Tablets of Testimony.” It was a testimony for the Jewish people that the Shechinah resided amongst them, (Pessikta Zutrata). Receiving the Tablets was similar to being handed the seal of the King as proof of the validity of his document.    According to the plain meaning of the text: Why did there have to be two Tablets? Testimony is not valid unless given by two people. Besides, (second Tablets) the material, (stone) was from earth whereas the writing was by the hand of G’d, i.e. originated in heaven. There had to be two Tablets as a reminder of this combination of contributors. We have a verse illustrating this concept in Deut. 31,28 "I will call as witnesses against  them heaven and earth.”
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 16): The word two in “two Tablets of Testimony“ alludes to heaven and earth, bride and groom, the two friends assisting bride and groom each; the two worlds.” Rabbi Chanina said that the spelling of the plural לוחות without the letter ו in front of the letter ת at the end (which makes the uninitiated reader think the word is in the singular), is accounted for by the fact that both were of identical dimensions. The reason the raw material used for these Tablets was stone and not some more precious material was to hint at the fact that most serious sins carry with it the penalty of death through stoning.    Another explanation for the fact that these Tablets were made of stone is in Genesis 49,24 where Yaakov blessed Joseph. He referred to משם אבן ישראל, “from there he (the foundation stone) known as Israel acted as shepherd.” This teaches that Yaakov was also known as אבן, and is an allusion to the fact that it was his merit which was instrumental in Israel securing for themselves these Tablets.    Still another explanation: the Tablets were given to Israel through the merit of the Holy Temple. Isaiah described this Temple as אבן, stone, when he said הנני יסד בציון אבן, “Thus says the Lord G’d: ‘Behold I will found in Zion stone by stone a tower of precious cornerstones’” (Isaiah 28,16). Thus far Tanchuma.
      A Kabbalistic approach: We have already explained why there were two Tablets in our commentary on Exodus 20,1. It is important to understand that although both Tablets had precisely the same measurements, one was “bigger” than the other (in that more was inscribed on it than on the second Tablet). This was most appropriate as the attribute of Justice receives its input from the attribute of Mercy. When you examine what is written on the first Tablet you will find the tetragrammaton mentioned in connection with every single commandment, whereas this name of G’d (Hashem) does not even appear once on the second Tablet. However, when you count the number of words which are written on the second Tablet you will find that there are 26 words, i.e. that the entire Tablet may be perceived as alluding to the attribute Hashem, the tetragrammaton (numerical value 26). 
  The Tablets were cubes six handbreadths long, six handbreadths wide and six handbreadths thick (compare Baba Batra 14).    We have already explained that this calculation (these identical measurements) made the Tablets equivalent to a king’s seal seeing that they had been inscribed with ten commandments, each of them containing five separate directives. The number “ten”, i.e. the י in the tetragrammaton, plus the two letters ה, i.e. 5, plus the allusion to the letter ו in the tetragrammaton seeing the dimensions of the Tablets were 6 by 6 by 6, all allude to the name Hashem. 
  Moreover, if you multiply the three dimensions of 6 handbreadths by each other you will have the number 108, equivalent to the numerical value of the word חק, “law or statute.” A good way of remembering all this is the verse שם שם לו חק ומשפט, “there He provided them with statute and social laws” (Exodus 15,25). The combined measurements of the two Tablets were 216 handbreadths which is the total of the 72 names which can be permutated from the tetragram by writing those letters as words rather than as mere letters ( for instance instead of י write יוד). The way to remember this is by means of the verse ויעבור ה’ על פניו, (the letters in ו-יעבור amount to (עב) 72-+(יור) 216). (Exodus 34,6). All of these symbols and concepts had been revealed to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai. The spiritual benefit we (the Jewish people in the desert) derived from all this was that when the Tablets were reposing inside the Holy Ark, the tetragram in all its permutations was represented inside that Ark.
      It is known further (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 29) that the kind of stone used for the tablets was called <i>Sanpiryon</i>, (sapphire) and that this stone had been hewn from the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is why we find Ezekiel 1,26 describing his vision of that throne as consisting of אבן ספיר, “sapphire-stone.” The word לחת when spelled according to the principle of inverting the alphabet such as ת=א, ש=ב, ר=ג would look like this: כסא, “throne.” This is why the Shechinah rests above the Holy Ark like a throne. The reason the Torah has also been called כבוד is because the sapphire stone on which G’d inscribed it has been taken from the throne of His attribute כבוד. The verse from which all this is derived is found in Proverbs 3,35 כבוד חכמים ינחלו, “the (Torah) scholars inherit kavod.” The source of our intelligence is also rooted in that celestial region and is known as kavod, as we know from Psalms 30,13 למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום, ”so that it will sing to Your attribute kavod endlessly.” The soul of a person who is occupied with Torah will merit to return to its holy roots as we know from Psalms 19,8 תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש, “the Torah of the Lord is perfect, it restores the soul.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וירא העם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר, “when the people saw that Moses was tardy in descending from the mountain, etc.” This occurred on the 16th day of Tammuz. How do we arrive at this date? The Torah (Ten Commandments) had been given on the sixth of Sivan seeing that for six days commencing with the first day of Sivan the mountain had been covered in cloud (compare 24,16). On the sixth of these six days the revelation occurred. On the following day Moses ascended the mountain as the Torah wrote: “He (G’d) called to Moses on the seventh day (24,16). He remained there for forty days as we know from 24,18. “Moses remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights.” When did all these days come to an end? On the 17th day of Tammuz, seeing Moses had told the people that he would return at the end of forty days at noon (according to Rashi). The people had made a mistake thinking that the day on which Moses ascended the mountain, i.e. the seventh of Sivan, was one of the forty days of which he had spoken. If that had been so, Moses should indeed have returned on the 16th of Tammuz. When the people noticed that by noon on that day Moses had failed to return they thought that someone had detained him and he would not return altogether.
      The Midrash (Shabbat 89) says that Satan had brought darkness and confusion on to the globe at that time, and that he showed the Israelites an image of Moses lying on a bier. This accounted for the people saying: “arise let us make gods who will go before us, for this man Moses who brought us out from Egypt-we do not know what became of him.”     Moses had spoken of 40 whole days not including  the day on which he ascended the mountain. Accordingly, the people should not have expected him before the 17th of Tammuz. When the Torah writes (verse 6): “they rose early in the morning,” this was the 17th of Tammuz. It was ממחרת, “on the day after the 16th of Tammuz.” On that day they offered sacrifices to the golden calf. At noon on that day Moses returned and smashed the Tablets. On the day after that, the eighteenth of Tammuz, he burned the golden calf and convicted the people who had actively participated in the cult of the golden calf and commanded the Levites to execute these people. On the nineteenth of the month he ascended the mountain again pleading for forgiveness for the people, remaining there another forty days. He spent the entire period in prayer and pleading with G’d as he himself testified in Deut. 9,25: ”the forty days during which I threw myself down, etc.” These days came to an end on the first day of Ellul. On that same day, after having briefly returned to the camp, Moses ascended the mountain again after having been invited to do so by G’d, (34,2) and remained for forty days. This was in preparation of receiving the second set of Tablets. These forty days came to an end on the Day of Atonement, the tenth day of Tishrei. On that day the sin of the golden calf was finally forgiven; on the day following the day of Atonement the people began bringing their contributions for the building of the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle was erected on the first day of Nissan following, i.e. close to a whole year after the Exodus. All of this teaches you that the sin of the golden calf preceded the matters described in Parshat Ki Tissa. [The instruction to make sockets for the Tabernacle from the half-shekel contributions which were to atone for that sin  would not make sense if the Tabernacle had preceded the sin of the golden calf. Ed.] This is merely another example of the fact that the Torah did not see itself as obliged to report matters in chronological order (compare Tanchuma Ki Tissa 11).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויעשהו עגל מסכה, “he made it into a calf cast of gold.” Nachmanides writes that the fact that the mass of gold emerged in the shape of a calf was Aaron’s doing as the people had merely demanded: ”arise, make for us a deity, etc.” They had neither stipulated that the cast symbol be an ox, a sheep, or a goat. Aaron’s considerations in deciding to make a calf were based on the fact that the Israelites were in a desolate desert, and desolation and disaster are always perceived as emanating from the north (compare Jeremiah 1,14: ‘for from the north disaster will break loose’). When Jeremiah made this statement he did not only have in mind the impending invasion by the Babylonians who were situated north of the land of Yehudah. That this is true is evident from  the text of that chapter seeing that in verse 15 G’d speaks about “summoning all the peoples from all the kingdoms of the north.” This is merely a symbolic way of telling us that the attribute of Justice always comes from the north to bring retribution upon the peoples of the earth in proportion to their wickedness.    When you consider the visions Ezekiel saw when he portrayed for us the מעשה מרכבה in the first chapter of his book, you will find described that the face of the ox was on the left of the four chayot he saw (Ezekiel 1,10). Aaron believed that seeing that destructive forces emanate from the north and the calf symbolizes destructive forces, if, on the morrow, as he suggested, the people would declare a holiday dedicated to Hashem (verse 5), this would be a way to ward off evil and harmful influences. He hoped, as described in Isaiah 32,15 where the prophet describes a desolate place turning into a beautiful mountain like Mount Carmel, that spiritually negative forces could be sublimated into spiritually positive forces. After all, at this very Mount Chorev, his brother Moses had first become imbued with prophetic insights and had developed into the outstanding personality he had become.    Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 3,3-42,8-and 15,9 have taught us the mystical dimension of all this when they commented on Exodus 3,7 where G’d told Moses ראה ראיתי את-עני עמי, “I have most certainly seen the afflictions suffered by My people in Egypt.” The Midrash quotes G’d as saying to Moses: “you Moses see only one single instance of such an affliction of the Jewish people; I, G’d see two such “afflictions” (this is why the wordsראה  ראיתי were repeated). “You, Moses, see the people arriving at Mount Sinai and accepting My Torah, I on the other hand, can see how when I am about to give them this Torah they have many thoughts so that they even upset one of the four supports of My מרכבה, “My carriage,” so that they cause Me to become angry at them. (The Midrash quotes Ezekiel 1,10 and Psalms 68,18 in support of its illustrations). The word טטרא used there in the Midrash when it speaks about  מטטרראמולין to describe a carriage drawn by four animals, (mules) means “four.” It is a reference to the four animals which Ezekiel saw in his vision, i.e. the מרכבה, the carriage transporting the glory of the Lord. Thus far the Midrash.
      Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra claims that the word אלוהים in this instance (the one in verses 5 and 1) means that they wanted the attribute כבוד of G’d to rest in a stationary position in the form of a body, as a symbol of G’d’s Presence amongst them. If you will reflect on the first journey of the people in chapter 14,19 where the Torah describes the מלאך האלוהים which traveled  first in front of the camp of the Israelites and afterwards behind them, you will understand the true nature of the people’s request. The stationary columns of cloud or fire were described as מלאך אלהים. [I have found this Ibn Ezra in his introduction to the episode of the golden calf. Ed.] Nachmanides disagrees with the Ibn Ezra he just quoted, seeing that none of the other reproductions of zodiac signs portrayed the golden calf as reposing. Thus far Nachmanides.    The truth is that the whole point of making the golden calf was not to duplicate what the idolaters who construct a lifeless form do when they hope to imbue this lifeless stature or hewn image with some spirit and powers of prophecy. These idolaters expect  the creation of their hands to have some form of life breathed into them by their counterparts in the cosmos, much as they imagined the first man to have had life breathed into him.    When Aaron constructed the golden calf he intended for it to be a body which would receive divine input from the angel Mattatron, the one in charge of the universe and the powers assigned to the planets and their constellations in the sky. He thought in terms of the ox which is one of the four “animal-like faces” (concepts) supporting the throne (carriage) of G’d. He assumed  that such insights would be provided by the ox seeing it is on the left side of the מרכבה, and it would show the Israelites the way so that it would counteract the negative northern influences. [The journey of the Israelites towards the Holy Land took them straight north. Ed.] At that time the Israelites found themselves within the domain of the planet Mars (as Pharaoh had already warned them about, see Exodus 10,10 compare Rashi). That planet derives all its celestial input from the attribute of Justice. Aaron hoped that just as the Israelites had been guided under the leadership of Moses by the attribute of Justice, so now, under the auspices of that attribute the Israelites would continue to receive celestial guidance. The calf merely symbolized which attribute of the מרכבה would guide the people. He misunderstood such verses as על פי ה’ ביד משה at the command of G’d by means of Moses (Numbers 9,23), as being something that could also apply to על פי ה’ ביד העגל, “at the command of the Lord by means of the ox.”. Aaron’s fatal error was to build an altar in front of this calf. Seeing he announced that the celebration on the following day would be in honor of Hashem (only), he had not become guilty of an act of idolatry by building this altar.
      You have to realise that when the Israelites said: “these are your gods O Israel, who brought you out of Egypt,” there would have been nothing wrong with this if what they had in mind had been the same as what Aaron had in mind when making the calf. After all, we have already explained that Exodus 14,19 accorded the title “elohim” to a column of cloud and a column of fire; there was therefore nothing inherently wrong in the use of the word אלוהים or אלוהיך. The sin was prostrating oneself in front of such a symbol and in offering sacrifices to it (verse 8). Aaron’s intention had been that the calf, while representing the attribute of Justice, would not be removed from the domain of Hashem at all. The Israelites reversed what he had had in mind and turned the “body” of the calf into an independent deity by offering sacrifices to it and prostrating themselves in front of it. This is what the psalmist  Psalms 106,20 had in mind when he wrote: “they exchanged their glory (G’d’s attribute כבוד) for the image of a bull that feeds on grass.” Aaron also explained to Moses in answer to his question that when he said: “I told them that whoever has gold?” “They removed it from themselves and I threw it into the crucible and there emerged this calf.” Aaron implied that his intention had been to address the attribute of Justice. Only in retrospect did it become clear that the people’s intention had been to idolise this calf, to prostrate themselves in front of it, and to offer sacrifices to it (based on 32,24). All of this was the reverse of what my intentions had been, i.e. to assure their continued support by the attribute of Justice.” Keeping this in mind there is no room for the question why Aaron chose gold rather than silver as the metal the people were supposed to bring him. Gold represents the attribute of Justice [compare author’s comments on 25,24 my translation page 1253] as its appearance resembles that of fire. Our sages (Yuma 45) said that the word Parvayim in Chronicles II 3,6 means  that the gold came from a place called Parvayim, so called as its gold was similar in colour to the blood of bulls. The house in which the sacrifices were prepared (Solomon’s Temple) was all of gold as well as the altar of incense and the cherubs. The Mechilta Bachodesh, section 10 explains that if they had made parts of the Temple out of silver, this would have looked too similar to making deities of silver and gold, something prohibited expressly (see our author’s comment on 25,24.)
      A Midrashic approach of the words ויעשהו עגל מסכה, (based on Tanchuma Ki Tissa 19): as soon as Aaron threw the gold into the crucible, the sorcerers amongst the recent converts came and used their tricks to ensure that what would emerge from the crucible would be a calf. Others say that a certain Michah who had been saved at Moses’s insistence as a baby when he was already in the form of a mud brick intended to substitute for a shortfall in the number of bricks produced by the Israelites on that day was to blame for the emergence of the calf. According to the Talmud, when Moses complained about the injustice of an innocent baby being killed, G’d taught him a lesson no to second-guess His wisdom. After sparing the baby’s life, Moses adopted him and he followed him everywhere. At the time of the Exodus when Moses could not find the coffin of Joseph and he threw a parchment with the holy name of G’d plus the words “arise ox” (a name applied to Joseph by his father) inscribed upon it into the river Nile, the coffin floated up. The boy [he must have been at least 60 by then] Michah dived into the river and retrieved this parchment. Now, after Aaron had thrown the gold into the furnace, this Michah threw in the parchment with the words עלה שור, signed with the tetragram into he crucible; thereupon the golden calf emerged from the crucible. After seeing this miracle, the Israelites who had observed it began to chant: “these are your gods O Israel.”
      I have found in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 45 that Aaron found amongst the golden jewelry contributed by the people a headband on which the tetragrammaton had been inscribed. It also had  engraved on it the likeness of a calf. According to Rabbi Eliezer this was the only piece of gold Aaron threw into the crucible. He based himself on the fact that the Torah did not quote Aaron as saying ואשליכם באש, “and I threw them (the contributions of golden jewelry) into the fire, but he said: ואשליכהו באש, I threw it into the fire (verse 24). When the Israelites witnessed a golden calf emerging, this was perceived as a miracle especially since the calf was heard to low, to moo, and this is why they mistakenly ascribed prophetic or divine powers to this golden calf.     Rabbi Yehudah said that Samael entered the calf and lowed, making the Israelites think that the calf itself was capable of mooing and therefore was alive. He bases himself on the verse in Isaiah 1,3 that “every ox knows its owner,” i.e. that every creature acknowledges its Creator by its mouth. Thus far Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer.
     אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods O Israel” Our sages in Sanhedrin 63 derive from this that these Israelites strove to have many deities. They derive this from the word אלה “these,” instead of זה, “this,” if they had referred only to the golden calf. We do indeed find the latter expression in Nechemyah 9,18: זה אלוהיך אשר העלוך ממצרים, “this is your god who took you out of Egypt.”
  
  Verse 5
  
   וירא אהרן, “Aaron saw.” The reason the Torah does not specify what he saw is that he saw many things. One of the things he saw was that Chur, the son of Miriam had already been murdered (for trying to stop the people from worshipping the calf).   ויבן מזבח לפניו, “he built an altar in front of it.” He realised that someone had already been slaughtered before this calf (Chur). Perhaps Aaron was afraid that if he too were to allow himself to become a martyr, all of the Israelites would become guilty of death. We have a verse in Lamentations 2,2 אם יהרוג במקדש ה’ כהן ונביא, “if a priest and (or) prophet were to be killed in the Sanctuary,” which suggests that this is the ultimate crime. He preferred to personally shoulder the guilt than have all the people become guilty.    Another consideration which might have accounted for Aaron’s conduct is that during the time it would take to build the altar, each Israelite bringing a stone, this would be accomplished very quickly. By undertaking to do the building himself he was stalling for time hoping that Moses would show up before too much spiritual damage had been done (compare Rashi). Still another reason prompting Aaron to act as he did was the fact that legally speaking the building of the altar was not something forbidden on pain of death requiring one to become a martyr rather than to respond to pressure. The prohibition to build such an altar per se is only in the order of the average negative commandment, possibly carrying a penalty of 39 lashes if performed with negative intent. The operative verse in the Torah is only “do not make for yourself a hewn image;” Aaron certainly did not make it for himself nor with intent to sacrifice to an idol.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לך רד כי שחת עמך, “Go, descend, for your people have become corrupt.” The grammatically correct form (passive) should have been כי נשחת עמך, “for your people have been corrupted.” Why did the Torah choose the strong active form of the פיעל construction? Actually, the Torah wanted to get across the point that not only did the people become corrupt on earth but their deeds also caused corruption (actively) in the celestial regions. The meaning of the word השחתה here is equivalent to the tearing down of a structure. The idolatry of the Israelites at the time ruined a spiritual facade in the celestial regions also. This is what our sages referred to as קצץ בנטיעות, “chopping off the young shoots.” There is no question that what the Israelites did at the time of the golden calf episode was similar to what Adam and Chavah had done when they ate from the tree of knowledge, when they sinned both in thought and in deed. [Compare author’s words on Genesis 2,9; my translation on the section “a Kabbalistic approach.” Ed.] Unfortunately, history repeats itself, the children not learning from the mistakes of their parents (Chagigah 14). This is what our sages alluded to when they reported that Adam offered a single-horned ox as sin-offering as he wanted to make his atonement fit his crime. (Compare what I wrote on Genesis 3,6 where I explained this statement of the Talmud Chulin 60).
      A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata): the words of G’d to Moses to descend implied that His creatures had already caused Him  to descend and inspect how rotten they had become more than once before. Just as G’d “descends” in a situation such as this as we know from Genesis 11,5, so now Moses too was told by G’d to “descend from his formerly lofty position.”
  
  Verse 8
  
    סרו מהר, “they have quickly departed, etc.” This term 'quickly'  was most appropriate seeing that the people had apparently forgotten the miracles they had seen at the revelation only forty days ago and had committed idolatry at a time when the Shechinah was still present amongst them on Mount Sinai. Solomon paraphrased this when he said (Song of Songs 1,12 as interpreted in Shabbat 88) ”while the king was still at the table (Sinai), my nard gave forth its (foul) smell.” The words used by the Torah here have also been paraphrased by David in Psalms 106,13: “but they soon forgot His deeds; they would not wait to learn His plan.” The word עצתו, “His plan,” in that psalm refers to the Torah which Moses would bring with him on the morrow. Cf. Isaiah 25 for a similar usage of the word עצה.
  The Midrash comments on this verse:  Being unfaithful while under the bridal canopy is the ultimate insult by the bride to the groom, as it says ”While the king was still at the table, my nard gave forth its (foul) smell” — while the King of kings was at Sinai, my fragrance was tarnished with the sin of the golden calf.
     עשו להם עגל מסכה, “they made for themselves a cast calf.” There are a number of surprising statements in this passage. 1) Seeing the Israelites had attained the spiritual niveau of the ministering angels at the time of the revelation by having heard G’d directly speak to them, how is it possible that they would request or demand from Aaron that he make for them an idolatrous image? 2) How can we understand the fact that they were now prepared to believe that the very earrings which they had worn in their ears had brought them out of Egypt, that they said concerning this gold: “these are your gods who have taken you out of Egypt?” 3) How is it possible that Aaron, second only to his brother Moses in his qualities as religious figurehead, could be prepared to go along instead of becoming a martyr when faced with the alternative of death at the hands of the people? Is it not a clear-cut rule that when it comes to a choice between committing idolatry and saving one’s life one must be prepared to give up one’s life rather than commit that sin? 4) How could Aaron say to Moses: “please do not be angry my lord,” shifting the blame to the people etc. (verse 22)? What other provocation would entitle Moses to become angry if not the commission of such a terrible sin?
      The answer to all these questions is that they were based on the wrong premise. The last thing on the people’s mind was that Aaron should construct an idolatrous object for them; they did not demand a deity but a leader during their travels in the desert, just as Moses had been their leader. They said this clearly when they told Aaron אשר ילכו לפנינו, “who are to walk ahead of us (verse 1).” The “leader” was to show them the direction they were to travel in the desert. Up until now Moses had told them what route to take, and now there was no one to tell them in which direction to move. The words עשה לנו אלוהים, are to be understood as “make us a new leader seeing we have just lost our previous leader.” [They wanted a replacement for Moses, not for G’d. Ed.] The whole reason that Aaron involved himself in this project was to gain time, to procrastinate, in the hope that before he would complete it Moses would return so that the whole premise for the people’s request would collapse. The reason Aaron did not refuse and thereby risk becoming a martyr was that there was no need to do so for all the people wanted was a new leader to take the place of Moses. [In fact, refusing under the existing conditions could have been tantamount to suicide. Ed.] When Aaron remonstrated with Moses why the latter had become angry at him, he meant that seeing that the people had not demanded anything in the nature of idolatry there was no cause to get so excited. He added verbatim what the people had said to him, namely: “make for us an elohim who will walk ahead of us.” [Moses himself had been told by G’d that he would be elohim for Pharaoh (Exodus 7,1) and that Aaron would be his prophet.] Aaron added that the immediate cause for such a request in the words of the people themselves had been Moses’ tardiness in returning from the mountain. He implied the people’s readiness to immediately be led again by Moses now that he had returned. The proof for reading the mind of the people correctly was that they had not said simply: “make us a god,” but had said: “make us a god, for this man Moses, we do not know what became of him.” In other words, they wanted to replace Moses “the man,” not the Lord G’d. If the people had not had idolatrous thoughts when making their request, the idea that Aaron had assisted them in an idolatrous undertaking was preposterous! This is why Aaron had not hesitated to announce חג לה’ מחר, “tomorrow will be a festival for the Lord G’d.”    Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 10,3) point out that it is not written חג לעגל, “a festival in honour of the calf.” This proves that Aaron’s intention was crystal clear, oriented exclusively towards Hashem. Perhaps the most convincing proof that the people had not considered the calf a deity is the fact that when Moses proceeded to burn it [verse 20, before any of the people who had danced around it had been executed, Ed.] not a single Israelite is reported as trying to interfere with Moses attacking and destroying his deity. Had even a small group of people seriously considered this golden calf to have any divine powers, surely they would have stoned Moses to death for depriving them of their god! (Compare what Moses said to Pharaoh when asked by him to slaughter the lambs in Egypt instead of in the desert, Exodus 8,22). All of the above is based on Nachmanides.
      Having read Nachmanides’ defense of the Jewish people and Aaron, the obvious question is why the people were punished so severely that we still suffer part of that punishment today whenever we are being afflicted for our personal sins? Why were the Levites allowed to execute 3,000 Israelites? Why did G’d dispatch a plague which killed many of the people (verses 27 and 35 respectively)?    The answer is simply that whereas the whole episode with the golden calf began innocently enough as an error at worst, as it progressed it turned into deliberate acts of idolatry. This is why the Torah wrote that the people “prostrated themselves before the calf, that they offered peace-offerings to it, that they danced around it, etc. “(32,6; 32,19).    Actually, at that time, the Israelites were divided into different groups. Some of them had pure motives when offering sacrifices; the Torah reflects this by writing (verse 6): ”they offered burnt-offerings and prepared peace-offerings.” The Torah did not write: “they offered burnt-offerings to it, and they prepared peace-offerings to it.” The ones whose motives were idolatrous were the ones of whom the Torah writes (verse 8): “they prostrated themselves before it, and they slaughtered offerings for it.”
      Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tissa 19) states explicitly that the mixed multitude (of Egyptian converts) who joined the Jewish people at the Exodus were the ones who made the golden calf. The Midrash proves this from the words אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods O Israel.” Had the makers of the golden calf been natural born Jews they would have chanted: “these are our gods O Israel, who have brought us out of Egypt.“ This episode prompted our sages in Yevamot 16 to say that the process of assimilating converts is as much of an affliction for Israel as being struck with a form of skin eczema called ספחת on raw flesh, a dread disease, (compare Leviticus 13,2). On the same subject of accepting converts Shemot Rabbah 42,6 has stated that the reason G’d told Moses: “go on down for your people have become corrupt, was that Moses had accepted these converts at face value without having first obtained G’d’s permission to convert them. G’d reminded Moses that He had specifically said to him (Exodus 7,4) “I shall take out My hosts, My people, the Children of Israel. He had never mentioned taking out people who were not “Children of Israel,” whereas Moses had taken it upon himself to accept the mixed multitude. G’d now made it plain that He did not consider these converts as “My people.” In spite of what the Midrash writes, the fact remains that though these converts originated the disaster, the natural born Jews joined in of their own accord. This is why all of them were punished.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויחל משה את פני ה’ אלו-היו, “Moses pleaded before Hashem, his G’d.” Moses pleaded with the attribute of Justice; the word פני when used in connection with G’d always refers to the attribute of Justice. To mention just a few examples: (Leviticus 20,5) ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא, “I shall set My face against that man;” or (Psalms 34,17) פני ה’ בעושי רע, “the face of G’d is set against evildoers. I have already dealt with this word in my commentary on Exodus 20,1.   We are familiar with the meaning of the word ויחל from Malachi 1,9 חלו נא פני א-ל, “please implore the favor of G’d.” Alternately, the word may be derived from תחלה, “beginning, at first.” It would mean that Moses began something that would continue through to its end. He would implore the attribute בינה until he would reach the attribute דעה, which is above it. The description by Moses of G’d as אלו-היו is something that does not occur anywhere else in the whole Torah. It would normally indicate that Moses related to “his” G’d as no one else ever did or could and G’d acknowledged this during his life time. Nowhere else do we find that the Torah described G’d as specifically Moses’ G’d, such as we find frequently in connection with the patriarchs. G’d is often described as “the G’d of Avraham,” or as “the G’d of Yitzchak,” or as “the G’d of Yaakov.” Even in connection with David we find that Isaiah 38,5 quotes G’d telling Chizkiyah: “thus said the Lord, the G’d of your ‘father’ David, etc.” However, in Moses’ case this is the only time G’d associated His name with Moses and even then only by means of a pronoun, almost like an afterthought. I believe that the Torah’s intention was to give us a hint of G’d’s partial withdrawal from the Jewish people and even from Moses due to this grievous sin. This is confirmed by G’d describing the people to Moses as עמך, “your people.” He hinted that as of then they were not “His” people. How could they be, seeing they had been unfaithful to Him?
     למה ה’ יחרה אפך בעמך, “Why, Hashem, should Your anger flare up against Your people, etc.” In Deut. 9,26 Moses elaborates in greater detail about this prayer he offered up pleading with G’d not to destroy the Jewish people. Our sages Shemot Rabbah 43,10, ask why Moses mentioned the Exodus at this time? They answer that Moses asked G’d to consider the background of the Jewish people, where they had been and under what circumstances He had taken them out of a land infested with all kinds of idolatry such as the land of Egypt. After all, it was probably not the first time Israelites had made a cast calf, though they could not make it out of gold because they were too poor.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   זכור לאברהם ליצחק לישראל עבדיך “Remember for the sake of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yisrael Your servants;” If even Moses, the greatest of all our prophets had to remind G’d of the merit of the patriarchs in his plea to G’d in order to secure a favorable hearing, how much more so must we make such a reminder a pivotal part of all our prayers. G’d likes to be reminded of the patriarchs by us in all generations.
      A Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 44,1-2): the words “remember Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, tell us that Moses’ prayer did not evoke a response until he had mentioned the dead and departed; this explains why Israel has been compared to a grapevine as we know from Psalms 80,9 גפן ממצרים תסיע, “You plucked up a grapevine from Egypt.” Just as the grapevine is alive and remains alive even when attached to dead trees, trees which are far bigger than it, so Israel will remain alive and prosper by supporting itself by the dead (patriarchs). 
  You will note that whereas Elijah offered up numerous prayers at Mount Carmel, G’d did not respond to him until after he had mentioned the dead. When he pleaded ענני ה’ ענני, “answer me O Lord, answer me,” nothing happened until he added the words ה’ אלו-הי אברהם יצחק וישראל, “Lord G’d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Israel, today let it be known that there is a G’d in Israel.” As soon as he had concluded this particular prayer, fire fell from heaven and consumed the burnt-offering as well as the firewood and the stones. [I find this Midrash difficult as in the text you will note that Elijah mentioned the patriarchs before pleading ענני ה’ ענני. We may have to assume that the previous prayers are simply not recorded in the text (Compare Kings I 18,36)] Moses, likewise, remained on Mount Sinai for forty days to ask G’d’s mercy for His people for the sin of the golden calf and he was not answered until he mentioned the dead by saying: “remember Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.” As soon as he did that, the Torah writes וינחם ה’ על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו “The Lord reconsidered the evil He had said to do to His people.” The whole episode helps us understand what Solomon referred to in Kohelet 4,2 when he said: “I praise the dead who are dead already.” He meant that such dead are even more effective in death than live and righteous people are while still alive. This is what the sages meant when they said that the righteous dead are greater in death than while they were still alive” (Chulin 7).   Another approach to this verse in Kohelet: Solomon meant that the dead who were righteous during their lives long ago were greater in their lifetime than the righteous of the present generation in their lifetime (Shabbat 30,1). The proof is that the decrees handed down from the times of Moses are still being observed (though Moses has been dead a long time), whereas the decrees issued by kings nowadays, kings who are alive, are frequently not being observed. Moses himself had introduced numerous תקנות, ordinances, over and above the explicit laws spelled out in the Torah. To name but one: when the Torah writes in Leviticus 23,44 וידבר משה את מועדי ה’ אל בני ישראל, “Moses stated the laws about the festivals of G’d to the Children of Israel,” the Talmud Megillah 32 explains that Moses instituted the rule that the laws about keeping these festivals have to be expounded publicly on that day or earlier. We find that Ezra also added new such ordinances which are still being observed in our time (compare Baba Kama 82). All this is part of what Solomon had in mind when he praised the dead as being better off than the living as the ordinances of the living are often not accepted by their contemporaries.
     ונחלו לעולם, “and it shall be their heritage forever.” What Moses meant was that the patriarchs would transmit that heritage forever. Even if the Israelites would be exiled from their land, no other nation would receive it as their heritage. This is the meaning of the words אחוזת עולם, “an eternal possession,” which G’d promised to Avraham in Genesis 17.8. Another meaning included in the words ונחלו לעולם is that the reference is to another, eternal world. When we think about that meaning of the word לעולם in Moses’ plea we  would have an assurance in this verse, (or by Moses quoting G’d back to Himself) of G’d’s promise that the Israelites would exist forever, in this world as well as in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויפן וירד משה מן ההר. “Moses turned and descended from the mountain.” Rabbeinu Chananel writes in this connection that Moses must have been facing the cloud during his descent. In other words, just as he had ascended facing the cloud, he now descended keeping his face towards the cloud, walking back-wards. The High Priest emulated Moses’ withdrawal from facing the Shechinah on the Day of Atonement when he also walked backwards out of the Holy of Holies after having offered the incense before the kapporet as well as some of the blood of the two offerings on behalf of the people, as well as on to the dividing curtain. The Mishnah Yuma 52 states: “in the manner he had entered he exited.” This is also the way Leviticus 16,24 “he exited and completed the ritual of his own burnt-offering as well as that of the people,” has been interpreted by our sages to mean that the wordלבמה , “to the altar” must also be read as מבמה, “from the altar,” when he was headed back to Jerusalem (Yuma 53). There is a precedent for this in Numbers 31,21, where the words הבאים למלחמה must also mean הבאים מן המלחמה, “the ones who were returning from the war.”    In the present situation what happened was simply a putting into practice of the well known principle (Psalms 16,8) שויתי ה’ לנגדי תמיד, “I always keep the Lord (Shechinah) before my eyes.” How do we know that the Shechinah was on the mountain at the time Moses descended from the mountain? In Deut. 9,15 where Moses refers to his descent from the mountain, he adds the words: “and the mountain was burning in fire while the two Tablets of the covenant were on my two hands.”   We have also been taught in Yuma 53 that any student taking leave from his teacher has to follow the procedure Moses taught us and depart facing his Rabbi until he can conveniently hide his face behind something between him and his Rabbi. All of Israel symbolically perform the rite of withdrawing from facing G’d while taking three steps backwards at the end of the central prayer, the עמידה. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel
      When you examine this verse together with the verse following it you will find a total of 108 letters, corresponding to the 108 handbreadths of the combined length, width, and depth of one of the Tablets. The two Tablets combined comprised 216 such handbreadths corresponding to the number of letters in the great name (based on the three verses in Exodus 14,19-21 being written one above the other giving 72 three-lettered “words.” Compare our comments on that verse). When these Tablets rested inside the Holy Ark they symbolised the fact that the great name of the Lord in all its permutations was contained in the Holy Ark. When you consider the number of letters between the beginning of Exodus 34,4-6 where the making of the second set of the Tablets is described, you will also find a total of 108 letters followed by the words: ויעבור ה’ על פניו, “Hashem passed before him (Moses).” This is all a clear hint that the presence of these measurements and letters symbolised the presence of the Shechinah. Moreover, the remarkable number of letters on both occasions in connection with the Torah describing the Tablets is a powerful proof for the way the Kabbalists have determined that there are actually a total of 216 letters which form the complete great name of the Lord. Moses had been taught all this explicitly while he was on Mount Sinai.
     לוחות כתובים משני עבריהם מזה ומזה הם כתובים, “Tablets inscribed on both of their sides; they were inscribed on one side and on the other.” It was a great source of wonderment that the writing could be read from either side as if it had been written on that side originally. When we humans write, say on transparent glass, anyone standing on the other side while seeing the letters has to read them in reverse order for the writing to make sense to him. 
  It is possible to explain the words משני עבריהם as meaning that any word in the Torah has two kinds of meaning. There is the obvious meaning, called נגלה, and the hidden, mystical meaning, called נסתר. Solomon alluded to this in Proverbs 25,11 when he wrote: “a word properly spoken is like a golden apple in a silver setting.” We also have a verse in Job 11,6: “for there are multiple aspects to wisdom.” Torah is a source of wisdom on different levels. In addition to its plain meaning, the פשט, there are still worlds of hidden wisdom. In Psalms 62,12 David refers to this by saying: G’d has said one thing, but I have heard two (messages) out of the one thing.”
  
  Verse 16
  
   והלחות מעשה אלו-הים המה, “and the tablets were G’d’s handiwork.” The reference is not to G’d’s “manually” having made the Tablets, but that they came into existence at a verbal directive of G’d just as the world came into existence by verbal directives of G’d, i.e. בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו, “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Psalms 33,6). A similar expression is used in Genesis 2,4: ביום עשות ה’ אלו-הים ארץ ושמים, “on the day the Lord G’d made earth and heaven.”
      	והמכתב מכתב אלו-הים הוא, “and the script was the script of G’d.” Nachmanides writes that the verse praising the distinctive features of the Tablets should by rights have been written earlier, right next to 31,18 where the Torah reports G’d giving the Tablets to Moses, that they were made of stone and written with the “finger” of G’d. The reason the details written here have been delayed is to draw our attention to the fact that what Moses was about to smash was something so extraordinary that the very idea that he would smash it is mind-boggling. This is how Nachmanides accounts for the positioning of this verse at this point. While this makes sense, the bigger problem is how Moses, the trusted servant of the Lord, could initiate such an act of deliberately destroying G’d’s handiwork without having obtained G’d’s permission to do so. If, due to Israel’s sin, they had forfeited the right to receive the Tablets, Moses should have returned them to G’d! Alternatively, he should have asked G’d what to do with them. When a mortal king dispatches a sealed document to someone by means of a messenger and the messenger is unable to make delivery because the recipients do not want to accept said document, a loyal servant brings the document back to his king explaining that he was unable to deliver it. He would most certainly not treat it disrespectfully by tearing it up!    The reason that Moses smashed the Tablets was that he had observed that the letters on it had already flown away (Shemot Rabbah 46,1) as soon as he was approaching the area where the calf was positioned, an area which had become defiled by the calf’s very presence. In other words, continuing with our parable, the king’s seal had already disappeared, so that the rest of the document was no longer of any value.
     We may compare the Tablets themselves and the writing on them to the relationship between body and soul. The Tablets were the body, the writing was the soul. Once the soul has departed the body is of no value whatsoever. Such a dead body deserves to be buried under the earth. This is why Moses’ mind told him that the proper thing for him to do was to bury the Tablets beneath the mountain. The proof for our sages’ statement that the letters had flown away is found in Berachot 8 where the rabbis warn of treating scholars who have forgotten their learning due to some accident such as sickness or economic hardship without respect. They meant that even the broken pieces of the first set of Tablets were deemed worthy to be placed inside the Holy Ark. Even the stone devoid of script was not considered as having lost all sanctity. The scholar who had once been a receptacle of Torah knowledge deserves to be treated with respect even when he can no longer disseminate his knowledge (provided his present condition was due to an accident beyond his control). This is also what our sages had in mind when they said that Moses did  not smash the Tablets but they fell out of his hands. As long as the letters were on the Tablets they supported not only themselves but “carried” the entire weight of such massive stone cubes. Once the letters had flown off, it was quite impossible for mortal man, even a giant such as Moses, to carry such a weight. The text supports our approach for as long as the letters were on the Tablets the Torah reports Moses as carrying both Tablets בידו, in one of his hands (verse 15). As soon as he saw the calf and the dances, he could not even carry the Tablets with both his hands (verse 19).  We find something parallel with human beings. As long as the body contains a soul, i.e. is alive, it weighs less than after the soul has departed. Even a piece of iron which is white-hot weighs less than the same piece after it has cooled off, i.e. after the “life, the fire” has gone out of it. In halachic terms (Shabbat 94) this is the meaning of the principle החי נושא את עצמו, “that living people or animals carry themselves,” i.e. that one does not incur a penalty for carrying living people on the Sabbath [providing they could have walked if they had not been carried. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 17
  
  . את קול העם ברעה, “the sound of the people in its shouting;” the final letter in the word is the letter ה although it should have been the letter ו seeing that the subject is masculine. However, we may see in this an allusion to five different sounds or voices such as described in connection with the idolatrous cults performed in front of the golden image Nebuchadnezzar had made (compare Daniel 3,7). We are told there about five different sounds, “horn, pipe, zither, lyre, psaltery, bagpipe, and more.“ Another meaning of the word ברעה may be that the wordרעה  is an allusion to the planet Mars of whose negative and destructive influence on the Israelites Pharaoh had already warned Moses as we pointed out repeatedly, based on Exodus 10,10. This is also why the Israelites (worshipping the calf) used the musical instrument מחול as the music produced by it is reputed to counteract harmful radiations from Mars. This is also why Aaron said to Moses: “you know that the people are ברע,“ i.e. are under the influence of that planet.
      Joshua had not ascended the mountain with Moses, neither had he remained in the camp during the entire 40 days Moses had been on the mountain. The word וישמע, “he heard,” rather than “he saw,” is clear proof of that. While waiting for Moses at the base of Mount Sinai, a special portion of manna descended for his benefit, as basically, no manna fell on the mountain. Our sages in Yuma 76 have explained the expression לחם אבירים אכל איש, (Psalms 78,25) as applying to the special portion of manna G’d made it rain around the site where Joshua had positioned himself. The Torah (G’d) refers to Joshua as איש in Numbers 27,18 where He responds to Moses’ request to appoint a successor for him by mentioning that Joshua was suitable, that he was -in the words of Moses- a man with the right kind of spirit.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   וירא את העגל ומחלות, “and when he saw the calf and the dances, etc.” Of all the various musical instruments which were being used at that time, the Torah identifies only the מחלות,  The fact is that you find that Scriptures lists a total of seven varieties of musical instruments each one corresponding to one of the seven fixed stars (galaxies, which formed the basis of astronomy and astrology until Copernicus). The instrument known as כנור corresponded to the planet Saturn, whereas the instrument known as תוף, drum, corresponded to the planet Jupiter. The instrument known as עוגב corresponds to the planet Venus; the instrument known as צלצלי שמע corresponds to the planet Mercury. The instrument known as צלצלי תרועה corresponds to the moon, whereas the instrument known as מחול corresponds to the planet Mars. The instrument known as מנים corresponds to the planet Sun.    In Psalms 150 there is a list of nine different musical instruments corresponding to nine planets (galaxies). The experts of music know how each of these instruments match the specific nature of the planets and zodiac influences they are to represent or counter, respectively. The שופר and נבל which are unaccounted for in our list but have appeared in Psalm 150 each have their cosmic function also. The שופר represents an all-embracing planet, one that orbits all the other planets, whereas the instrument known as נבל, corresponds to the eighth planet the sphere within which all the stars we observe are orbiting. The reason that in connection with the golden calf the instrument מחול  is singled out for special mention is that in the desert the influence of the planet Mars is exceedingly potent. You will note that already after the Israelites had been saved by walking through the sea whereas their pursuers the Egyptians perished in that same sea, Miriam and her companions took two instruments with which they accompanied their song of praise to G’d, namely the מחול and the תוף (compare Exodus 15,2). In that connection the Torah mentioned that Miriam was the sister of Aaron, a fact familiar to every reader of the Torah. It appears that some of the ladies banging the drums at that time directed their thanks-giving at the planet Jupiter, the planet to which this instrument corresponds. In order to offset such erroneous כוונות the Torah (Miriam) mentioned that her brother Aaron represented צדק seeing that he was such a perfectly righteous and lovable person. This thought about Aaron would deflect what could otherwise have been a serious theological error on the part of the women playing the drums.
      A Midrashic approach views the expression מחולות as derived from מחילה, “pardon, forgiveness.” According to this view when Moses looked at all the musical instruments being used in these festivities, none evoked within him any hope of these people being forgiven eventually, until he saw the מחולות. As soon as he saw that instrument, he regained confidence that there was hope that G’d would eventually forgive them for this grievous sin and he immediately proceeded to burn the calf, etc. This whole matter is an illustration of the old adage of our sages that סימנא מילתא הוא, that one must not dismiss symbols as of no consequence and not related to the essence of a matter, but that on the contrary, any symbol may trigger something which will prove to be very important (compare Horiot 12).     When Moses sprinkled the ash of the golden calf on the water and made the Israelites drink the mixture, he did so in order to disgrace them as they would excrete this in the form of diarrhea, not as urine. Compare Isaiah 30,22: “who says of idolatry and its remains: ‘you will cast them away like a menstruous woman.’” Another thought which motivated Moses was to examine the Israelites just like women who are suspected of infidelity against their husbands, סוטות. If the faces of the people drinking this mixture would turn green (like the face of a guilty סוטה), it would become public knowledge who amongst them had enjoyed watching the dancing and the festivities around the golden calf. The people who had participated in the golden calf cult in deed and had been witnessed and identified as such had already been condemned to die by tribunal; the identity of those, however, who had committed the sin only in their hearts had not been known and became known only as the result of their drinking this water with the ash of the golden calf.   This is what our sages meant in Yuma 66 when they said anyone who had slaughtered a sacrifice or offered incense to the golden calf was executed by the sword. The ones who had merely kissed the calf died at the hands of G’d. Those who had enjoyed the proceedings without participating actively except with their hearts were struck by dropsy. Another source distinguishes between the ones who had been legally warned of the penalty they would face and those who had not been warned. The former were executed by the Levites, the latter died at the hand of G’d. Those who had participated actively but had not been seen by valid witnesses nor been warned properly would die at the hands of G’d. Had G’d performed a miracle and the people guilty only in their hearts would have been struck by dropsy without having drunk from the water with the ash of the golden calf, the people might have said that the afflicted person while dying because of a sin he had committed did not die on account of his enjoying the cult of the golden calf. Having first drunk from this mixture made it reasonable to attribute their dropsy to a sin connected with the golden calf. The reason the Torah reported Moses as “grinding” the gold was to achieve as near a replica of the Sotah procedure when earth is taken from the floor of the Tabernacle and mixed with the water before the Sotah is given it to drink (compare all the details in Numbers 5,17.)
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ואשליכהו באש ויצא העגל הזה, “I threw it into the fire and there emerged this calf.” Our sages called whatever has  been mentioned in connection with the calf up to this point, “the first calf.” The story from this point on, i.e. Aaron’s personal account is known as the “second calf.” This is important to realize as our sages have said (Megillah 25) that the portion of the “first calf” may be read from the Torah as well as translated into another language, whereas the part commencing here may be read in public only in Hebrew. The reason our sages gave for this difference is that they were concerned with the image of Aaron. Anyone who does not know Hebrew well may draw the wrong conclusion from the translated version. 
  We need to consider that although the episode has been described impersonally by the Torah as well as in Moses’ own words in verse 8 where he said: “they have made for themselves a cast calf, etc.,” in the eyes of our sages verse 4 and verse 8 are all considered as part of one story. This is why both these verses may be read in public in translation. Here, however, where Aaron tells of his own involvement it became important to insure that he would not be accused of sinful action which he had not in fact been guilty of. To give just one example. The words ויצא העגל הזה when read in translation and out of context give the impression that Aaron wanted to whitewash his part in the affair saying the calf had come out by itself. It might also give the impression that if it had walked out by itself, it was alive,  another wrong impression.
  
  Verse 25
  
   לשמצה בקמיהם, “to disgrace amongst those who rise up against them.” Both Rashi and most other commentators understand the word לשמצה as meaning the dissemination of evil reports. Our sages use the word in this sense when they speak about שמץ פסול  in Pesachim 50. Moses said: “Aaron was the cause that future generations will spread evil reports about the generation of the Jews at this time, saying that all of them had been of an idolatrous mind at the time. Evil gossip would take hold amongst all those who would rise up against the Jewish people at a future time. It would disgrace the people in the eyes of their adversaries.”
      The correct interpretation of these words is what Nachmanides writes, i.e. that the word לשמצה is a word denoting “reduction, diminution.” A Biblical parallel is found in Job 4,12: ותקח אזני שמץ מנהו, “my ear caught just a little bit of it.” Another example where the word is used in a similar fashion is Job 26,14: ומה שמץ דבר נשמע בו, “the mere whisper that we perceive of Him.” According to this approach what Moses meant here was that Aaron’s part in the golden calf episode would diminish the ability of the Jewish people to stand up against their adversaries whenever the occasion would arise as they had fewer merits going for them. This same thought is also expressed in Ezekiel 29,15: “I (G’d) shall diminish them so that they shall not rule over the nations.” [The prophet describes the re-emergence of the state of Egypt as a greatly reduced world power. Ed.] Jeremiah 10,24 speaks of a “reduction” in the amount of G’d’s wrath when disciplining the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  .  כה אמר ה’ אלו-הי ישראל, “thus has said the Lord G’d of Israel, etc.” We do not find that G’d’s instruction by word to Moses of this matter is recorded in the Torah other than that Moses quotes G’d. Nonetheless, he did receive such instructions. Moses refers to the Lord as אלו-הי ישראל in order to teach us that even the makers of the golden calf intended to offer their sacrifices to the “G’d of Israel,” (not to the golden calf). Still, the attribute of Justice decided to punish these people as true heretics as the Torah has taught us (Deut. 1,17) that המשפט לאלוהים הוא, the “judgment,” i.e. the evaluation of our deeds is something that G’d has reserved for Himself. This is the way Nachmanides explains these words. We find something analogous in Numbers 16,9 where Moses tells the Levites that אלו-הי ישראל, “this attribute of Justice has separated, (distinguished) the Levites from the remainder of the community of Israel.” This was another example of G’d exercising His right to evaluate the deeds of men. In that instance it meant that the performance of service to אלו-הי ישראל in and around the Tabernacle  would be reserved for the tribe of Levi. Seeing that it had been the members of this tribe who had sanctified the Lord’s name in public, they were rewarded by sanctifying the Lord’s name on a regular basis. The moral lesson is that that the appropriate way to atone for desecration of the Lord’s name publicly is to sanctify it publicly.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   אנא חטא העם הזה, “I implore!” This people has committed a grievous sin.” This is the source for the High Priest in the Yom Kippur service introducing the various confessionals with the word אנא. Our sages in Yuma 35 say that the prayer resulting in the granting of atonement was derived from Moses’ prayer at Mount Sinai when he said to the Jewish people (Exodus 32,30) “perhaps I can achieve atonement for your sin.” Hence it is fitting that the formula used by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement introducing the confession leading to atonement should be one that has proven effective in times past. Furthermore, the Talmud there queries the need to mention the holy name of G’d in the confessional. It concludes that seeing this is done in the case of the עגלה ערופה, the heifer that gets killed as atonement for the possible indirect involvement of the people in a town near which an unsolved  murder occurred (Deut. 21,8), it is most certainly appropriate for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement to invoke the holy name of G’d for sins which most certainly have been committed by unknown parties and which require atonement. 
  It is customary nowadays (when there is no Temple or High Priest) to invoke the name of the Lord when reciting a prayer beginning with the word אנא. Examples are such prayers as  אנא ה’ הושיעה נא, אנא ה’ הצליחה נא. This parallels the prayer of the High Priest which commenced with the words אנא ה’ כפר נא לעמך ישראל, “please O Lord forgive Your people Israel, etc.” When Samson appealed to G’d to restore his physical strength to him one last time (Judges 16,28), he also invoked the name of the Lord saying: אדני ה’ זכרני נא וחזקני נא אך הפעם, “My Lord G’d remember me and grant me my strength only this one time, etc.” If nonetheless, we find that Moses in our verse did not add the name of the Lord after saying אנא, it is possible to explain this by saying that Moses was simply ashamed to utter the name by means of which the Torah had been given to the Children of Israel, the same people who had now violated this Torah in such a gross fashion. Even though Moses did not explicitly mention the holy name of G’d on this occasion, it was alluded to in the very word אנא, the numerical value of its letters being 52, i.e. twice the number of the holy name of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Justice as well as the attribute of Mercy. That very name, referring to both attributes is mentioned at the beginning of the list of the thirteen attributes of His which G’d revealed to Moses in Exodus 34,6.
      It is also possible to explain the absence of the name of the Lord in Moses’ prayer at this juncture by the requirement to immediately spell out the precise nature of the sin for which atonement is being sought. This is why Moses said immediately “they made for themselves gods of gold, etc.” It would have been inappropriate to invoke the name of G’d which symbolises Unity, at a time when the sin for which forgiveness was being sought symbolised the very opposite of Unity, i.e. diversity. Moses acted in line with a famous saying of our sages in Pessikta Zutrata on Exodus 5,2: “what business does a king have in a slaughter- house, and what business does a priest have in a cemetery?” Indeed, we find (Exodus 33,7) that as soon as the Israelites had constructed the god of gold the Shechinah withdrew from their midst as Moses henceforth was obliged to leave the camp if he wanted to communicate with G’d.
  
  Verse 32
  
   מחני נא מספרך, “blot me (my name) out from Your book, please.” According to the plain meaning of these words the “book” Moses spoke of was the Torah.    A Midrashic approach: The word “from Your book” which Moses uttered here as simply a possibility, teaches that the curse of a Torah scholar, even if only conditional, is apt to come true. This is based on what Moses said here. Even though the essence of his prayer, namely forgiveness of the sin of the Jewish people, was accepted by G’d, Moses’ name does not appear in the entire portion of תצוה as a direct consequence of his uttering the words מחני נא מספרך. Whereas G’d forgave the grievous sin of the golden calf, He did not ignore these words of Moses which He considered as out of place. 
      A more rational/investigative approach: The word מספרך, is a reference to the horoscopes, something known as the “book (handbook) of the Lord.” Just as a book consists of impressions of letters and pictures, etc., imprinted in order to be a permanent record, so the stars in the sky represent a similar book of reference of the Lord in which He predetermined the fates of all those who do not qualify for His personal supervision of their fates, i.e. the book of horoscopes. Such a book contains a list of the life spans of each individual before he is born, as well as other data relevant to his life on earth. King David already referred to this in Psalms 139,16: “Your eyes saw my unformed limbs, they were recorded in Your book.” 
  Man’s potential in the celestial spheres (what is inscribed in that book) enables him to accomplish whatever it is that he will accomplish while alive on earth. When this potential is erased in G’d’s book, this means that he will die here on earth forthwith. In other words, the essence of Moses’s prayer was that unless G’d would forgive the people their sin, he, Moses, would not want to live. He simply could not bear to watch the misery that would befall his people if G’d were not to forgive them. On another occasion Moses phrased the same sentiment more directly when he said הרגני נא הרוג אם מצאתי חן בעיניך, “please kill me (now) if I have found favor in Your eyes” (Numbers 10,15). This is a typical expression used by the righteous when they experience mental anguish and despair of the usefulness of their lives. The prophet Elijah used similar language after the failure of his demonstration at Mount Carmel, when he had walked for forty days to Mount Chorev and said to G’d that He should take his soul as he had not proved more effective than other prophets who had preceded him (Kings I 19,4). Another prophet who used similar language as a death wish  was Jonah who said to G’d: “please take my life for it is better that I die than that I live (Jonah 4,3).    The reason Moses added the words אשר כתבת, “which You have written,” is a reference to something new, a recognition that G’d had been the one who called the universe into existence. Anything “new” testifies to the existence of the One who created something new, just as the written word testifies to the fact that there was someone who did the writing. Moses implied that seeing it had been G’d who had initiated all these forces it was also within His power to cancel such evil decrees at will. G’d answered him that He reserved the right to erase the people who had sinned from His “book,” not the ones who had not. The fact that G’d did not even name the sinners, i.e. the Jewish people, reflects the depth of G’d’s anger at them (32,33). G’d said to Moses in effect: “You are not deserving of any punishment seeing that you have not sinned at all. However, all those who have sinned are the ones who are in line for being erased from My book.” G’d meant that He would nullify the potential of these sinners’ power as predetermined in the handbook of G’d which we described earlier. It is in line with verse 10 where G’d exclaimed that “My anger has flared against them and I will destroy them within a moment.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: the word מספרך, is equivalent to מן הספירות, “from the list of emanations.” It is as if Moses had said that he wished to be erased from the lower six of these emanations. They represent G’d’s activity when beginning to create the universe. It is a reference to the six extremities of the universe which are also known as the מלאכת שמים וארץ, “the work of (constructing) heaven and earth.” This is also the mystical dimension of Psalms 69,29: ימחו מספר חיים, “may they be expunged from the ‘book’ of life.” David also referred to these emanations, calling them ספר. 
  This enables us to understand a statement by the sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) that three “books” are open before the Lord on New Year’s day. One contains the names of the fully righteous people, one contains the names of the definite sinners, whereas the third contains the names of the  people who fall into an in-between category, being neither considered righteous nor evil. The three books referred to may also be understood as  חסד, דין, רחמים “loving kindness, Justice, Mercy.” G’d relates to the totally righteous with loving kindness; to the wicked He relates with Justice. To the category which has not yet crystallized as either of the former two, He relates with “Mercy.” The attribute of Mercy is called upon to decide to which category to consign these people who by reason of their deeds are not yet properly categorized. The מלך, “King” whom we address on Rosh Hashanah deals with all three categories on that day.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . וישמע העם את הדבר הרע הזה, “when the people heard this bad tiding, etc.”  It appears to me that the Israelites imposed upon themselves various kinds of afflictions, corresponding to the sin they had committed. Whereas previously they had worn crowns on their heads, reflecting their joy of being alive, now when they heard that the Shechinah had removed itself from their midst they responded by foregoing their previous joy in being alive. This the Torah describes in stages; 1) ויתאבלו, “they went into mourning;” 2) לא שתו, “they did not put on their jewelry.” The prophet Hoseah 2,5 describes the removal of jewelry as equivalent to being stripped naked of one’s garments when he says פן אפשיטנה ערומה והצגתיה כיום הולדה, “lest I strip her naked and display her as on the day she was born.” What he meant was that G’d threatened to deprive the Jewish people of the glory of the presence of His Shechinah. The Israelites had been in the habit of using this presence just like other people use their clothing to cover their nakedness to give them dignity. The Israelites would remain as they had been before G’d gave them the Torah, i.e. “naked.” Targum Yonatan understands the words of the prophet similarly when he wrote: דלמא אסליק שכינתי מנה ואעדי יקרה ואשוינה רטישא כזמני קדמאי עד לא אתקריבת לפולחני, “lest I remove My presence from them and My precious jewelry, and I will make them forsaken like before I brought them close to My service (the giving of the Torah).”
  
  Verse 5
  
   ועתה הורד עדיך מעליך, “and now remove your jewelry from yourself, etc.” this was a reference to the garments the Israelites wore when Moses sprinkled from the blood of the covenant on them, the blood from the sacrifices offered by the firstborn  (Exodus 24,5; see our commentary). This is the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel in that chapter on verse 8. Seeing that the Israelites had violated this covenant when they made the golden calf G’d commanded them to divest themselves of the symbol of that covenant. This is the meaning of the words ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים מהר חורב, “the Israelites stripped themselves of the jewelry they had received at Mount Chorev” (verse 6). In other words, they complied with G’d’s instructions. As to the meaning of the earlier verse (4) where the Torah states that they did not put on their jewelry, this has to be understood to mean that they did not put on all their jewelry, but only part of it. In other words, they understood even without being commanded that in their present circumstances it would ill become them to behave as if nothing had happened and to act as if they were entitled to wear all their jewelry. Now that G’d had commanded them to remove their jewelry they divested themselves of all of it.
      According to the interpretation of our sages  that the jewelry referred to was the holy name of the Lord (compare Midrash Tehillim 103) the meaning of these verses is as follows [starting with verse 4, Ed.] “they did not put on their jewelry (their clothing).” In response to the command to remove their jewelry they removed the item bearing the holy name of the Lord. This is the reason the Torah did not use the customary word for stripping one’s clothing off, i.e. הפשט מעליך, but it used the expression הורד, “lower!” When they removed the item in question their spiritual distinction disappeared simultaneously.    Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 45,2 describe this as זינאות שחגר עליהם, “ a reference to some kind of weapon upon which the holy name of G’d had been engraved.” This is also the meaning of the saying in the Midrash Rabbah in 41,9 that  חרות על הלוחות, that on the Tablets was engraved the motto “freedom from the angel of death.” In other words, the weapon the sages speak about was the weapon designed to neutralize the angel of death. Seeing the people had been equipped with knowledge of the various names of the Lord, they had an effective antidote against the angel of death as normally such knowledge can be obtained by man only after death. This is also what Onkelos had in mind when he translated the words ויתנצלו את עדים as ואעידו. He meant to convey that  the spiritual accomplishments the people had worn proudly ever since the revelation at Mount Sinai, something which had put them on a par with the ministering angels, were now lost to them, disappeared. It was Moses who removed these symbols of their accomplishments from them. This is why the Torah continues ומשה יקח את האוהל, “that Moses would take the Tent (Tabernacle) and pitch it outside the camp.” The word אעדי refers to the loss of some power. It is therefore an appropriate rendering of the Hebrew word ויתנצלו. The word אוהל in this instance is derived from בהלו נרו, another word for “light becoming frightened.” the meaning of Moses taking the “Tent” is therefore to be understood as something allegorical, not that he literally moved the entire Tabernacle. Moses removed the spiritual light which had been part of the Tabernacle to a place outside the camp to indicate that the people had now forfeited this dimension of their relationship with G’d. The word אוהל should be understood in a similar manner in Numbers 24,8 where Bileam praises the Jewish people describing מה טובו אוהליך יעקב something normally translated as “how goodly are your tents O Yaakov.” The meaning would be “how goodly are your spiritual lights O Yaakov.” I will explain this in due course when discussing that verse in detail. 
  I have already explained the reason why the Torah refers to the spiritual accomplishments of the Jewish people in terms of “jewelry” in connection with Exodus 24,11 and why this term is spelled out only when the people lost this jewelry and not when they were given it.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ומשה יקח את האוהל, “and Moses would take the tent, etc.” The word יקח in this instance is the present tense. It means Moses would do this on a regular basis. The words הרחק מן המחנה mean that Moses had to go some distance away from the encampment of the Israelites seeing the Israelites were in a state of disgrace vis-a-vis heaven due to their great sin. Moses applied the ruling we have learned in Rashi that whenever the student is in a state of disgrace so is his teacher. Hence Moses had to leave the environment of people whose sin had caused the Shechinah to withdraw.
     והיה כל מבקש ה' יצא אל אוהל מועד אשר מחוץ למחנה, “and whoever sought Hashem would go out to the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that the Shechinah was no longer resident within the camp of the people. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: “whoever wanted to seek out Moses, etc.” The fact that the Torah does not use this syntax indicates that seeking out Moses was equated with seeking out G’d’s presence. Moses was described by the Torah as “Hashem” in this regard. We find that our patriarch Yaakov was also accorded the title “G’d” in Genesis 33,20 where the Torah wrote: ויקרא לו אל אלו-הי ישראל. I have explained all this in connection with that verse. [seeing that every judge is called אלוהים in the Torah, this is not as mind-boggling as it appears at first. It is simply an extension of the principle that the messenger is equipped with the status of the sender, a well-known principle in the Talmud. Ed.] When Rivkah experienced an unusual pregnancy, the fetuses struggling within her womb, the Torah describes her as inquiring from G’d what all this meant. The words used by the Torah are ותלך לדרוש את ה'. The meaning there is that she went to a representative of G’d to ask the meaning of her experience. There too the person whom she inquired from is described as Hashem (Genesis 25,22). There are numerous other examples of the same thing throughout the Bible. We learn from Rivkah’s experience that when the Torah wrote ויאמר ה' לה, that she did not experience a revelation or direct message from G’d, but that she received the word of G’d by means of a person designated by G’d to tell her that she would give birth to twins, etc. We find that both the Messiah and the city of Jerusalem have been accorded the title “G’d” on occasion, such as in Jeremiah 23,6 and Ezekiel 48,34. In the latter instance the word שמה must be read with the vowels קמץ twice instead of a שוא under the letter ש. In all the instances mentioned the rule is simply that the messenger adopts the name of the Sender.
      A Midrashic approach: The word הרחק is similar to the same word describing Hagar seating herself a distance away from her son Ishmael whose weeping she did not want to hear (Genesis 18,13). The distance in question was approximately one kilometer. Tanchuma Ki Tissa 27 bases this on Joshua 3,4 where the text describes a distance, i.e. רחוק, as being 2,000 cubits, i.e. approx. 1200 meters. In our verse the Torah continues with והיה כל מבקש ה' instead of והיה כל מבקש משה, “It would be whenever someone sought out the Lord,” instead of “whenever someone sought out Moses.” This teaches that if one welcomes a Torah scholar this is equivalent to welcoming G’d Himself. Even when the angels seek out the Lord they described Him as being within the tent of Moses. When the sun or the moon seek out the Lord, they too say that He is to be found in the tent of Moses. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . והשתחוו איש פתח אהלו, “and they would prostrate themselves, each one at the entrance to his tent.” They did not bow down and prostrate themselves on account of the presence of the pillar of fire or the pillar of cloud, but as a sign of respect for the attribute of כבוד which was present in Moses’ tent. The matter is similar to the respect we show to the Torah scroll. When we bow down before it we do not mean to honour the scroll but what the scroll represents, i.e. the word of G’d which is written on the parchment.
  
  Verse 11
  
   פנים אל פנים, “face to face.” According to the plain meaning of the text we may explain this expression as belonging to what follows, i.e. “as a man  speaks to his fellow.” The meaning of the entire line then would be: “and G’d communicated (spoke) with Moses in a similar fashion to people who speak to each other, i.e.”face to face.” It means there is no intermediary between the speaker and the one being addressed. The purpose of the verse is to describe the level of Moses’ prophetic powers; he was the only prophet capable of being addressed by G’d in such a fashion.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 27). The expression פנים אל פנים denotes anger. G’d said to Moses: “have I not told you that whenever I am angry with the Jewish people it is your task to defend them and to be well-disposed towards them, whereas whenever you are angry with them I will demonstrate that I am well-disposed towards them? Now we have reached an impossible situation when both I and you are angry at the people.” G’d therefore instructed Moses to return to the camp of the Israelites forthwith. When the Torah writes in verse 11 concerning Moses that ושב אל המחנה, we have to read it as if it were spelled ושוב אל המחנה, “and return to the camp!”  The reason for all this is that if both G’d and the Jewish people’s leader are angry, who will bring them back closer to G’d?    Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi said that we are not able to judge if in our relationship with G’d we experience an elevation on our part or a deliberate effort on G’d’s part to “lower” Himself to our level. At the revelation at Mount Sinai the Lord definitely “lowered“ Himself as the Torah writes that “G’d descended in a cloud” (Exodus 34,5).
      Another Midrashic comment concerning the words ושב אל המחנה is found in Berachot 63  where the Midrash claims that G’d said to Moses: “return your tent to the camp, else  your disciple Joshua will not move his own tent from amongst them and will take over your functions.” Even though Moses did return to the camp, G’d’s conditional promise to Joshua was not an empty promise. [Joshua who was mentioned only as a potential successor of Moses at that time did indeed become his successor eventually. Ed.]
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים are to be understood in the sense of פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak with him mouth to mouth” (Numbers 12,8). The meaning is not the same as if it had said פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם which we find in Deut. 5,4. The description of G’d speaking to the entire Jewish people פנים בפנים implies that they saw a vision within a vision. such as is alluded to by Numbers 14,14 אשר עין בעין נראה אתה ה' “that you have been granted a vision of the Lord  eye to eye.”
     ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער, “and his personal disciple, Yehoshua son of Nun, a lad, etc.“ Joshua lived a total of 110 years (Joshua 24,29). If you deduct the 40 years the Israelites marched through the desert and the 14 years which Joshua spent in the land of Israel prior to his death (seven years of war and seven years of distributing the country and allocating it to the various tribes) you will note that at this time Joshua was 56 years old. How is it then that the Torah refers to him as a נער, “a lad?”  The answer is that the word נער means “personal valet.” The master is known as איש, whereas the valet is known as נער by comparison. This is spelled out in greater detail in Esther 2,2 where the text speaks of נערי המלך משרתיו, “the lads of the king, i.e. his personal valets.” The word משרתיו in that verse is used to define who were the people called נערי המלך.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   הודיעני נא את דרכיך, “make Your ways known to me.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word דרכיך means “Your attributes.” The “ways” of the Lord are His attributes, His virtues. This is the way David used the expression in Psalms 103,7 where he wrote יודיע דרכיו למשה, “He would make Moses conversant with His attributes.” The fact is that in that psalm David immediately proceeds to list these attributes of the Lord, such as רחום וחנון ה' ארך אפים ורב חסד, “the Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger abounding in steadfast love.” Moses attempted to gain an understanding of G’d’s essence by means of being told His attributes. G’d’s activities were to be the clue to understanding His essence.    G’d responded to him in the following way: “I will allow all My goodness to pass before you” (verse 19). Moses’ second request, i.e. הראני נא את כבודך, “let me see Your glory” (verse 19), was denied. In response to this second request G’d told Moses that it is not given to mortal man to have a vision of G’d’s glory while alive.    Solomon elaborates concerning these two requests of Moses  in Proverbs 25,2 where he writes: “it is the glory of G’d to conceal a matter; but it is the glory of kings to search out a matter.” The meaning of that verse is that knowledge of the Lord consists of two aspects, one of which is granted to man whereas the other is denied to man. The knowledge which is granted to man is not something which is self-evident to everyone but requires serious study and investigation. Solomon means that by careful analysis of how G’d responded to a variety of events we can form a reasonably accurate picture of His essence. This is what Jeremiah 9,23 had in mind when he wrote: “but only in this should one glory; in his earnest devotion to Me. For I the Lord act with kindness, Justice, and equity in the world.” In other words, knowledge of G’d means familiarity with His attributes; man is to recognize the extreme wisdom with which the Lord acts as a leader in His universe. It is not possible to get to know G’d in abstract terms by talking about attributes in a theoretical way; the only way to obtain a working knowledge of the Lord is to study His actions to the extent He has revealed them throughout history. G’d is distant from us by reason of the essence of His glory, whereas on the other hand, He is most close to us by reason of His actions, i.e. His constant involvement in all that goes on in our lives. This can best be illustrated by means of a parable using the sun as our example. On the one hand, the sun and its effect on our lives is visible and is felt on an ongoing basis; on the other hand, it is millions of miles removed from us. In spite of the great distance the sun is separated from us  we are unable even to look at it without becoming blinded. If this is true of a visible and tangible body such as the sun, how much more so is it true of the essence of G’d. This is what Solomon meant in the verse we quoted earlier.
      A rational/investigative approach to Moses’ request “please me know Your ways.” Moses referred to the way G’d revealed Himself when He created the universe and man. Just as He knows man, seeing that every creator is thoroughly familiar with his creatures, so Moses asked to be thoroughly familiar with G’d by means of His various creative acts. He who is familiar with all that G’d has accomplished will find favour in His eyes. This is the reason Moses added the words: “so that I may find favour in Your eyes.” Moses added a further justification for his request, saying “see, this is Your nation;” he meant: “if I am to be an effective leader for Your nation, I must know how You would proceed to act in the event different scenarios develop.” [This is a free translation of the author’s words; a literal translation would not help the reader. Ed.]    G’d responded to this request by saying: פני ילכו, “My Presence will go (accompany you every step of the way).” The word פנים in this instance (verse 14) is an expression denoting anger just as in Samuel I 1,18 where Chanah is described as being no longer angry when she had been reassured by the High Priest Eli who had become privy to the nature of her prayer. The wording there is ופניה לא היו לה עוד. Obviously this cannot mean that she no longer had a face or a presence, but must mean that her countenance which previously had reflected her anger or anguish no longer reflected such feelings.
      What Moses requested when he said: “please show me Your ways,” was something that it is possible for G’d to grant, i.e. a display of His adjectives, attributes. This is why He said: “I will let all My goodness pass before you, i.e. I will display all these adjectives of Mine to you.” G’d referred to the description of the מעשה בראשית, the story of creation, as reported in Genesis chapter one which concluded with the words that after G’d had reviewed it He described it as “very good.” [Perhaps we are justified in understanding the author to mean that this chapter of the Torah was inserted in response to Moses’ request at this time. Ed.]  When G’d used the expression: “it was very good,” He meant that having reviewed the universe’s response to His creative directives convinced Him that nature would accomplish the task the Creator had set for it. By piecing together the various directives G’d had employed in creating the universe, Moses was able to obtain a good picture of G’d’s various attributes in action.    Concerning Moses’ second request that G’d reveal to Him His essence, i.e. הראני נא את כבודך, G’d responded that this was a request which could not be granted to mortal man by reason of the fact that he was only a mortal creature. G’d “softened” His refusal by adding: “there is a place beside Me,” i.e. I will grant you as much insight into the nature of My being as it is possible for man while a living human being to absorb. When G’d added; וראית את אחורי, He referred to all the tangible matter He had created. A creator or artist leaves behind him tangible traces of the objects he has formed. G’d meant that the physical world such as it is is the evidence which reveals something about the nature of the Creator who called it into existence. The word אחורי is similar in meaning to “something which was left behind, thrown away, discarded.” G’d meant to convey that His discards are a far cry from granting insight into His true essence. This may be the reason why Onkelos translated the words את אורי as ית דבתראי, “that which is behind Me.” He meant all the evidence of My creative activity I have left behind for all to see. All of them are only incidental to me, not related to My essence.    The words ופני לא יראו, “My face is not subject to being seen by man,” mean that the true essence of G’d cannot be comprehended by man at all.    According to Onkelos who renders the word ופני as ודי קדמאי, the meaning is that there are imposing creations, i.e. supra-terrestrial beings, beings which have no bodies, which can also not be properly understood by man. G’d relates to these beings as being “in front” of Him rather than the terrestrial beings which He described as being “behind” Him.” This means also that seeing these beings are “in front” of G’d they are constantly under His active supervision. 
  In order to make it quite clear to Moses that these latter insights had been denied him, the Torah writes (34,6) that ויעבור ה' על פניו. In this instance the meaning of the word ויעבור is equivalent to Samuel I 20,36 והוא ירה החצי להעבירו, “he shot the arrows past him (compare Moreh Nevuchim 1,21). It means that someone has failed to achieve a certain objective and reached a different objective instead. In other words, G’d deliberately deflected Moses’ request and channeled it into something else.    The words על פניו in 34,6 are a substitute for the name of the Lord. The message of the whole verse is that the Lord, the Creator, withheld from Moses the type (the ability to foresee) of Divine supervision accorded to the beings which are described as על פני. The fact that Moses had requested to be granted these types of insights becomes clear from the response of G’d rather than from the words הראני נא את כבודך which Moses used in 33,19. Instead of complying with Moses’ request, G’d responded by revealing to Him the thirteen attributes, i.e. G’d fulfilled his request הודיעני נא את דרכיך, “please make me familiar with Your attributes.”    According to Onkelos who translates the words ויעבור ה' על פניו in 34,6 as ואעבר ה' שכנתיה,  G’d’s Shechinah passed in front of Moses, something also known as כבוד נברא. When G’d spoke of והיה בעבור כבודי in 33,22, this lends strong support to Onkelos’ interpretation. In that event the wordsעל פניו  in 34,6 refer to Moses. The meaning of על פניו would be the same as לפניו, “in front of him.” We have similar construction of the expression על פניו in Genesis 32,22 ותעבור המנחה על פניו, “the gift passed before him.”    Another way of explaining the words ויעבור ה' על פניו is that the voice of the Lord passed in front of Moses. It is not unusual to find the ,עבר or העברה in connection with a voice or with a sound. We find an example of this in Exodus 36,6 ויעבירו קול במחנה, “they made a voice (command) traverse the camp.” The word ויקרא in 34,8 refers to that voice which called out. The repetition of the word השם is similar to the repetition of the word אברהם אברהם in Genesis 22,11 or the word משה משה in Exodus 3,4. This, at any rate, is the opinion of Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim 1,21.
      [At this point the author copies the relevant pages from the Moreh Nevuchim. I have not included this as the Hebrew in the M.N. is itself a translation from the Arabic. Ed.]
      Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon explains the words כי לא תוכל לראות פני to mean that “you, Moses are incapable of seeing the ‘beginning’ of the light whereas you will be able וראית את אחורי ‘to see the end of the light’” (compare Emunot Vedeyot 2,12). G’d applied the cover to Moses’ eyes while the beginning of the light passed before him whereas He removed this cover when the end of the light passed before him. It is possible that Ezekiel’s comment (Ezekiel 1,27) “I saw a gleam of amber from what appeared to be his loins up, and from what appeared to be his loins down, I saw what looked like fire,” relates to this phenomenon. The former refers to the beginning of the light, whereas the latter statement refers to the tail-end of the light mentioned by Rabbi Saadyah Gaon. Concerning this same phenomenon, Chabakuk said (Chabakuk 3,5) “pestilence marches before Him and plague comes at His heels.” In that verse too, the word “before Him” refers to what comes at the beginning, and the word “at His heels,” refers to what comes at the end. Psalms 50,3 speaking of “devouring fire preceded Him, whereas around Him storms swirled fiercely,” suggests that it is impossible to escape the fire that precedes the Lord, whereas the storm swirling around Him may be capable of being survived. When the Torah speaks here about וראית את אחורי, it refers to the aspect of G’d’s “light” man can endure, whereas whatever is described as “in front of Him,” is what man cannot endure if he becomes a witness to it.
      A Kabbalistic approach: When Moses asked: “please show me Your ways,” he meant “the paths of goodness by means of which you G’d guide and govern Your universe. It is the means by which You become known.” These are the paths of righteousness and kindness, the mark of the righteous person who is the foundation of the earth. Of such a righteous person David said in Psalms 145,17: “the Lord is righteous in all His ways.” These ways which Moses requested are the same as the ones described by Solomon as the ones which he considered beyond his ability to understand when he wrote: in Proverbs 30,18-19: “three things are beyond me, and four I do not know. The way an eagle flies in the sky, the way of a serpent over a rock, how a ship makes its way across the seas, and the way of a man with a virgin.” Solomon meant that the activity of the Just in this world which is described as “the foundation of the earth” is beyond his ability to understand. This is why he included in the random examples he chose both activities in the air, on the water, and activities performed by man. These three realms comprise the totality of the terrestrial universe. The birds roam the atmosphere; the free-roaming beasts roam the earth, the dust; the people traveling in ships roam the waters, and the human species comprised of males and females are what are meant by “the way of a man with a virgin.” Whereas Solomon understood these phenomena, what he did not understand was what is meant by the “activity of the righteous, the Just.” Moses sought clarification of the very thing Solomon failed to understand. [If I understand this correctly, both Moses and Solomon failed to understand how the activity of the Just is responsible for the continued existence of the universe so that it is termed “the foundation of the world.” Ed.] Moses said ואדעך, “so that I will know You,” meaning “so that I can properly appreciate Your uniqueness.”   למען אמצא חן בעיניך, “in order that I may find favour in Your eyes.” This teaches us that a person who properly appreciates the unity and uniqueness of the Lord will find favour in His eyes.   וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה, “and see that this nation is truly Your people.” He meant that seeing he was in charge of leading this people, G’d’s people, it was imperative that G’d should grant him these insights in order for him to discharge his duties optimally.    When G’d responded by saying פני ילכו, this was a reference to the angel Mattatron who is the instrument by means of which the Lord is known throughout the universe for the marvelous and sometimes dreadful events which He orchestrates. Observing these phenomena set in motion by this angel is what was meant in Exodus 14,31 when the Torah wrote: “Israel saw the great hand which the Lord had employed against Egypt, and the people were afraid and they believed in the Lord.”    The words והניחותי לך, “I will give you rest,” are derived from the word נחת רוח, “peace of mind.” G’d told Moses that he should not worry that He, G’d, would apply the yardstick of the attribute of Justice in its full measure when relating to the Jewish people but only  what is known as the attribute of Justice in its diminished form. This form of the attribute of Justice co-opts a measure of the attribute of Mercy. The “messenger” (Mattatron) to whom G’d referred at this time is known as the attribute of כבוד, more popularly known as the Shechinah. This is the reason Onkelos translates the words פני ילכו as שכנתי תהך, “My Shechinah will go.”    Moses was not satisfied with this response, seeing  that it represented the attribute of Justice, albeit, the watered down variety. This is why he insisted אם אין פניך הולכים אל תעלנו מזה, “if Your Presence does not go along do not bring us forward from here.” Moses meant that he did not want any intermediary to be the agent that would accompany the Jewish people on their journey. After all, when G’d took the people out of Egypt He had employed two attributes, both the יד החזקה and the כח גדול, “the strong hand (attribute of Justice) as well as the attribute of Mercy (Exodus 14,11). Our sages in the Haggadah shel Pessach used this wording to state that the process of redemption (killing the firstborn of Egypt while saving the firstborn of the Jews) was possible only because G’d did not entrust this to any of His agents. G’d personally involved Himself in that redemption. Moses demanded no less at this time. G’d consented to Moses’ request in this regard, saying: “also the thing that you have said I shall do for you have found favour in My eyes” (verse 17).    Seeing that G’d had responded favourably to his last request, Moses was now encouraged to ask for even more by saying: “please show me Your glory.” In this matter Moses did not elicit a positive response, G’d explaining that it was impossible to grant this request. Onkelos translates the words לא תוכל לראות פני, as לא תיכול למחזי אפי שכינתי, “you cannot see the face of My Shechinah.” Seeing that in Psalms 104,17 the Shechinah is referred to in terms of חסידה ברושים ביתה, that “the stork makes its home in the lofty cypress,” a simile for the far end of the אצילות, (a region of the celestial world), the near end of that region is understandably described as the “face,” פנים. When G’d said “there is a place beside Me,” He referred to the tail-end of that celestial region we described as אצילות, meaning that this was a region Moses would be able to see. This was not a new concession on the part of G’d, but merely a repetition in different words of what He had said previously when He told Moses: “I will make all My goodness pass before you.”    The expression אחורי derived from אחור refers to the “West.” similarly to Psalms 139,5 אחור וקדם צרתני, “You have shaped me at the rear and at the front (to look alike from both sides).” [the reference is to Adam prior to Eve having become a separate body. Ed.] It is well known that the Shechinah‘s residence is in the West. [Man (Adam) looked both to the west and to the east simultaneously at that stage of his existence. Ed]  Though he was able to view the “western” end of the Shechinah he was not able to view its “eastern” end. Seeing that Moses had already attained a level enabling him to comprehend the emanations כבוד ותפארת, G’d said to Moses that he would enable him to comprehend the higher emanation חכמה also. This is the true meaning of the words וראית את אחורי. The letter א at the beginning of the word אחורי is not part of the word itself, which is derived from חיור  a form of light. G’d told Moses that he would be able to see a reflection of G’d’s “Light.” The emanation חכמה, “wisdom” (its source) is also sometimes called לבנון, [from לבן “white,” i.e. reflecting all the light aimed at it. Ed.] “Seeing” that emanation חכמה was not merely for the sake of seeing it, but as our sages said (Berachot 7), G’d showed Moses the knot with which the phylacteries of the head are to be tied. The knot is formed in the shape of the letter ד, and it is a well known fact that the letter ד represents the foundation of all wisdom. This is spelled out in the Sefer Yetzirah in connection with the meanings of the letters  בג’ד כפר’ת. Solomon has already alluded to this in Song of Songs 7,6 where he wrote ודלת ראשך כארגמן, “and your crowning braid is like purple.” He meant that this was the highest level of insight that could be achieved by man, the  emanation כתר, the highest of the emanations, is not subject to man’s comprehension. This was meant by ופני לא יראו.   After these introductory remarks by G’d the Torah proceeds to describe (34,5) that G’d “descended” in a cloud and “stood” beside Moses proclaiming the holy name of the Lord.” The expression וירד, a word which we normally translate as “He descended” is here an expression of השגה, “achievement,” attainment.” The word is used in Talmudic Hebrew when describing that someone “descends” into the deeper meaning of something and as a result gains full understanding. The meaning of the entire verse is that Moses now attained a comprehension of the meaning of the holy name of G’d, the attribute כבוד, which is also known as שם with the vowel kametz. The word occurs in that connotation both in Genesis 2,10 and in Samuel II 6,2. In Genesis the meaning of the word is that from that location and upwards the disembodied beings, angels, would ascend to the higher celestial regions. In the book of Samuel where the author speaks of the Holy Ark, the meaning of that word is justified also as the “ark” is also known as shem, i.e. representing the name of G’d. We find that Moses had already been described as shem in 33,2.    When the Torah writes at this juncture: ויקרא בשם ה’, the meaning is that the attribute כבוד proclaimed this name of the Lord. The word בשם in this verse is a possessive clause of the word י-ה-ו-ה. This is also the way Onkelos understood it when he translated the sequence as בשמא דה’, “in the name of the tetragram.” When the Torah continues (verse 6) with ויעבור ה’ על פניו, the word Hashem here is a reference to the attribute כבוד.  Seeing that this attribute is equivalent to the Shechinah, Onkelos translates the words as ואעבר ה’ שכינתה “G’d let His Shechinah pass before him (Moses).” The word ויקרא “He called out,” refers again to the subject, i.e. the attribute כבוד. It was this attribute which proclaimed the thirteen attributes of G’d and their functions which were revealed to Moses at this stage. These attributes were part of the emanation תפארת, “harmony,” the sixth emanation [commencing with the emanation מלכות at the lower end of the scale. Ed.] This emanation is equated with the attribute of Mercy, and all the 13 מדות, “virtues,” mentioned here are merely different nuances of the attribute of Mercy and how and when it is invoked. The word ויעבור introduces the point when G’d fulfills His previous promise אני אעביר כל טובי לפניך, “I will let all My goodness pass before you” (33,19). The Zohar (Parshat Vayakhel page 202), when referring to our verse  refers to these 13 virtues as מכילין דרחמי, “degrees of mercy.” 
  After Moses had learned how to employ prayer in order to activate these various forms of Mercy, he asked G’d to be constantly personally present during the Israelites’ trek to the Holy Land. The line אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך אדו-ני, ילך נא אדו-ני בקרבנו means that “if I have found favor in the eyes of the attribute of Justice, let the Shechinah go in our midst.” Onkelos also understands this verse in the same manner. Moses’ prayer focused on the constant presence of the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire as evidence of the presence of the Shechinah. [Remember that the Tabernacle had not been built yet at this time. Ed.] The people needed the presence of the Shechinah precisely because they were a “stiff-necked people” as the presence of the attribute of Justice in its diminished form on a constant basis was preferable to the sudden manifestation of the attribute of Justice in its most severe form should the people become guilty of another serious sin. What Moses asked for here was a presence of the Shechinah in a more manifest form than what G’d had spoken of in 33,2 when He had said: “I will send My angel before you.” The kind of angel G’d had referred to at that time was one of the disembodied spirits. G’d now consented to Moses’ request to upgrade the manifestation of the Divine presence accompanying the Jewish people. He assured him of an upgrading involving two attributes: 1) The Shechinah would remain manifest amongst the people. To this end G’d said “Here I will make a covenant with the people in the presence of the entire nation, etc.” (34,10). This was a reference to a special angel whose presence symbolized this covenant. 2) He added that this angel (read Shechinah) would perform manifest miracles for the people indicating its presence. The miracles would be of the quality never before performed and witnessed by human beings. In order to  prove that  Moses had attained close contact with the emanation תפארת, G’d added the peculiar phrase את מעשה ה’ כי נורא הוא, switching from the attribute אדו-ני which had been used so far to the tetragrammaton. Not only this, but the Torah should have continued in the plural after having spoken of a variety of miracles and should have written: את מעשי ה’ כי נוראים הם, “the works of Hashem which are awesome.” The reason the Torah employs the singular is that it refers to the emanation תפארת which is equivalent to the attribute of Mercy. When G’d added the words אשר אני עושה עמך, “which I perform with you,” this was an assurance that G’d would relate to Moses personally with the attribute of Mercy. After this paragraph both Moses and the people of Israel were assured that G’d would relate to them primarily by drawing on the attributes of תפארת and כבוד. This had been the intent of Moses when he had asked that G’d demonstrate the distinction of the Jewish people compared to other nations, begging ונפלינו אני ועמך. When Moses said אני, he meant the attribute תפארת, whereas when he said ועמך he referred to the attribute  כבוד, i.e. the Shechinah. [Moses, the most humble individual that ever lived, would certainly not have referred to himself before mentioning his people. This why a translation of these words as “I and your people,” would be totally out of character]. We have now explained the entire paragraph.    I have already explained under the heading “mystical dimension” on Parshat Yitro on chapter 20 verse 1 that Moses attained familiarity with the seven lower emanations. These seven emanations were symbolised in the text by the seven occasions on which the word קול or קולות appears in connection with the revelation at Mount Sinai. I have elaborated on the subject there.   When Moses in our paragraph requested הראני נא את כבודך, he obviously requested a dimension of insight over and beyond the seven emanations with which he had already become familiar. He was not granted this. This is also the opinion of Nachmanides in his discussion of the matter from a Kabbalistic vantage point.
   Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (in the abbreviated version of his commentary on verse 14) takes a different view of the meaning of the wordsפני ילכו , saying that this refers to the angel Mattatron, an angel whose “face” indicates anger. He claims that when Moses said to G’d אם אין פניך הולכים, he referred to manifestation of G’d in His attribute of Mercy, the attribute of תפארת, the manifestation of Mercy which is apt to pardon and to forgive. Once G’d agreed to this request, Moses  pressed his advantage  asking הראני נא את כבודך, a reference to the כתרים, the attributes of חסד and תפארת. Moses phrased it thus, cautiously, in order not return empty-handed after having offered this prayer. At that point he was told לא תוכל לראות את פני, i.e. “this ‘beginning’ (highest) of all the attributes, you cannot see.” According to Ibn Ezra’s understanding of our paragraph Moses never attained any level beyond תפארת. He only attained the lower levels מלכות, יסוד, נצח, הוד, and תפארת. Nonetheless, we believe that the opinion of Nachmanides is more likely the correct one.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
    הראני נא את כבודך, “please show me Your glory.” There is an emanation called כבוד beyond what is generally perceived as כבוד, “glory.” Seeing that Moses had already achieved seven emanations at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, he now asked for still greater insights into the workings of G’d, and better understanding of G’d’s essence. The כבוד mentioned in this verse is the emanation כתר, the highest (10th) of the emanations. It is a reference to the tetragram, i.e. the level of י-ה-ו-ה, and this is the reason the word כבדך here is spelled without the letter ו before the ד. Also, the addition of the word את in front of כבדך which is always an allusion to something additional may refer to the emanation חכמה which Moses included in his request. Our sages, when dealing with the word את when applied to what appears to be a reference to G’d,- a problem seeing that G’d has no-one beside Him,- have stated that in Deut. 6,13 where the Torah writes את ה' אלוקיך תירא, “fear the Lord your G’d,” that the word את is meant to include a measure of reverence for the Torah scholars.    Alternatively, the word כבדך does not refer to this highest emanation but to the כבוד אחרון, i.e. that Moses requested the insights into G’d’s workings to be made visible to his physical eye rather than to his mental eye. 
  We need to examine how Moses could have assumed that the abstract, i.e. any aspect of G’d’s כבוד, could possibly have qualified for perception by the human eye. Moses who was on a level where his physicality had receded into an insignificant aspect of his being, [had he not gone without food and drink for 40 days? Ed.], was not conscious of such limitations as he had not really experienced them. He did not think in terms of his physical attributes losing their effectiveness as he had long since ceased to rely on his physical attributes. He thought in terms of what he would retain of his physical attributes after he would leave an earthly existence. He hoped to attain already at this time what he felt sure he would attain as soon as he would die. G’d told him that this was not possible. The fact that his soul was housed in a functioning body made the granting of such a request impossible.
  
  Verse 19
  
   אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך, “I shall make all My goodness pass before you.” We would have expected the Torah to write לפניך instead of על פניך, just as the Torah wrote וקראתי בשם ה’ לפניך in the second half of this verse. According to the plain meaning of the text, I believe that Moses had difficulty with understanding the term ארך אפים as part of the nuances of the attribute of Mercy. He could not understand why G’d had not said ארך אף, “holding back anger (sing.), but had said “holding back angers” (pl.). G’d answered him that He practiced this nuance differently when relating to a righteous person who had sinned and when relating to an habitual sinner. When Moses heard this he exclaimed that the wicked should get their just deserts and perish. G’d responded that Moses would experience in his own lifetime that this nuance of G’d’s attribute of ארך אפים was indeed necessary. When Moses prayed for forgiveness after the sin of the spies (Numbers 14,17-18) we find him asking G’d to apply this very nuance of the attribute of Mercy when he said ועתה יגדל נא כח ה’ כאשר דברת לאמור ה’ ארך אפים ורב חסד וגו’. In other words: Moses reminded G’d of what He had told him here that the attribute of Mercy reflecting G’d’s patience with man would be applied differently to the righteous and to the wicked, but it would be applied in some measure to both  the righteous and the wicked. Seeing that this was so, G’d had to use the plural, i.e. על פניך, to allude to the fact that the time would come when Moses himself would invoke this aspect of G’d’s Mercy against his better judgment.
      An alternative way of understanding the unusual wording in our verse, i.e. the expression על פניך instead of לפניך, is that it was a reference to the rays of light which Moses would emit from his forehead when he would return from his final visit on Mount Sinai with the second set of Tablets. By allowing all of His goodness to literally pass over Moses’ face, enough would be stored there to enable him to radiate it for the rest of his life unless he covered his face with a veil of some sort (compare Shemot Rabbah 16,11 in reference to Exodus 34,29).
      A Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 45,6) to our verse, i.e. the words כל טובי. The word כל refers to an additional dimension of this attribute, a dimension which appears to the recipient as if  some disaster struck him.
     וחנותי את אשר אחון, “and I shall show favor when I choose to show favor, etc.” At this particular time G’d showed Moses all the kinds of reward in store for the righteous, each one in accordance with the deeds he had performed while alive. Moses would look at the various treasures and ask: “whose treasure is this?” G’d would answer that it was in store for Torah scholars. Of a different kind of treasure G’d would say that it was in store for people who had shown honor and respect to Torah scholars. Eventually, G’d showed him another treasure greater than any of the previous ones. When Moses inquired who this treasure was for, G’d answered that it  was reserved for people who perform good deeds (practical good of immediate benefit to their fellow man). G’d added that whereas the people who had various merits to their credit would receive part of the treasures Moses had been shown first, the ones who did not have such merits would receive part of that great treasure He had shown Moses last. This is what is meant by the words: “I shall show favor to the ones I choose to show favor to.”
  A Kabbalistic approach: The 'goodness' referred to in “I shall make all My goodness pass before you” is the attribute known as כל as in such verses as (Exodus כי לי כל הארץ (19,5, or in כי כל בשמים ובארץ, (Chronicles I 29,11) i.e. the word כל is a reference to an attribute of G’d.
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי לא יראני האדם וחי, “for man cannot both have a visual perception of My essence and remain alive at the same time.” According to the plain meaning of the text this line means that man cannot live on physically if he is granted a vision of G’d’s essence. We find something similar in Judges 13,22 where Manoach voices the opinion that he and his wife are going to die forthwith as they believed they had “seen G’d.” If he thought that even seeing an angel of the Lord was beyond living man’s capacity to endure, the same applies all the more so to someone who beheld an even higher celestial being. Of course, the difference is that the essence of G’d, unlike the appearance of a angel, is never something that can be perceived with the human eye. After death, such essence does become visible to the soul’s mental eye; this is what our sages meant when they said (Sifra Vayikra first section chapter 2,12) that whereas during their life on earth they cannot see Him, they are able to do so after they have died.” This concept is confirmed by David in Psalms 22,30 where he writes: “all those at death’s door whose spirits flag shall bow down before Him.” [If they could not see Him how would they know before whom and when to bow down? Ed.] We also find a statement in the Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3,1 that shortly before his death Rabbi Avuhu was granted a vision of the reward in store for him in heaven. He marveled at the vastness of that reward, exclaiming: “is all this for Avuhu?”
      A Kabbalistic approach to the words: “for man cannot see Me and remain alive.” It is noteworthy that G’d did not say כי לא יראה אותי but כי לא יראני  האדם וחי. Had the Torah used the former wording we would have concluded that man’s inability to behold G’d was due to an objective reason, i.e. that G’d had categorically ruled this out. By using the wording in front of us, the Torah made it plain that our inability to behold Him is rooted in subjective causes, i.e. as long as man is subject to influences originating in his body he cannot qualify for such insights as looking upon the essence of G’d. Proof that theoretically, man can behold G’d is found in Isaiah 6,1 who said: ”I have seen the Lord.” [In fact King Menashe used this line as the excuse for condemning Isaiah to death as a false prophet citing our verse as proof that seeing G’d while in a mortal shell is impossible. Ed.] Another verse in which “seeing” G’d is reported as something a number of people were able to do is Exodus 24,10: ויראו את אלו-הי ישראל, “they saw the G’d of Israel.” In that verse the word את which does not appear in our verse of כי לא יראני האדם וחי gives food for thought. I have explained in that instance that the word את in the verse in Parshat Mishpatim refers to these people having had a vision of the Shechinah rather than of the essence of G’d. This is also why Ezekiel used the word את when describing his vision in Ezekiel 2,2 ואשמע את מדבר אלי. Clearly, the word את with the vowel tzeyreh is a reference to a noun, i.e. the Shechinah. We find the word את being used in a similar capacity in Psalms 145,20 ואת כל הרשעים ישמיד, “He will destroy all the wicked people,” where that word also refers to a certain attribute of G’d (the attribute of Justice) carrying out this retribution, seeing that the attribute of Mercy is the one which ensures that the ones who love the Lord stay alive as mentioned in the first half of that verse.      The word אדם in our verse is preceded by the letter ה meaning that the verse speaks about someone familiar to the reader. Had the verse intended to make an all-encompassing statement including  all humans, the Torah should have written כי לא יראה אותי אדם וחי, “for man will not see My essence and live.” This would have proved conclusively that G’d had initiated this denial of man’s insight on a unilateral basis. The failure of the Torah to use the wording we just described makes it clear that the denial of the insight Moses requested was not rooted in the nature of the essence of G’d Himself. Ezekiel could not have had the visions he described in chapter one of his book (the famous Maaseh Merkavah 1,10), if the inability to see the essence of the Lord had been decreed by Him as something absolute. This then is the true meaning of the words: “for man (such as he is) cannot see Me and live.” 
  Rabbi Akiva adds (in the Sifra mentioned earlier) that the chayot (high-ranking angels) which Ezekiel depicted as the carriers of G’d’s throne in his vision, cannot see Him either. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai adds further that even the ministering angels who are equipped with eternal life (not subject to the limiting factor וחי, “while alive”) cannot behold the essence of the Lord either.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים כראשונים וכתבתי, “carve for yourself two stone tablets similar to the original ones and I shall write, etc”. When G’d said: וכתבתי, “I will write,” the meaning is “with a finger,” just as we had been told of the first Tablets that they had been written “with the finger of G‘d” (32,18). When G’d spoke of the second Tablets being כראשונים, “like the first ones,” the reference was to the writing not to the material they were made of. The first Tablets were made of material provided by G’d, not material provided by man which Moses carried all the way up the mountain.
      Shemot Rabbah 46,2 states that the instruction to Moses to carve for himself two stone tablets is an illustration of what Solomon had in mind in Kohelet 3,5 when he said: “there is a time to throw stones away and another time to assemble stones. He first referred to Moses who had smashed the first set of Tablets, whereas in the second half of his statement he referred to G’d’s instruction to Moses to carve for himself two stone tablets as mentioned in our verse. The latter statement was an illustration of the verse (Proverbs 10,23) “the blessing of the Lord makes people wealthy.” The blessing Solomon had in mind when he wrote that was  the wording chosen by G’d here i.e. פסל לך, as if G’d had said: “the פסולת, “discarded (slivers of stone) used to carve out these tablets will remain your personal property.” G’d showed Moses a kind of large sapphire from which to carve the tablets. This made Moses a wealthy individual and enabled him to act as king over Israel. This also teaches you that anyone who makes Torah his vocation will find that his livelihood will somehow be provided by the Torah. This is the meaning of the words (Joshua 1,8) “for then (if you preoccupy yourself with Torah on an ongoing basis) you will succeed in your path and will be successful.”    Such a person will not experience pain or anguish in the process of securing his livelihood and will not have to leave his home even in order to work for his livelihood.    Another meaning of the words: “carve for yourself!” The matter can be illustrated by means of a parable. A king took a trip abroad, overseas, leaving his wife and the various female servants of the palace behind. The queen now became the subject of the same kind of cheap gossip as is invariably spread about such servants. When these tales reached the ears of the king he wanted to execute his queen. When a companion of the queen who had been a witness to the marriage heard about  this he tore up the marriage settlement which had been given to him for safe-keeping. He reasoned that if the king were to accuse his wife of misconduct he would tell him that she was not his wife anymore (seeing she had no marriage settlement). The king examined the reports that had reached him and did not find any substance in them. Only accusations against the maid servants could be substantiated. He immediately changed his mind and his wife became very dear to him again. Thereupon the witness who had previously torn up the marriage contract said to the king: “please write a new marriage contract for your wife.” The king responded that seeing that it was the witness who had torn up the original it was up to him to provide the means to write a replacement. The king was willing, however, to do the writing on the replacement contract. This is the reason G’d said to Moses: “carve for yourself!”
  
  Verse 2
  
   והיה נכון לבוקר ועלית בבוקר אל הר סיני, “Be prepared in the morning; ascend Mount Sinai in the morning.” The wording we would have expected should have been והיה נכון לבוקר ועלית אל הר סיני. Why did the Torah have to use the word בבוקר, “in the morning,” a second time? The Torah wanted to allude to the attribute בוקר, another synonym for the attribute of Mercy. This attribute is usually evident in the morning [as opposed to the attribute of Justice. Ed.] An example of the attribute of Mercy being in the ascendancy in the morning is found in Psalms 5,4 ה’ בוקר תשמע קולי בוקר אערך לך ואצפה, “Lord, hear my voice at daybreak; at daybreak I plead before you and wait.” David prayed for the attribute of Mercy which is the strength of the morning that He should listen to his plea.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואיש לא יעלה עמך, “and no one is to ascend together with you.” This wording caused our sages (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 34) to say that the second set of tablets was given to the people without fanfare, in relative secrecy. It is meant to teach you the power of the evil eye. The evil eye is potent even in matters which are being orchestrated by a miracle of G’d. This is why they wound up being broken. The second set never were broken because the evil eye did not have something to focus on.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ויעבור ה’ על פניו ויקרא ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת, נוצר חסד לאלפים נושא עון ופשע וחטאה ונקה, “Hashem passed before him and proclaimed: ‘Hashem, Hashem, G’d, Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to anger, and abundant in Kindness and Truth; Preserver of Kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of Iniquity, Willful sin, and Error, and Who cleanses.” According to the plain meaning of the text these attributes are the ones a king practices in his dealings with his people. All of these attributes are subsumed under the heading חסד ואמת, “kindness and truth.” A king needs to employ these attributes when dealing with his people and his officials, i.e.  not to insist on the application of absolute justice, but tempering justice with mercy. On the other hand, there are situations in which the king has to exert his full authority and employ the harshest measures of justice. This is why Solomon said (Proverbs 20,28) “mercy and truth preserve the king; he upholds his throne by loving kindness.” A judicious application of these two attributes ensures the stability of the king’s throne.    You have to appreciate that everyone who properly understands these thirteen attributes and invokes them in his prayers meticulously will never experience that his prayers went totally unheard (Rosh Hashanah 17). The only reason that his prayer would go unheard would be certain specific sins which are not subject to G’d’s forgiveness. In our times, when we are bereft of the priests, the holy Temple, the altar and the sacrifices, all of which were meant to assure us of atonement for our sins, the only thing left for us with which to appeal to G’d are our personal prayers and the invoking of these thirteen attributes (nuances) of G’d’s Mercy. By knowing of these thirteen attributes of Mercy our sages were able to properly edit our prayers so that they will enjoy maximum effectiveness.
      Know that mention of the tetragrammaton, i.e. Hashem, for the first time is not an attribute but a reference to the very essence of the Lord. The second time this word appears it is used as an attribute, i.e. the invoking of the attribute of Mercy when the sinner has not previously confessed his sin and has repented it. G’d is appealed to as our father, someone who naturally extends his mercy to his children; just as the father is aware of his children’s needs, so G’d, our collective father, is aware of our needs. Such a father will not wait until his son asks for what he needs but will supply it even without being asked to do so. G’d therefore responds to the needs of even the wicked sinner as he too is one of His children. G’d employs this attribute even in His dealings with idolaters as we know from Sanhedrin 39 where G’d is telling the angels to suppress their songs of praise at a time when His creatures are drowning in the sea. He grieves over the need to exact this kind of retribution from them. In fact, G’d’s Mercy extends even to the animals as we know from Psalms 36,7: “Man and beast You deliver, O Lord.    The attribute אל is the one dealing with forgiveness in response to the sinner’s request. This is what is meant in Psalms 99,8 אל נושא היית להם, “You have been a forgiving G’d for them.”    The attributes רחום וחנון are two attributes applied in response to requests for forgiveness when such forgiveness is granted in connection with the sinner experiencing afflictions and having repented properly. We find that these terms always appear in connection with afflictions such as in Deut. 4,31 כי אל רחום ה’ אלו-היך לא ירפך ולא ישחיתך, “for Hashem, your G’d is a merciful G’d He will not abandon you nor destroy you.” The expression השחתה is found in connection with afflictions such as in Isaiah 52,14 כן משחת איש מאיש מראהו, “so his appearance is like that of a man who has suffered afflictions.” An even more outspoken verse describing the connection between afflictions and השחתה is Job 33,24 ויחננו ויאמר פדעהו מרדת שחת מצאתי, “then He has mercy on him and decrees: “redeem him from descending to the pit.”    The attribute known as ארך אפים applies to both the righteous as well as to the habitual sinners. Moses said to G’d concerning the application of this attribute: ”You have to forgive the people on account of Your having told me that this is one of Your attributes, i.e. to hold back with venting Your anger.” “You explained to me that the reason for calling it ארך אפים instead of ארך אף means that even the sinners qualify for the application to them of this attribute.” Moreover, Moses added, assuming that the people concerned have already used up this attribute, ‘You are also רב חסד, abundant in kindness, a fallback position for people who have exhausted their claim against You on the basis of Your being ארך אפים.’ Moses reminded G’d that as long as the Torah had not been given, during the first 26 generations of man’s existence on earth, You fed them due to Your attribute of רב חסד.  If You were to say that the very absence of the Torah was a factor in Your applying the attribute of רב חסד, because they did not violate any of its commandments, Moses said that due to G’d’s attribute of חסד i.e. an attribute of undeserved kindness known as “true kindness,” He would still have to extend forgiveness to the sinners. If even that nuance of the attribute of Mercy would not suffice to obtain forgiveness for a sin (such as that of the golden calf) then the next fallback position would be the nuance called נוצר חסד לאלפים, “preserver of kindness for thousands of generations,” i.e. what is popularly known as zechut avot, the accumulated and unexpired portion of the merits of the patriarchs. In the event that G’d were to reply that even this aspect of the attribute of Mercy had already been exhausted by the people (compare Shabbat 55), Moses would appeal to the nuance described here as נושא עון, G’d’s  attribute of being “a forgiver of iniquity,” a reference to sins committed knowingly. The word פשע which follows the attribute of נושא עון, refers to sins committed with the express intent of asserting man’s independence vis-a-vis legislation perceived as decreed by G’d. The word וחטאה is applicable to sins committed erroneously, unwittingly. Finally, the word ונקה, refers to sins one did not even find out one had committed, sins for which one cannot ask forgiveness as they cannot be spelled out, be confessed. This is what David had in mind when he appealed to G’d (Psalms 19,13) מנסתרות נקני “cleanse me from the guilt I bear for hidden sins, sins unbeknown to me.”    Actually, logic dictates that the sequence of the last few categories of sins which are subject to G’d’s attribute of Mercy should have been  חטאה, עון, פשעi.e. if G’d invokes forgiveness for sins committed as an act of rebellion the Torah surely did not have to tell us that He forgives sins committed unintentionally!  Our sages in addressing this problem (Yuma 36) explained the existing sequence by saying that Moses prayed that the intentional sins be raised to the level of unintentional sins which are easier to forgive. This is the reason why the word וחטאה appears at the end of that sequence. Another reason for the inverted sequence is the fact hat the sin of the golden calf began as something relatively harmless, i.e. unintentional, as I have explained on 32,4. Moses did not want to mention the need to forgive unintentional sins first, as he then would have drawn attention to the sin of the golden calf specifically.
      A Midrashic (Rosh Hashanah 17) approach: The words ויעבור ה’ על פניו were a lesson by G’d how to act as a counsel of defense on behalf of the Jewish people. Moses asked G’d: “if the people did not have some merit going for them would You have destroyed them? Remember the merits of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov Your servants!” This is what is meant by the words ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים, “the Lord, the Lord, is merciful and gracious slow to anger.” Moses suggested that it was in order to destroy those sinners who had absolutely no claim on G’d’s consideration. G’d explained that His attribute included both the righteous as well as the wicked, and that Moses himself would soon need to have recourse to that nuance of the attribute of אל ארך אפים.    We find that after the sin of the spies who caused the entire people to refuse to march to the Holy Land and to prefer to return to Egypt (Numbers 14, 17-18), Moses invoked this very attribute אל ארך אפים on behalf of the people (he had learned the lesson G’d taught him here). At that time he prefaced his plea with the words: “and now let Your power be great O Lord as You have said.” He referred to the need to extend the attribute of Mercy also to the wicked [seeing that all (except Joshua and Calev) had become wicked, as distinct from the graduated involvement by different sections of the people in the sin of the golden calf and the total innocence of the entire tribe of Levi. Ed.]
      It is appropriate for you the reader to pay attention to the words of Onkelos on our passage. Onkelos translates the words ארך אפים as מרחיק רגז, “keeping destructive anger away.” This is a reference to the tradition that G’d had already instructed certain angels to proceed to destroy the people as they were now considered “distant” from the parameters of the Divine establishment. 
  You will find a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 2,1 which describes a similar phenomenon. Rabbi Levi, when asked the meaning of the expression ארך אפים, said it meant “to keep destructive anger at a distance.” The whole matter can be illustrated by a parable.” A king had two heavily armed divisions of troops at his command. He reasoned that if he were to allow the soldiers of these divisions to dwell in his proximity this would have dire consequences for his citizens in the event that those would commit acts angering their ruler. The soldiers would take immediate drastic steps against such disobedient citizens. The king therefore decided to station his troops some distance from his capital so that in the event the people became guilty of a misdemeanour they would have time to repent before falling victim to the wrath of these soldiers in their fierce loyalty to their king. Here G’d informed Moses that He had stationed His agents (who would act as executors of His decrees) far enough away to afford the errant sinners an opportunity to repent in time.     There are some Biblical verses which appear to support this idea, such as Isaiah 13,5: “they come from a distant land, from the end of the sky; the Lord with His weapons of wrath, to ravage the earth.” [In other words, retribution, though on its way, is some time away. Ed.] Rabbi Yitzchak goes further, basing himself on Jeremiah 50,25: “the Lord has opened His armory and brought out the weapons of His wrath;” he interprets these verses as describing how much time will elapse between the sin causing the wrath of the Lord and the enactment of punitive decrees against the sinners in question. During all this time the attribute of Mercy may be activated through prayer and repentance. Rabbi Meir interprets the word יוצא, “comes forth,” in Isaiah 26,21: ”the Lord shall come forth from His place to punish the dwellers on earth,” as G’d leaving (forsaking) the attribute of Justice in favor of the attribute of Mercy. [The prophet speaks about the Gentiles who will become the object of G’d’s wrath thus affording the Jewish people a breathing space, i.e. treatment by the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] Thus far the quote from the Jerusalem Talmud in Taanit 2,4.    Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 17 also mention that the covenant G’d made with Moses concerning these thirteen attributes includes the promise that the people who invoke them will not return empty-handed from their prayer. They base this on the wording in verse 10 הנה אנכי כורת ברית נגד כל עמך, “here I enter into a covenant with you in the presence of all your people, etc.    Nonetheless, if the sins of the people are too numerous and have accumulated, G’d will reverse the attributes of Mercy mentioned here; this is what was meant by Isaiah 1,4 when he said: ‘they have forsaken the Lord, spurned the Holy One of Israel, turned their backs on Him.” The words נזורו אחור in that verse describe that the behavior of the Jewish people caused G’d to reverse the attributes with which He relates to them.  Concerning the words: “they have abandoned the Lord,” G’d asks rhetorically: “I who have been known as the compassionate and gracious G’d have now been forced to reverse My attributes and have appeared to them as the cruel G’d.”
      A rational/investigative approach:  the words ויעבור ה’ על פניו ויקרא ה’ ה’ אל. These words contain three references to the tetragram. The balance of the words in that whole sequence are names for attributes of the Lord. In other words, the Torah here lists a total of ten attributes.The word מדות, “attributes” applies also to the names of G’d. The reason that the name of the Lord appears three times in this verse is to hint at the fact that the Lord is the G’d is unique and in charge in all three worlds, the world of the angels, the world of the planets, (outer space) and our terrestrial universe. Regarding the two worlds which are of infinite duration, i.e. the world of the angels and that of the planets, the Torah used the two names of G’d which do not undergo any changes. [They are not used as different attributes on different occasions. Ed.] The Torah used the name אל in connection with the terrestrial world which is subject to a metamorphosis. We find these views reflected in Psalms 148,6  “He made them endure forever, establishing an order that will never change.” David had already referred to the world of the angels in the opening verses of the same Psalm when he said: “Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise Him all His angels, praise Him all His hosts.” In respect of the “lower” world, the part of the universe we humans inhabit, a universe which is subject to renewal, to destruction in its present form, the Torah uses the name אל, which is actually the name of an adjective. It is the attribute which can change from being the attribute of Justice to becoming the attribute of Mercy and vice versa. This is reflected in Psalm 22,2 אלי, אלי, למה עזבתני, ”My G’d My G’d, why have You abandoned me?” Clearly, this was a reference to the attribute of Mercy as one does not complain about being abandoned by G’d’s attribute of Justice.   At any rate, we are left with ten attributes used by the Creator to run His universe. The attributes רחום וחנון are two attributes  which apply to the guidance of our fates by what is known as השגחה כללית, “G’d’s general system of supervising our fates,” and השגחה פרטית, “G’d’s specific supervision of the fates of individuals. The former refers to the השגחה כללית, as we are reminded in Psalms 145,18: “His רחמים extends to all His works.” The word חנון describes the attribute which supervises individual fates. You will never encounter this attribute mentioned in connection with any creature which is not a human being. In the book of Job (33,24) Elihu refers to it when he says ויחוננו ויאמר פדעהו מרדת שחת מצאתי כפר, ”then He has mercy on him and decrees ‘redeem him from descending into the Pit.’” We also encounter the word חנון in Genesis 43,29 where Joseph blesses his brother Binyamin commending him to the special attention of G’d. Seeing that man is the most accomplished of all of G’d’s creations, it is no more than natural that G’d should relate to him with special attention. Man therefore rates an attribute of G’d which is exclusive to his species.    The attribute ארך אפים is an attribute everyone is in need of, regardless of whether they are G’d-fearing, Torah-observant people or not. After all, we have been told by Solomon in Kohelet 7,20 “that there is no single individual alive on earth who does good only and does not commit a sin on occasion.” We do not need to mention that the habitual sinners are in need of this attribute of G’d. This too is an attribute reserved for the human species and relates to the dispensation of reward or punishment respectively, a concept unique to the relationship between man and his G’d.    This leaves us with seven more attributes, three of which basically favor man while four discriminate against him. The attributes רב חסד, ואמת basically work in man’s favor, whereas the attributes נושא עון, ופשע וחטאה as well as the attribute ונקה basically are attributes which man has to be afraid of. The attribute of נושא עון refers to G’d considering sins committed in thought only, whereas פשע וחטאה are attributes activated by actually committed sins, the former referring to deliberately committed sins whereas the attribute חטאה refers to unintentionally committed sins. Concerning the attribute ונקה, the Talmud Yuma 86 claims that it is an attribute reserved for penitents. It is certainly inconceivable that G’d should completely exonerate anyone who did not even repent his sins. A sinner who maintains his rebellious posture against G’d does not qualify for G’d’s favorable consideration as if G’d did extend such consideration to him the result would contradict a long-standing principle that sinners must not be perceived as actually benefiting from their sins (Yevamot 92). The institution of purgatory as an instrument of punishment was invented for the sake of the unrepentant sinner.
      A kabbalistic approach holds that all these thirteen attributes derive directly from the emanation כתר, the highest emanation downwards. The very word מדות represents vessels, recipients. The mystical dimension of these attributes must be viewed in the following order: the attributes ה’, ה’, represent the emanation חכמה ובינה; the attributes אל, רחום represent the emanation גדולה. The attributes חנון וארך אפים represent the emanation גבורה; the attributes רב חסד ואמת represent the emanation תפארת; the attributes נוצר חסד לאלפים represent the emanation נצח. The attributes פשע וחטאה represent the emanation הוד, whereas the attribute ונקה represents the emanation יסוד. Everyone of the emanations [exclusive of the emanation מלכות which has none, Ed.] has been allocated two attributes except for the emanation  יסוד which has been allocated only one attribute. [The reader who is familiar with the currently accepted table of emanations is reminded that this table was not in use during the author’s time. Ed.] The holy name of the Lord who passed in front of Moses was the one reciting this list of attributes as they derive from the highest emanation כתר. 
      The view of Nachmanides and his interpretation of the thirteen attributes is that the word י-ה-ו-ה when it appears here for the first time refers to the highest emanation, whereas the second and third time the tetragrammaton appears here it refers to the emanations תפארת and כבוד respectively. All of these three appearances of the tetragrammaton between them comprise the essence of G’d, i.e. His holy name. This is followed by the remaining ten attributes. The attributes רחום, חנון, ארך אפים are part of the term generally known as אל עליון, and this is the reason that such words as מרחם, מחונן or מאריך (i.e. verbalized versions of these attributes) do not appear in that list. They are, after all, only the practical application of these attributes. The attributes רב חסד, אמת, נוצר חסד are allocated to the emanation תפארת, whereas the attributes נושא עון ופשע וחטאה ונקה are allocated to the emanation כבוד.     It is well known that when reading these attributes, one is to make a comma between the first and second mention of the tetragrammaton. Anyone who fails to make this separation will have to account for his mistake.
      There is still another method of relating to this list of thirteen attributes, a method employed by a minority of the Kabbalists, (a method mentioned by the Zohar). With the exception of the first-mentioned attribute, the attributes appear in four groups of three each thus alluding to the four carriers of the throne of G’d. The reason that three attributes may be perceived as forming a self-contained group is that they represent the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Concerning these patriarchs we say in the opening paragraph of the עמידה prayer “האל הגדול, הגבור, והנורא.”    All these thirteen attributes are subsumed in these three words (adjectives) applied to G’d in the opening lines of the עמידה. When mentioning the word הגדול in that benediction it includes the four attributes of חסד, whereas the word הגבור includes the four attributes comprising the attribute of Justice. Finally, the word הנורא includes the four attributes of Mercy, רחמים, (applicable to people who have at least some claim to milder treatment. The reason that we find that the letters of the words ה’ in the sequence ויעבור ה’ על פניו  are decorated with two tagim (crown-like decorations) on top as distinct from the attributes ה’,ה’, in the middle of the list of attributes shows that the sages who arranged these tagim wanted to draw our attention to the fact that the compliment which G’d paid Moses by revealing to him His thirteen attributes was in the nature of granting him additional spiritual insights and powers. These tagim always are a reminder to the reader that careful study of the text of the Torah yields additional insights for the reader. Such insights, i.e. whether they will indeed be attained depend on the attitude of the reader rather than the fact that G’d has made available to us the knowledge that these nuances of G’d’s attributes exist.
      Rabbi Hai Gaon points out that though there are thirteen attributes and we have said that they parallel the ten emanations, and the expression “emanation” and “attribute” appears to be used interchangeably, the fact is that they are clearly interrelated deriving from the same source although their numbers do not coincide. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is the fact hat he three levels of the עולם האצילות “regions” beyond the “highest” emanation כתר have no clearly defined beginnings  as they are so closely interwoven with the root of roots. Rabbi Hai Gaon, if pressed, named these three “super-emanations” אור קדמון, אור  מצוחצח, אור צח — the three nuances of the original light. Our sages sometimes referred to this as the קוצו של יוד, something alluded to in our world by the little point-like tip of the letter י. I have referred to this already in my commentary on Genesis 1,1 “a kabbalistic approach.” May the Lord pardon us and enlighten us with ever more insights when we apply ourselves to the study of the Torah.
  
  Verse 7
  
   פוקד עון אבות על בנים, ועל בני בנים, על שלשים, ועל רבעים. “recalling the iniquity of the parents upon children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generations. This verse occurs in the Torah on four separate occasions. We find it in both versions of the Ten Commandments, and twice again when G’d’s attributes are listed, once here and once in connection with the sin of the ten spies and the people who believed their words (Numbers 14,18). When this verse appears in the Ten Commandments the word פוקד עון is to be understood negatively, i.e. G’d will not forget the iniquity of the parents, etc. This is made clear by the Torah adding the words לשונאי, “to those who hate Me,” at the end of the respective line (Exodus 20,5, and Deut. 5,9). The Torah warns that failure of subsequent generations to resume a lifestyle acceptable to G’d makes such generations liable to be destroyed even if their personal guilt is not sufficient to bring such a tragedy upon themselves. The same words when mentioned as part of G’d’s list of attributes indicates merely that G’d will add afflictions to successive generations for sins committed by earlier generations in order to bring about repentance and to have an excuse to save those generations. By suffering these afflictions, sins and guilt incurred previously even by their progenitors would be atoned for. The afflictions would result in the eventual good that the later generations would experience.
      There are problems to be explained in connection with G’d visiting the sins of the fathers on their children. Such an interpretation appears to contradict what is written in Deut. 24,16 that “parents shall not be executed for the sins of the sons nor sons for the sins of the parents. Each (individual) generation is to be executed only for its own sin.” 
  However, our sages (Berachot 7) have already explained how to reconcile what is written in these verses. The verse threatening that he sins of the fathers will be visited upon their sons or later generations presumes that the sons or grandsons will continue in the evil path their parents had walked before them. When this is the case G’d will not feel unjustified in applying His retribution to the sons or grandsons of the original sinners. The reason that the Torah limits such retribution to four generations after the original sin has been committed is explained in Job 42,17 where the blessing Job received is that he lived to see the fourth generation of his descendants. The Torah (Genesis 50,23) also reports that Joseph was blessed to see the fourth generation of his offspring. In other words, biological relationships are presumed to be meaningful up to and including the fourth generation, not beyond that. Seeing that a person may live to see his great-great grandchildren, their death may remind him of his being punished for his original sin. If the fifth generation were to be punished for that sin it would have absolutely no impact on the original sinner. When in a patriarchal society the senior member of the family is concerned about his offspring, he does not include in such concern the fifth and subsequent generations. If a wicked person has observed that his father, his grandfather and his great-grandfather had been guilty of similar sins and had not been punished to the best of his knowledge, it is important that he be punished and that he bear the collective responsibility.    Upon hearing such an explanation any intelligent son is bound to ask that if this is indeed so why did the Torah write (in Exodus 32,34) “on the day when I make My account, I shall bring their sin to account against them?” Our sages (Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4,5) have stated that there is not a single generation in history which has not accumulated a small measure of the sin of the golden calf in its own time. Elsewhere, (Rashi) this statement is understood to mean that whenever a generation of Jews is being punished for their transgressions, a small amount of afflictions are added to reduce the outstanding guilt of the generation which made and worshipped the golden calf. Whichever is the correct interpretation, how is this delayed punishment compatible with the limitation to four generations which we read about in our verse? The answer provided by our sages is that the meaning of the verb פוקד in 32,34 is not “settles accounts” but merely “He remembers.” Whenever the Jewish people in any generation commit any sin, such a sin reminds G’d of their original collective sin, the sin of the golden calf. He no longer has to settle an account with us as that account has been paid in full when the Temple was destroyed.    We find (Ezekiel 9,1) that the prophet quotes G’d as saying קרבו פקודות העיר ואיש כלי משחיתו בידו, “bring near those appointed over the city, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand!” The Torah in 32,34 refers to what the prophet Ezekiel referred to, i.e. an imperative to G’d’s agents to liquidate the Temple, etc.  
  We also have a statement in Midrash Eicha (Eicha Rabba 2:3) in which the time when the guilt of the sin of the golden calf expired is discussed. One scholar said that it expired at the time when King Jerobam made new golden calves which he placed on the road to Jerusalem. He based this on this verse in Ezekiel. Another sage, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni said that hat the remnants of the guilt of that sin did not become wiped out until the Temple was destroyed. Even though it was no longer subject to retribution, G’d did continue to mention it on occasion. This is what is meant in Chagigah 13 that as of the time when the Temple was destroyed the wingspan of the chayot which were to cover the feet of the  chayah described as possessing the feet of a calf in Ezekiel 1,9 was diminished so that the lower part of these feet remained exposed. Unless the wingspan of this chayah had been diminished, how would Ezekiel have known that its feet were like the feet of a calf? It is possible that in his vision of this chayah it had briefly raised its wings so that its feet and their shape became visible. If we were not to accept this possibility, how would Ezekiel have been able to identify the faces of the chayot in his vision? Surely the explanation must be that the wings moved momentarily to reveal what was hidden behind them. The Midrash rejects this kind of reasoning out of hand. It considers it as normal that the wings momentarily exposed the faces, as faces are to be revealed by definition. If a face were not to be visible and therefore identifiable, it would simply not qualify for the definition “face.” Feet, however, are not subject to being exposed. Hence the fact that the feet of this particular chayah looked like that of a calf is proof of something unusual, i.e. that the wingspan of the chayah was shortened so that it was unable to cover the feet with its wings. The purpose of all this was to remind the prophet and through him the Jewish people of the sin of the golden calf and that though G’d no longer had an account to settle with us, He had not “forgotten” about it having occurred. Such a mention, remembrance, of that sin, while not producing retribution, does make the application of the attribute of Mercy more difficult, “weakens” that attribute when we invoke it. I will discuss this subject  when discussing the law of ציצית, the wearing of which is meant to remind us of G’d’s commandments (Numbers 16,38).
      A Kabbalistic approach: The words פוקד עון אבות על בנים are a reference to the mystical dimension of what is known as סוד העבור, “the mystery of the transmigration of souls.” G’d may allocate (impose the need) of a second and even a third repetition of physical life on earth to the soul of the sinner to give him a chance to rehabilitate himself in those lives on earth in different bodies. When combined with the original life on earth this makes a total of up to four lives on earth experienced by some people.  This aspect of G’d’s retribution was mentioned by the woman from Tekoah to David (Samuel II 14,14) when she spoke about certain מחשבות, calculations which G’d makes in His administering His Justice. G’d calculates all this in order to ensure that as few souls as possible will be consigned to eternal oblivion.
      It is important to understand a very important saying found in the Sefer HaBahir  (item 16, Margolies edition) on this subject. Rabbi Rechumai is quoted as saying the fact that light was created before the universe was created is documented in Genesis 1,3 where G’d said: “let there be light and there was light.” G’d’s advisors said to G’d: “before You create Your son Israel (or man) make a crown for him.” G’d responded positively. He said to them that the matter was comparable to a king who was very anxious to have a son. He found a beautiful crown  whose beauty he praised by saying: “this crown will be fit for my son.” They said to him: “does he know that the son will be worthy of such a crown?” The king retorted (angrily) ‘be silent,’ this is what I have in mind.” To this they applied the verse from Samuel II 14,14 which we quoted that “He made plans so that no one may be kept banished.” Thus far the quotation from Sefer HaBahir. The saying is an illustration of the חסד of the Lord Who created a mechanism designed to forestall the permanent loss of a Jewish soul. This idea is spelled out in Sahedrin 90 where the Talmud states that all Israelites are entitled to a share in the world to come. In support of this the Talmud quotes Isaiah 60,21 “and Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for all times. They are the shoot I planted, My handiwork in which I glory.” Solomon referred to this mystical dimension when he said (Kohelet 1,9) “whatever has been that shall be, etc.” He also said: “a generation departs and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever the same” (Kohelet 1,4). Had Solomon meant what the superficial reader believes he meant he should have said: “a generation comes and a generation departs, etc.” The fact that he employed the reverse sequence, i.e. speaking of those who have departed the earth as if they had never made an appearance on earth first, indicates that he refers to the dead who will be reincarnated in order to ensure that no one will be lost permanently. In fact, the word דור used by Solomon, a word we usually translate as “generation” is closely related to כדור, “ball, globe,” i.e. something that has neither end nor beginning. The word indicates that the people of whom Solomon speaks will resurface at a time when it pleases the Lord.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וימהר משה, “Moses hastened;”  According to the plain meaning of the words Moses’ prostrating himself promptly was an expression of his gratitude for G’d’s attribute of grace and Mercy which had been applied to him. We must not believe G’d forbid what the shallow-minded people believe, that Moses used this act of prostrating himself before G’d in order to forestall G’d from enumerating more attributes which could serve as ways of punishing Israel. Ibn Ezra quotes such opinions in his commentary, attributing them to shallow-minded people. The idea of Moses daring to interrupt G’d while He was speaking is quite intolerable. Seeing that one does not even dare interrupt a king of flesh and blood while he is speaking, how much more unthinkable is it to try and interrupt G’d when He is speaking as Ibn Ezra correctly counters. 
      The true meaning of the verse is that after G’d had completed His words Moses promptly  bowed and prostrated himself before the attribute of כבוד which had passed before his face. He acted much like the subject of a king upon whom the king had bestowed a rare distinction. Before leaving the king’s presence one prostrates oneself before him.
      A Midrashic approach (Sanhedrin 111) What did Moses perceive that made him hasten, i.e. וימהר, to prostrate himself at this point? Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel said that he saw the attribute ארך אפים; the other scholars said that he saw the attribute אמת, “truth.” This interpretation of the Midrash (Psalms 93) corresponds to the plain meaning of the text. Rabbi Chanina who said that Moses saw the attribute ארך אפים meant that Moses acknowledged gratefully that G’d revealed to him the existence of this attribute as it is an attribute which both the righteous and the sinners are in need of. Unless G’d extended this attribute to the Jewish people both habitual sinners and the righteous who rarely sin would perish as the result of their guilt before they have time to repent their errors. The opinion expressed by the other scholars, i.e. that Moses acknowledged the attribute אמת, truth, is also in line with the plain meaning of the text. They understood the significance of that attribute to be that G’d would not only be slow to anger but that He would eventually annul the sin altogether. They therefore felt that Moses acknowledged an even greater attribute, i.e. truth, when he prostrated himself at this point. Moses acknowledged the  fact that G’d would never again bring up the subject of the sinner’s previous guilt. [The assumption is that the sinner had repented, confessed, etc. in the interval. Ed.]
      A Kabbalistic approach: The meaning of the statement by the different Rabbis that Moses either acknowledged the attribute of ארך אפים or the attribute of אמת is not to be misunderstood. The two Rabbis quoted by the Midrash are not in disagreement with one another. Both view the attribute of ארך אפים as the decisive attribute. They agreed that the attribute originates in the emanation גבורה and as such is part of the attribute of Justice. Seeing that Rabbi Chanina perceived the list of attributes mentioned by the Torah as proceeding in an ascending manner, he concludes with the attribute ארך אפים. The other scholars who perceived the list of attributes as proceeding from the top down, conclude with the attribute popularly known as אמת, as they view it as decisive. In their view the expression אמת is more appropriate to express the decisiveness of that attribute’s impact on the sinner and his future.
      There is another comment in the Midrash concerning which attribute triggered Moses’ prostrating himself. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is quoted as favoring the attribute ארך אפים, whereas the other scholars spoke of the attribute רחמים. From all this we conclude that it was the attribute called אמת as its very name indicates that it is of decisive influence as it indicates that in the final analysis considerations of mercy prevail.
  
  Verse 9
  
   וסלחת לעונינו ולחטותינו ונחלתנו, “and forgive our iniquity and error and make us Your inheritance.” Seeing  Moses was so humble he included himself in the list of people needing forgiveness. By rights he should have said: “forgive them their iniquities and their errors.” The prophet Jeremiah, who was also a member of the tribe of Levi (a priest) learned from Moses when he said: (Jeremiah 14,7) “though our iniquities testify against us, act, O Lord, for the sake of Your name.” He too did not refer to the sins of the Jewish people as “their iniquities.”    When Moses said ונחלתנו instead of ותנחילנו as is found elsewhere, especially in our liturgy, the reason may be that that he meant for G’d to make us G’d’s heritage. We find this idea reflected in Deut. 32,9 “for His people are part of G’d, Yaakov is the measure of His inheritance.” We also have a verse (Lamentations 3,24) where the prophet Jeremiah describes the relationship of the Jewish people to G’d in those terms, saying: “the Lord is my portion, my soul says with full heart, therefore I will hope in Him.” The meaning of the verse is that the Jewish soul is aware of G’d being its only true share. This is why the only hold on life on this earth Israel has is its service to the Lord.
  
  Verse 10
  
  . אשר לא נבראו בכל הארץ ובכל הגוים, “the like of which have not been created anywhere on earth nor amongst any of the nations.” G’d referred specifically to the arrest of the sun and moon in their respective orbits by Joshua and regarding the radiation of rays of light from Moses’ forehead. This is why G’d added the words: “which I perform with you.” Seeing that in this verse G’d promised Moses that he would experience miracles which had never been performed before, he was encouraged to request such a miracle when his legitimacy as a leader was challenged by Korach and company in Numbers chapter 16. Moses requested that the unrepentant Korach be swallowed up live by the earth (Numbers 16,29-30). I shall discuss that decree of G’d further when commenting on the episode in question.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אלוהי מסכה לא תעשה לך, “do not make for yourself a cast image as deity.” The meaning is: “such as you have made up until now when you constructed the golden calf.” This had been an error because the people had wanted to counter (find means to frustrate) G’d’s attribute of Justice The reason this warning is appended to the commandment to observe the Passover rituals is that this festival is a reminder of G’d’s attribute of Mercy in action. Once the people remember the attribute of Mercy in action they will not feel the need to devise means to counter the attribute of Justice.   Please reflect on how the Torah presents the Passover rituals here, i.e. the prohibition of chametz. The wording לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי, “do not slaughter My blood-offering while in the possession of leavened food,” is certainly most enigmatic [even after we have made it intelligible already by translating its meaning rather than its precise wording, Ed.] I believe that the Torah wishes to hint to us that both חמץ and מצה in this verse represent basic attributes of G’d, i.e. דין ורחמים. The same applies to the laws about mixing milk and meat at the end of this paragraph (verse 26). This is the reason that this whole passage appears in the paragraph in which the 13 attributes (nuances) of G’d are listed. If you find something similar in Exodus 22,24 where the legislation about not mixing milk and meat also appears, the reason is that that paragraph also dealt with the Sabbath legislation (Exodus 23,12) and mention of the six days we are to work and the seventh day on which we are to rest. It is similarly a reference to G’d expressing different attributes of His on the weekdays from those displayed primarily on the Sabbath. To sum up: the subjects of בשר וחלב, חמץ ומצה, שבת וימי חול, all are allusions to G’d’s different attributes at work in His relationship with man. 
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
      כל בכור בניך תפדה  ולא יראו פני ריקם. “You shall redeem every firstborn of your sons. They shall not appear before Me empty-handed.” If someone has the good fortune to be a firstborn this is a true distinction. To some degree he shares this distinction with G’d Himself Who is also “a first in the universe.” The offering of sacrifices prior to the sin of the golden calf was always performed exclusively by the respective firstborn of the family. This is why Yaakov was envious of his twin brother Esau who had this privilege. The wicked Esau sold his privilege, thereby displaying his contempt for service of the Lord. After the sin of the golden calf the firstborn were disqualified seeing they had participated in that sin instead of acting as true priests restraining the other Jews from worshipping the golden calf. Their function was taken over by the tribe of Levi, some of whom became priests, others performing tasks allocated to the Levites in the Book of Numbers. Although the firstborn were no longer accorded the privilege of performing priestly functions, they did retain the distinction of being firstborn, a distinction vis-a-vis people who are not firstborn. Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 2,2) state that whenever the Torah speaks of someone being לי, “for Me,” i.e. for G’d, the meaning is that such a status is accorded permanently both in this world and in the world to come. The Jewish people who are described as being set aside for G’d with the words ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, “I have separated you from the other nations to belong to Me,” are an example of what we just said. Another example is Numbers 3,45 והיו לי הלוים, “the Levites will remain Mine.” The same expression occurs in connection with the earth seeing G’d says in Exodus 19,5 כי לי כל הארץ for the entire earth is Mine. The Torah also writes of the firstborn that they belong to the Lord, i.e. כי לי כל בכור. This means that the firstborn does not forfeit this status either in this life or in the world to come. Thus far the Midrash.    The commandment involving the firstborn applies exclusively to male firstborns This is what is meant when the Torah wrote כל פטר רחם בבני ישראל, “every opening of the womb amongst the sons of Israel” (Exodus 13,2). The Torah also writes וכל בכור אדם בבניך תפדה, “and every firstborn human amongst your sons you shell redeem” (verse 13 in that chapter). It is incumbent upon a firstborn to devote himself to Torah and G’d’s commandments more than other people who do not share this distinction with him. His father must perform the duty to redeem him as this commandment devolves in the first instance on the father. Should the father have failed to perform this redemption the firstborn son must redeem himself when he comes of age (Kidushin 29). If the redemption is neglected both by his father and himself he is subject to being punished for our sages write that the reason that this legislation is written in connection with the duty to perform the pilgrimage to the Temple is to remind people to redeem the firstborn as the firstborn who have been redeemed will experience the privilege of welcoming the Shechinah and will live to see the Temple rebuilt. Those who have not been redeemed will not see the rebuilding of the Temple.
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ששת ימים תעבוד וביום השביעי תשבות, “You shall labour for six days and rest on the seventh day.” Here the Torah mentions the Sabbath legislation in the very middle of the laws of the Passover and those concerning the firstborn seeing that all of these three commandments are a reminder of the act of creation. The reason the Torah adds that the Sabbath rest must be observed both during the harvest season and the ploughing season is that these are the seasons when the farmer is most concerned with performing his tasks without delay to ensure success. The Torah therefore reminds the farmer that the Sabbath legislation overrides otherwise important duties connected to his daily labour. The word תשבות emphasises the need to abstain from work-like activity on the Sabbath (Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  . יראה כל זכורך, “everyone of your males shall appear, etc.” The females are exempt from this commandment (Chagigah 2).The blind and the lame are also exempt from this commandment. The mystical dimension of all these exemptions is related to the cloud of G’d’s attribute of כבוד which accompanied the Jewish people and which was so bright and pure that it reflected the image of the beholder much as a mirror reflects it and these images were seen by all the Israelites. Whatever was inside the cloud could not be seen outside it. Seeing that it is not seemly for the image of the pilgrims which were afflicted with the handicaps we mentioned to be seen as reflected by the cloud, they were exempted from this legislation. This is the meaning of the peculiar wording in verse 24 “when you go up to see the face of the Lord your G’d, etc.” Although the spelling of the word is לראות, “to see,” it is read as if it had the vowels of le-ra-ot, i.e. “to be seen.” Our sages (Chagigah 2) rule that even a one-eyed person is exempt from the requirement to make this pilgrimage. They  base this on the word יראה in verse 23 which is understood to mean that the person who comes to be seen must also be able to see.[the spelling of the text allows for either vocalisation. Ed.]  Just as a person comes to be seen by the Shechinah which has two eyes (is not defective), so he himself is subject to this legislation only if he has two serviceable eyes. Avraham already used this expression יראה after his Mount Moriah experience when he proclaimed that at that mountain of G’d man is seen by the Shechinah (which has two eyes) compare Genesis 22,14. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית. “Write down for yourself these words as these words are the ones for the sake of which I have sealed a covenant with you.” According to the plain meaning of these words the instruction “write it down for yourself” means that Moses should record the conditions which form the basis of the covenant between G’d and Israel. This includes recording the conditions under which they accepted the Torah saying נעשה ונשמע, i.e. volunteering to observe whatever G’d would tell them to do. The conditions which applied before they had received the first set of Tablets would also govern their receiving the second set of Tablets. G’d commanded Moses to write this in book form. When G’d repeated: “for on the basis of these words, etc.,” implying that the oral instructions were the binding ones,  when He could simply have said על פיהם, “in accordance with them,” our sages (Gittin 40) point out that this was a reference to the oral Torah. G’d said that laws communicated to Moses only orally may not be committed to writing. On the other hand, words (laws) which I commanded you to commit to writing must not become material to be studied and quoted only by word of mouth.     The meaning of the whole verse then could best be summarized as follows: “if you observe the commandments which I commanded you to write down and you observe the commandments which I gave you only orally, then the covenant I have made with you remains operative. If, however, you made any changes to the conditions of the covenant I shall not be bound by it.”
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Vayera 5): “Rav Yehudah son of Shalom said that Moses requested that the Mishnah (collection of the oral Torah) should also be committed to writing.” G‘d told him: “I shall write down for you רובי תורתי, most of My teachings but they will be considered as something alien” (based on Hoseah 8,12). What was all this conversation about? The oral Torah represents mystical dimensions of Torah not accessible except to G’d-fearing individuals. If such parts of the Torah were to be accessible to everybody (by being available in book form) their impact is likely to be counterproductive. G’d does not reveal His secrets to anyone other than those who fear Him as we know from Psalms 25,14. Thus far the Midrash.
      If I understand this Midrash correctly the words משנה מסתורים “Mishnah of secrets” means that the Mishnah reveals mysteries hidden in he written Torah. Study of the oral Torah will make the meaning of the written Torah much clearer to the student. The “secrets” are in reality the parts of the written Torah which the reader has difficulty with. [The Mishnah, dealing with halachah, is or appears to be quite straightforward. Ed.]  You are already aware that the Mishnah corresponds to the second letter ה in the tetragrammaton which is the explanation of the mystical, the hidden name of the Lord. The name of G’d we are not to utter is representative of what is contained in the Mishnah. It is also the key to understanding the written Torah properly and the written Torah receives its authoritative interpretation only by means of the Mishnah. [In other words, the written text of the Torah cannot serve as the basis of halachah, rulings governing normative Judaism. Ed.] This was the reason that G’d wanted the oral Torah to be engraved on the ‘tablets’ of our hearts rather than merely on a parchment. This is the meaning of what G’d said to Moses “if the Mishnah were to be committed to writing it would be considered as alien.”] If all parts of the Torah, written and oral, were available in book form then the advantage which the Jewish people enjoyed over the Gentiles as a result of accepting the Torah at Mount Sinai would disappear. This is the meaning of the words in Hoseah 8,12 כמו זר נחשבו, i.e. that the Jewish people would be considered as just like the Gentiles.    There is yet another reason why the oral Torah was meant to remain only “oral.” It was meant to deny the Gentiles an argument they could use on the day of Judgment. Let me illustrate what I mean by means of a parable. A king sent a sealed letter to his sons, employing a trusted servant to deliver the letter. In that letter he issued instructions to his sons how to conduct themselves both with him and with the rest of the world. In addition he issued oral instructions to his servant which formed the postscript to what was written in the letter itself. This “postscript” included the promise of a great reward for all those who would enter into a covenant with him and observe all that was written in the original letter. What did the people of that country do? They made themselves a copy of what was written in the letter, claiming that they too had a written document from the king promising them such a reward. They claimed that they too observed what was written in the letter. When the time came for the king to hand out the reward all the people of his kingdom lined up as potential recipients (not just the king’s sons). The king asked them if they had observed all that they had been instructed to observe. As the citizens were unaware of the postscript they were in no position to list the instructions contained in the postscript. The king, realising, that someone had tampered with his letter, said: “may their souls perish.”
   This is what the Talmud alluded to at the beginning of Avodah Zarah (folio 2) when  it says that in the future G’d would bring a Torah scroll and deposit it in His lap and say: “Is there anyone amongst you who can tell Me זאת? [a reference to Isaiah 43,9 where the Torah is referred to as זאת.  Ed.] Upon hearing this all  the citizens realized that they had been found out. They left the proximity of the Lord in fear of their lives.
      This leaves us with the problem of why Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, who decided to edit and publish the oral Torah in written form (some 1600 years after the revelation at Mount Sinai), decided to contravene what had been sacred instructions not to commit the oral Torah to paper. He was motivated by a very real fear that unless this were done the whole oral Torah was about to become forgotten as the circumstances of the Jewish people at his time and the dispersal of the people all over the world made it impossible for large parts of the people to memorise all that material. The venerable Rabbi based himself on the verse in Psalms 119,126  עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך, “at a time when they have violated Your Torah it is time to act on behalf of the Lord,” [actions which violate the Torah and which are decreed in defence of Torah must be temporary by definition. Ed.] Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi proceeded to edit the oral Torah as what is known today as the Mishnah, seeing it is like a second version of the written Torah and most of it is in clear and unsmistakable Hebrew similar to the written Torah. In the course of the centuries after Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, the people’s ability to absorb Torah learning declined further so that Ravina and Rav Ashi saw fit to commit the Talmud, the commentary on the Mishnah, to writing also. During the era of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi most people of his generation (scholars?) were still thoroughly conversant with the meaning of the Mishnah, so that it did not need to be elaborated on. This situation had undergone a drastic change in the few centuries between the era of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi and Rav Ashi and his contemporaries. We find that in the Talmud the sentence: “something is missing in the text of the Mishnah and it should read as follows, etc.” occurs quite frequently. This does not mean that the text of the Mishnah had been handed down incorrectly. It means that matters which were clear from the text to people in the generation of its editor, Rabbi Yehudah, were no longer clear to the people of the generation of Rav Ashi so that in order to clarify them for the people of his time the text was emended. (Compare Zohar Tzav edition by Reuben Margolies folio 27 note 12)    The word אתך in our verse means “for your sake,” meaning that G’d had made the covenant with the people for the sake of Moses.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
     'ויהי שם עם ה', “He remained there with the Lord, etc.” The expression “with the Lord” means that Moses’ nourishment during these forty days was provided by the attribute חסד and the radiation of supernatural light. We base this on the words כי עם ה’ החסד in Psalms 130,7 and on Daniel 2,22 ונהורא עמיה שרא, “and (supernatural) light  dwells with Him.” This is the same source that will provide the righteous with their nourishment in the world to come. It is the meaning of Psalms 36,8-10: “How precious is Your faithful care, O G’d! Mankind shelters in the shadow of Your wings. They feast on the rich fare of Your house; You let them drink at Your refreshing stream. With You is the fountain of life; by Your light do we see light.”   לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה, “he ate neither bread nor drank water, etc.” It is well known that bread and water are sources of nourishment for the body. It is also true that the soul is maintained alive thanks to the body functioning as a result of its intake of the necessary nutrients. It is no more than logical that if a body can keep an abstract soul alive that the celestial food, i.e. abstract food can do so no less. Seeing that the source of Moses’ food were such celestial abstract nutrients it is not surprising that he could remain on the mountain for forty days without need for physical food.    When we consider the function of food on a more fundamental level, the truth is that the food necessary for maintaining the body is composed of a number of interrelated causes and ingredients. The various causes originate in celestial domains, in the domain where G’d creates life itself. When Moses was given the celestial kinds of nutrients we mentioned, this merely means that while on Mount Sinai Moses was able to eliminate some of the root causes which enable physical food to keep the body functioning. He was able to take a shortcut compared to ordinary individuals on earth. This is also the meaning of our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 20,10) on Exodus 24,11 “they saw G’d and they ate and drank.” Rabbi Yochanan interpreted the words to mean that these people ate “true” food, i.e. אכילה ודאית. He based this on Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is light.” [Rabbi Yochanan understood the vision which the people mentioned in that verse saw as being the celestial light which translates into nutrients for our bodies. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Ki Tissa 36) “seeing that Moses remained on the mountain for 40 days and forty ‘nights,’ how did he know when it was day and when it was night? When G’d taught him the written Torah he knew it was day whereas when G’d taught him the oral Torah he knew it was night.” In G’d’s domain there is no difference between day and night as we know from combining the contents of the verses in Daniel 2,22 and Psalms 139,12 i.e. “there is light with Him, and even when it is dark (on earth) it is not dark for You. The night shines as brightly as day.” The sages (in that same paragraph) also explain that when Moses observed the stars and the planets bowing down before the Lord, Moses knew that it was night; this is the meaning of Nechemyah 9,6: “the hosts of heaven bow down before You.”
     ויכתוב על הלוחות, “He wrote on the tablets, etc.” The subject of these words is G’d, of course, not Moses, G’d forbid! G’d had already made clear in verse one of our chapter that He Himself would do the writing on the Tablets when He said: “I will write just as on the original ones.” Actually, at the time (verse 1) all the Torah had to write were the words וכתבתי על הלוחות הדברים, וגו’. Why did the Torah add the word את? This was in order to draw our attention to the fact that the text on the second set of Tablets included the letter ט in the words למען ייטב לך as apart from the reward for observing the commandment to honour father and mother. The text in Exodus chapter 20, while promising long life for keeping this commandment, does not promise that one will enjoy a good life. The letter ט does not appear anywhere in the wording of the first Tablets. I have already drawn attention to this fact in my commentary on Parshat Yitro at the end of Exodus 20,17.    Our sages explain further that the sequence of: “he remained there for forty days, etc.,” followed by “He wrote on the Tablets” mean that G’d inscribed the second set of Tablets in Moses’ presence. 
  The forty days of which our verse speaks were the third time that Moses spent forty days on the mountain. During the second period of forty days on the mountain he had devoted all his time to obtaining forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf, as he said in Deut. 9,25: “I threw myself down before Hashem for the forty days and forty nights that I threw myself down, for Hashem wanted to destroy you.” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   והנה קרן עור פניו, “and behold! the skin of his face had become radiant.” We know of the light which represents wisdom and we know light which emerges out of darkness. The former kind of light is the light G’d employed to create the universe. Concerning that light our sages have said that it preceded the first directive of G’d in the Book of Genesis, i.e. “let there be light.” This light which was employed as a tool in G’d’s work of creation is known as ראשית. Moses attained this light in his heart, and it was this light which separated him from all other prophets making him superior to all of them.    The light which emerges out of darkness is the essence of fire, it is known as אור מוגרש, ”light which has been expelled.” This is the light which was applied to Moses, the light which is here called as radiating from the face of Moses. He acquired this ability to radiate light as a result of obtaining the second set of Tablets whereas he had not achieved this ability when he received the first set of Tablets when he was described as “turning and descending from the mountain” (32,15). During the period when the first set of Tablets was being prepared the people had still been under the spiritually uplifting experience of the revelation, everyone of them having been a party to insights never before granted to man. Now that they were no longer on that spiritual level and G’d had even warned them that “no one will ascend (spiritually) with you” (34,3), they would not have credited Moses with continuing to be on such a level had there not been some visible evidence of that. G’d provided this when he made Moses’ skin emit rays of light.    Another way of looking at the absence of this phenomenon when Moses received the first set of Tablets is that seeing his stature of G’d’s prophet had been established beyond all doubt  he had not had any need to provide the Israelites with visible evidence of that. Seeing that in His wisdom G’d had been aware that Moses was going to smash the first Tablets, He had delayed equipping him with this power to emit rays of light until he had been given the second set of Tablets.
     וייראו מגשת אליו, “they were afraid to approach him.” Bamidbar Rabbah 11,3 comments that here we find evidence of the effect of sin. As long as the people had not been guilty of the sin of the golden calf they had been able to see the attribute of כבוד penetrating seven different kinds of fire in doing so without becoming unnerved. We know this from Exodus 24,17 that “the appearance of the attribute of כבוד of the Lord was like fire consuming the top of the mountain, visible to the eyes of the Children of Israel.”
   This verse has seven words, matching the seven מחיצות, “dividing” domains which the eyes of the Israelites had to penetrate in order to behold that attribute of the Lord with their eyes. Now, after the sin, they were unable to even look at the intermediary (Moses) of even a single one of these מחיצות. This is the meaning of the words וייראו מגשת אליו. 
      Moses merited these rays of light as a result of having stood in the cave when the glory of G’d passed by (33,22). This idea is confirmed in Chabakuk 3,4 קרנים מידו לו ושם חביון עזו, ”it is a brilliant light which gives off rays on every side- and therein His glory is enveloped.” The Torah’s wording here also suggests that the immediate source of this light which Moses’ face emitted was the writing of G’d on the Tablets. It is not unlike what Solomon wrote in Kohelet 8,1 “that the wisdom of man lights up his face.”
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 36) to the words  “Moses’ face emitted rays of light, etc.”  All of the glory Moses had  achieved in this world represented only the “fruits,” the dividends of his true reward. The real reward was reserved for him in the world to come. This statement is based on the verse in Chabakuk that the rays of light emanate from Him. Thus far the Midrash.
   I believe the way to understand this somewhat enigmatic statement is that the emission of rays is to be considered as the “dividend” whereas the “real thing” is the actual source of light, not merely the emissions we perceive as emanating from its source. Rays of light are comparable to fruit falling from a tree. The real source of the fruit is the tree itself. In the world of the future Moses would experience the source of this light from which he emitted only rays in this world.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויכל משה מדבר אתם ויתן על פניו מסוה, “Moses finished speaking with them and placed a mask on his face.”  The meaning of this verse is that while Moses was teaching the people the commandments he did not wear a mask or anything else which separated his face from the people he addressed. The same applied when Moses spoke to G’d. When the Torah writes: “and when Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with Him he would remove the mask until he left the Tent,” (34,34) the Torah describes a routine which Moses had followed ever since the Torah had been given at Mount Sinai. When he addressed the people, communicating what G’d said to him, he never wore a mask. Moses would not put on the mask until he had completed speaking to the people about instructions he had received from G’d. He did so in order that they should not feast their eyes on holy matters when not engaged in receiving instruction of a sacred character.
   Moses retained the facility to emit these rays described here for the remainder of his life on earth. He retained it even on the day he died as we know from Deut. 34,7 that “his eye did not weaken nor did he lose his vitality.”
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   וראו בני ישראל את פני משה, “When the Children of Israel saw the face of  Moses, etc.” We need to understand why the name of Moses is mentioned three separate times in this verse. The Torah could simply have written: כי קרן עור פניו והשיב את המסוה, “as soon as the skin of his face emitted rays of light he put the mask back on.” According to the plain meaning of the text we may understand the fact that the Torah bothers to mention Moses’ name three times as corresponding to the three times 40 days which Moses had spent on the mountain. It is a fact that during each of his stays on the mountain Moses achieved a greater degree of forgiveness from G’d. The radiations of light from Moses’ face may well have intensified each time he had achieved part of his purpose. This is why not only the name Moses but also the word פנים appears here three times. We may conclude that the very name משה assumed a greater significance in terms of his spiritual achievements during every visit on the mountain. The name had originally been derived from Pharaoh’s daughter saying that she had pulled him from the water. At that time the “water” referred to was physical water. In the interval Moses had graduated to Torah, otherwise known as the Jewish people’s “spiritual water,” their lifeline. Moses’ spiritual progress may reflect the saying of the sages in in Baba Kama 17 that אין מים אלא תורה, “the only water which is a true source of life is the Torah.”    Moses’ very name contains within it an allusion to the fact that he would be able to hear the Shechinah speak to him at some time in the future. (The name משה is an acrostic of the respective first letters in the words מבין שני הכרובים, “from between the two cherubs” the angel-like figures on the lid of the Holy Ark from where G’d’s voice appeared to speak to Moses.)
      A Kabbalistic approach to why Moses’ name appears three times in our verse: The fact that both the word משה and the word פנים is mentioned here three times is in order to pay a great compliment to Moses. The word פנים as we have seen repeatedly is a substitute for an attribute of the Lord. The Torah which is intrinsically G’d’s Torah has been called such on occasion such as  when David says תורת ה' תמימה, “the Lord’s Torah is perfect.” On the other hand, the prophet Malachi 3,22 refers to it as Moses’ Torah when he said: “remember the Torah of Moses My servant, etc.” Just as we find that in that instance G’d paid honor to Moses by describing His Torah also as Moses’ Torah, so in our verse G’d paid Moses a compliment showing that He accorded him as much honor as had been accorded to Him. There were occasions in the Torah when Moses invited G’d (the Torah which was contained in the Ark) to rise or to repose, such as Numbers 10,35, and 36. According to a variety of Midrashim we are dealing with only one of numerous examples where G’d reciprocates by honoring Moses. 
  [The author lists many more examples. The interested reader is referred to Torah Shleimah by Rabbi M. Kasher on Va'eira 7,1 for a broader discussion on the subject. The common denominator of all of this is the use by the Torah of the same expressions for things performed by G’d and Moses respectively. Ed.]
     עד באו לדבר אתו, “until he came to speak with Him.”  Actually, the Torah should have written עד באו לדבר את ה'. Why is it that the same verse which mentions the name of Moses again and again when a pronoun would have sufficed, does not accord G’d the courtesy of referring to Him by name? We again have to fall back on the statement we have already made that the entire verse is an example of the great compliment the Torah pays to Moses. Once we understand by means of such examples- how great was the esteem in which G’d held Moses, it is easier to understand that Moses as distinct from other prophets conducted a dialogue with G’d much as when people speak to each other. The informal manner in which the Torah describes Moses as communicating with G’d by even omitting to mention G’d by name, reflects this intimate relationship which existed between G’d and Moses. At the very end of the Torah (Deut. 33,11) this is spelled out for us once more when the Torah describes this unique and never repeated phenomenon of the communications between G’d and Moses, and Moses and G’d respectively, by comparing it to כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו, “just as a man speaks to his fellow.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     אכל בני דבש כי טוב ונופת מתוק על חכך. כן דעה חכמה לנפשך אם מצאת ויש אחרית ותקותך לא תכרת, “My son, eat honey for it is good and the honeycomb for it is sweet on your palate. So shall knowledge of wisdom be to your soul if you have found (it); there is a future; your hopes will not be crushed.” (Proverbs 24,13-14).
      Solomon compared wisdom which is a spiritual delight to honey which is a physical delight. This is a method Solomon employs in most of his parables in the Book of Proverbs. His purpose is to teach man to relate his spirit, his intellect, to his nature. Seeing that man is made up of a physical part and a spiritual, disembodied part, the only way he can relate the one to the other is by the use of the parable. Comparisons between the physical and the spiritual have to be illustrated for man in order for him to comprehend their validity.    We know that the phenomena in this terrestrial world are comprised of four distinct categories, beginning with the lowest, most primitive form and culminating in the most sophisticated creature. The most primitive category of physical phenomena are the ones called דומם, inert objects such as stones, etc. Such objects do not possess any degree of mobility. The next higher category are plants; they are rooted in the earth but grow both vertically and horizontally. Next in terms of sophistication are all living, mobile creatures; finally the most sophisticated physical phenomenon is man inasmuch as only he can communicate his thoughts and feelings by means of language. Man’s advantage over other mammals is not his physical mobility but his intelligence. You will find the report in the Torah of the progress of creation of the universe in Genesis describe the creation of the inert, followed by the creation of vegetation, followed by the report of the emergence of a variety of more and more sophisticated forms of life, and only at the very end does the Torah describe the creation of man, G’d’s crowning handiwork. Only of man does the Torah report that he reflected part of the Creator Himself, was created “in His image” (Genesis 1,25).    The report of the phenomena in the terrestrial world coming into existence follows the opposite pattern of the report of the phenomena of a celestial (extra-terrestrial) nature. When reporting on the creation of physical phenomena the Torah begins with the lowest, i.e. the mass of dry land becoming visible on the third day (Genesis 1,9), it continues with the report of the creation of vegetable matter (Genesis 1,11), etc., etc., whereas when it comes to describing phenomena in the celestial spheres (or at least in the world of the planets, the galaxies, a world between earth and heaven), the Torah begins with the creation of “light,” followed by the creation of a רקיע, “a firmament,” etc. The luminaries sun and moon, which were placed in orbit on the fourth day are another example of celestial phenomena being created in a descending order of their sophistication or lack of physicality.
      Seeing that man shares common features with the essence of vegetation as well as with the essence of the mobility of the animals, he had to be equipped with an abstract intelligence in order for him to represent a higher stage of development than the stages of physical phenomena which preceded him. Even though all these facts are something we observe daily with our own eyes, Scripture nonetheless confirmed these facts. This is why we read in Job 35,11: “who gives us more knowledge than the beasts of the earth, makes us wiser than the birds of the sky?” By means of this additional intellect man proceeds to examine both his physical dimension as well as his spiritual dimension. He evaluates their respective worth. When man succeeds in making his spirituality his dominating feature he is likened to מלאך ה' צבאות, “an angel of the Lord G’d of Hosts” (Malachi 2,7),  whereas when he allows his physicality to dominate him, placing his intellect into the service of his body, he is compared to the beasts as we know from Psalms 49,21 נמשל כבהמות נדמו, “he is like the beasts that perish (have no afterlife).”  David is at pains to warn man not to allow this to happen when he says (Psalms 32,8) “Let me enlighten you and show you which way to go; let me offer you counsel; my eye is on you.” He warns man further not to follow his “nature,” i.e. physicality,  saying in verse nine of the same psalm: “be not like a senseless horse or mule whose movement must be curbed by bit and bridle; far be it from you!”...
     In the course of the entire Book of Proverbs Solomon is at pains to demonstrate to us the superiority of intellect, wisdom, spirituality, etc. over the influence of man’s body.” He points out  the ineffectiveness of the body demonstrating that it is lazy and inert by definition. Allowing it to dominate man would result in his having neither food, shelter nor clothing. Seeing that the acquisition of these things is necessary for man’s survival, unless he followed the dictates of his intellect he would perish as nature had not provided him with these necessities at birth. It is clear that the intellect should play a dominating role in man. The body does not know that clothing protects against cold, for instance. In order to know this one needs a brain, intelligence. It is because of such considerations that Solomon said: (Proverbs 12,27) “the lazy man does not roast his game; diligence is man’s precious possession.” The meaning of the verse is that a lazy man will not hold on to his wealth. Seeing that it is the custom of the hunter to burn the wings (feathers) of the birds to prevent them from escaping, Solomon says that that he who steals  and expects to hang on to his stolen game will not get to roast it. The only wealth a person can expect to hang on to is that which was earned by diligent effort. If man were to rely on nature, he would become an opportunist or worse, a criminal. His intellect teaches him which activities are worthwhile and which even if successful in the short run will ultimately result in his being shamed. In Proverbs 20,17 Solomon elaborates further by writing “bread gained by deceit may taste sweet; but later his mouth will be filled with gravel.” Whereas “nature,” i.e. the body desires instant gratification, partying, sexual activity, etc., man’s intelligence warns him of the tenuous nature of all such joys. The reason that sexual activity is a physically gratifying experience is because G’d wants to encourage people to procreate and to ensure the continuity of the human species. [In order to show man that such joy may turn into the reverse, Solomon describes the temptress as dripping honey from her lips which eventually turns bitter as wormwood (Proverbs 5,3-4). [The author continues, illustrating his view of the parables employed by Solomon in his book of Proverbs. I have only quoted a brief selection of a long list of examples. Ed.]
    Solomon also addresses apparent contradictions which man could expect if he were to make Torah-principles his sole guidelines such as giving charity generously. He explains that contrary to human logic “giving” does not impoverish the giver but enriches him (Proverbs 11,24). A similar thought is voiced in Proverbs 28,27  i.e. “he who gives to the poor will not be in need.” It is important to realize that all such parables need to be based on life’s experiences, matters man experiences with one or more of his five senses. Unless the parable is something with which we are familiar it cannot hope to achieve its purpose, i.e. to convey the moral lesson it is meant to convey. The meaning of this statement is also that just as the body derives physical gratification from the consumption of honey, so the soul derives spiritual gratification from the absorption of words of wisdom. This is one of the meanings of Exodus 24,11: “they saw G’d and ate and drank.” In other words, just as eating and drinking provided physical gratification, so a vision of the divine provides man with spiritual gratification. One of the reasons Moses could spend 40 days on Mount Sinai going without bread or water, i.e. physical food, was that the divine visions he beheld during that time did more for his soul, his spiritual essence, than even the vision described as being had by the אצילי בני ישראל, ‘the nobles of Israel” in Exodus 24,11. Moses drew on this spiritual food-reservoir for practically 120 days seeing that the brief time he spent in the camp between his three sojourns on the mountain amounted to less than a full day each time. [The author had already explained the logic that if physical food which originally derived from the celestial regions can sustain our bodies on earth, then spiritual food, i.e. food at its source, not diluted by various detours before it reaches man, such as soil, trees, etc., would most certainly not do any less for the person absorbing it. In our day and age the best illustration is probably to compare that celestial, “pure” food to patients on earth who have to be fed intravenously. These patients do not suffer by their food by-passing the mouth, the stomach, and the intestines which are the body’s primary organs for food intake. Ed.]     The author demonstrates that when Moses ascended the mountain on the first of Elul (the third time) this was a Monday so that his return on Yom Kippur occurred on Thursday. This is why the sages determined that courts were to sit on Mondays and Thursdays of each week. This is the allegorical meaning of the words דרשו ה' בהמצאו, “seek out the Lord when He is liable to be found” (Isaiah 55,6). The days which have proved particularly propitious are Mondays and Thursdays. The commandment to construct the Tabernacle was issued on the morrow of Yom HaKippurim, hence this is where our portion begins.
   ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל ויאמר אליהם אלה הדברים אשר צוה ה' לעשות אותם “Moses assembled the entire community of the Children of Israel and said to them: “these are the things that Hashem commanded.” If you take a good look at the order of these things you will find that the construction of the Tabernacle and all its appurtenances have been mentioned many times over. G’d mentioned it to Moses on two separate occasions. The first time it has been mentioned in detail  occurred in Exodus 25,2 where the Torah commanded that Moses should accept a contribution from the people, listing the various materials needed for its construction. The second time this commandment is phrased more generally in Ki Tissa (31,2). The third time it is mentioned by Moses at this point in a general way when he commanded them that every wise-hearted person amongst them should get involved and not only donate materials but participate in the conversion of these materials for the construction. The fourth time the Torah reports that the instructions had been carried out (36,8). The Torah mentions the word ויעש, “he constructed” in connection with every stage of the building of the Tabernacle and its components. The fifth time the Torah mentions the Tabernacle and all its components is in Exodus 39,33-42 where separate mention is made of all the components handed over to Moses after they had been completed. The reason the Torah troubles itself to mention all this on five separate occasions is to demonstrate how beloved the Tabernacle and its construction was to G‘d. In Numbers 8,19 where the name בני ישראל occurs five times in the same verse in which the Torah warns that the Israelites must avoid becoming victims of G’d’s retribution, the reason for using the name בני ישראל five times in a row when pronouns would have sufficed is also in order to demonstrate how beloved the people were in the eyes of G’d at that time.    Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 2,5) comment by illustrating the matter with a parable. A father who had an only son of whom he was extremely fond sent him off to school. When the son would come back, the father would ask him: “did you eat my son, did you drink my son, do you want to go to sleep my son?” We find a similar demonstration of how G’d reports matters which He liked when looking at the conversations conducted by Eliezer, servant of Avraham when he went to secure a wife for Yitzchak. Eliezer’s words are repeated by the Torah in great detail (Genesis, chapter 24). This prompted the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,8 to say that the mundane conversations of an Eliezer were more pleasing to G‘d than even the Torah-inspired discourses of later Torah scholars.” The truth of this is best illustrated when we reflect on the fact that the Torah devoted only a single word, or even letter, in order to inform us of some of its commandments. This is so in spite of the fact that the principal function of the Torah is to teach us the commandments.
      A Midrashic approach to the verses ויקהל משה: The commandment for Moses to assemble all the people at this point was to compensate for the time Aaron had assembled all the people at the time of the golden calf. This new assembly was to atone for the previous assembly which had such tragic results. Similarly, the words Moses spoke at this time were intended to diffuse the impression Aaron’s words had left behind when he addressed the people at that ill-fated assembly (32,1). The wording אלה הדברים, “these are the words,” were meant to counteract the words אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods O Israel,” spoken at the time when Aaron assembled the people. The gold donated for the construction of the Tabernacle was to atone for the gold donated for making the golden calf.
     אלה הדברים אשר צוה ה' לעשות אותם, “these are the things G’d commanded to do them.”  These words are followed by the instruction to work during six days. This teaches that construction work of the Tabernacle was not to override the work prohibitions of the Sabbath and should be carried on only on the six weekdays (Mechilta Vayakhel 1).The reason that the Torah writes the verb תעשה in the passive form, i.e. te-asseh instead of ta-asseh, is to teach the Jews that if they observe the laws of the Torah faithfully, the work to be performed on the six days of the week will be performed for them by Gentiles. If, however, the Israelites would not observe the commandments of the Torah, not only will they have to perform their own menial tasks but they will also have to perform menial tasks for others (Mechilta Ki Tissa 1).
  
  Verse 2
  
    וביום השביעי יהיה לכם קודש שבת שבתון, “and the seventh day shall be holy for you, a day of complete rest.” In this passage Moses does not warn the people that they are to  observe the Sabbath, i.e. ושמרתם את השבת “you shall observe the Sabbath” (Exodus 31,14 or 31,13).    It appears therefore that we derive from here that the mystical dimension of the Sabbath is not to be revealed to the masses. When the Torah used the expression ושמרתם את השבת instead of  ושמרתם את יום השבת, this is an indication that in chapter 31 the Torah addressed itself to the philosophical and hidden meanings of the Sabbath. Seeing that in our paragraph Moses spoke to all the people, including women and children, this was not the time and place to reveal hidden meanings of the Sabbath. In 31,13, on the other hand, G’d had instructed Moses with the words דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel,” implying that he should reveal to them both the obvious as well as the hidden meanings of the Sabbath legislation. The manner in which the Torah phrases what went on here is a hint to us not to reveal hidden meanings of the Torah to people who are not on the spiritual level enabling them  to  appreciate such meanings.    There is another proof for what we just said from the Talmud in Megillah 3. The Talmud says that when Onkelos was engaged in translating the Torah, a heavenly voice was heard to exclaim: “who is this who reveals the hidden dimensions of the Torah?” If restrictions are in place when one merely translates the written text of the Torah, how much more so must one be careful not to reveal the mystical dimensions of the Torah which have not been spelled out for all to see in the text to people not on the appropriate spiritual level? Anyone who becomes guilty of violating this principle is known as a מגלה סתרים, someone revealing mysteries. Only slanderers do something like that (Proverbs 11,13).
     כל העושה בו מלאכה יומת, “anyone performing (forbidden) work on it will be executed.” This line is immediately followed by the prohibition of lighting a fire on the Sabbath. It is possible to interpret these two verses as examples of forbidden work on the Sabbath. First the Torah prohibits the performance of certain categories of activities called מלאכה; the Torah describes the lighting of fire as an example of such a forbidden category of activity. The expression מלאכה applies primarily to activities connected to the building of the Tabernacle which are forbidden to be performed on the Sabbath. This is the reason the Torah does not speak here of כל מלאכה, “any manner of work,” as it does on other occasions when the work-prohibition on the Sabbath is mentioned (compare Exodus 20,10). Following the prohibition to perform such work on the Sabbaths during which the construction of the Tabernacle was in progress, the Torah goes on to prohibit such activities on the Sabbath for all future generations also. This is the meaning of the additional words בכל מושבותיכם, “in all your dwellings” (as opposed to G’d’s “dwelling’). The example of lighting a fire is merely representative of all the other categories of activity  which are prohibited on the Sabbath.    Making fire is an appropriate example of basic human activity seeing that most of the principal activities we are engaged in cannot be performed satisfactorily if one were not able or allowed to make fire. This is the reason that the sages instituted the benediction over fire during the הבדלה ritual at the end of the Sabbath to signify that this crucial activity (as well as other activities) which was prohibited on the Sabbath is once again permitted. Fire, i.e. light, was the first of the activities G’d engaged in when creating the universe (Genesis 1,2).    The ritual known as הבדלה comprises a total of four benedictions (wine, fragrances, fire/light, and the benediction reminding us of the difference between the holy and the profane). This number corresponds to the letters in the holy name of the Lord, the tetragrammaton. The benediction over wine is alluded to in Genesis 1,1 in the word הארץ, a reference to Gan Eden. The grape vine was one of the trees in that garden. The benediction over the fragrances is also alluded to in the word רוח אלו-הים, “the spirit (whiff) of the Lord” in the same verse. Fragrance is central to wind, i.e. the wind carries the fragrance, the odor. It represents the air man breathes through his nostrils, the organ of smell. Finally, fire is represented in that same verse we quoted from Genesis 1,2 where the word “light” has a dual connotation, also meaning “fire,” i.e. the source of warmth. In the ritual of the  הבדלה we refer to the whole concept of fire and light as a separation between light and dark.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  'יביאה את תרומת ה', “he shall bring it as a gift for the Lord.” We have already dealt with the meaning of this verse in our commentary on Exodus 25,2.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויצאו כל עדת בני ישראל ...ויבואו, “the whole of the assembly of the Children of Israel departed...and they came, etc. This verse describes the eagerness with which the Jewish people responded to Moses’ request, and how they brought their respective gifts immediately.
   The women were the first to respond; this is why the Torah records (verse 22) “the men came following the women, etc.” When the men arrived with their gifts they found that their women had already preceded them. It is a remarkable tribute to the Jewish women  who had not been willing to give their men their jewelry to help in the making of the golden calf but who now volunteered their most precious possessions with alacrity (compare Exodus 32, 2 and 3, and Tanchuma on Ki Tissa 19).    When the Torah had described the donations for the making of the golden calf which, according to Aaron (32,3), should have been given by the women and the girls, the Torah did not report any of the women giving up their jewelry for such a project. This is why the Torah reports the men as divesting themselves of their own jewelry instead (in that verse). Solomon alluded to this when he wrote in Kohelet 7,28: אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי ואשה בכל אלה לא מצאתי, “I have found one man in a thousand, but I have not even found one woman amongst these,” (who contributed to אלה, the word used when the Israelites were told to look upon that calf as a deity). 
  Now that the donations requested were for the building of the Tabernacle, were intended to provide a home for the Shechinah, the women were the first to respond enthusiastically to the call for contributions. The Torah enumerates that the women even contributed jewelry worn on intimate parts of their bodies. They overcame their habitual reluctance to part with such intimate jewelry.    We find other examples in the Bible where the word על used here by the Torah means “in addition to.” An example of such a use of the word על is found in Isaiah 7,2: “Aram has joined Ephrayim (the Northern Kingdom) to gang up against you “ (the Kingdom of Yehudah). In that instance, Ephrayim were the first to ready themselves for war against Achaz, King of Yehudah. 
      In Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer we are told  (chapter 45) that G’d rewarded the women for this both in this life as well as in the world to come, seeing all this occurred on the first day of the month. (The Tabernacle was erected on the first of Nissan, the donations were given immediately after the Day of Atonement). Women observe the Day of the New Moon more than do the men as on that day they do not perform all the chores which they perform on ordinary days of the week (Hagahot Rabbi David Luria based on a saying in the Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim beginning of fourth chapter). In the world to come, the reward set aside for women having volunteered their jewelry on this occasion is based on Psalms 103,5: “He satisfies you with the good things in the prime of life so that your youth is renewed like that of the eagle.”    When the Torah reports that “every generously-minded individual brought bracelets and nose-rings, etc.,” this is a reference to the women who brought this jewelry. I believe we are dealing here with an abbreviated verse. The unabridged verse would read: “all the men who were of a generous disposition came after the women who had already brought jewelry including jewelry worn on intimate parts of their bodies.” The Torah then adds that the few people in whose possession there were such materials as blue wool, purple wool, and the skins of the animal called Tachash, etc., donated them. The same applies to the acacia wood in possession of a very small number of Israelites (verse 24). These people are named last as there were even fewer of them than there were people owning blue wool, etc.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  . כל מרים תרומת כסף ונחושת, “Every man who donated a gift of silver or copper, etc.” No doubt silver was more plentiful than gold, not to mention copper of which the people must have owned an abundance. Presumably, the gold owned by the people was concentrated mostly in the hands of the women who used it as jewelry, whereas silver and copper were used mostly by the men, both as tools and as coins, i.e. money. This is why in connection with the silver the Torah speaks of תרומה, an expression of raising, separating, whereas in connection with donations consisting of gold the Torah speaks of תנופה, something which is lifted up. When someone donates gold he considers himself as having raised himself to a higher level. The recipients of a gift consisting of gold generally make a point of lauding the generosity of the donor. Still, on occasion we find the word תנופה used in connection with copper vessels when there is a reason to emphasise the value of that particular item such as in 38,29 where the Torah in mentioning the total weight of the copper donated (which collectively represented substantial value) describes it as “seventy talents, 2400 shekel worth.” The copper in question was highly polished, capable of acting as a mirror, therefore it deserved to be described as נחושת התנופה. Copper of that quality was  even rarer than gold.
  
  Verse 25
  
   וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו, “and every wise-hearted woman, spun with her hands, etc.” This is the source for the sages who hold that the term חכמה when applied to a woman means only manual dexterity, to be employed exclusively for the needs of her household and showing honour to her husband. It is why they forbade women to engage in the study of the Torah (Yuma 66). Our sages derive specific proof for their attitude from Deut. 6,7: ושננתם לבניך, “you shall teach them (the words of Torah) diligently to your sons” (and not to your daughters). The Talmud Kiddushin 29 goes as far as to say that anyone teaching his daughter Torah is comparable to someone teaching her תפלות, “frivolity.”
   We have already mentioned that in Yuma 86 the Talmud mentions that the wording in our verse where women are described as possessing חכמה, applies exclusively to their knack for using the spindle, the distaff.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . והנשיאים הביאו את אבני השוהם, “and the princes brought the shoham stones and the precious stones for the breastplate.” Seeing that in general it is the nature of the princes to feel and act superior to the common people [the reason why the Torah specifically warns a Jewish king not to be overbearing (Deut. 17,20)], the princes contributed items which were to be worn directly on the garments of the High Priest when he would perform service in the Tabernacle. They would thus obtain their atonement for their haughtiness, or remnants of it. This is also the reason that the verse refers to them with the introductory letter ה, i.e. the ones who were well known. The Torah implies that these princes had held back thus far meaning to supply all the things which the common people would fail to donate. In the event, their very arrogance resulted in there being nothing left to contribute other than these precious jewels as the people had pre-empted them and brought a surfeit of all the other materials needed (compare Sifri Nasso item 45). Even though their intention had been good, the Torah accounts their conduct as sinful seeing that if per chance the Israelites had possessed these precious stones they surely would have contributed them leaving the princes with nothing left to contribute. The Torah’s dissatisfaction with the princes’ behaviour is reflected in two letters י having been omitted here in the word והנשאם where the proper spelling should have been והנשיאים. This teaches that anyone who has the chance to be amongst the first to perform a commandment and holds back for whatever reason deserves to be punished.
      There are those who explain that the availability of these precious stones amongst any of the Israelites was altogether something miraculous; it was an act of G’d to enable the Israelites to complete the building of the Tabernacle using only their own resources. According to the Talmud in Yuma 75 the shoham stones, etc., fell from heaven at the same time as the manna and this is what is meant by the expression ונשיאים הביאו, “and the princes brought, etc.” The expression נשיאים in that verse denotes someone or something elevated, raised up high, such as we find in Psalms 135,7 מעלה נשיאים מקצה הארץ, “He makes the clouds rise from the end of the earth.” The clouds of glory were contributed by G’d Himself (descending to Moses’ tent), completing all that was needed to make the Tabernacle operational.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
    מלא אותם חכמת לב, “He filled them with a wise heart.” There are 32 paths of wisdom (as we know from Sefer Yetzirah 1,1). The 32 fringes which make up the commandment of ציצית correspond to these 32 paths of wisdom. I will explain the deeper meaning of this when discussing the relevant passage in the Torah in Numbers 15,38 under the heading: “a kabbalistic approach.”
   Seeing that attaining true understanding of the emanation חכמה is beyond most people, the Sefer Yetzirah speaks about 32 נתיבות, “paths,” leading to wisdom rather than 32 דרכים, “ways” to wisdom. The word דרך means a “broad way,” whereas the word נתיב refers to a “narrow path.” This is reflected in the words of prophet Jeremiah (6,16) who said עמדו על דרכים וראו, ושאלו לנתיבות עולם, “stand by the roads and consider; inquire about ancient paths.” The prophet uses the word ראו to encourage exploration of the broad דרך, while concerning the narrow נתיב he speaks only of “inquire,” knowing that it is so much more difficult to obtain accurate information about where a narrow path leads to.
      Seeing that “wisdom” is so elusive, it is difficult to trace its origin. The only way is to explore it by means of the 32 different paths, each one revealing a small aspect of it. Wisdom, i.e. its root, is comparable perhaps to the roots of a tree which are covered with earth, difficult to trace. Only by following each little ridge in the earth can one tediously piece together where the centre of the tree (of wisdom) is to be found. When the Torah mentions the expression חכמת לב, “wisdom of the heart,” in our verse this is designed to highlight the outstanding wisdom of Betzalel and Oholiov who were filled with wisdom by the Shechinah. It is an expression similar to Genesis 6,6 where the Torah describes G’d’s anger at the corruption of mankind  with the words ויתעצב אל לבו, “He was saddened at ‘his heart,’” i.e. at the abuse man had made of the wisdom the seat of which is in his heart. The word לב to describe wisdom is also found in Kings I 5,26 where Solomon had requested a לב שומע a “discerning heart” to enable him to judge the people.” G’d responded by  וה' נתן חכמה לשלמה, “G’d had given wisdom to Solomon.” Seeing that both Betzalel and Oholiov were true believers, the Torah described their חכמה as being like that of the Shechinah itself, writing that “Hashem had filled them with the spirit of G’d, i.e. “divine-like spirit” (verse 31).     When the Torah writes בהמה instead of בהם in 36,1 describing how Betzalel and Oholiov related to their task in fashioning each of the furnishings of the Tabernacle, the extra letter ה at the end of the word בהם was meant to alert us to the quality of the wisdom they needed in order to perform all this work successfully, i.e. G’d-like wisdom.    This is not the only time that the Shechinah is alluded to in the written Torah by means of the letter ה, as I have pointed out repeatedly such as on Exodus 15,16.    On the other hand, it is possible that the reason the Torah did not write בהם as we would have expected, is precisely to indicate that man is not able to penetrate to the root of wisdom so that the word had to be imperfect, reflecting man’s imperfect faculties. As David pointed our in Psalms 49,13 there are aspects of wisdom in which man is no better than an animal. Such thoughts are also expressed in Psalms 92,7 where David in discussing the majesty of G’d’s works exclaims: “a man cannot know, a fool cannot understand this.” The reason David describes man as איש, a term of distinction, in that line, is that he says that even worthy man cannot understand the greatness of the Lord’s works to their full extent. The translation of the word בער is: “beast-like.” David’s meaning then is that though איש, man, may attain great stature, when it comes to understanding the wisdom expressed in the Lord’s works his understanding is more or less animal-like, i.e. totally inadequate.
      According to Tanchuma (Vayakhel 4) the words: “He filled them with the spirit of G’d,” do not refer only to Betzalel and Oholiov but to all the craftsmen involved in working on the project. In fact, G’d accorded such wisdom not only to the human beings engaged in constructing the Tabernacle but even to animals involved in that project were inspired with divine insights. However, only Betzalel’s role was made public.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   מרבים העם להביא, “the people are bringing more than enough.” The expression מרבים indicates that the people did not stop contributing. The Torah compliments the people, both men and women. The men contributed silver, copper, blue and purple wool, etc., the women contributed their golden jewelry. The principal contributions were all brought on the first day. The wording hints at the speed with which these contributions were made when the Torah writes: “all the people came out and they came (arrived).” (35,20-21). The Torah adds in 36,3 that “the people kept on bringing contributions morning after morning.” 
  One gains the impression from what is written that even after it had become clear that there was enough, some people kept on bringing gifts every morning. The moral and ethical integrity of the people engaged in that work is evident from the fact that they took time out from their work to tell Moses that they had received more materials than they could use to complete the project. The words ויאמרו אל משה לאמור indicates that they told Moses about this overage time and again. The Torah also testifies to the superior trust Moses displayed in the craftsmen seeing he did not demand an accounting, nor did he make use of his legal position as their ruler to appropriate any of the leftover material claiming it was for the people’s “communal treasury.” This is why the Torah writes that Moses announced throughout the camp that there were to be no more contributions.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
    והמלאכה היתה דים, “and the work had been enough for all the work, etc.”  The meaning of the words is: “there was enough material to complete all the work required, even more than enough.” In view of this, why did the Torah have to repeat this here seeing it has already been mentioned in 36,5? It is clear from that verse that not only sufficient materials but more than sufficient had been contributed. 
  Perhaps the Torah wanted to give us a hint that the Tabernacle in our terrestrial world has a counterpart in the celestial regions. We have already mentioned a Midrash (Tanchuma Pekudey 20) on this subject which derives this from Exodus 15,17 מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך, “‘the foundation of Your dwelling-place that You Hashem have made,  the Sanctuary, my Lord, that Your hands established.” ...
  The reason that the Torah used the “expression” היכל, is that it is a word describing a Sanctuary which has a numerical value of the attribute א-ד-נ-י, i.e. 65. As a result of these considerations we may understand our verse to mean “the amount of contributions for the Tabernacle in the terrestrial regions was sufficient and even beyond what was needed in order to ensure that the Sanctuary in the celestial regions could exist.“ The importance to the Jewish people of the Sanctuary in the celestial regions was that it was the source for providing man with his material needs, food, etc. This is the reason then that the word מלאכה appears twice in our verse. When relating to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions the Torah uses the expression הויה, “an existence,” whereas in connection with the terrestrial Tabernacle the operative expression is עשיה, “construction,  making it.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויעש בצלאל את הארון, “Betzalel constructed the Ark.” It is well known that the Ark was the most sacred of all the furnishings of the Tabernacle. This is the reason why the Torah mentions Betzalel’s name in connection with the construction of the Ark, seeing that he was the one who possessed most of this divine spirit with which G’d endowed all the participants in the work of constructing the Tabernacle. (Compare the adjectives the Torah lavished on his insights in 35,31).    Furthermore, the construction of the Ark required that the person making it entertained specific thoughts while making it. Seeing that construction of the other furnishings did not demand that the craftsman engaged in making it entertained specific thoughts, the Torah contented itself with simply writing: “he made it,” (the table) or (the lampstand), etc. without mentioning who it was who made it.”
      It is worth knowing that the sequence in which the furnishings of the Tabernacle are reported here was also the sequence in which the furnishings of Solomon’s Temple were constructed. The Ark was positioned in the Holy of Holies, on the far side of the dividing curtain, פרוכת. The table was positioned on the near side of that curtain on the north side of the heychal. The lampstand was positioned on the south side of the heychal, whereas the altar for incense, the “golden” altar, was positioned between the two former, slightly forward towards the entrance of the Tabernacle. This was in order that the priest entering the heichal should encounter it as the first item after he entered in order to perform the cleaning out of the ashes of the altar. This took place before five of the lamps on the lampstand would be replaced with new wicks each morning. The sequence of these rituals was determined by the principle אין מעבירים על המצות, that one does not ignore the performance of a commandment which is incumbent upon one if one encounters the opportunity to fulfill it immediately.    We find another allusion to the four-lettered holy name of G’d in these four paragraphs. The letter י of that name is symbolized by the height (10 handbreadths) of the Holy Ark together with its lid, the כפורת. The table in the northern part of the Sanctuary which represents מלכות, which receives its divine input from the fifth emanation, גבורה, an emanation on the “left” side of the diagram of emanations, represents the attribute of Justice. It is symbolized in the holy name of G’d by the first letter ה. This is the reason that the Torah mentioned the position of the table prior to the position of the lampstand. The lampstand with its six shafts (arms) in addition to the central stem  represents the letter ו in the holy name of G’d. Finally, the altar for incense which was covered with solid gold, represents the final letter ה in the holy name of G’d. The function of the incense is to counter the attribute of Justice when it is active. We know this from Deut. 33,10 ישימו קטורה באפיך, “they will place incense to counter Your anger, etc.”
      Having learned all this you need not be surprised at the statement of our sages in Berachot 55 that Betzalel knew how to manipulate or combine the letters in the alphabet employed by G’d when he created the universe. The letter י alludes to חכמה, wisdom, whereas the letter ה alludes to the celestial region it derives from, עולם האצילות. The letter ו alludes to the emanation בינה, (the one next to חכמה), whereas the final letter ה in that name refers to the concept of דעת, [according to some Kabbalists a combination of the former two emanations, eliminating the emanation מלכות from the diagram we are more familiar with. Ed.] This is what the Torah had in mind (31,3) when G’d said of Betzalel ואמלא אותו רוח אלוהים בחכמה, ובתבונה, ובדעת, “I will fill him with divine spirit, with wisdom, insight, and knowledge.” The three words refer to the three emanations we have mentioned.
   A Midrashic (Tanchuma Vayakhel 7) approach concerning the words: “Betzalel constructed the Ark,” Rabbi Chanina of Tzippori said that he actually made three arks, two of gold and one of acacia wood. He inserted the wooden one into the golden outer one; then he inserted the inner golden one into the wooden one. He covered the edges with gold to fulfill the instruction in Exodus 25,11: “you shall overlay it with gold from the inside and from the outside.” He understood the wording of the Torah to mean that although the wood of the Ark was totally enclosed, invisible, it was to be accorded honor seeing that the Torah is contained within it. The people even treated the broken first Tablets with honor placing the broken pieces within the Holy Ark, together with the Torah scroll and the second set of Tablets. The reason that the wood used for the Holy Ark was shittim wood was to remind the people of the sin the Israelites were to commit at a place called Shittim and to help atone for that sin. The wording of Deut. 10,2 “and place them in the Ark,” refers to the words immediately previous, i.e.  אשר שברת “the ones you have broken.” The moral message was that even if one encounters a Torah scholar who is impoverished and whose exterior reflects this, one is to treat him with respect and honor as his body houses the Torah.    When G’d gave the instructions to build the Tabernacle, He had used the expression ועשית “you are to make, etc.” with every single item except in the case of the Ark where he said: ועשו, “they are to make the Ark” (25,10). The reason was so as not to allow any Israelite to say to another Israelite that he did not also have a share in the Torah. This was also one of the reasons that the Torah was given to the Jewish people in the desert, a region which is ownerless, has not been claimed by anyone as their own. The moral message is that the words of Torah are “ownerless,” no one  has an exclusive on them, there is no law of copyright protecting the Torah. A person could not claim that seeing he was a natural born Jew that he had a claim to Torah not shared by converts who joined Judaism after the Torah had been given to the Jewish people. This is part of the meaning of Deut. 33,4 תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב, “Moses commanded us the Torah, it is to be handed down as an heritage to the Community of Yaakov.” The Torah chose the word קהלת יעקב to teach that anyone who joins the community of Yaakov has an equal claim to that heritage. Any convert has an equal claim to Torah provided he makes it the focus of his study and observance. When the Torah defined the purpose of the Torah, it wrote “in order that האדם, should perform its laws and live thereby.” The Torah did not write: “in order that a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite should perform its laws and live by it,” but it chose the all-embracing term האדם, (Leviticus 18,5).     It is worthwhile to compare what is written in Chronicles I 2,55 i.e. “the families of the scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, etc., etc., these are the Kenites who came from Hammath, father of the house of Rechav.” According to Tanchuma these people sat in the office of the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, (on the Temple Mount), were members of it, studied, taught, and occupied positions of distinction. This proves how accessible Torah is and was to converts at all times. The words describing this are very similar to the ones used in the Torah (Deut. 27,9) where Moses exhorts the people to study Torah and to listen carefully to instruction in Torah. Some commentators even understand the word “the Tirathites” as a play on words, referring to people who had heard the sound of the Teruah at Mount Sinai (according to the view that Yitro arrived in the Jewish camp prior to the giving of the Torah). The “Kenites descended from Rechav” are definitely identified as descendants of Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law.    In Yuma 72 we are told that Betzalel constructed three Arks, the inner one of gold being eight handbreadths in height, the middle one, the wooden one, being nine handbreadths in height, whereas the golden outer one was slightly over ten handbreadths in height. To the question how much higher than ten handbreadths the outer Ark was, the Talmud answers זיר, a measurement of approx. the height to accommodate the kapporet to fit on the inside and yet leave a crest to form a sort of crown or border. [According to this view the kapporet must have been considerably thinner than a handbreadth. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
    במראות הצובאות, “from the assembled piles of mirrors.” These mirrors were made of highly polished copper, extremely shiny. They should really have been included above in the donations of copper for the Tabernacle or with the list of jewelry donated by the women (35,22). Seeing that the jewelry mentioned there was made of gold, the Torah did not want to lump those contributions with the objects made from copper. Gifts made of gold were used in the construction of the actual Tabernacle, without distinction as to where the gold originated. These mirrors, however, became the material from which a special vessel was made, the basin from which the priests were washed. In fact this is the reason why Moses was first appalled (Tanchuma Pekudey 9) that mirrors which had previously been used to arouse the carnal instincts of the husbands of the Jewish women should become the vessels from which the priests washed themselves, i.e. “purified” themselves prior to performing their sacred duties. When G’d became aware of Moses’ negative attitude towards these mirrors, He reputedly told him that these mirrors were especially dear to Him, more so than any of the other objects which had been donated. Had it not been for these mirrors, which the women used to make themselves attractive to their husbands when these returned from hard work exhausted, there would not now have been a sufficient number of Israelites to have qualified for the revelation at Mount Sinai, for receiving the Tablets, and the Torah. This is all reflected in the peculiar adjective צובאות", “ i.e. it was because of these mirrors that the women managed to raise armies, צבאות,  of Jews.    You are already aware that a principal function of the basin was the establishing of domestic harmony between man and wife, seeing that in the event a husband had suspected his wife of infidelity and she had denied it she would be given water to drink which came from this basin as a result of which her innocence could be established (Numbers 5,17).
      Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra holds  that the women who donated these mirrors were not the average Jewish women, but women who had become very pious and no longer experienced a tendency to enjoy the physical attractions of this world. They had already devoted themselves exclusively to the service of the Lord. Hence, seeing they had no use for mirrors to beautify themselves, they donated them for the Tabernacle. When the Torah testifies אשר צבאו פתח אהל מועד,”who had come in droves to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” this is a reference to these women (not the mirrors)  who flocked daily to he entrance of the Tabernacle to pray there and to hear words of Torah.    This is also the way Onkelos translates  the verse when he wrote דאתין לצלאה בתרע משכן זמנא, “who came to pray at the gate of the Tabernacle at times.”    The reason the Torah speaks of אהל מועד at a time when the Tabernacle had not yet been built, is that the women considered Moses as the אהל מועד ever since he had taken his tent and put it outside the encampment of the Israelites in order to be able to communicate there with the Lord. Seeing that the  Torah had described Moses’ tent as אהל מועד (33:7), the Torah did so again. The meaning of the verse is that the women brought the mirrors to Moses.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויעש את החצר לפאת נגב תימנה, “He constructed the courtyard; on the south side, etc.” The southern side is mentioned first  seeing it is generally referred to as “the right side,” being on the right side of the person entering it. 
  There are some scientists who hold that south is the beginning of all the other directions, whereas north is the last of the various directions, its tail, so to speak. This would account for the fact that the camp headed by the tribe of Reuven the firstborn was situated on the south side of the Israelites’ encampment, whereas the camp headed by Dan was situated in the north  seeing that the tribe of Asher the youngest was part of that camp (Numbers 2, 10 and 28 respectively). 
  The Torah’s report of how the camp of the Israelites was positioned is very important even though it was altogether something which existed only for a very limited period. Even though we do not have a Temple nowadays, study of and familiarity with all these numbers and measurements is mandatory and people who take the trouble to familiarize themselves with these numbers are certain to receive a great reward. There is nothing in the Torah which is not worth studying regardless of whether one can appreciate the practical value of such knowledge (Berachot 62). The same applies to study of all the various animal offerings and the rules about who may eat what and where and when. Every person who makes study of these subjects his personal priority will be given credit as if he had personally offered the sacrifices whose laws he had studied. This is what the sages meant when they said in Menachot 110 that whoever busies himself with the rules of the burnt-offering is considered as if he personally had offered same, etc. [The actual wording in the Talmud is in regard to sin offerings. Ed.] This is also what the prophet Isaiah 40,10 had in mind when he said: “see, his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The same applies to people who tell of the details of the Tabernacle, the Temple, etc. It is incumbent upon us to understand both the revealed and the hidden aspects of the details the Torah has revealed about all these materials and measurements of the Tabernacle. King David already mentioned this when he said (Psalms 48,13-14) ”walk around Zion, circle it, count its towers, take note of its ramparts; go through its citadels, that you may recount it to a future age.” The merit of doing what David suggested will help restore the Shechinah to our midst as we know from verse 15 immediately after the verses just quoted. David concludes by saying: “for G’d, He is our G’d forever, He will lead us evermore.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
     טוב מעט ביראת ה' מאוצר רב ומהומה בו. טוב ארוחת ירק ואהבה שם משור אבוס ושנאה בו, “Better a little with fear of the Lord, than a great treasure with trouble. Better a meal of vegetables where there is love, than a fattened ox where there is hate.” (Proverbs 15, 16-17).
      In these last two verses Solomon deals with the subject of man’s greed, i.e. he advises him that the quantity of one’s possessions is far less important than the ability to enjoy what one does have without worry. These two verse may be approached from three different aspects, the plain meaning, the allegorical meaning and the rational dimension contained in these statements.     According to the plain meaning of the text the words “better a little with the fear of the Lord than a  great treasure with trouble,” warns man not  to become guilty of robbery. The commandment not to rob belongs to the category which every human being understands even if the Torah had not commanded it. One does not need to be endowed with superior intelligence to realise that if one amasses treasure by illegal means, by robbing someone (and one is allowed to get away with it), other people will be encouraged to do the same in return and no one will ever be able to sleep without worry. Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 33,3), have stated that the sin of robbery, i.e. holding on to gains obtained by such means, is greater than other sins. In fact the reason that the people of the generation of the deluge were wiped out was precisely because they were guilty of this sin. Their other sins could have been forgiven, the sin of robbery could not qualify for forgiveness. The Torah stated this fairly plainly when it quoted G’d as saying that the “end of all flesh has come before Me (I had to decree it) because of the violence (robbery with violence) that the earth has been filled with” (Genesis 6,13). Anyone who does not return stolen property will never be forgiven. This is why it is the most serious of all sins. This is why Solomon said: “better a little (acquired while demonstrating fear of the Lord.)” He means better a little property which is permissible than a lot which is not permissible. Solomon makes a similar statement  in Proverbs 16,8 “better a little with righteousness than bountiful harvests with injustice.” He warns man of the seriousness of the sin of committing robbery as he is aware that man has a tendency not to abandon anything in his possession. To counter the perception that the quantity of one’s possessions is more important than how one came to acquire same, he says: “better a little, provided it is rightfully yours.”    After having spoken of robbery in the abstract, Solomon illustrates his teachings in a practical manner by quoting the example of someone enjoying simple food such as a vegetable soup to someone eating fancy food being watched by envious eyes, etc. Food is enjoyed best in the company of friends and well wishers, whereas even the fanciest food when not eaten in a relaxed atmosphere loses its appeal for the person consuming it. The thrust of all of Solomon’s remarks on the subject is to teach man not to be greedy for physical possessions and for gratifications of his body. At the same time, man should not put his trust in his material possessions, he should not make the mistake of “relying on the mosaic floors as if they were a high wall (Proverbs 18,11),” but should remember that when it comes to wealth he will always be outclassed by G’d whose wealth is immeasurably greater. This concept is emphasized by Eliphaz in Job 22,24 when he said: “if you regard treasure as dirt, Ophir-gold as stones of the wadi, and lift your face to G’d, You will pray to Him, etc., you will decree and it will be fulfilled and light will shine on your affairs.” As long as a person’s fear of G’d is subordinate to the reliance he places on his material possessions there is something basically wrong  with such a person’s outlook.
      A Midrashic approach: The words: “better a little with a measure of fear of the Lord,” is a reference to the people of Israel  of whom the Torah has written: “for you are the smallest of the nations” (Deut. 7,7), whereas the words: “with fear of the Lord,” refer to the fact that the people of Israel accepted the Torah in order that they should acquire fear of the Lord. This is the meaning of  Exodus 20,17: “in order to test you and in order that the fear of the Lord will always be with you, so that you do not go astray.”    The words “rather than a great treasure,“ are a reference to the other 70 nations on earth. In other words: “G’d prefers a small nation such as Israel who are G‘d-fearing, to all the other more numerous nations on earth who lack that quality.” Our sages (on Song of Songs 2,4) “he brought me to the banquet room and his banner of love was over me,” comment that these words are a reference to the other 70 nations, whereas the words “with trouble” in the above-quoted verse in Proverbs refer to the punishment in store for these 70 nations. Solomon spoke about a simple meal he himself had consumed at the home of a poor man which had given him so much more satisfaction than a banquet in the homes of one of his wealthy friends.
       Midrash Mishley 16 tells the following: When Solomon lost his throne he was forced to go begging. Whenever he would come to the door of some house he would identify himself saying: “I am Kohelet, and I used to be king in Jerusalem.” Once he met two men who used to know him when he was king. One of them bowed down before him and accorded him the honor due to a king. He invited him to share a meal with him on that day. He took him home to the upper floor of his home and served him a fatted ox. During the meal his host reminded Solomon of the times when he used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. Solomon broke out  crying because he had been reminded of his past glory and contrasted it with his present circumstances. In the end, he could not even eat the meal because he felt so depressed. When he met the other man whom he used to know, this one too bowed down before him  and he too invited Solomon to dine with him on that day. Solomon asked him if he too was going to remind him of all the glory he used to enjoy, etc, just as his other one time friend had done. The host replied that he was only a poor man and that the only kind of meal he was able to offer the erstwhile king was vegetable soup, etc. Solomon accompanied the man to his house. They arrived there, his host washed his hands and feet for him and served him a simple meal. During the meal he made a point of consoling Solomon over what he had lost. He said: “My lord king, G’d has sworn an oath to your father David that the kingdom of Israel would not depart from his descendants. The scriptural verse he quoted (Psalms 132,11) was: “the Lord swore to David a firm oath that He will not renounce, ‘One of your own issue I will set upon your throne’”. He explained to Solomon that it was the custom of G’d to subject a man to afflictions when He wanted to discipline him but to relate to him with goodwill again after He had done so. He added that G’d subjects particularly those whom He loves to such trials and tribulations, just as a father does when he wants to discipline his child (Proverbs 3,12). His host added that he was certain that G’d would restore his kingdom to Solomon. When Solomon heard these words he felt greatly encouraged and enjoyed this meal of simple vegetable soup far more than the meal he had been served on the day before. When his kingdom was eventually restored to him, he recorded his feelings on the matter in the verses we have quoted from Proverbs.
      A rational approach to our verses: When writing the verse: “better a little with the fear of G’d,” Solomon wanted to warn man  that he should reflect on matters involving philosophy only to the extent that his intellectual capacity was capable of dealing with the concepts involved. He should not delve into matters which were beyond his understanding. This is why he also counselled us in Kohelet 7,16: “do not act the wise man to excess.” He used the parable to explain that he who tries to digest more than his stomach can handle will inevitably bring up and vomit all he has eaten. The same is true with intellectual pursuits. He who engages in them beyond his capacity to understand will ultimately be revolted by all intellectual pursuits. He will reject the idea of a life beyond death and become a heretic. Solomon illustrated this further when speaking about the consumption of honey. A little honey is sweet and pleasant; too much of it is revolting (Proverbs 25,16). When one has eaten more honey than one should, one will even vomit the initial amout which would have been good for one.    Our sages in Sanhedrin 106 illustrated these thoughts also  when they discussed that Bileam detoured to Midian in order to collect the reward for having been the cause of the death of 24,000 Israelites. Instead of reaping his reward, the Israelites who had mounted a punitive expedition against Midian caught up with him there and killed him. Had he gone back to his hometown he would not have suffered such a fate (Joshua 13,22). The reason he was killed was because he tried to amass something he was not entitled to.    Our sages also comment on the subject of wisdom comparing it to honey when they interpreted the verse (Proverbs 25,16) “if you found some honey, eat only as much as you need,” as applying to Rabbi Akiva. The second half of that same verse, i.e. “lest you overeat and vomit all of it,” they applied to ben Zoma.  [Both scholars had tried to delve into esoterical mysteries, Rabbi Akiva returned from his mental excursion with new insights, whereas Ben Zoma who had overestimated his intellectual capacity became mentally deranged (Chagigah 14)].
      Having concluded his remarks about the need to exercise discretion when studying philosophy and the mysteries of G’d’s creation, Solomon turned to the subject of the quality of one’s spiritual achievements. This is why he said that consuming a meal of vegetable soup in surroundings where love is present is good. The “love” Solomon spoke of is the belief in the Shechinah which is also described as a dimension of G’d’s love (Song of Songs 2,7). When the word אהבה, “love,” appears in our liturgy such as באהבה תרום קרננו להודות לך וליחדך באהבה, just before we recite the קריאת שמע in the morning, we allude to G’d’s Shechinah. It is better to become privy to this “love” of G’d without some of the deep philosophical insights that some people strive for, than to eat the fatted ox, i.e. to try and obtain the kinds of sophisticated insights which led some of the people of Israel to making the golden calf. Seeing that the Israelites had made the golden calf in their search for deeper insights, and not because they wanted to practice idolatry G’d was able to forgive them their sin. Proof that they were granted forgiveness promptly was the fact that the Shechinah manifested itself in the Tabernacle. This is also the reason why the אהל מועד, the Tent of Meeting in the desert became known by the name משכן, as that name is a reminder of the presence of the שכינה amongst the Jewish people at that time.    Our sages, in commenting on the opening word of our portion, i.e. אלה say that the people who had sinned with the word אלה, when they said אלה אלוהיך ישראל, were now forgiven by the Torah using this very same word when describing the completion of the building of the משכן העדות, “the Tabernacle of Testimony” (compare Tanchuma Pekudey 6).
     אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות אשר פקד על פי משה, עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן. “These are the records of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony, which were drawn up at Moses’ bidding- the work of the Levites under the direction of Ittamar son of Aaron the Priest.”    According to the plain meaning of the text the words אלה פקודי המשכן refer to the Tabernacle and all its constituent parts which formed the subject matter of the last chapter and a half. The supervision of the construction of all these components had been entrusted to the Levites who in turn were responsible to Ittamar, son of Aaron. However, such furnishings as the lampstand, the table, the Holy Ark  and the two altars were not part of the items for which Ittamar was responsible but they were entrusted to the supervision of his older brother Eleazar.
      A Midrashic approach: The reason that the Torah writes the words משכן,המשכן here in succession is to teach us that the Sanctuary on earth has a parallel in the celestial regions. We mentioned previously that all this is based on Exodus 15,17 where the Torah spoke of “the place You made to dwell in, O Lord, the sanctuary, O Lord which Your hands established.”    The word מכון which the Torah wrote to describe the place for G’d to dwell in, should be read as מכוון, “prepared for, intended for.” The concept here is that the Tabernacle, Sanctuary, was considered as equivalent in importance and value to the entire world G’d had created previously. There are a number of expressions which have been used in the construction of the Tabernacle which closely parallel expressions we are familiar with in connection with descriptions of the universe such as carpets, יריעות, to name one. When earth was created the Torah spoke about luminaries, מאורות being created. The Tabernacle contained as an essential part a מנורה, a lampstand intended to illuminate the Sanctuary. In connection with the creation of earth the Torah mentioned that the waters congregated in one area, i.e. יקוו המים אל מקום אחד, whereas part of the vessels required for the Tabernacle was a כיור, a basin in which water had been collected. The Tabernacle’s roof consisted of carpets, יריעות, forming sort of a tent-like cover, whereas the sky or heaven covering our terrestrial universe is described as something G’d “spread like a tent over the universe” (Psalms 104,2). The author continues quoting more such examples. The gist of the Midrash Tanchuma 2 on our portion is that there are too many parallel expressions in the creation of the universe and the manufacture of the Tabernacle for them to be accidental; the message must be that we are dealing here with a microcosm, i.e. a miniature “world.” It is therefore easier to perceive of the Presence of G’d feeling comfortable in such surroundings. Thus far the Midrash
      Whatever the sages mentioned in the Midrash we just quoted which states that the Tabernacle was equivalent to a microcosm, may be understood as a generalization. There are, however, many details which are capable of being derived from the generalizations we mentioned.     In connection with the verse אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, “these are the derivatives of heaven and earth,” Bereshit Rabbah 12,9 states that from the word בהבראם, which appears immediately after these words we can derive that G’d employed the letter ה at the end of the tetragram as the tool with which He created the world, (seeing that that letter was not necessary in that statement). We may perhaps find something parallel in connection with the Tabernacle in the verse אלה פקודי המשכן, i.e. that the letter ה in the word המשכן, is also an allusion to the presence of the attribute כבוד being present in the Tabernacle, i.e. the Shechinah. The last letter ה in the tetragrammaton represents that attribute. This may be further alluded to by the fact that the subject of the Tabernacle occurs five times in the Torah. I have already explained this at the beginning of Vayakhel. The relationship of the words משכן-שכינה-כבוד is further illustrated in the verse לשכון כבוד בארצנו, “for the attribute of Kavod to dwell in our land” (Psalms 85,10).     Just as the world had been planned before being actually created within a space of six days, so the Tabernacle had been planned before being actually constructed. When the Torah speaks about the planning stage of the Tabernacle it writes: לחשוב מחשבות, “to plan designs” (31,4), whereas subsequently it speaks of לעשות, “to carry out (such designs).” Just as the world itself was not a product of externally imposed conditions, so the Tabernacle was a structure built by the free-willed donations of the people constructing it. The Torah underlines this when it writes אשר ידבנו לבו, “whatever his heart will prompt him to donate” (Exodus 25,2). Just as the name of G’d is mentioned at every stage of the creation including His holy name, the tetragrammaton (Genesis 2,4) at the end of the creation of the world, so His name is mentioned repeatedly during the Torah’s report of the construction of the Tabernacle, including G’d’s ineffable name כי ענן ה' על המשכן, “for the cloud of Hashem was above the Tabernacle “(40,38).   Just as G’d employed two separate attributes of His when creating the universe, i.e. the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy, so the Tabernacle was constructed principally by two different craftsmen, Betzalel and Oholivov. The former was from the tribe of יהודה representing the attribute of Mercy, whereas the latter was a member of the tribe of דן, representing the attribute of דין, Justice.
      It is also possible to understand the word משכן as derived from the word המשכה, “conduct, continuation, etc.” This would symbolise the fact that the terrestrial Tabernacle was an extension, a continuation of the Tabernacle in the celestial regions. The Temple in our regions draws on the spiritual input from the Temple in the celestial regions. The Temple in those regions is known as זבול, this is why Solomon said in his prayer at the consecration of the Temple he had built: בנה בניתי בית זבול לך, “I have most certainly built for You” (a house which parallels the בית זבול). This is also the mystical dimension of Judges 5,14 ומזבולון מושכים בשבט סופר, “and from Zevulun who so far were only engaged as scribes.” (In this instance they joined the battle against Siserah and his chariots, though they were basically not warriors. Ed.) The message Devorah conveys is that the spiritual inspiration which scribes such as the members of the tribe of Zevulun could draw on from celestial sources they employed in helping their people in that battle. The word סופר in that verse is an allusion to the ספירות,  the emanations which G’d used in the creation of the universe. No doubt, Devorah referred to the lowest emanation, מלכות, the one which is part of the עולם העשיה, our own terrestrial universe.     Just as the Torah spoke of “the day on which the Lord G’d made (finished) the universe” (Genesis 2,4), saying also that when G’d reviewed His handiwork at the end of the six days “He saw that it was very good” (Genesis 1,31), so when the Tabernacle was completed the Torah writes: “It was on the day Moses completed the Tabernacle” (Numbers 7,4), as well as 39,43 “when Moses took a look at all the work and here they had performed it (i.e. it was good).”   Just as the creation of the world did not interfere with the Sabbath, the day of rest, so the building of the Tabernacle was not allowed to interfere with the Sabbath legislation, i.e. no work was performed for it on the Sabbath. This is the reason the Torah wrote in connection with the report about the construction of the Tabernacle that “work shall be performed (on it) during six days,” (excluding the Sabbath). Just as the world as we know it is slated to be destroyed before it is going to be renewed after a period our sages describe as 1000 years of Sabbath (Sanhedrin 96), so both the Tabernacle and the Temple were slated to be destroyed only to be rebuilt in due course.    Just as after the creation of man and his having been placed in the garden G’d commanded him to observe certain rules and not to eat from the tree of knowledge, so we find that Moses issued certain instructions in 36,6. Just as G’d had told the universe to stop continuing to expand, i.e. He said די, “enough” (Bereshit Rabbah 46,2), so Moses also declared the contributions for the Tabernacle as being sufficient and ordered the people to stop bringing more, the Torah saying והמלאכה היתה דים, “and there were sufficient materials, etc.” (36,7). According to a kabbalistic interpretation the word מלאכה instead of something more appropriate, meant that it referred to the מלאכת שמים וארץ, the work of constructing heaven and earth, i.e. the Tabernacle was a replica of the creation of heaven and earth.
      In Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3 we find the rhetorical question: “why was G’d called אל שדי? The answer given is that He was the One who said to the heavens רי, “enough,” thus preventing heaven from proliferating further by drawing on G’d’s mantle of light.    Just as heaven and earth would be used by  G’d as witnesses in the event the Israelites were to violate the covenant and transgress the Torah -as we know from Deut. 30,19 “I have called as witnesses against you this day heaven and earth, etc.,  so the Tabernacle was called משכן העדות, the “Tabernacle of Testimony.” Just as the name Elohim occurs thirty two times during the story of creation, so the name of G’d also appears thirty two times in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle. Just as there were seven days which together formed the period known as מעשה בראשית, “the creation of the universe,” so there were seven days which served as מלואים, days which were considered as preparatory to the functioning of the Tabernacle. No doubt one can find other similarities between the Tabernacle and its construction and the universe and its construction in addition to those which I have already listed. I myself am aware of a number of such additional examples.
      There is another comment by Shemot Rabbah 51,3 concerning the appearance of the words משכן twice in succession at the beginning of our portion. The reason mentioned is that it hinted at the fact that there would be two permanent Temples replacing this mobile structure at a future date, i.e. the first Temple and the second Temple. The verse alluding to this is Nechemyah 1,7 חבל חבלנו לך. Thus far the Midrash.    If you will take a close look at the words המשכן משכן העדות you will find that these three words contain a hint of the number of years that the first and second Temple were standing. You will also find an allusion to the number of years which elapsed between the Exodus from Egypt and the erection of the first Temple. The numerical value of the letters in the word המשכן plus the letters themselves (5) amount to  420, i.e. the number of years that the second Temple was standing. The word משכן gives you the number of years the first Temple was standing, i.e. 410 years. The word העדות when spelled without the letter ו, amounts to the number 480, the number of years between the Exodus and completion by Solomon of the first Temple. The fact that one year seems to be missing from the number required (479 instead of 480), is accounted for by the fact that the Tabernacle was built in the second year after the Exodus so that from the time of its erection to the completion of Solomon’s Temple actually only 479 years elapsed. Moses realised all these numbers already by means of his Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of the introduction to our portion with the words אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות.     Another view of these words is found in Tanchuma Pekudey 4 where Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is quoted as saying that the word עדות refers to the Torah. The opening verse of our portion would be equivalent to: “these are the various laws of the Torah, one group of which is know as עדות.” The whole matter may be illustrated by a parable. A king had a daughter for whom he built a palace. He made her dwell inside this palace protected behind seven curtains The King said that anyone entering it in order to visit his daughter (without his permission) would be tantamount to insulting his own honor. This explains why the Tabernacle was known by two different names. We have one verse in which the Tabernacle is referred to as משכן העדות, i.e. the Torah. In another verse  the Torah .refers to the same building by speaking of it as לפני משכן ה' ‘in front of the Tabernacle of the Lord.” G’d made it plain that anyone who would debase and besmirch the Torah (G’d’s daughter) would be as if he had debased and besmirched G’d Himself.    You should know that when the Roman Emperor Hadrianus entered the Temple he was swearing and cursing (G’d). [Actually it was still the general Titus who entered the Temple seeing that Hadrianus lived later, after the destruction. Ed.] Concerning such a situation David said (Psalms 74,5) ‘it is like men wielding axes against a gnarled tree.” He (G’d) raises such wicked people to make it appear as if they were about to fell the tallest cedars in order to convert same into ladders reaching heaven itself in order to capture it. However, their attempts invariably end in failure and they have to abandon them.” When such enemies of the Lord realize their impotence to defeat Him, they attack us, His “daughter” to take out their frustration on us. This is what David referred to when he said (Psalms 79,1) “heathens have attacked Your domain.”    Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said: “to whom can we compare the hostile heathen? To a man who hates his ruler and would like to engage him in combat but is unable to do so. What does such a disgruntled subject of the ruler do? He goes to the circus which the ruler is visiting and attempts to undermine the structure. Seeing that he is afraid of being discovered by the ruler and executed for his attempt to harm him, he introduces a digging tool under the main pillar of the circus hoping to thereby bring about the collapse of the structure which would kill the ruler while collapsing.” This is how and why the hostile heathens attack the Jews. They realize that we are crucial to G’d’s universe. By destroying us they hope to discredit Him. Concerning these ill-fated attempts of such enemies of the Lord, David says (Psalms 2,2) “kings of the earth take their stand, and regents intrigue together against the Lord and against His anointed.” This is an example of how those who are unable to kill the donkey attack the saddle instead, or to those who, while unable to kill the lion, kill the donkey instead in order to vent their frustration.
  
  Verse 22
  
    ובצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה עשה “and Betzalel son of Uri, son of Chur, of the tribe of Yehudah had made, etc.;” the meaning of the word עשה, “had made”: in this instance is that he had issued instructions for the items mentioned to be made by the appropriate people. The only item Betzalel constructed personally was the Holy Ark (37,1). This is why G’d’s Holy Name was used exclusively with Betzalel. Our sages (Jerusalem Talmud Peyah 1,1) say that Betzalel understood perfectly what was to be made and how, without G’d having had to spell this out to him, as he had divined exactly what G’d had told Moses while the latter was on the mountain.
      A comment by another Midrash claims that both Betzalel and Oholiov were craftsmen familiar with all aspects of the work that needed to be performed. Both were known as גור אריה, the former because he was a member of the tribe of Yehudah (Genesis 49,9), the latter  seeing Moses had referred to the tribe of Dan by the same term in Deut. 33,22. The Temple has been compared to a lion (אריה) the shape of the sanctuary being long and narrow whereas its shape near the entrance (with the אולם) was broad in front. This is supported by Scripture in Isaiah 29,1 where the word Ariel is understood to be derived from Aryeh (compare Rashi on that verse). Just as the construction of the Tabernacle, the Temple, and the altar was symbolized by the lion, the punishment of the Jewish people when the Temples were destroyed were also linked to the image of the lion as we know from Jeremiah 4,7: “the lion has come up from his thicket, the destroyer of nations has set out.” Eventually, when the messianic period will be ushered in, our prophets again foretold that at that time Israel would be compared to the rising of the lion when they said (Micha 5,7) ”the remnant of Yaakov shall be among the nations in the midst of many people like a lion among beast of the wild.”
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וכסף פקודי העדה מאת ככר, “and the silver of those of the community who were recorded amounted to 100 talents, etc.” The silver of the half-shekel contributions of the 600,000 males over the age of 20 amounted to 300,000 whole shekels (100 talents). Seeing that actually there were 603,550 males being counted, the total amount was precisely that mentioned in our verse, i.e. 100 talents and 1775 shekel (a talent having 3,000 shekel). According to the accounting listed in the Torah here, any silver “donated” rather than handed over as the mandatory amount by males over the age of twenty was not mentioned here.    Rashi, in his commentary, computes the numbers as follows: “a talent equals 60 manah. Seeing that the shekels being counted were described as “holy shekels” i.e. double the weight of the ordinary shekel, a talent would be equivalent to 120 manah. The manah is equivalent to 25 selaim. This gives you an amount of 3.000 shekel per talent. Rashi continues, arriving at the same result we already mentioned.
      Having established all this we can now address the amount of silver Haman offered to pay King Ahasverus in exchange for permission to destroy the Jews in his kingdom. Seeing that he offered 10.000 talents of silver, this was equivalent to 50 shekel for every Jew assuming that there had been 600.000 Jews at the time. The number 50 shekel is the maximum amount per adult male between the age of 20 and 60 prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 27,3) that someone “donating” his own equivalent to G’d has to give to the Temple treasury.    Another way of understanding why Haman picked on this amount of silver may be that when the Israelites sold their brother Joseph and received 20 pieces of silver in exchange, i.e. an amount of 5 shekel, or half a shekel each, and their guilt had not yet been atoned, he concluded that in exchange for the amount he offered he could legally make all the Jews his slaves (again by assuming that there were a total of 600.000 Jews). He felt certain that he would succeed seeing that the brothers had never been punished by G’d for selling Joseph into slavery. He presumably reasoned similar to what we have been told in Midrash Tehillim 10 that because the brothers sat down to eat their meal (Genesis 37,28) after throwing Joseph into the pit but before selling him, acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had just occurred, G’d was so angry that He said: “seeing you have sold your brother as a result of feasting, your descendants will be sold as a result of their having feasted (participating in the banquet given by King Ahasverus).” This is why the Book of Esther makes such a point of telling us that the King and Haman sat down to a feast after having concluded the deal in which Haman acquired authority to do to the Jews whatever he wanted. 
  If we reflect on this calculation, Haman only had to offer a payment of 1.000 talents of silver as when you multiply the number 600,000 by 5 you have 3,000,000 shekel or 1,000 talents. [Each brother had received half a shekel at the time, and the amount required by G’d for atonement of the sin of the golden calf was also only one half shekel per adult male. Ed.]
      It is possible to see a different motivation in the amount Haman offered the king in exchange for the Jews. He wanted to offer one thousand shekel in exchange for each of the Ten Commandments, i.e. the merit the Jews had acquired by agreeing to accept the Ten Commandments. When you look at the word אשקול “I will weigh,” which Haman used when offering this amount in exchange for the Jews (Esther 3,9), you could divde that word into two, i.e. אש קול, “fire and sound.” At the revelation at Mount Sinai the Jews had experienced the sound of G’d’s voice out of thunder and lightning, i.e. out of אש and קול. At that time G’d performed exceptional acts of kindness with us so that the fistful of barley (which represented the Omer sacrifice brought on the date of the month Haman was hanged) was found to be worth more than ten thousand talents of silver which Haman had offered the king. There is a tradition that on the 16th of Nissan, the day Haman was hanged, Mordechai had studied the laws of the Omer (a sacrifice which could be brought only while the Temple was standing). 
  In our portion  the Torah speaks about the נחושת התנופה, that the total quantity of copper donated for the Tabernacle was some 70 talents plus 2400 shekel in weight. We learn from these details that Moses gave an exact accounting to the people concerning everything which had been contributed. He handed over everything to Ittamar who was appointed assistant treasurer so that he himself could not be suspected of having held back anything for himself seeing he was in sole charge   The Midrash in Shemot Rabbah 51,1 states that the description (Proverbs 28,20) “a faithful man will enjoy many blessings; but he who is too eager to become rich will not go unpunished,” applies to Moses and Korach respectively. Of the former G’d Himself said “he is trustworthy in My entire house,” (Numbers 12,7).”He enjoyed many blessings,” means that Moses was the instrument through whom Israel received many blessings He became the treasurer of the Tabernacle’s funds. The words: “he is too eager to become rich,” refer to Korach who was not content with the distinction of being a Levite but wanted to become a priest also. Due to this greed, he did not go “unpunished,” but the earth opened up and swallowed him and all his riches (Numbers 16,32).   Just as a person must be able to face G’d with a clear conscience, so it is important to appear unblemished in the eyes of the people. When addressing this subject our sages in Shekalim 3,2 postulate that the donors when delivering their mandatory contribution must not enter the office designated for receiving same while wearing clothes which could conceal any money in its folds, etc., in order that in the event such people become wealthy sometime afterwards they could not be accused of having helped themselves to money stored in that office. Even if such a person  was a wealthy man he is not allowed to wear this kind of clothing so that should he become poor afterwards people might say that he was being punished for misappropriating funds from that office. People must always be on guard to conduct themselves in such a fashion that they do not arouse suspicions in their fellowmen that they have been guilty of some misdemeanor. David already prayed to G’d that this should not happen to him when he said (Samuel II 22,44) ”You have saved me from the strife of peoples.” There is an even more specific verse in the Torah concerning this subject in Numbers 32,27: “you will be clear before the Lord and before Israel.” We also have an explicit verse about this subject in Proverbs 3,4: “and you will find favor and high esteem in the eyes of G’d and man.”
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ואת האלף ושבע המאות וחמשה ושבעים, “and from the one thousand and seven hundred and seventy five,”  I believe that the reason the letter ה appears before the word אלף, i.e. a reference to an already familiar amount of silver, is designed to remind the reader that we are still dealing with the half-shekel mandatory contributions. The reference is to the מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש mentioned in verse 26. 3,550 people who had contributed a half shekel each  made up 1775 whole shekels as stated in our verse. Our sages (Tanchuma Pekudey 7) have described matters as follows: “when Moses made an accounting of all the materials used and all the contributions received he was short 1775 shekels of silver. He had forgotten what he had done with that quantity of silver. A heavenly voice was then heard reminding him that this amount of silver had been used up in making the hooks by means of which the curtains around the courtyard were attached to the pillars supporting them. This was an illustration of how trustworthy Moses was, that in all of “My house,” i.e. the Tabernacle, he had not misused any of the materials which had been contributed for it. Thus far the Midrash.
      When you examine the matter you will realise that the letters  ה and ו were the two letters which were featured in the sin of the golden calf. Both these letters are part of the tetragram, the holy name of Hashem. [the reference is to the two opening letters in the words האש והקול, “the fire and the voice” (we discussed this on the previous page). This is why the Israelites who numbered (in round figures) 600.000 had to bring half a shekel each to atone for that sin from which the sockets for the boards of the Tabernacle were to be constructed. The additional shekels which were not used up in constructing these sockets were used to make the hooks for the curtains which had to be attached to pillars so that the whole formed a fence or wall around the courtyard of the Tabernacle. The Hebrew word for these hooks is ווים, i.e. a number of the letters ו which had featured in the people’s sin. [The author discussed the nature of the sin in Exodus 32,4; the placing of these silver sockets under the boards (walls) of the Tabernacle was equivalent to reversing the people’s priorities in their theological thinking. Ed.] 
  Perhaps the wording ואת האלף was designed to draw our attention to the letters ו and ה specifically.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
    וירקעו את פחי הזהב, “they hammered out the thin sheets of gold, etc.” Nachmanides points out that this is the only time the Torah elaborates on how the work was performed. Had the Torah not pursued a definite intent here it should simply have written: “they made the ephod out of gold, blue wool, and purple wool.”
   Perhaps the Torah wanted to describe the unusual instruction that gold should be integral to a fabric made primarily out of different colored woolen threads. Hence the Torah explains that the gold was to be beaten into thin strips to make it compatible with the woolen threads.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
    ויעשו את הכתנות שש......ואת המצנפת שש, ואת פארי המגבעות שש, ואת  מכנסי הבד שש משזר. “They made the tunics of linen and the turban of linen, and the splendid headdresses of linen and the linen breeches of twisted linen.”  These two verses contain the word שש  meaning linen, five times, and the word בד which also means linen once, making a total of six times that the material “linen” is repeated here. Whereas the word did have to be mentioned once, the other five times it has been mentioned are meant to convey additional information, allegorical or otherwise. The sages in Yuma 71 offer a number of additional insights based on the repetitions of these words. One of the insights they offered is that בד and שש both mean “linen,” seeing that the tunic had been described as made of בד in Leviticus 16,4. The expression בד for linen describes the manner in which flax (the raw material for linen) grows out of the ground in long strands, fibers. This plant is identical to the one known as פשתים. The reason the Torah refers to it as שש, i.e. ”six” is because the strands used to weave it consist of six threads spun together. Had the word occurred only one extra time, we would have thought that though it is preferable that these strands consist of six threads each, this is not mandatory. The repetition of the word another time means that this kind of six-fold strand is mandatory.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
    את נרותיה, נרות המערכה , “its lamps, the lamps of the prescribed order.” According to the plain meaning of the text the extra words נרות המערכה, were added to stress that there had to be seven lamps; they were the ones Aaron or his sons were to light each evening. The repetition of that expression means that there were neither to be more nor fewer than these seven lamps.   It is also possible that the reason there were to be seven lamps was that they symbolized the seven fixed stars (planets). The whole expression was to allude to the fact that these lamps in terrestrial space corresponded to “luminaries” in  space. [Seeing all this was written before Copernicus it has lost its meaning in our day and age. Ed.]
  For a Kabbalistic approach, see commentary on 25:38.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  . כן עשו בני ישראל את כל העבודה, “so did the Children of Israel perform all the labour.”  We would have expected the Torah to write כל המלאכה instead of כל העבודה. The Torah, however, wanted to remind us that all work performed for the building of the Tabernacle was equivalent in spiritual value to service in the Sanctuary, עבודה, i.e. something sacred, holy. Just as the expression עבודה is always used in connection with directly serving the Lord, so this too was directly serving the Lord. (compare Deut. 13,5 or Exodus 23,28).
  
  Verse 43
  
    וירא משה את כל המלאכה, “when Moses saw that all the works had been done, etc.,” the word מלאכה refers to the work of building and weaving, etc. for the Tabernacle. The word  וירא refers to the vision of the completed Tabernacle G’d had shown Moses while he was on Mount Sinai. This vision has already been mentioned in Exodus 25,40. The words והנה עשו אותה means that now the people had made this vision come true in the desert.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Pekudey 11): The words “Moses saw all the work,” refers to the מעשה בראשית, the creation of the universe; the Torah deliberately omitted adding the words מלאכת המשכן, “the work of the Tabernacle,” in order to teach us that this construction of the Tabernacle was equivalent in a sense to the construction of the universe itself. Immediately after Moses observed this he blessed the people saying: “may the Presence of the Lord, the Shechinah, come to rest on the work of your hands.” He continued immediately with the words of Psalm 90,17: “may the favor of the Lord, our G’d, be upon us; let the work of your hands prosper, O prosper the work of our hands.” The reason these words were appropriate is that the Psalm commences with the words “a prayer of Moses, the man of G’d.” The meaning of the words: “the work of our hands” is a reference to the priestly blessing bestowed upon the people by Aaron on the day the Tabernacle was put up. This is why the word עלינו “upon us,” Moses including himself, was appropriate. Finally, the last words in this blessing, the words ומעשה ידינו כוננהו, refer to the enduring success of the work the people had accomplished. This does not agree with the opinion of R' David Kimchi (רד"ק) who views these words as a repetition of what Moses had said before in order to reinforce his wish.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ביום החודש הראשון באחד לחודש תקים את משכן אהל מועד, “on the first day of the first month you shall erect the Tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting.” According to a view cited in Tanchuma Pekudey 11 Moses had been putting up and taking apart the Tabernacle three times daily as we have been told three expressions in the Torah concerning the erection of the Tabernacle, i.e. הוקם ,תקים,and ויקם, “it was erected, erect it!, and “he erected.” The first expression occurred in connection with the offering of the daily public morning burnt-offering. The second expression occurred in connection with the days of consecration and the rites performed during those days. The third and final time applied to the Tabernacle being erected in time for offering the daily public burnt-offeing of the evening. You will find all these three occasions on which the Tabernacle was erected alluded to in our portion (compare verse 17, verse 18).
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma 11): Betzalel, Oholiov, and all the artisans were endeavouring to erect the Tabernacle but were unable to do do so. This is the meaning of the words in 39,33: “they brought the Tabernacle to Moses.” The reason they brought it to Moses was their inability to erect it so that it would remain standing. Moses felt very badly about all this, seeing he had not had a personal share in working on the Tabernacle. G’d consoled him telling him that no other human being would be able to put up the Tabernacle, whereas as soon as Moses would begin to busy himself with erecting it, it would erect itself. This would teach the Jewish people that if Moses would be unable to erect the Tabernacle it would never become functional. G’d told him that He would record in the Torah that the Tabernacle had been erected by Moses personally, unassisted. This is the meaning of our verse in which Moses is instructed to erect the Tabernacle on the date mentioned. After hearing this, Moses said to G’d: “I do not know how to put it up.” G’d answered him: “you begin to busy yourself with it, and seeing that you have been shown it when it stood, it will stand by itself corresponding to the vision you have had.” This is the meaning of the words הוקם המשכן, “the Tabernacle was erected” (verse 17). G’d added further that He would write that the erection of the Tabernacle was credited to Moses. This is why the Torah also wrote: “Moses put up the Tabernacle” (verse 18). This is also what Psalms 45,15 may have had in mind when the sons of Korach wrote “the princess wearing an embroidered dress is led inside to the king;” this is a reference to the Tabernacle which contained many colours as we know from Exodus 35,35: “and embroider it with blue wool, purple wool and red wool.” The words תובל למלך in our verse from Psalms are a reference to Moses  of whom the Torah says in Deut. 33,5 “he was king in Yeshurun.” The words בתולות אחריה “maidens in her train” in the same verse, refer to the Jewish people who are referred to as maidens in Song of Songs 4,12, seeing they are also defined as companions to the Lord, based on Psalms 122,8 where they are described: “for the sake of my kin and friends;” in each instance the Hebrew word for “my friends” being ריע. Finally, the last words in that verse in Psalms 45,15 are מובאות לך “brought to you,” a reference to Moses to whom the Tabernacle was brought in order for him to erect it.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   כן עשה, “so he did.” This is the final reference to any items constructed in connection with the Tabernacle. The instructions to build and erect the Tabernacle began in Exodus 25,8 with the words: “they shall make a Sanctuary for Me.” Our verse concludes the re`port about carrying out of these instructions. You will find that the whole subject of the Tabernacle mentions the term עשה in one form or another 248 times, the same number of times as the number of positive commandments in the Torah. This number is alluded to in Kohelet 7,27 where Solomon speaks of אחת לאחת למצוא חשבון, “one corresponding one to the other.” In arriving at that number, the commandment not to make idols, i.e. the use of the word עשה in connection with the making of the golden calf, must be ignored. In practice this means that every time the word עשה appears in any shape or form between Exodus 32,1 and 33,5 ואדעה מה אעשה לך, it is to be ignored for the purpose of our calculation. When you count the number of times the root עשה occurs from chapter 25 to here you will find that it is exactly 248 times.    Seeing that the Israelites had said at Mount Sinai נעשה ונשמע, and by making the golden calf they had reneged on the נעשה part of their promise, all the times the root עשה occurs in connection with the golden calf, this word cannot be part of their atonement for that sin. There cannot be idolatry in an environment of יחוד, the unique and exclusive divinity of Hashem.    The 248 appearances of the term עשה in the chapters mentioned (excluding the report of the golden calf) are also a symbol for the 248 limbs of man. Just as the Tabernacle was equal in importance to the work of the creation, being a microcosm of the universe, so it symbolized the entire Torah which contains 248 positive commandments. This was also the reason why G’d made man with 248 limbs. It is to bring home the point that man was the object of the entire creation of the universe. [If man were to perish, there would be no point in G’d allowing the universe to continue to exist. Ed.]
  
  Verse 17
  
   הוקם המשכן, “the Tabernacle was erected.” Bamidbar Rabbah 14 states that another Tabernacle was erected at the same time as the Tabernacle Betzalel had constructed. This is a reference to the “Tabernacle” of the נער, the angel Mattatron, whose task it is to act as “general manager” of the Lord, running the universe, and particularly earth, on His behalf. The name of this angel is the same as that of his Master. Thus far the Midrash. 
  We find further remarks about this subject in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,12 on the verse (Numbers 7,1) ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, “it was on the day when Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle, etc.” The wording there is that at the time G’d told Moses to erect the Tabernacle, He told the angels to construct a similar structure in the celestial regions. Both were erected at one and the same time. We also read about this phenomenon in Chagigah 12  where the wording is a little different, the Talmud speaking about an altar in heaven paralleling the making of the altar on earth. On that altar the souls of the righteous would be “sacrificed” to the Lord by the archangel Michael to atone for the sins committed by the Israelites while they are in exile. All of this is based on the expression את המשכן in Numbers 7,1 instead of merely המשכן. [The author has explained many times that the word את is always an allusion to something additional but unspecified in the verse. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויקם משה את המשכן, “Moses erected the Tabernacle, etc.” Our sages in Menachot 99 taught that one increases or adds to levels of holiness and never decreases them. They derive the first half of their statement from the censers of the people who had supported the rebellion of Korach and offered incense in them. G’d commanded that theses censers of the 250 men who had paid with their lives for their mistake be subsequently used to make a copper cover for the main altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle (compare Numbers 17,3). The rule that levels of sanctity are not to be reduced is derived from our verse here. The Torah writes the following sequence: “Moses erected the Tabernacle; he put down its sockets and emplaced its boards and inserted its bars and erected its pillars. The wording indicates that Moses repeated this procedure many times over; the Torah carefully refrains from mentioning that he “dismantled” any part of the Tabernacle in the process. Only actions which resulted in additional sanctity are spelled out.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויקטר עליו קטורת סמים, “he burned aromatic incense on it.” Moses personally was the one who performed this service. It was Moses who kept offering this incense during all the seven days of the consecration of the Tabernacle. G’d had commanded him to do so in verse 4 (which is part of G’d’s address to Moses beginning with verse 1 of our chapter) where we read וערכת את ערכו והעלית את נורותיה, “you shall prepare its setting and light its lamps.” 
  Clearly, G’d instructed Moses to act as the first High Priest during the seven days of the consecration. Aaron only took over on the eighth’s day. The fact that Moses was actually called כהן, “priest,” is confirmed in Psalms 99,6 quoted to this effect in Zevachim 102; “Moses and Aaron among His priests.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ויכס הענן את אהל מועד, “the cloud enveloped the Tent of Meeting.”  At the revelation at Mount Sinai the Torah also reported that the mountain was enveloped in a cloud. Concerning the Tabernacle, the Torah writes that the attribute of Hashem called כבוד filled the Tabernacle, i.e. that this attribute was within the cloud which in turn was within the Tabernacle. When reporting on what happened at Mount Sinai, the Torah had written (Exodus 20,21) that Moses approached the dark cloud within which G’d (Elohim) was present. In our verse (35) the Torah explains Moses’ inability to enter the Tabernacle because the cloud rested upon it and the attribute of כבוד filled the Tabernacle. This means that unless G’d called to Moses inviting him to enter he could not do so. As soon as he would be called the fact that the cloud enveloped the Tabernacle was no impediment preventing Moses from entering. This is the meaning of the verse in Leviticus 1,1 where G’d called to Moses, and Exodus 24,18 where Moses entered the cloud because he had been called (24,12). The call: “Moses, Moses,” did not mean that Moses was to share the “space” with G’d’s attribute of כבוד; rather it was an indication to him that this attribute had departed from the Tabernacle or the mountain (as the case might be) so that Moses could now enter. The only part of G’d’s Shechinah which remained when Moses was called was the part which filled the space between the expanded wings of the cherubs on top of the Ark. Although the experience at Mount Sinai and the experience at the completion of the erection of the Tabernacle were almost nine months apart in time, you could view what happened here as “history repeating itself.” [This had become necessary due to the sin of the golden calf after which the Presence of G’d had left the vicinity of the encampment of the Israelites. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that the second verse which speaks about the attribute כבוד filling the Tabernacle  (compare verses 34 and 35) alludes to His glory which resides within that attribute. Thus far Nachmanides.
      I believe I should draw your attention to the fact that we are dealing with five verses (34-38) in each of which the ענן, “cloud” is mentioned. I believe these five are allusions to the five emanations, i.e. references to the five times the Torah speaks of קולות, sounds, thunder, at the time G’d revealed Himself at Mount Sinai (compare Berachot 6).The Talmud there stated that the Torah was given by means of five קולות, “sounds, voices.” Even though we have pointed out in that connection that Moses achieved an understanding of seven emanations, i.e. seven קולות, as I explained on my commentary on Exodus 20,1, the sages in the Talmud meant the five “hidden” קולות whose identities the Torah did not reveal at the time. The other two emanations which were spelled out, i.e. תפארת and כבוד, were not mentioned by the Talmud, as they have been mentioned in our verses, i.e. in Exodus 20,2 as ה' אלוקיך in connection with the revelation at Sinai, and as the words וכבוד ה' twice here in connection with the Tabernacle, in order to hint at the presence of the attribute תפארת which resides within the attribute כבוד.    This is what Nachmanides had in mind when he wrote that the Torah repeated the words וכבוד ה' another time. We find something very similar in connection with the Temple where we are told in Chronicles II 7,1-2: “it was when Solomon had completed to pray (during the consecration ceremonies) that the fire descended from the heavens and consumed the burnt-offering and the meat-offerings, and the attribute כבוד of the Lord filled the House; as a result the priests were unable to enter the House of the Lord as the attribute כבוד had filled the House of the Lord.” You have learned from all this that in our instance seven emanations, attributes, are referred to; the five times the Torah mentions the word ענן and the two occasions when the Torah speaks of the כבוד ה'. Just as seven emanations were part of the Sinai experience of the Jewish people, so seven emanations were part of what the people experienced during the inauguration of the Tabernacle. In both instances mention of these seven emanations is testimony to Moses’ spiritual attainments.
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   כי ענן ה' על המשכן יומם ואש תהיה לילה בו, “for the cloud of the Lord would be over the Tabernacle by day, whereas by night fire would be above it.” We would have expected the Torah to write: ענן ה' ביום ואש (ה') תהיה בלילה. Why did the Torah mention the word “fire” in front of the word “night” when describing the presence of heavenly attributes as manifest in connection with the Tabernacle? The reason is that the Torah wanted to use both “day” and “night” as divine attributes, respectively. (The word “day” is an alternate name for the attribute of Mercy, whereas the word “night” is an alternate name for the attribute of Justice).   It is well known that the name of the attribute of Mercy  often appears with the letter מ being repeated, such as in the word יומם, [usually translated as “by day.” Ed.] The basic letters in the word לילה are ליל, the letter ה at the end being the allusion to the attribute of Justice which is most active at night.
   You know that this attribute had been particularly active at night when it was applied to the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12,29). This is part of the mystical dimension of the words used in Scripture. When we read in Joshua 1,8  that G’d told Joshua to be busy with Torah both by day and by night, the wording is והגית בו יומם ולילה instead of והגית בו ביום ובלילה.
  The message is that the Torah, the subject of the instruction is composed of both the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. The Torah is divided between the written and the oral Torah, the former symbolizing the attribute of Mercy whereas the latter symbolizes the attribute of Justice.
      This gives you an idea of the Shechinah cleaving to the Jewish people. Both the Shechinah and the people dwelled in tents while the people were in the desert. This is part of what is meant in 33,8 ונצבו איש פתח אהלו, “they each stood at the entrance to his respective tent.” Bileam already praised the tents of the Jewish people in the desert as being something out of the ordinary when he said (Numbers 24,8) “how goodly are your tents O Yaakov.”    In verse 36 in our chapter here the Torah speaks of the Children of Israel adjusting their journeys in the desert to the movements of the cloud representing the Shechinah. This is only one more example of what we called the דבקות, the cleaving to one another of the Jewish people and the Shechinah. Here in our verse (38), the cloud is associated with כל בית ישראל לכל מסעיהם, “the entire house of Israel in all their journeys.” The Children of Israel were again mentioned twice in close succession seeing that the Torah had mentioned both the cloud and the fire.    How beautiful were the flags of the people of Israel in the desert, drawing attention to holy encampments equal to camps of holy angels in the celestial regions which surround the manifestation of the Shechinah in their domain. The very fact that this manifestation of G’d’s presence was visible equally to men and women testifies to the purity and sanctity of the whole people at that time.    When discussing Psalms 85,10: “His help is very near those who fear Him, to make His glory (attribute כבוד) dwell in our land,” our sages (Tanchuma, end of our portion) write that G’d said that whereas in this world He manifested His Presence amongst the Jewish people in the Holy Temple, a Presence which had to be withdrawn due to the sins of the people, in the world to come the manifestation of G’d’s presence would never again be withdrawn. This is based on Leviticus 26,11: “I will establish My abode in your midst; and My spirit will not reject you. I will remain as your G’d.” The meaning of these words is that in the future prophecy will be restored to the people of Israel as in former times, and the Shechinah will once more be in its regular place. All the people will learn intimate information about G’d in those days. The verse of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel promising both the elimination of war (Isaiah 2,4) and the gift of a new heart from G’d (Ezekiel 36,26) will then be realised. The “heart of stone” attributed to the Jewish people by Ezekiel will be replaced by a heart of flesh (ibid.). There will neither be a Satan nor an evil urge (the view of Nachmanides that man will be naturally good in those days, compare Rabbi Chavell).   These words have to serve as our solace and comfort during these long days of our exile. Hopefully, we shall all return to our former glory in the near future. Isaiah promised all this in the concluding chapters of his book (chapters 60-66) If, during the period after the Exodus we loved G’d and appreciated that His goodness was superior to the heady feeling one experiences after having drunk wine (Song of Songs 1,2), how much more intimate will our relationship with the Lord be after we experience the last and ultimate redemption! At that time G’d will extend His personal supervision of our fate to an even greater degree than had been the case in the past. We will then be able to see that attribute of כבוד with our own eyes, i.e. עין בעין  נראה אתה ה' (Numbers 14,14), “You Hashem appeared eye to eye, etc.” The meaning of these words is this that there will no longer be an artificial barrier to our obtaining deep insights into the workings of G’d’s providence. Isaiah 52,8: proclaims: “Hark! Your watchmen raise their voices, as one they shout for joy; for every eye shall behold the Lord’s return to Zion,” will then finally be realized.
  
  Vayikra
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     עקב ענוה יראת ה' עושר וכבוד וחיים, “the result of humility is fear of the Lord, wealth, honour and life.” (Prov.22,4) 
  Solomon informed us in this verse that the virtue of humility brings in its wake a number of other virtues. The plain meaning of the text is that the reward to be reaped in this life by people who practice the virtue of humility is four-fold. It consists of 1) fear of the Lord; 2) wealth; 3) honour; 4) long life. The virtue of humility is a virtue practiced with one’s body, a virtue practiced in man’s capacity as an active member of  human society. [A hermit, though undemanding, does not practice this virtue. Ed.]. Practice of this virtue is demonstrated by the owner being reticent and patient, suffering what others would consider insults, etc., without protest. A person who is humble shows respect and honour to other creatures (humans), and speaks well of them and for their benefit. Having trained himself to acquire this virtue it is only a small step to acquiring fear of the Lord. This virtue is an intellectual virtue. A person who has acquired both the virtue of humility and fear of the Lord will automatically acquire wealth, as wealth is defined by our sages as the ability to be happy with what G’d has seen fit to grant one, without being envious of others who appear to have more (compare Avot 4,1). He will also reap honour; this is the meaning of Proverbs 29,23: “the humble in spirit will retain honour.” We have another verse on that subject in Proverbs 18,12 where Solomon writes: “humility goes before honour.” The author meant that the honour bestowed on a person was preceded by his demonstrating true humility.   Finally, the words: “he will acquire life,” have to be under-stood. He who desires and longs for material wealth is obviously worried all the time he has not yet achieved his objective. When he does achieve part of his desire he is worried that he should not lose it. People who have these kinds of worries contribute to their lives becoming shorter as their worries undermine their health. He who enjoys what he has and is grateful for it will live longer as his peace of mind helps him maintain his physical well-being.
      A Midrashic approach (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1,9): the words עקב ענוה יראת ה' mean that whereas wisdom is considered the crown, humility is considered the heel of one’s shoe. On the one hand, we are told by David (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', normally translated as “the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord,” on the other hand, Solomon (his son) told us that עקב ענוה יראת ה', that the fear of the Lord is a product of humility. The author wanted to teach us by using the word עקב in connection with humility that this virtue is greater than wisdom as it is the product of fear of the Lord. A product is the result of something more primitive preceding it, hence it is more advanced, superior to the ingredients which contributed  to it.  It is well known that all virtues manifest themselves in opposite extremes. [If I understand the author correctly he means that one can be described as “the most humble,” or as “the least humble;” “the wisest” or “the one most lacking in wisdom,” etc. I suppose that the word “virtue” must then be divided between “positive” virtues and “negative” virtues. The correct translation of the word מדה used by the author then is not “virtue,” but “characteristic.” Ed.] However, in addition to possessing any such characteristic (virtue) in either of these extremes one may also possess it in a degree which is ממוצע, “average,” i.e. somewhere between the extremes we mentioned. The characteristic (virtue) of  humility is such a virtue. The reason that this is so is that it is somewhere in between pride and self-abasement. As a general rule, man should strive to possess these characteristics which are at neither end of the extremes as everything that is extreme is usually something negative. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Deyot 2,2). Concerning this subject Solomon said (Proverbs 4,26) “survey the course your feet will take so that all your ways will be prosperous.” With this warning Solomon wanted to exhort man to pursue paths which lie between two extremes. The very word פלס which he used and which we translated as “survey” is derived from the noun peless, meaning “ balance,” as in the balance of a set of scales. It is in the centre. When keeping this advice in mind, a person will be able to plan his activities properly, giving due weight to all the pros and cons of a situation. Solomon made this crystal clear in the verse following where he said: “do not turn to the right or the left; remove your feet from evil.” The message is that he who veers neither to the right nor to the left of the true path will avoid evil.    The exception to all this is the manner in which the virtue of humility is to be practiced (compare Maimonides HiIchot Deyot 2,3). When training oneself to acquire this virtue one must endeavour to practice it to the greatest extreme possible. In fact, the extreme of the virtue ענוה is called שפלות, “a kind of debasement practiced relative to one’s posture in the presence of one’s king.” Any attempt to practice the virtue of humility by applying the yardstick of sticking to the middle of the road might give rise to people thinking that one is somewhat overbearing, arrogant. Seeing that arrogance is the very worst of all negative virtues it is clear that one has to make every effort to steer clear of that characteristic. People guilty of arrogance put their afterlife at risk . Concerning this whole subject our sages in Avot 4,4 said: “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The reason they repeated the word מאד, i.e. “very much,” was to teach the people to practice this virtue in the extreme, as opposed to the other virtues. The reason is also that this is the greatest virtue and it is one which is evident to people with whom one comes into contact. This is why David described himself as possessing לב נשבר ונדכה, “a contrite and crushed heart” (Psalms 51,19), in spite of the fact that he was a powerful king as well as a prophet. He was also the head of the seventy elders who were the Supreme Court of his generation. (this is based on Samuel II 23,8: where our sages (Moed Katan 16) interpret the words יושב בשבת תחכמוני, to mean that when David took his seat amongst the sages he did not sit on a cushion but on the ground. G’d said to him: “seeing you have humbled yourself you are like Me,” a play on the second part of the word תח-כמוני). Moses also, although the most outstanding of the prophets who ever lived, is described by G’d as the “most humble person” (Numbers 12,3). [This editor has always felt that the virtue of humility is reserved for outstanding people as these have something to be proud of. If the likes of us appear humble it only reflects the fact that we have nothing to boast about. This is hardly a positive virtue.] When the Torah also used the adjective מאד to describe the level of Moses’ humility, this was to tell us that he deliberately tried to practice this virtue in the extreme. Anyone who contents himself with practicing the virtue of humility just as he practices other virtues, i.e. following the middle path between arrogance and total self abasement, may quality for the description ענו, but not for the description ענו מאד.   Seeing that Moses was so humble, he did not want to enter the Tabernacle until G’d had invited him to do so seeing the  Tabernacle was still enveloped in a cloud housing G’d’s attribute כבוד. Even though Moses had been told by G’d that He would meet with him in that Tent and speak to him inside from above the kapporet, from “between the cherubs” (Exodus 25,22), he was afraid to enter; he was afraid to prophecy inside, to pray inside, or to offer sacrifices inside until G’d would give him express permission by calling him and inviting him inside. This invitation was tendered when the Torah writes: “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to say.”
   ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” The word קריאה denotes honor, i.e. the manner in which G’d called out to Moses reflected His fondness of him. The expression is also used when the prophet describes the angels as calling out to each other such as Isaiah 6,3 (compare Rashi.) The very fact that G’d calls out to a prophet establishes the truth of three fundamental tenets of Judaism. They are: 1) the belief in the creation of the universe out of nothing by G’d the Creator. 2) The giving of the Torah to the Jewish people. 3) the belief in the resurrection of the dead. These three tenets of Judaism are connected to the beginning of time (as we know it), to a date within the accepted framework of “Time,” and, finally, an event which will occur at the conclusion of the accepted meaning of the concept of “Time.” Each one of these tenets has a decisive influence on the next one. Prophecy, i.e. the predictions made by a prophet testify to the existence of a G’d who supervises the universe. Such supervision (and control which is an implied part of the term “supervision”) proves that the universe had a beginning, did not precede the Supervisor.” [How could the “supervisor” control something he had not made himself and therefore been privy to its essence? Ed.] Seeing that the universe was created by a Creator who keeps supervising it, it makes sense that the Torah should be given to the people at some point in time in order for the Torah and its observance to guarantee that at the end of time the people could receive the reward for observing its precepts. A period of ultimate and undisturbed delight will be ushered in when the dead are resurrected.  We find the expression קריאה being used in connection with each of these three tenets. The prophet Isaiah 48,12 writes: “listen to Me Yaakov and Israel  whom I have called (מקראי) I am He- I am the first, and I am the last as well.” In this verse the prophet referred to three separate existences, i.e. “the present, the past, and the future.” 
  In this verse Isaiah referred to the giving of the Torah. It is quite evident that on that occasion G’d manifested Himself as being all these three “existences” mentioned by the prophet (compare Mechilta 20,2). This is why the prophet referred to מקראי, “the ones upon whom I have called,” i.e. the people at Mount Sinai. Both the names Yaakov and Israel were mentioned during that revelation when G’d’s instructions were preceded by the words ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר לאמר כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל, “G’d called to him from the mountain saying: ‘thus you shall say to the house of Yaakov and tell (at length) to the Children of Israel’” (Exodus 19,3).In other words, G’d “called” to the people during the episode of giving them the Torah. The reference to the creation of the world ex nihilo is mentioned by Isaiah in the very next verse where he writes: אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים אני קורא אליהם יעמדו יחדיו, “My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call unto them, let them stand up.” The prophet describes that all parts of the universe are connected to each other integrally by the fact that G’d has created them. Finally, the expression קריאה occurs in connection with the resurrection when David says in Psalms 50,1 and Psalms 50,4 אל אלו-הים ה' דבר ויקרא ארץ ממזרח שמש עד מבואו as well as יקרא אל השמים מעל ואל הארץ לדין עמו, “G’d the Lord spoke and summoned the world from east to west; and He summoned the heavens above, and the earth, for the trial of His people.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 91 commented on this that the words “He called on the heavens above” refer to the soul, whereas the words “and the earth, for trial of His people” refer to the body. David meant that they will have to give an accounting in preparation for the time of the resurrection. At any rate, you have seen from the above that the call by G’d to His prophet includes references to the three basic tenets of Judaism which we have mentioned earlier. This is the deeper reason why the third Book of the Torah commences with the word ויקרא. The creation of the universe had been the subject of the opening chapters of the first Book of the Torah; the giving of the Torah had occupied a central section of the Book of Exodus. The subject matter of resurrection is introduced-albeit obliquely- in the Book of Leviticus. The Book of ויקרא includes a reference to the third of these tenets. [The author will elaborate on this when explaining  Leviticus 18,5 וחי בהם. Ed.]
      Know that actually the Torah should have written ויקרא ה' אל משה ויאמר אליו; the fact that the subject of who was speaking i.e. the Lord, was not mentioned indicates that although the Book of Leviticus is a Book in its own right, it is an integral part of what came before it; the entire Torah is one continuous document, a single structure. The word ויקרא is simply a reference to the attribute of כבוד which was last mentioned in Exodus 40,35 when the Torah wrote that this attribute filled the Tabernacle. The attribute which called to Moses was the “small” letter א in the word בהבראם In Genesis 2,4. In order to make this clear the letter א in the word ויקרא here is also written small. When the Torah continues with מאהל מועד, “from the Tent of Meeting,” our sages in Torat Kohanim 1-2,10 state that the voice of G’d reached only the walls of the Sanctuary and was not audible outside. In order that we should not think that this was due to the voice of G’d being weak, close to a whisper, the Torah wrote הקול with the letter ה in front to teach us that the voice was powerful but that G’d deliberately restricted the sound waves to the inside of the Tabernacle. We have other verses in Scriptures where the word קול ה' occurs, such as in Psalms 29,4-5 קול ה' בכח, קול ה' בהדר, קול ה' שובר ארזים “the sound of G’d’s voice is power; the sound of the Lord’s voice is majesty; the sound of the Lord’s voice breaks cedars, etc. etc.” The letter ה in our verse before the word קול, while referring to a voice which is familiar to us from other occasions, did not mean that the voice of G’d was especially overpowering such as at Mount Sinai, but it simply meant that it was neither weak nor eardrum-shattering. If this is so, why did the Torah write מאהל מועד, “from the Tent of Meeting,” if the voice was not actually heard beyond the walls of the Tabernacle? The fact is that we encounter something similar in Ezekiel 10,5 where the prophet writes: “and the sound of the wings of the cherubs was heard up to the outer courtyard as the voice of El Shaddai when He speaks.” Another verse in which the voice of G’d is mentioned is in Ezekiel 1,24: “Then I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of great waters, like the sound of Shaddai as they moved, the sound of the words like the sound of the company; when they halt they release their wings.” The meaning of these verses is that the prophet Ezekiel compared the heavenly voice to four different phenomena; 1) he compared it to large bodies of waters the sound of which is steady, continuous; 2) he compared it to the voice of Shaddai, a voice which is neither too loud nor too weak. 3) The words “to the sound of a company  (of angels) when they halt they release their wings,” describes the variety of sounds. 4) “The sound of a camp,” describes the sounds of the trumpets when the people in the camp are being alerted to break camp, etc. The remarkable thing was that this voice did not penetrate beyond the walls of the Temple’s courtyard. The meaning of כקול אל שדי בדברו in Ezekiel 10,5 is: “similar to the voice of the G’d Shaddai when He was speaking,” It is a reference to the voice of G’d speaking during the revelation at Mount Sinai. That voice had been described as קול גדול ולא יסף, “a great sound which would not be repeated,” in Deut. 5,19, and as נפשי יצאה בדברו, “my soul departed when He spoke” in Song of Songs 5,6. At the time of the revelation G’d’s voice was inaudible beyond the confines of the camp of the Israelites, whereas here it was inaudible beyond the confines of the Tabernacle. The sound of the wings of the cherubs in Ezekiel’s vision were not audible beyond the walls of the courtyard of the Temple.   When you study the beginning of the Book of Samuel where Samuel is described as being called and the High Priest Eli had not heard the voice which called Samuel, he answered him: “go back to sleep” as he had thought that Samuel had mistakenly though that he, Eli, had called him (Samuel I 3,4). Eli thought hat Samuel’s imagination had played a trick on him. When Samuel experienced a second call Eli realized that Samuel had not imagined the call, but Eli was still not certain whether Samuel had heard a human voice or a divine call. In either event, he, Eli, had not heard any voice. This is why he told Samuel again to lie down and to continue sleeping. Only when Samuel reported hearing a voice calling him a third time did Eli understand that this was a heavenly voice. In the interval Eli had made a point of listening closely, and when he noted that Samuel had heard a voice which he himself had not heard, he realised that an angel had called to Samuel. This is the meaning of “Eli understood that G’d called to the lad” (3,8). Just as we find that voices heard by the prophet addressed by G’d or His angel are not heard by those whom G’d does not address, the same is true of visions which prophets are shown. G’d may show something to a person whom He has selected for that purpose, whereas others standing at the same spot will not experience the vision at all. We have clear proof of this in Daniel 10,7 where Daniel reports a vision he saw (obviously while awake and in the company of others) which the people next to him did not experience. This explains why the plagues inflicted by G’d upon the Egyptians were not noticed by the Israelites as affecting them at all. This was particularly true of the plague of darkness where the Torah states that the Israelites could even see in the very houses in which the Egyptians felt a palpable darkness so that they were unable to move (Exodus 10,23).  Rabbi Saadyah Gaon, in his Emunot Ve-deyot describes the matter in approx. these words: “it is clear that the sound (voice) which the prophet hears is a sort of new creation by the Lord. Whereas ordinary prophets heard this voice of G’d through an angel who was the intermediary, Moses heard it without needing recourse to an angel as his intermediary. In other words, Moses himself took the place of the angel. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote that G’d spoke to Moses “face to face.” This is also what the Torah meant when it reported about Moses אשר ידעו ה', “with whom G’d was on intimate terms.” To remind us of this for all times, the Torah wrote (Deut. 34,10) that “never again did there arise a prophet of the unique qualities of Moses.” Moses was in a class by himself as prophets go through three distinctive features: 1) his prophetic insights were received without intermediary. 2) He was able to respond to prophetic visions immediately, without trepidation, without feeling physically weakened by the mere fact that he had experienced a call from G’d or a vision. Even great prophets such as Isaiah and Ezekiel describe that they were overwhelmed by their visions (Isaiah 6,1, and Ezekiel 1,28). Moses could immediately involve G’d in a dialogue as we know from Exodus 18,19: “Moses would speak and G’d would respond.” 3) Moses saw his prophetic visions by means of a single מחיצה, “screen, or filter, ”whereas other prophets’ visions had been filtered through no fewer than 9 such screens (based on Vayikra Rabbah 1,14). The fact that Moses did not need multiple “screens” or “mirrors” making such visions into riddles is spelled out in Numbers 12,8. On the other hand, Ezekiel and Daniel, for instance, needed 9 such “filters.” (They are quoted as using these words “such as the vision which I have seen no fewer than nine times for the same vision.” (Ezekiel 43,3). The word “vision” is in the plural on one occasion). The same is true in Daniel 10,5, 10,7-8. What Ezekiel and Daniel saw as מחיצות, barriers or filters, is described in the Torah by the word חידות in the verse from Numbers 12 which we quoted earlier. Thus far Rabbi Saadyah gaon.
      You will have to appreciate now that the nine filters mentioned by Rabbi Saadyah gaon are not nine different emanations through which these prophetic visions are filtered to the average prophet. Except for Moses, every prophet received his visions only via the tenth (lowest) of the ten emanations. The so-called אספקלריאות, “window-panes,” therefore are merely different levels of prophecy. Ezekiel already referred to this when he said (Ezekiel 1,4)  “I looked, and lo a stormy wind came sweeping out of the north- a huge cloud and flashing fire, surrounded by a radiance; and in the centre of it, in the centre of the fire, a gleam as of amber. In the centre of it were also the figures of four creatures.” In verse 26 of the same chapter, the prophet describes that above  the  expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne as well as a human-like figure. Altogether the prophet described 9 different “semblances.” רוח סערה, ענן גדול, אש מתלקחת, נוגה, חשמל, אופנים, חיותת רקיע, ראשי החיות, דמות כסא. We have here 9 separate “visions” which form the details of what the prophet had first described as מראות אלוהים, as “visions of G’d,” in verse one of the first chapter of his book. Having concluded these nine “visions” he reports about seeing something resembling מראה אדם, “the appearance of a man.” Moses’ prophetic visions did not have to be filtered through all these stages in order to result in a message to the people whom the prophet is meant to address.   All the foregoing gives you an idea of the difference between the quality of Moses’ prophetic insights and those of any other prophet after him. There are scholars who understand the “nine visions” enumerated by Ezekiel as allegorical descriptions of ever higher emanations, these emanations being paraphrased as the various planets, each one closer to the celestial centre. The ninth (highest) is perceived as the one that surrounds the attribute of G’d we know as כבוד. The powerful radiations of ever purer forms of light which the prophet saw appeared to him in the form of the respective four chayot. According to these scholars the meaning of our sages’ statement in the Midrash dealing with the story of the creation  that there are chayot in our terrestrial world, i.e. holy beings on earth described by the prophet as chayot hakodesh, ophanim and kisseh hakavod, means that this is the meaning of Isaiah saying in Isaiah 66,1 that “the whole of earth is G’d’s footstool.” What they had in mind specifically was the surface of the moon. [The author continues further in this vein. As I am not certain of his meaning, I have omitted translating those lines. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Vayikra 1-2): The words “He called to Moses,” teach you the meaning of Proverbs 25,6-7: “do not be boastful in the presence of a king, do not stand in the place of great men; for it is better to be told: ‘come up here,’ than to be shamed in the presence of the great.’” Even Moses did not ascend until he had been specifically asked to do so. Our verse also reflects the practical meaning of Proverbs 29,23: “a man’s pride will humiliate him, but the humble in spirit will retain honour.” Anyone who pursues an office because of the authority over others which this will give him, will find that the very authority he was so keen on will escape him. On the other hand, people who try to escape the burden of having authority over others will find that this very opportunity will pursue them. One of the best known examples in Jewish history of humble people who tried to avoid having to wear the mantle of authority was King Saul who “hid amongst the vessels” (Samuel I 10,22) in order not to have to become king. He could not be found until the High Priest consulted his breastplate asking G’d’s help to locate him. The meaning of “the authority runs after him” was proven when in verse 24 of the same chapter in Samuel, the prophet is quoted as asking the people: “have you seen the one whom G’d has chosen (as king)?” On the other hand, Avimelech, son of Gideon was so anxious to establish himself as ruler  that his quest escaped him as we know from Judges 9,1: “Avimelech son of Jerubaal (Gideon) went to his mother’s brothers in Shechem and spoke to them and to the whole clan of his mother’s family. He put this question to all the citizens of Shechem: ‘which is better for you, to be ruled by seventy men — all the sons of Jerubaal — or to be ruled by one man?” Some time later after he had murdered his brothers (verse 24) “G’d sent a spirit of discord between Avimelech and the citizens of Shechem, and they broke faith with Avimelech, etc.” Moses tried to escape the position of leadership of the Jewish people saying to G’d: “I am not a man of words, etc.” (Exodus 4,10). He even asked G’d to appoint another (Exodus 4,13). In the end, the position of authority pursued him as we see from our verse where the Torah reports that “G’d called to him.” When David (Psalms 8,6) describes man as “You (G’d) have made him little less than divine, and adorned him with glory and majesty,” he had in mind Moses to whom such adjectives could be applied. [Although generally, commentators use this verse to describe Adam before the fall, our author’s interpretation is more plausible as no one had ever seen Adam in his glory. Ed.]
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.”  He told him to tell the Israelites about the rules of the burnt-offering in general terms. ואמרת אליהם, “and say to them, etc.” This refers to the details of this legislation. Moses was to inform the people of specific procedures in preparing the burnt-offering, such as removing the skin and cutting the animal into certain parts after slaughtering it and before burning it on the altar. He told them that the slaughtering had to take place north of the altar and the wood pile. He told them who was entitled to slaughter the animal and which kind of wood was permitted to be used to construct the pile keeping fire going around the clock on the altar. In all instances where the Torah uses the sequence דבר ואמרת, the meaning is that Moses was to tell the people the commandment in general terms followed by teaching them the details of the legislation. Examples are to be found in Numbers 15,38 where the Torah introduces the subject of the ציצית, fringes, and then proceeds to give some details about this commandment. The details, which are spelled out in the oral Torah include rules about the number of threads, the way they are to be attached, how many are to be of blue wool, etc., etc. All this is alluded to in the introductory words “and say to them.” Details of the commandments are hardly ever spelled out in the written Torah.
       אדם כי יקריב מכם, “when a man amongst you wants to bring an offering, etc.” According to the grammar of our verse it could be inferred that a human sacrifice is theoretically permissible. If G’d had wanted to rule out such a possibility the Torah should have written אדם מכם שיקריב קרבן, “a man amongst you who wants to offer a sacrifice.” [We have already precluded the suggestion made by the author when we translated the text as we did. Ed.] A closer look at the text will convince even the doubter that such a translation (and meaning) would have been quite impossible. The meaning of the verse is: “if someone amongst yourselves feels the urge to sacrifice himself to the Lord, you are to do this by means of offering a domestic animal such as a specimen from the cattle or the flock. You are not to take a human being as a sacrifice to the Lord.”    In the event that anyone entertained a doubt about this, this is spelled out beyond the possibility of any doubt in Jeremiah 19,5: where the prophet chastises the people for offering human sacrifices including their children to the Baal, something G’d says: “I have never commanded, never decreed, and which never came to My mind.”  In view of all that we have said, the Torah was careful to commence the legislation with the word אדם כי יקריב, “a man who will offer an offering,” as opposed to; “becoming the victim of a sacrifice.” Grammarians (such as Ibn Ezra) have viewed the meter of the verse as follows: “אדם מכם שיקריב,“ ”a man amongst you who offers a sacrifice.” We would have a parallel verse in Isaiah 26,11: אף אש צריך תאכלם, “fire will also consume Your adversaries.” Here too one might have imagined that the subject was “Your adversaries” rather than G’d. The correct translation reverses the relative position of the words אש and צריך. Another example of a similar construction is found in Hoseah 8,2  לי יזעקו אלו-הי ידענוך ישראל, the correct meaning of which is “Israel cries out to Me: ‘O my G’d we are devoted to You.’” The translation assumes that the prophet had meant: לי יזעקו ישראל  אלו-הי ידענוך, the prophet refers to the impudence of the Jewish people, who, though unrepentant, claim that they were devoted to the Lord. A similar inverted verse is found in Exodus 22,8 אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, “concerning which one party says ‘this is it.’” Instead of writing כי זה הוא, the Torah in its wisdom chose to write כי הוא זה. There are numerous other examples in Scripture of what appear to be inverted constructions.
      Tanchuma Tzav 1 comments on this verse that the reason that the Torah chose the word אדם [rather than איש as is usual, Ed.] is to teach that just as when Adam offered a sacrifice he used an animal which was his, was not illegally acquired (seeing he owned all of the earth), so any offering to G’d must be legally owned by the person offering it else it is not only not pleasing to the Lord but displeasing. Isaiah 61,8 spells this out more precisely when he quotes G’d as שונא גזל בעולה, “I hate robbery with a burnt-offering.”
     'קרבן לה, “an offering to the Lord.” Whenever the expression קרבן לי-ה-ו-ה  is written, the name of the Lord used is the Tetragrammaton to make certain we do not offer heathens an excuse to rebel against G’d and the word קרבן  precedes the word לה'  so as to preclude the idea that first one would offer a sacrifice to one of the attributes of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Mercy, in order to subsequently offer a second offering to the attribute of Justice believing it to be an independent power (compare Sifra Vayikra 2,5).  Our sages in Sifra Vayikra 2,4 conclude from the wording of the Torah here that when a person sanctifies, i.e. donates an animal as a sacrifice, he is not to say  לה' עולה, or לה' מנחה, “for the Lord a burnt-offering”, or “for the Lord a meal-offering,” but he is to use the formula עולה לה', or מנחה לה' “a burnt-offering for the Lord,” or “a meal-offering for the Lord,” as the case may be. Actually they arrived at this ruling using simple logic. If a person who is about to present G’d with an offering is warned not to utter the Lord’s name in vain [before specifying what it is all about, in the event he never gets to complete the sentence, Ed.] then how much more so must one be careful not to use the name of the Lord in vain or even frivolously when one does not do so in connection with sanctifying something for the Lord.
     מן הבהמה, “from the domestic animals.” The word בהמה is restrictive and excludes free-roaming animals known as חיות from being suitable as offerings on G’d’s altar. One of the reasons for this is that whereas the domesticated animals are victims by definition, the majority of the free-roaming animals are the hunters, the pursuers, the ones which victimise their prey (Tanchuma Emor 9). The rule that free-roaming animals are not fit for the altar prompted our sages (Shabbat 88) to say: “it is better to belong to the category of people suffering insults than to be part of the group of people insulting others.” No bird suffers more pursuit than the turtle-doves and the pigeons, yet the Torah has included these birds amongst those fit for the altar. It is therefore established that both amongst the mammals and the fowl the Torah stipulated that only species which are prone to suffer persecution are permitted as sacrifices on the altar of the Lord. Our sages brought also scriptural proof for their statement when they quoted Judges 5,31 ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו, “but may those who love Him be as the sun’s rising might.” The thrust of this whole verse (conclusion of Devorah’s song of thanksgiving and victory) is that she referred to the ones who had suffered insults as the ones beloved of G’d and compared them to the sun. The sun was the first creation of the Lord to endure insult when (according to Chulin 60) the moon complained that it could not share prominence with it. [The sun is not on record as responding to this complaint. Ed.] Seeing that the light of the sun is so superior to that of the moon, -considered its reward for suffering in silence- these suffering animals too were elevated in being allowed to give their lives on the altar of the Lord, making what would have been an inevitable death anyway a meaningful death. 
  It is incumbent upon man to learn from this legislation concerning who is chosen as fit to be a sacrifice.  It is interesting that whereas Yitzchak sent Esau to hunt game, Rivkah sent Yaakov to the sheep to select a domesticated animal as food for her husband. These animals share the characteristic of תמימות, being flawless in character, with Yaakov whom the Torah described as תמים, flawless. This characteristic is described by Onkelos as שלים, “peaceful, harmonious,” in Genesis 25,28 where the Torah describes the difference between Esau and Yaakov. This תמימות, flawlessness, is the hallmark of Torah which is described as תורת ה' תמימה, “the Torah of the Lord is flawless,” and its paths are described as harmonious, שלום, (Proverbs 3,17).” The word שלום as a proper name for the Jewish people occurs in Song of Songs 7,1 where Solomon calls on Israel saying שובה שובה השולמית, “turn back, turn back O Shulamit!” The reason Israel has been accorded this title is that the eventual everlasting peace will be ushered in in the land of Israel. For the above-mentioned reasons G’d selected the domesticated pure mammals as suitable for His altar whereas He rejected the free-roaming beasts, even the ones which are permissible for us to eat such as deer, etc.  Esau was considered as far removed from the sun (the horoscope of the sun) being a hairy man, a man who made his home in the desert, as already characterized by his father Yitzchak who described him as יודע ציד איש שדה, “familiar with hunting, a man of the field” (Genesis 25,27). He showed a preference for the free-roaming animals that live in uncivilized areas, signifying destruction and desolation. Such an environment is the opposite of the environment which bespeaks peace and harmony. This is also the reason the Torah forbade that stones which had been treated with iron (metal) tools should form part of the altar as such tools are reminiscent of the sword, of causing death instead of ushering in peace, the purpose of the altar. (compare author’s comments on Exodus 20,22). The sword became the inheritance of Esau and his descendants. This is the mystical dimension of Exodus 20,22: “for you have swung your sword over it and desecrated it.” [The author has a different count for the number of verses in the Ten Commandments due to the tone-signs which are used when reading the text, so that in his commentary Exodus 20,22 is referred to as 20,25. Ed.] Seeing that it is the function of the altar to help man live longer whereas the function of the sword is to shorten the life span of those who come in contact with it, it is only logical that such an instrument or one which symbolises it should not be used in constructing the altar.    Our sages also derive from the words מן הבהמה, מן הבקר, ומן הצאן, “from the domesticated animals such as cattle or flocks,” that the word בהמה excludes any animal which has been mated with a human being; the word מן הבקר is meant to exclude any cow or ox which has been used in idolatrous rites; the words מן הצאן exclude even animals which have been designated for idolatrous service though none such has as yet been performed with them. The extra letter ו in the words ומן הצאן, excludes animals which have gored a human being to death but against which there is not enough evidence to carry out the penalty of stoning prescribed by the Torah (compare Sifra 2).
  
  Verse 3
  
     אם עולה קרבנו מן הבקר, “if his burnt-offering is from the cattle, etc.” The burnt-offering is the first of all the offerings mentioned and discussed in some detail. According to the plain meaning of the text this is logical as before one sins in deed one generally sins in thought. It was therefore appropriate to mention this burnt-offering which atones not for sins committed but for sins of omission such as positive commandments, i.e. sins committed only in one’s mind. The order in which the Torah lists these animals commences with the bull, פר, followed by צאן, smaller animals such as sheep and goats, followed by birds. The bull is the animal which is appropriate for a wealthy man who seeks some kind of atonement seeing that it costs more. Wealthy people often rely on their wealth, itself a sin of arrogance. In order to counter the arrogance involved in relying on one’s material wealth the Torah expects the wealthy man to offer a costly animal. People of moderate means are expected to offer sheep or goats as burnt-offerings, whereas the poor is allowed to offer a pigeon, an inexpensive bird as a burnt-offering. In this way people of different means will each use something commensurate with their financial status as appropriate to atone for their  sins of omission.
      A kabbalistic approach: The עולה type of offering is mentioned first as it corresponds to the emanation of בינה. The sequence of the types of offerings mentioned parallels the emanations in descending order, so that the peace-offering is immediately below the burnt-offering, followed by the offering when the High Priest has become guilty of a sin, i.e., a sin-offering. These three stages correspond to the first three attributes of the thirteen attributes in Parshat Ki Tissa. [At this point the author quotes a non-existent verse meant to support this idea. I cannot understand this. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  וסמך ידו על ראש העולה, “he is to place his bodily weight on the head of the animal serving as the burnt-offering.” It is well known that this procedure has to be carried out with both hands as this is what Torat Kohanim says in connection with Leviticus 16,21: “and Aaron is to place both his hands on the head of the scape-goat.” This verse is used as applicable for all animal offerings requiring this procedure. Thus far Torat Kohanim.  When the Torah writes in this instance that וסמך ידו, “he shall place his hand (sing.),” this is meant to exclude the messenger, intermediary. Although we have a general rule that a person’s messenger enjoys the same legal status as the person on whose behalf he acts, this is an exception. The owner of the animal cannot delegate the requirement to place his own hands on the animal. The placing of the hands on the animal by the owner was performed only in the part of the Tabernacle called Azarah, the courtyard. It was immediately followed by the slaughter of the animal. It was mandatory to place one’s entire weight on the animal using both one’s hands; this is why the Torah wrote: “on the head of the animal,” i.e. not on its neck or any other part.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ושחט את בן הבקר, ”he will slaughter the  bull, etc.” We have a tradition (Sifra Vayikra 4,2) that slaughtering the sacrificial animal by a non priest (layman) was in order. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word: “he will slaughter,” without being precise as to who will perform this procedure. In other words, “anyone.” Whenever the Torah defines procedures in the plural, such as “they will sprinkle,” “they will burn, etc.,” it invariably refers to priests who have been mentioned previously in that context. If such a plural is followed by a singular such as in verse 6, והפשיט את העולה, “he will skin the burnt-offering;” this means that whoever had performed the last procedure will continue with the present procedure. [The author has to show that the use of the singular does not always mean that a non priest could perform such a procedure. Ed]. The reason that the Torah uses the word בן בקר  all of a sudden instead of the word פר used to describe a bull previously, is that the age of the animal, i.e. not over 2 years old is  meant here. The term עגל, calf, is used for animals up to one year old, whereas the term פר indicates that the animal is in its third year. Whenever the Torah speaks of כבש or כבשים, one year old sheep (male) are meant, whereas the two year old male sheep are called איל.    Rabbi Meir (in Rosh Hashanah 10) claimed that when the Torah speaks of עגל without adding that it is one year old, what is meant is a one-year old calf. When the Torah speaks of בן בקר a two year old bull is meant. When the Torah speaks of פר without specifying further, a three year old bull is meant. In Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 3,6) we are taught that the reason an עגל is a one year old calf is that the Torah speaks in Leviticus 9,3 of “a one year old calf and a one year old sheep.” The reason we know that the term בן בקר applies to a two year old bull is also because the Torah writes in 9,2 עגל בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה תמימים, “a two year old male calf as sin-offering, and a ram as burnt-offering, they are to be flawless.” Just as the calf mentioned there is two years old so the ram is two years old. Just as both have to be flawless, so both have to be of the same age (approx.). Thus far Torat Kohanim. However, speaking of male goats, when it is referred to as שעיר without adjective it is under one year old. Once it is a year old it is referred to as שעיר עזים.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ונתנו בני אהרן הכהנים אש על המזבח, “the sons of Aaron, the priest are to place fire on the altar.” Our sages in Yuma 53 state that the only sin which brought about the death of the sons of Aaron was the fact that they made a religious/ritual ruling on their own authority when they should have consulted their elders Moses and/or Aaron. What did they read in the Torah which caused them to make this statement? They referred to our verse. The sons of Aaron took this verse as proof that although heavenly fire was expected to descend from heaven to consume the offerings on the altar, it was still a commandment to also contribute man-made fire. 
  Their reasoning was correct but it was not their prerogative to make such a ruling. Rav Saadyah Gaon writes concerning this matter that Nadav and Avihu erred  when they thought that our verse means that man-made fire was to be placed on the altar “from the outside.” The word ונתנו in our verse is equivalent to ובערו, “they shall burn.” The word ונתנו is used in that sense in Isaiah 37,19: ונתון את אלוהיהם באש, “they have committed their gods to the flames.” Rav Saadyah uses this example of the error committed by Nadav and Avihu to stress how careful one has to be when trying to derive halachic rulings from the written text of the Torah. If people of the stature of Nadav and Avihu could make such a fatal error in understanding the text of the Torah, how much more likely is it that scholars of lesser distinction can make such errors! Had they troubled themselves to confirm with their teachers Moses or Aaron that their interpretation was correct they would not have brought death upon themselves. The mishap which resulted from the error of the sons of Aaron accounts for the fact that Jewish scholars are so careful in repeating the lessons they have learned from their teachers by using the same words. This principle has been made into a rule in Ediyot 1,3: “a person is obligated to repeat what his Rabbi said by using the same words.” If such care is in place when one merely repeats the words of one’s teacher, how much more so is it incumbent upon each one of us not to misquote a single word from the written Torah! If someone nevertheless changes the wording of the Torah the prophet Jeremiah 23,36 said concerning such people that “they pervert the words of the living G’d.” Concerning this whole subject Jeremiah 23,33-36 writes: “when this people, or a prophet or a priest, asks you: ‘what is the message of the Lord?’ You shall answer them “what is the message? I will cast you off — declares the Lord. As for the prophet or priest or layman who shall say ‘the message of the Lord,’ I shall punish that person and his house. You shall speak to each other, everyone to his fellow, ‘what has the Lord answered? Or “what has the Lord spoken?’ But do not mention ‘the message’ of the Lord anymore.” Does a man regard his own word as “a message?” According to Rav Saadyah Gaon the meaning of Jeremiah is that none of his listeners are allowed to put their own interpretation on the prophet’s words or to paraphrase his words. The only person allowed to interpret the word of G’d is the prophet to whom it was addressed. If the people would take it upon themselves to re-interpret G’d’s message they would become guilty of perverting G’d’s words. In verse 36 the prophet Jeremiah used three words extolling G’d; he spoke of Him as “the living G’d,” as “the Lord G’d of Hosts,” and as “our G’d.” The first description of G’d by the prophet as “the living G’d” was a reference to G’d revealing Himself at Mount Sinai. At that time the people had heard His voice, proof that He was alive. Moses had challenged the people in Deut. 4,33 when he asked them if ever a nation had become privy to such an experience as hearing the living G’d? When Jeremiah referred to G’d as “the Lord G’d of Hosts,” he had in mind the second pillar of Judaism, the belief in prophets to whom G’d had transmitted specific messages (compare Zecharyah 7,12). Jeremiah’s referring to G’d also as “our G’d,” אלו-הינו, was a reference to the G’d of the patriarchs. The expression had been used in Joshua 24,17 where Joshua in his parting address to the Jewish people reminds them of their history and implores them to never forget how that attribute of G’d took them out of  Egypt and looked after them every step of the way. The terms employed by Jeremiah for describing G’d are proof of how important it is to use the same terms that one’s teacher had used. Rav Saadyah Gaon understands the word ונתנו in our verse as equivalent to the Arabic for “they shall burn,” just as in Leviticus 6,5: “and Aaron shall kindle wood on it every morning.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   את הנתחים ואת הראש, ”the various pieces including the head, etc.” The head had not been part of the animal which had been skinned as it had already been severed from the rest of the animal at the time of slaughter. This is why the Torah had to mention the head especially (Sifra 4, 6,3). In that case, why did the Torah have to mention the פדר, “fat-parts,” separately also? This was to tell us that the head together with the fat-parts were to be burned after the area where the head had been slaughtered had been covered with the fat-parts. The expression פדר, which means “at-parts,”is a translation of the word פרד, i.e. the same letters in reverse order. This is an allusion to the fact that these fat-parts separate (פדר) between the lower and upper intestines. The whole procedure was to make it as dignified as possible seeing the area where the head had been severed had become bloody and dirty. Even nowadays, when people barbecue animals on the spit, they cover the head separately as mentioned by Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 9
  
  'והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, עולה אשה ריח ניחוח לה, “and the priest shall cause all of it to burn up on the altar, it is a burnt-offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of the text the entire purpose of the legislation concerning animal-sacrifices is for man’s benefit. G’d takes a delight in His most perfect creation, i.e. man, for whose sake the entire universe has been created. The purpose of the species is to be so governed by its intellect that it will remain free from sin just like the angels in heaven (who have no evil urge. Ed.) If, perchance, man does commit a sin, due to the evil urge which has been planted within man, it is appropriate that he repent and recognise his inadequacy vis-a-vis his Creator whose will he transgressed. Such a sinner must turn inward recognising that the sin he committed affected both his body and his spirit. Seeing that everything man does involves three components, the physical deed, the planning, and his power of speech, i.e. communicating his thoughts, the Torah commanded man to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin and to place his hands (weight) on the sacrificial animal in order to atone for the physical action involved in the sin committed. He has to confess the sin with words in order to make up for having misused the power of speech given to him when he committed a sin. He has to burn up the inner organs of the animal including the kidneys, seat of his thoughts, in order to make up for the faulty thinking which resulted in his committing a sin. In this manner the atonement will involve three stages just as commission of the sin involved three separate parts of his personality.   Strictly speaking, the sinner’s own blood should have been sprinkled on the altar in order for him to obtain forgiveness; however, by performing the rites set out by the Torah, G’d, in His generosity, accounts this for the sinner as if his own blood had been sprinkled on the altar. Man is to think of these procedures in those terms when his sin-offering is being burned up.   By rights, most people are guilty of the four death-penalties decreed by the Torah for a variety of sins, i.e. stoning, death by burning, death by asphyxiation, and death by the sword. When the priest takes the animal and forces it to the ground in preparation for slaughter this symbolizes the penalty of death by stoning. It is as if the sinner had agreed that he himself is deserving of this penalty. When the animal is slaughtered and its neck is severed it is as if the sinner had confessed that he himself was guilty of such a penalty. Severing of the windpipe of the slaughtered animal is equivalent to performing the death penalty by asphyxiation, whereas burning up of the fat parts, etc., is equivalent to the owner/sinner admitting that he himself was guilty of that penalty.
    Tanchuma Shelach 14 explains the concept of animal sacrifice in a similar way when writing about Genesis 22,13 where the Torah reports Avraham as sacrificing the ram as a burnt-offering in lieu of his son.” The word תחת used by the Torah, which we translated as “in lieu of,” is the cause of the Midrash saying that whenever Avraham prepared a part of that animal either its blood or its fat-parts, etc., he first recited a prayer beginning with the words: “may it be Your will O Lord that the sacrificial service I am about to perform should be considered as if it had been performed on my son. The animal’s blood should be considered as Yitzchak’s blood, its body which is being burned as if Yitzchak’s body had been burned.” G’d accepts the sinner’s offering in place of the sinner and grants him atonement. This is an expression of G’d’s great love for His creatures. This explanation of the purpose of sacrifice is one that satisfied one’s heart even though it appears to limit the value of animal sacrifice to sin or guilt-offerings. The fact that the Torah calls such a sacrifice as “a fire-offering of sweet odour for the Lord,” reflects the love with which G’d relates to a repentant sinner. [These sacrifices and the atonement that follows are restricted to unintentionally committed sins. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Pinchas 12). Assaph writes in Psalms 50,12: “if I were hungry I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds.” In verse 9 in the same psalm we read: ‘I will not take (claim) from your estate a single bull, no he-goats from your pen, for Mine is every animal of the forest, the beasts on a thousand mountains.” Rabbi Simon said thirteen different attributes of G’d’s mercy have been recorded seeing the Torah writes: “the Lord passed in front of him (Moses) etc.” (Exodus 34,6). Is there then anyone who can be called merciful if he entrusts His own food-supply to the cruel (i.e. man)? The idea that G’d would let man decide how much food and what kind of food to feed G’d is so totally ridiculous as not being worth discussing! This is the meaning of Palms 50,12, i.e. we are to read it as a question highlighting the absurdity of G’d making man the arbiter of how much He should consume!  Rabbi Yehudah son of Simon said that G’d told man that He had put 10 categories of domesticated (non-carnivorous) beasts at his disposal, 3 of which were easily accessible to him i.e. oxen (cattle) sheep and goats (Deut. 14,4). The other 7 categories are: the hart, the deer, the yachmur, the akko, the dishon, the teo, and the zamir. Seeing they are difficult for you to access I have not demanded that you offer to Me the pure animals which are free-roaming. The only ones which I have asked you to use as sacrificial animals are the ones that feed on your trough, i.e. have ben domesticated by you, the ones you do not have to hunt. This is the meaning of the verse: “If I am hungry I would not tell you.”  Rabbi Yitzchack drew attention to the verse in Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי, “My sacrifice, My bread, etc.” Can one then speak of G’d “eating” or “drinking?” You should learn a lesson from what we know about the ministering angels. David writes in Psalms 104,4: “His messengers are fiery flames.” To the question what sustains the ministering angels, i.e. what kind of food to they subsist on, the answer given is that they are sustained by the זיו השכינה, “the brightness and splendour of the Shechinah, as we know from Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life.”  Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “we can learn all this directly from what the Torah told us about Moses. We have been told in Exodus 34,28 that while Moses was on Mount Sinai he neither ate bread nor drank water. If Moses, while only on a mission for G’d did not need physical food, how much less does G’d Himself need such food? This is the meaning of “if I were hungry, I would not tell you (to supply Me.).”
      A rational approach: the matter of animal sacrifice and why it is useful may be understood in terms of the origin of the sin. Whether a sin is committed only in the mind or is actually carried out, the source of such sin is some spirit of impurity which has infected man’s soul. If man desires atonement for his sin it is essential that he expel this spirit of impurity first. If he succeeds in doing this he will be cleansed from his guilt. This is why in the case of a sin-offering it is incumbent upon him to offer the animal which symbolises such impurity, i.e. the goat or he-goat. When the animal is consumed the impure spirit of the sinner is consumed at the same time. and is burnt up on the altar. This is what the Talmud Yuma 21 had in mind when it spoke of “fire consuming fire,” i.e. the fire of the altar consumes the fire, (evil urge) which was burning in man when he committed the sin. This quality of the fire on the altar is so important that the Torah commanded that this fire never be allowed to go out (Leviticus 6,5 and 6,6).
      In the third section of Moreh Nevuchim chapter 32, item 47 Maimonides writes concerning the reason behind the animal sacrifice legislation that the Torah wanted to uproot pagan practices amongst the Jewish people and that by sublimating the animal sacrifice ritual this could be achieved. The most important part of the legislation was that instead of sacrifices of living creatures being offered to idolatrous forces in temples dedicated to forces of nature, the Jew would learn to dedicate all he had to dedicate to the one and only G’d. The idolaters had imagined that by what they were doing they could reinforce the power of their respective horoscopes by offering their sacrifices to them and that in turn their horoscopes would bestow their largess upon them or at least protect them against harmful influences. When the Egyptians worshipped the image of a sheep they did so in the knowledge that the horoscope of the sheep was of great influence in the celestial regions. They felt that the blessings bestowed on earth by means of flocks originated with that zodiac sign. It was generally perceived that essential food products such as milk, butter, etc., were all the “gift” of zodiac signs in the celestial regions. If the Egyptians did not want to be shepherds (compare Genesis 46,34), this was because they felt that acting as if they owned their “gods” was an insult to these gods who they perceived of as being the providers of their essential foodstuffs.  What applied to the Egyptians and their sheep applied to the Chaldaens and their attitude to cattle. They perceived the zodiac sign of the ox to be the source responsible for their food-supply. As a result they forbade that cattle be slaughtered, and abstained from eating beef. Indians still cling to such beliefs today and do not slaughter cows, (hence the expression “holy cow.”) This is why G’d commanded that just these species be sacrificed to G’d. This is why the Torah commenced the section dealing with animal sacrifice by referring to a person’s desire to offer מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from the cattle or the flock” (1,2). The Torah wanted to let us know that these species were considered as so important in determining the fates of the heathens of those days. Henceforth, these very species would be featured in obtaining forgiveness for the trespasses committed by the Jewish people unintentionally. Faulty philosophies, i.e. religious beliefs, can be forgiven only when one reverses course. By dedicating the very thing one used to dedicate to idolatrous causes to a sacred cause approved by G’d, or better still, commanded by G’d, atonement for one’s former errors becomes possible. Diseases of the body are healed, i.e. reversed, when the balance of the body is restored by the person suffering from the disease reversing course, i.e. negating intake of what brought on the disease, etc. The same is true for spiritual imbalances which resulted in idolatrous philosophies. The Torah’s principal concern is the combating of false philosophies, false perceptions of who rules the universe and who has created it. This is why such sacrifices became “a fire-offering of pleasant odour to the Lord.” When the people unite in order to serve the Lord instead of idols, they thereby strengthen the unity of G’d. Idolatry, by definition, is the opposite of unity, in particular of the concept of the unity of G’d. This is the approach of Maimonides and his followers to the subject of animal sacrifice.    However much one might be tempted to accept Maimonides’ theory, the fact remains that righteous people long before the Torah had been given were in the habit of offering animal sacrifices not to idols- but to the one and only G’d. All of this preceded the times when idolatrous practices were introduced. Adam offered animal sacrifices (Chulin 60); Hevel, his son, also offered sheep, i.e. animal sacrifices (Genesis 4,4). Noach and his sons offered numerous animal sacrifices as thanksgiving after the deluge from which they had been saved (Genesis 8,21). G’d is on record as responding to these sacrifices by describing them as ריח ניחוח, “pleasant smelling odour.” All this occurred long before there were any Egyptians or Chaldaens.
      The whole subject of animal sacrifice dating back as it does to the first man is a subject replete with mystical significance. It contains hidden elements of the interrelations between different parts of G’d’s creation. We have touched upon this in the introduction to our commentary to the Torah under the heading “the fourth method.” All those who do understand these matters are duty-bound to conceal their knowledge and not publicise it indiscriminately. This knowledge may only be revealed for the sake of the Creator’s honour to selected individuals, exceptionally pious persons. David already indicated in Psalms 19,11 that the words of G’d which are sweeter than honey are for the ones who have displayed thorough understanding. Anyone lacking such attributes will find these mysteries of the Torah as exceedingly remote. These words are considered as עתיקים, dating back to primeval times (based on Chronicles I 4,22); they are like deep waters which cannot be explored by just anybody.
      A kabbalistic approach sees in the word קרבן itself an allusion to G’d’s Unity. The word suggests that all of G’d’s various attributes are very close to one another just as His names are very close to each other, all part of One Unity. Anyone offering a sacrifice thereby reinforces this fabric of G’d’s Unity. This is the mystical dimension of the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, “that the priest will ensure that the All will be going up in flames on the altar.” The additional letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה does not wish to confuse us but is meant to explain a concept. That letter represents the final letter ה in the tetragram and as such it symbolises the attribute which “receives.” It is therefore also called מזבח. From this altar ideas rise higher and higher until in the course of their “rising” they become progressively more purified, end up as מחשבה טהורה, pure thoughts. We find similar constructions both in Chronicles II 29,27 where King Chiskiyah instructed the priests to offer burnt-offerings not למזבח but להמזבח, the extra letter ה alluding to the same concept as in our verse. Another example of this concept is found in Psalms 20,4 where David speaks about the ashes of the gift-offerings being received by G’d; he says ידשנה instead of ידשן, the extra letter ה conveying the same idea as the letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה in our verse. [In his chapter on כנויים, the meanings of well-known words or terms, the author of Pardes Rimonim defines the word קרבן as another word for the Shechinah seeing that the function of the Shechinah is to gather together all the “threads” and emanations so that after being gathered together they form a unity, i.e. demonstrate that they did not exist as independent ideas, entities, but all originate in the same whole. This may make the author’s words easier to understand. Ed.]    In our verse the Torah describes the result of the sacrificial rites being performed as עולה, אשה ריח ניחוח. The word עולה describes the smoke from the burned up parts of the animal rising heavenwards as far as the region represented by the letter ה in the word המזבחה which we just mentioned. Having reached that level, this very letter ה (i.e. what it represents) helps that offering to rise ever higher into the celestial regions. Once the smoke has ceased rising, the meat turns into fire; this is why the Torah added the description אשה, “a fire-offering” to the word עולה, “a burnt-offering,” which rises into celestial regions. Once the fire has burned itself out also, the whole becomes רוח spiritualised in the form of ריח, something that can neither be seen anymore, felt anymore, but can only be perceived by our sense of smell. This spirit is to “pull” the goodwill and the outpouring of it to earth via the attribute of Mercy.   The whole expression ריח ניחוח לה' may be perceived as related to the word נחה, “came to rest, settled.” We find that in the discussion between the prophet Elijah with his disciple Elisha who had balked at accepting the mantle of prophecy from Elijah unless the latter endowed him with twice as much רוח, spirit, as that possessed by his master Elijah, that the Book of Kings (II 2,15 relates that Elisha’s wish was granted and that this spirit  came to rest on him. In a similar way the objective of the עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח is to result in the desired divine qualities being bestowed on those who offer the sacrifice (and the whole people in the case of a public offering).   In Torat Kohanim Sifra Vayikra 1,59 the words עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח are explained as follows: עולה לשם עולה, אשה לשם אשים,לשם ריח ניחוח, לשם נחת רוח לה', לשם מי שעשה את העולם. The meaning of this cryptic sentence is that the word עולה means that the person offering this sacrifice must intend that it reach the tenth emanation; however this does not mean it should be directed at, i.e. dedicated to that emanation. It means that from that region onwards the thoughts which prompted the offering will become capable of achieving their objective; from that region the offering will enter holy celestial domains.    The words אשה לשם אשים mean that the offering be addressed to both the “weaker” and the “stronger” attribute of Justice. The meaning is parallel to the Midrash which comments on the words קרבני לחמי “did you think I need the sacrifice as My food?” The meaning is that it should serve to assuage the “injured feelings” of the attribute of Justice; the sinner had offended that attribute by committing the sin which the sacrifice is to atone for. This is all part of G’d saying לאשי, “for My fires,” you bring it to these attributes of Mine. The emanation כבוד will receive the offering from the attribute פחד. We find a parallel statement in the Midrash Zutta on Song of Songs 1,15 on the words הנך יפה רעיתי, where the author interprets the word רעיתי as equivalent to פרנסתי, “My livelihood.” According to the Midrash, G’d said to Israel: “what you are presenting to Me in the form of fire-offerings I view as if it were intended to be My food, My livelihood.” This explains the addition of the letter ה at the end of the word, as normally the word “fire” is written as אש without the letter ה at the end. The letter ה in אשה is basically as superfluous as the letter ה in Psalms 8,8 צנה ואלפים כלם, “sheep and oxen all of them.” The word אשה meaning “woman” is alluded to by the Midrash in Song of Songs which perceives the Jewish people as being G’d’s “provider” by means of their sacrifices. The Midrash reads the word isheh as if the vowel under the letter ש had been a kametz, i.e. making the word into ishah, woman, provider for her husband. Another reason why the word is not spelled merely as אש is so as to draw our attention to the “fifth” emanation (from the tenth down) the emanation of גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, the “great (consuming) fire, the fiery attribute of Justice.” Compare Deut. 5,22 where the expression האש הגדולה occurs.  When the Torat Kohanim wrote the words ריח לשם ריח הניחוח, it meant that the Torah wants the person offering the sacrifice to concentrate on the heavenly source (seat of pure thoughts) from where all of G’d’s goodness is lavished on earth and G’d’s creatures. It is from that region that these intentions are drawn towards the attribute of Mercy and come to rest on there. [I believe that to sum up it is simpler to say that a sinner must first assuage the attribute of Justice before he can put the attribute of Mercy at ease. One cannot sin and by trying to bypass the attribute of Justice whom one has offended rely on the attribute of Mercy to deal with the attribute of Justice on our behalf instead of addressing it directly. Ed.]  Our verse concludes with the word לה' in order to indicate that in the final analysis the goal of the sin-offering is the attribute of Mercy, as unless that attribute were involved in interceding on our behalf no one could stand up to the attribute of Justice by himself. Torat Kohanim phrased this as “to the One who created the universe,” as without the existence of and active intervention by the attribute of Mercy the world such as we know it would not endure seeing man is so sinful. We know that already when G’d created the universe using the attribute of Justice, He decided to “co-opt” the attribute of Mercy in order to ensure that the universe would endure and not self-destruct (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, see Rashi on Genesis 1,1).
      Every single one of G’d’s attributes is a “beneficiary” of the sacrifices offered to G’d. This “benefit” expresses itself in different parts of G’d’s attributes drawing closer together. This is the reason why when the Torah speaks about offerings and instructs us to bring sacrifices we so often find the expression להקריב, “to bring close.” The reference is not only to the donor achieving closeness with G’d but to the various attributes of G’d to draw closer to His essence. This is the reason it is called קרבן, something which results in drawing near.
      It is important to appreciate the deeper meaning of the halachah expounded in Yuma 21 that although heavenly fire would consume the sacrifices on the altar, it is incumbent on the priest to also contribute man-made fire. When the two kinds of fire intermingle this is a reminder that through the act of sacrifice man can establish close bonds with the attribute of Justice. Just as the two fires become one so the will of G’d (attribute of Justice) and the will of man will become one when man has demonstrated his desire to come close to G’d and to do so by following the rules laid down by G’d. Just as the rising smoke from activities performed by man on earth comes close to G’d, so, as a result of reciprocity by G’d, His largesse will filter down to us here on earth. The important thing is to utilise the proper conduits provided for all this by the Torah. When we do so we are perceived as if lighting candles. The author illustrates the sequence of what occurs as follows: when one places two candles one on top of another, man lights the lower candle by means of his sacrifice. As the smoke from the sacrifice rises, the upper candle will be lit by the warmth of the flame contained in the smoke of the lower candle.
      It is also important to reflect on why the burnt-offering, עולה, always had to be a male animal, whereas the sin-offering always had to be a female animal, and the peace-offering could be either male or female. The reason is connected to the destination of the burnt-offering, עולה, which is beyond a realm in the celestial regions where male and female emanations or attributes are separated. The domains to which the עולה offering is addressed does not know the distinction of פועל ומקבל, an active and a passive, receiving agent. The peace-offering on the other hand, could be ether male or female seeing that it was addressed to the קו האמצעי, the line in the diagram of the emanations which re-unites the male and the female forces. This is also why the very term שלמים reminds us of its purpose to be משלים, to perfect, to unite that which had been apart, had been separated. I have already mentioned this on Genesis 46,1. It follows that in connection with the peace-offering the Torah writes: אם זכר אם נקבה, “be it male or female.” The reason the sin-offering must be a female animal is that it addresses the attribute שמור, a word which refers to negative commandments, commandments which are violated by not guarding, not observing them, i.e. by ignoring the commandment שמור. No activity is required to fulfill a negative commandment. One does so by remaining passive, i.e. female. An activity is required to violate it. The reverse is true of positive commandments. One has to perform an activity in order to keep a positive commandment. Remaining passive vis-a-vis a positive commandment is tantamount to violating it. This leaves us with the problem why the guilt-offering called אשם which is to atone for violating certain negative commandments had to be a male animal rather than a female. According to the logic we presented it should also be an animal of the female category. [The author’s comments on this, assuming that the אשם atones for sins for which the penalty is karet is untenable as only the חטאת atones for such sins. I have decided not to speculate and amend the author’s words but to omit them. Ed.]   The sinner who has to bring an אשם in order to exonerate himself has to direct his sacrifice to a higher celestial region than people guilty of a חטאת sin-offering. Hence this sacrifice has to be a male animal. The saying of the sages in Berachot 34 that “the place where repentant sinners stand is one where even perfectly righteous people (those who never sinned) cannot stand,” is meant for the kind of people who rehabilitate themselves by means of the אשם offering.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   על ירך המזבח צפונה, “on the side of the altar, at the northern side.” Our sages (Baba Batra 25) say that the world is like a small house and the north wind can turn only inside its confines. It is just  like a three-legged stool which cannot stand properly and requires a fourth leg (Berachot 32). The sacrifices may be viewed as if they supplied the fourth leg for the stool called the universe. This is also the meaning of Psalms 48,3 that ירכתי צפון קרית מלך  רב, Mount Zion, summit of Zaphon, city of a great king.” [without Mount Zion the world would not be able to function properly. Ed.] When the Mishnah in Zevachim 47 asks “where is the correct site to slaughter the sacrificial animals?” The answer given is that the most sacred sacrifices had to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Surely it is preposterous to assume that the editor of that Mishnah did not know something as elementary as this, i.e. that these animals had to be slaughtered in the holy precincts of the Temple! However, the inquiry concerned in which direction of the precincts of the Temple (on which side) did this slaughtering have to take place? The scholar editing the Mishnah answers that it had to take place on the north side (if the animals were of the type called קדשי קדשים, the most sacred ones). The Mishnah cites our verse here where the north side is made mandatory for the slaughtering of the עולה offering, one of those called קדשי קדשים as proof.. When the Mishnah continues that the blood of the עולה has to be sprinkled על בין הבדים, “between and above the staves,” the meaning is that the officiating priest has to stand between the staves of the Holy Ark while sprinkling both above and below the thickness of the kapporet. In other words, the blood had to be sprinkled in the direction where the Shechinah was located between the outstretched wings of the cherubs. This corresponds to what is written in Song of Songs 1,13 בין שדי ילין, literally: (“he will sleep between my breasts”). However, the words בין שדי derive their profound meaning from the individual letters of the expression. The letters ש-ד refer to the שני בדים, two staves by means of which the Ark was carried. The whole expression is to be viewed as an allegorical comparison of the intimacy which existed between G’d and the Jewish people.
      We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3 that four directions (of the compass) were created in the world. Light originates from the east; beneficial dew as well as beneficial rains originate in the south, whereas snow, hail, cold and heat and normal rain originate in the west. Whereas G’d had “created” i.e. initiated the north also, He did not assign to it any specific function. G’d reputedly said that anyone who claimed to be a deity should prove his ability by assigning a useful function to the north, i.e. the corner of the universe that He had left incomplete.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word צפונה is a reference to the attribute of גבורה,  i.e. it is meant to be perfected still. [In order for man to perfect himself, such as to atone for his sins, he needs to turn northwards. Ed.] This is what is meant in Zevachim 53 that the officiating priest ascended the ramp called כבש, i.e. that the entire structure  (the world) was called כבש. [The priest’s actions were perceived as steps in bringing completion and perfection to our terrestrial universe by means of ceremonies and rituals performed as part of the sacrificial rites. The Kabbalah sees in the walk around the altar by the priest and in the direction in which he walks such symbolic significance. Ed.] Avraham’s journey through the Holy Land described in Genesis 12,9 mentioning also a southward journey is considered a parallel to the priest’s manner of walking on the altar when performing his service in the Temple. The priest awakens the attribute of חסד, love, in G’d. This is why he has to start out in the south (like Avraham proceeding southwards. This means that Avraham embarked on his mission for mankind from a southerly direction.) Having aroused G’d’s love he turns to the east the seat of תפארת, the emanation harmony from where the attribute of Mercy emerges. From there he turns northwards in order to make his peace also with the attribute of גבורה, the attribute of Justice. From the north he turns westwards the site of the emanation מלכות, the emanation representing the עולם העשיה, our terrestrial part of the universe. This is the deeper meaning of the statement by our sages in Baba Batra 25 that the Shechinah resides in the west. Having completed this circle, he addresses himself to the world of the angels, the disembodied creatures. As a result of the priest’s performing this procedure the terrestrial world will enjoy G’d’s blessing. Having reached the westernmost part of his walk, the priest returns to the south, the place from which he started out at the base of the כבש.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   מן התורים או מן בני היונה, “from the turtledoves or the pigeons.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah first mentions the fully grown birds of the species, i.e. the turtledoves, as they mate and represent דבקות, the attachment of the Jewish people to its partner, i.e. G’d. It is a remarkable fact that when a female turtledove has lost its mate it will never mate again. Similarly, Israel, having once established an intimate relationship with G’d will never exchange Him for any other deity. This is the reason why under-age doves are not considered as fit  to serve as an offering. On the other hand, mature pigeons are not fit to serve as an offering as they have developed a sense of jealousy, having mated, and therefore represent the opposite of דבקות, attachment. Jealousy is the cause of separation, friction etc.; it is not a characteristic we wish to draw attention to when offering a sacrifice to G’d. When pigeons are offered, the halachah insists that they be young ones which have not yet mated.  The reason that the Torah did not permit chickens to serve as sacrifices although they are pure birds and serve as our food, is because they mate indiscriminately, unlike the turtledoves and pigeons. Neither roosters nor hens keep faith with their partners.
      A kabbalistic approach: Turtledoves originate in water. The mature ones have been selected to serve as sacrifices to demonstrate the need for the attribute of חסד in all aspects of life on earth. The pigeon’s origin is fire. Concerning the יונה, pigeon, David writes in Psalms 68,14 ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ, “its pinions in fine gold,” the golden colour around the neck of mature pigeons represent the negative characteristic of man pursuing gold as a material asset. Gold’s colour simulates the colour of fire. The repetition of the letters רק in ירקרק alludes to the severity of the Judgment. On account of such considerations mature pigeons, may not serve as a sacrifice. Young pigeons are acceptable as they have not yet displayed features that remind us of negative characteristics when found in man.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   והסיר את מראתו בנוצתה, “he shall remove its crop with its feathers.” The word מראה refers to the remnants of food particles retained in the crop; the priest took the crop complete with the skin covering it as well as its feathers and threw them to the place reserved for refuse of the altar. The crop by itself was not large enough to make it worthwhile to wash and clean out and subsequently to burn it up on the altar as was done with the intestines of the four-legged animals after they had been cleaned out. Moreover, it is the nature of birds to wander all over and secure their food supply, i.e. to subsist on stolen food, as opposed to the domesticated four-legged animals. To offer the crop while it still contained stolen food was not ethical. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 3,4 phrased it thus: ”concerning the domestic beast which receives its food supply from the trough of its owner the Torah instructs that the innards be washed and subsequently be burned up (verse 13); the bird which feeds on stolen property has its crop (substitute for innards) thrown away  as stolen things are not acceptable as an offering to G’d.”
      The whole matter teaches us an important moral lesson regarding the subject of theft and robbery. Just as G’d wants no part of the part of the body of the bird which receives the stolen food, so G’d wants no part of man  who is guilty of anything similar until he has made full restoration. The prophet revealed to us the severity of this sin when he said (Jeremiah 17,11) “he who amasses wealth by unjust means, in the middle of his life it will leave him (stolen goods), and in the end he will be proved a fool.” “The end” of which the prophet speaks refers to the world to come where such a person will find out that what he did was counterproductive as he will fall from the proximity of G’d’s throne of glory. David already explained elsewhere (Psalms 24,3-4) that the ones who may expect to ascend the mountain of the Lord and the place of His holiness are “those who have clean hands, i.e. whose hands have not been stained with unjustly acquired wealth.”
  
  Verse 17
  
   ושסע אותו בכנפיו , “he shall split it with its feathers.”  The word בכנפיו, “with its feathers,” means that the priest does not have to pluck the feathers. The word בכנפיו means “literally with its feathers.” Although I could hardly have imagined something more revolting than to have to smell the feathers of burned wings, why then did the Torah legislate that the priest is to ‘bring near,’ i.e. to offer up such an evil-smelling offering? It was in order for the altar to be graced with the offering of a poor man and to make same look more substantial. [the bird offering was an accommodation to people who could not afford a more costly offering. Plucking the bird’s feathers would have made it look even less substantive. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה “When a person offers a meal-offering, etc.” This offering consists of fine flour, oil, and frankincense, as spelled out at the end of our verse. The priest squeezes a fistful in his hand and burns it on the altar whereas the remainder belongs to him personally as stated in verse 3: “the remnant of the meal-offering belongs to Aaron and his sons, it is of the most sacred category of the fire-offerings of Hashem.” In our verse the Torah speaks of the priest taking מלא קמצו, “a whole fistful” in order to burn it on the altar, whereas in 6,8 the Torah omits the word מלא, writing only בקמצו. What is the difference? The reason that the Torah varies the description of what is a “fistful” is to teach that there is no objective measurement for what constitutes a קומץ, “fistful.” The priest is not to employ one of the measuring cups used in the Temple to determine weight and measure. The word בקומצו refers to the manner in which he arrives at the correct amount, i.e. he covers the mixture with the middle three fingers of his hand when forming a fist.  Seeing that I could have assumed that even the fingertips of the priest are to be used in forming this “fistful,” the Torah writes מלא קמצו, “what fits comfortably into the palm of his hand.” Menachot 11 describes that the priest wipes the excess mixture from the palm of his hand with his thumb and little finger respectively. The procedure is described as very difficult to perform, in fact one of the procedures requiring extreme dexterity by the priest performing it. Rashi comments that the Hebrew word קמץ describes the lair of an animal (based on Nachum 2,13 and the Targum there of the words וימלא טרף חוריו, ”he filled his lair with prey”). When following this approach the word קמץ symbolizes the precious prey in an animal’s lair.    It is remarkable that the Torah introduces the subject of the meal-offering by writing נפש כי תקריב. What kind of person volunteers a meal-offering, i.e. a very inexpensive offering? It is the poor. By introducing the subject of the meal-offering with the word נפש, the Torah teaches that in the eyes of G’d a poor man who offers a meal-offering is considered as if he had offered his very life, i.e. נפשו. The Torah also describes this offering here as “a fire-offering of sweet smelling odor for the Lord.” This expression occurs with all kinds of offerings to teach that quantity does not determine the value of an offering in the eyes of the Lord. All that matters is the intention of the donor to dedicate it to G’d. (Compare Menachot 110, אחד המרבה ואחד ההמעיט, “both the one who offers a great quantity and the one who offers a small quantity, etc.”)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי כל שאר וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו לה', “for you shall not burn up any leavening or fruit-honey as a fire-offering to the Lord.” Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,46 that the heathens were in the habit of offering leavened products in all their meal-offerings and that they mixed in some honey in all of them. This is why the Torah forbade us to imitate the heathens and it banned these ingredients as offerings to the Lord. This corresponds to something our sages taught in connection with the offering of sacrifices to the Lord on altars known as מצבה, a slab of rock anointed for the purpose. Whereas prior to the giving of the Torah such altars were pleasing in the eyes of the Lord, they became objects which He hated after He had given the Torah to the Jewish people (compare Deut. 16,22 and the hilchot shoftim of Maimonides’ code).
      According to the plain meaning of our text the purpose of the offerings is to atone for one’s sins. Had it not been for the evil urge man would never have committed a sin in the first place. There  would not have been any need for such offerings then. Our sages in Mechilta Pischa 8 commening on Deut. 16,3 לא תאכל עליו חמץ, explain this. The reason that חמץ is not to be eaten at a time when the Passover lamb can be brought (on the 14th of the month of Nissan after noon) is that the lamb atones for the idolatrous practices of the Jewish people prior to the Exodus. G’d wanted to keep anything which reminded the Israelites of the evil urge away from them so that they would not be tempted to return to such practices. Not only chametz, but also honey is a symbol of the evil urge as the letters of the word דבש have the same numerical value as the letters of the word אשה, woman (306). We find that when the first human being, Adam, sinned and G’d asked him how this could be, he blamed his wife, i.e. woman as such saying that “the woman You G’d have given me gave me of that fruit and I ate.” (Genesis 3,12). Clearly, he equated woman with the personification of the evil urge, his temptress. Woman herself said that she had been seduced by the serpent, the creature embodying the concept of the evil urge. This is the mystical dimension of the relationship between woman-the serpent- and the inherent hostility between the serpent and woman, i.e. man born by woman (compare our commentary on Genesis 3,13). This is why both leavened goods and honey have generally been declared as unfit to be the means through which man atones for his sin when bringing a sacrifice.  Another reason for this is the well known statement of our sages that “one cannot immerse oneself in a ritual bath and expect it to cleanse one while holding the source of one’s ritual impurity, i.e. a dead mouse or such like in one’s hand” (Taanit 16).
      A kabbalistic approach: both chametz and honey are symbols of the attribute of Justice as they represent an intensive nature rather than something composed of tempering influences As such, these two phenomena have a tendency to estrange man from the altar rather than to bring him closer to what the altar represents. Hence the Torah writes: “do not use it to burn it up as a fire-offering for the Lord.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   במלח תמלח, “with salt you shall salt it.”  It would have sufficed for the Torah to write ובכל מנחתך תתן מלח, or תמלח. Why did the Torah use the additional word במלח? The expression במלח תמלח, appears to mean that the salt should be of a controlled quantity and efficiency. On the one hand, it should be assimilated, i.e. dissolve in the moisture contained in the meat; on the other hand, it should not be so potent as to draw all the blood out from the meat. The practice of salting our meat nowadays is meant to simulate what occurred with the sacrificial meat.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for salting sacrificial meat is to ensure that its taste is not bland (compare Ibn Ezra). The Torah teaches us manners with this instruction. Although G’d, of course, does not “eat” the meat, it is not fitting for us to offer Him something as food on the altar which we ourselves would reject as unpalatable. One certainly would not serve unsalted meat to a king of flesh and blood (Berachot 58). The same idea has been expressed explicitly by the prophet Maleachi 1,8 where he asks bitingly: “would you dare offer something (of such inferior quality) to your governor?” 
       Maimonides’ thoughts on this subject, as expressed in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,46 are that the heathens removed all salt from their offerings and they would not offer it as a sacrifice  precisely because it drew the blood from the meat; they considered the blood as the essence of the animal and did not want any of it to be wasted. The Torah wanted to counter these pagan theories; this is why the Torah commanded that every offering brought on G’d’s altar must be accompanied by some salt.
      A Midrashic approach tinged with kabbalah: G’d had concluded a covenant with the waters in the “lower” regions of the universe .at the time these waters were separated from the “upper” waters (Genesis 1,7) that on Sukkot some of these waters laced with salt would be used as a libation on G’d’s altar. This is confirmed by Bereshit Rabbah 5,5 according to which the “lower” waters were called “crying waters” as they accepted the separation from the upper waters only after shedding salty tears. This is reflected in Job 28,11: “He dammed up the streams because they cried so much.” Rabbi Abba said that these waters separated from the upper waters by crying. The reason they cried was that they were saying “woe to us that we did not merit to ascend to the celestial regions where we would be close to our Creator.” In fact they were so upset that they dared to split “the deep” and threatened to ascend with their intrinsic power. G’d became angry at them and forced them back to their realm. We know all this from Isaiah 43,16: “Who made a road through the sea and a path through mighty waters.” Nonetheless, G’d told the “lower” waters that seeing their revolt was motivated by their desire to be closer to Him, He would not allow the upper waters to commence with the song of praise to Him until they had obtained permission from the “lower” waters to do so. This has been confirmed in Psalms 93,4: “more majestic than the sounds of the mighty waters of the sea is the voice of the Lord on high.” What is it that these waters say in order to signify their consent? אדיר במרום ה', “the Lord is majestic on high.” Furthermore, G’d promised the “lower” waters that when the time would come for the Israelites to offer sacrifices to Him on the altar, these would be accompanied by both salt and water libations. We have another Midrash in which the (terrestrial) world is described as divided into one third desert, one third habitable, and one third ocean. The oceans said to G’d: “the desert merited that the Torah was given in it; the habitable parts of earth merited that the Temple was erected on them; what are we going to get?” G’d responded saying that in the future, in G’d’s own good time, the Jewish people would include both salt and water in the sacrificial rites
      A kabbalistic approach: salt contains two forces which are opposites of one another. They are fire and water, the power of warmth, i.e. the sun which dries out the water making the salt congeal, solidify. [I suppose the meaning is that through the heat of the sun which causes such water as the waters of the Dead Sea to evaporate, salt is isolated and becomes identifiable. Ed.] In other words, heat (fire), the opposite of water releases the power of the salt in the water. Seeing that water and fire are the two elements which ensure the existence and continuity of the universe, salt combines these two elements in a certain form. It is the catalyst, so to speak, for water and fire to interact. This is the reason why the Torah writes :
     ולא תשבית מלח ברית ה' אלו-היך מעל מנחתך, “you may not discontinue the salt of your G’d’s covenant from upon your meal-offering.” The reason the Torah calls the salt “the covenant of the Lord,” is because by means of it the covenant will be maintained  or destroyed. You may compare this to a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 14,15: “when G’d saw that man would not be able to survive if He ruled the universe by means of the attribute of Justice exclusively, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy;” in a similar way we may view “salt” either as the instrument of preserving matters or as being the instrument of destruction and making earth forever useless to man. An example was the brimstone and salt which fell on the cities of Sodom, etc. (Jeremiah 17,6; compare also Deut. 29,22).    Still on the same words: “do not discontinue salt, etc.” Seeing the Torah had already written that every meal-offering consisting of fine flour has to have salt on it, and that every meat-offering  has to have salt on it, why does the Torah once more write the above words? Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that these latter words by the Torah are to be viewed as if they were an oath by G’d who says to The Jewish people: “I who have made a covenant with you beseech you on oath that you shall not discontinue the practice of adding salt to your meal-offerings.” Thus far Ibn Ezra.  The Torah writes: “you shall offer salt with every one of your sacrifices” as otherwise we would have thought that only meal-offerings such as the showbreads, etc., require that they be salted or accompanied by salt, and that this is the reason the Torah mentioned salt always in connection with the מנחה, the meal-offering. To avoid such an error, the Torah had to write a line saying that salt is to be part of every offering.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   חלבו האליה תמימה, ”its choicest part, the entire tail.” Normally, in Hebrew, the fat which is separated from the meat is called חלב, and it is peeled off the meat which it adjoins. The expression שומן applies to fat which is so much part of the flesh that it is not easily separated. When Moses said (Deut. 32,15) וישמן ישורון...שמנת עבית, “Yeshurun (Israel) has become fat,...you have become corpulent,” he referred to the fact that this “fatness, grossness,” had become an inseparable part of the personality of the Jewish people. We also have a verse in Psalms 63,6 חלב ודשן תשבע נפשי, “I am sated as with rich fat.” Our sages in Chulin 49 describe  this kind of חלב, as תותב קרום נקלף “a sheet or layer which can be peeled off.” The reason they named it thus is because it is like a garment covering the meat. The Hebrew translation of the word תותב is שמלה, “garment, dress.” From all the above it is clear that not only are the terms חלב and שומן different but that these terms describe totally different parts of the animal. Whereas חלב is almost impossible to boil or otherwise make edible, שומן, is an integral part of the meat. It is warm and moist, whereas חלב is cold and dry. Seeing that this is so, we must ask why the Torah describes the tail of the sheep, אליה, as covered with חלב instead of with שומן? This tail does not have any of the fat parts which we defined as typical of those which the Torah describes usually as חלב. The fat of the tail is an integral part of the tail, not peel-able. If, on the other hand, we would conclude that here the Torah used the word חלב for something which is really שומן, what are we to make out of verse 17 in our chapter where the Torah commands כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat any fat or any blood?” Surely if the words חלב and שומן are used interchangeably, then that verse prohibits the eating of שומן also, and only red meat is permissible.
      In view of these difficulties we have to understand the expression חלבו האליה תמימה, in the Torah as not referring to שומן but to חלב. Seeing that you will ask: “what חלב is there to be found on this tail?” The Torah means that when one separates the entire tail from the animal, the עצה, spine, to which it is attached will be removed with it (part) together with the considerable amount of חלב found attached to that part of the lower spine.
   This is also how Rav Saadyah Gaon explains our verse. He understood the words חלבו האליה as equivalent to חלבו והאליה, “its fat plus its tail.” We find that when enumerating the descendants of man the Book of Chronicles I 1,1 writes: אדם, שת אנוש when clearly the meaning is אדם, שת ואנוש “Adam, Sheth, and Enosh.” The same is true when the Torah enumerates constituent parts of the Tabernacle, writing: קרסיו, קרשיו, בריחיו, ועמודיו ואדוניו (Exodus 39,33). Although the connecting letter ו is omitted a couple of times, the verse is to be read as if the Torah had written it. The same is true of Leviticus 7,37 where the Torah writes לעולה למנחה. Clearly, the Torah did not mean to tell us that the burnt-offering is identical with the meal-offering, but the meaning is: “the burnt-offering as well as the meal-offering.” By the same token no one in his right mind would assume that Ezra (author of Chronicles) would have believed that Adam, Sheth, and Enosh were identical just because the connecting letter ו is absent in the text.
     לעמת העצה יסירנה, “which shall be removed close to the backbone.” The word עצה in our verse is a combination of the words עץ and עצה, “wood” and “counsel.” The word עץ is appropriate as it is hard as wood; the word “counsel” is appropriate as it is located near the kidneys the source of man’s “counsel.”  The tail is to be removed starting at a point above the kidneys. This is the meaning of (verse 10) על הכליות יסירנה, “he is to remove it above the kidneys.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   נפש כי תחטא בשגגה , “when a person will sin inadvertently, etc.” The expression נפש includes the body and the invisible life-force. When G’d began to create man in Genesis 2,7 we find that the Torah wrote  וייצר ה' אלו-הים את האדם עפר מן האדמה, “the Lord G’d formed man dust from the soil;” afterwards, the Torah added that “He blew into his nostrils a living soul;” as a result of these two parts being joined together man, i.e. האדם, became a living being, i.e. נפש חיה. In other words, the word אדם means “a combination of body and spirit.” The word הנפש just as האדם refers to a combination of body and spirit. It is important for us to know this so that we appreciate that whatever reward or punishment G’d metes out He metes out to both body and spirit. The spirit alone, or the body alone, are not capable of performing actions which qualify for either reward or punishment. This is the meaning of Leviticus 17,10: ונתתי פני בנפש האוכלת את הדם, “I will set My face against the person eating the blood, etc.” This is clear proof that the Torah calls the combination of body and spirit נפש, as the spirit by itself could not eat, and even if it could, it would not be culpable. When the Torah concludes the above verse it writes והכרתי אותו, “I will wipe him out, etc.” Seeing that the word נפש was treated as feminine at the beginning of this verse, it is clear that the Torah switching from the feminine to the masculine wants to teach us that the term נפש refers to the combination of spirit, נשמה, (feminine) and body i.e. עפר (masculine). In our verse here we also find the Torah using once the feminine כי תחטא instead of כי יחטא, whereas at the same time the Torah speaks of ועשה, “and he committed,” instead of ועשתה, “and she committed.” This grammatically otherwise untenable combination is proof that man is a composition of body and spirit. In the next verse the Torah describes such an unintentional sin by the High Priest with the words: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “If the High Priest sins” (all masculine). The formula is in order as the High Priest consists of body and spirit. Seeing that the term נפש has been used by the Torah in Genesis to describe man, we find in a variety of instances that the Torah employs the same term when speaking of a living human being. Whenever this term occurs it never refers to the invisible spirit alone but always to a human being, i.e. a combination of body and spirit. On other occasions when the Torah describes the creature addressed as אדם, what is meant is also this combination of body and spirit. However, in other parts of the Bible, we do encounter the term נפש as applying only to the body. Examples are Kings I 20,31 where the servants of Ben Haddad advise their king to surrender himself to the Jewish king, claiming that the soft-hearted King Achav might spare his life. The word נפשך in that line can hardly apply to Ben Haddad’s soul as it was not within the power of Achav to make dispositions of Ben Haddad’s soul. Besides souls are not mortal. When the prophet Bileam wished himself a death such as the death of the righteous (Numbers 23,10) he referred to his body only seeing the soul is not mortal anyway. Our sages (in Sifra nedavah 1,1), comment as follows on the words נפש כי תחטא, “the expression נפש is meant to include converts and slaves of the Jews.”
      We have another Midrash (Tanchuma Vayikra 6) according to which the emphasis of the verse is on the words בשגגה, inadvertently. The Torah refers to what Solomon spoke about in Proverbs 19,2 “it is also not good for a person (נפש) to lack knowledge, he who rushes in with his feet sins.” This verse applies to two individuals, Achav ben Kulliah and Tzidkiyah ben Massiayh who were junior prophets (disciples of a school of prophets) at the time of the last King of Yehudah Tzidkiyah in Jerusalem, and who, according to tradition committed sins in Jerusalem and even after having been exiled continued sinning in Babylon. Their sin consisted in abusing their supposed prophetic powers to gain access to married women having in mind immoral  and illegitimate relations with these women. They would obtain these women’s husbands permission to be alone with their wives by claiming that they had a message for them from G’d which was only for their ears. Once they had gained access to these women they told them that G’d wanted them to become the mothers of future prophets. They would therefore suggest that the woman in question have intercourse with their respective friend and partner in crime so that the lady would become pregnant. Seeing that they did not demand sexual satisfaction for themselves but for another their story sounded more plausible and they were not suspected of being corrupt. They made this kind of deceit their regular mode of operation. Although they were such exceedingly wicked men they established for themselves a reputation of being great prophets in Babylon. Seeing that they had such a reputation pregnant women would ask them if they were going to give birth to a male child or to a female child. They would tell the pregnant woman that she would have son, but at the same time tell her girlfriend that the woman in question would have a daughter. When the woman who had been told she would have a son found that she gave birth to a daughter, her girlfriend would tell her that she knew this all along as the prophet had told her in confidence. The reason he had not told this to the pregnant woman was in order to save her the distress over expecting a daughter and having to endure pregnancy with such a prospect all the time. Eventually, one of them approached the wife of King Nebuchadnezzar in a similar fashion, asking that she sleep with his friend if she wanted to become the mother of a prophet. The lady said that she would not agree unless her husband had agreed to this first. She told the King about what Tzidkiyah had proposed to her, i.e. that she sleep with Achav. The King  called in both Achav and Tzidkiyah repeating what his wife told him, but adding that he was aware that the G’d of the Jews hated all manner of sexual licentiousness. He quoted the example of Zimri ben Salu who had been slain by Pinchas on account of sleeping with the princess of Midian, and how prior to Pinchas’ deed 24,000 Israelites had died by the plague because they committed the sin of sexual licentiousness. He challenged them to prove that they were not false prophets. He told them that once before he had wanted to know if Chananyah, Mishael and Azzaryah had been true prophets of the G’d in heaven and in order to know he heated a kiln for seven days, threw them into it bound hands and feet and they walked out unharmed. The King proposed that when examining Tzidkiyah and Achav he would heat up the same  kiln for only one day. If G’d would save them he would recognise them as true prophets and would agree that his wife become pregnant by one of them. Thereupon these two fakers said that seeing Chananyah, Mishael and Azzaryah were three it was understandable that G’d extended Himself in order to save them. Seeing there were only the two of them, it was unlikely that G’d would perform a miracle on their account. Nebuchadnezzar countered that there was indeed a third man, a Jew who  used to be the High Priest in Jerusalem. He, Nebuchadnezzar, would throw all three of them into the heated kiln and they would find out the result. The two false prophets were now encouraged by this, thinking that G’d would save them as He would not allow the High Priest to die such a death. They therefore agreed to the test. Nebuchadnezzar threw all three of them into the kiln; the two false prophets were burned whereas the High Priest Yehoshua was saved. This is the reason that Zecharyah 3,2 described this High Priest as “a brand who had been saved from the fire.”  The incidence of these two false prophets Achav and Tzidkiyah became so widely known during the exile of the Jews in Babylon that when people had occasion to curse someone they would curse them by saying: “may G’d treat you as the King of Babylon treated Achav and Tzidkiyah whom he consigned to the flames (Jeremiah 29,22).” When trying to determine what was the downfall of these two men, we are reminded of their eagerness to run and commit sins (Proverbs 19,2), something far worse than being unable to resist temptation when it comes one’s way.
  
  Verse 3
  
   אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the High Priest becomes guilty of a sin, etc.” The list of sinners mentioned in this chapter proceeds in the following order: 1) High Priest, 2) High Court (collectively); 3) King; 4) the common people. The reason the Torah commences with the High Priest is that he is an outstanding individual  (Joshua 14,15) comparable to an angel of the Lord (Malachi 2,7). When the people observe that even the High Priest has to bring a sin-offering they will be careful to return to G’d in repentance themselves. They will be encouraged when they see the High Priest bringing such an offering, reasoning that if G’d is willing to forgive the trespass of even such an highly placed individual as the High Priest, He would most certainly be willing to forgive ordinary people for their trespasses against Him. It was a well known fact that G’d relates more severely to people of distinction who become guilty of a sin than He does to ordinary individuals. This is why Solomon said in Kohelet 1,18 that “the amount of (G’d’s) anger is determined by the degree of wisdom (of the sinner).” The more wisdom one possesses the less forgivable is one’s sin. The best example in Scripture of the truth of this statement is Moses who was punished grievously for committing an error when striking the rock instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20,12).
     לאשמת העם, “due to the guilt of the people;” according to the custom of the people and their path, i.e. they are guilty. The Torah adds these words to teach that the High Priest should not be ashamed to confess and rectify his guilt when it was due to his falling into the bad habits practiced by the people. This is also the meaning of the words על אחת מכל אשר יעשה האדם לחטא בהנה, i.e. “one of the ways in which people are in the habit of sinning.” The expression אשם refers to habitual, knowing sin, whereas the expression יחטא which the Torah uses in connection with the sin of the High Priest refers to unintentional sin, something committed as an exception. The Torah teaches that the High Priest is to offer his offering and his mistake will be forgiven him just as G’d forgives the sins of the common people.
      Our sages in Midrash Eicha 3,34, comment on Lamentations 3,42: “we have sinned (knowingly) and we have rebelled, You have not forgiven.” The meaning is not that G’d did not forgive but that though if He had applied our own yardsticks He would not have forgiven, the fact is He applied His own yardstick and hence He did forgive. G’d’s yardsticks (attributes) enable Him to extend forgiveness even to habitual sinners completely — provided the sinner returns to Him in sincere and total repentance. Isaiah 55,7 confirms this when he writes: “let the wicked give up his ways, the sinful man his plans; let him turn back to the Lord, and He will pardon him.” The word רשע, “the wicked man,” used in that verse refers to the sinner who boasts of his sins, who is a complete heretic denying that there is a G’d in heaven and that therefore there is no divine supervision of what occurs on earth. The word רשע is used in this context by Psalms 10,4: “the wicked, arrogant as he is in all his scheming (thinks) ‘He does not call to account; G’d does not care.’” There is no need to emphasise that the attribute of Mercy will forgive such a sinner as even the attribute of Justice forgives a repentant sinner. This is the meaning of Isaiah 55,7 וישוב אל ה' ורחמהו ואל אלו-הינו כי ירבה לסלוח, ”let him turn back to the Lord and He will pardon him, and to our G’d, for He freely forgives.” We find the same idea expressed in Psalms 36,2 and 36,6: “I know what Transgression says to the wicked; he has no sense of the dread of the Lord.” “O Lord Your faithfulness reaches to heaven; Your steadfastness to the sky.” This entire hymn is based on the deeds of the wicked, the heretics. This is the reason David speaks of the attribute of חסד, of loving kindness, (verse 6) as this attribute is known by the nations through G’d’s extending forgiveness to those who appear to have no claim to such treatment. The reason the psalmist adds the letter ה at the beginning of the word בהשמים instead of the customary בשמים is that this letter is like an entrance, a gateway. David hints that the gateway to forgiveness is open. Seeing that this attribute is located in heaven, it is important to show that the gateway to heaven remains open. The shape of the latter ה, i.e. a shape in our terrestrial world; it is meant to show that even in our terrestrial world a door is open to heaven. G’d does not deny His love to those who want to return to Him in penitence.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, “and if the entire assembly of Israel err, etc.” The “assembly” referred to in our verse is the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court. It could not be otherwise, as it is quite impossible for the entire Jewish nation by themselves to commit the same sin by mistake. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah added the words ונעלם הדבר מעיני העדה, “and the matter became obscured from the eyes of the congregation.” The Supreme Court, prophets, and Torah scholars are traditionally regarded as “the eyes of the congregation.” An example of this is found in Isaiah 29,10: “and has shut your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.” Isaiah makes it plain that the prophets are the eyes of the people. We also have a statement by our sages (Sifra, Vayikra 4,2) to that effect where we are told: “I might have supposed that here we are talking about the entire community; to ensure we do not misunderstand the Torah wrote the words עדה, whereas in Numbers 35,24 the Torah also used the word עדה, when describing judgment being pronounced on a murderer; just as there the word עדה refers to a court and not to the whole people, so here too the Supreme Court is meant and not the whole people.” Just as in that instance a court comprising not less than 23 judges is meant, so here too a court of not fewer than 23 judges is meant. What then is the precise meaning of the words כל עדת ישראל? It means a congregation peculiar to the Jewish people, i.e. the great Sanhedrin which had its seat on the Temple Mount.
  
  Verse 14
  
  . והקריבו הקהל פר בן בקר לחטאת והביאו אותו לפני אהל מועד, “and the congregation is to bring a two year old bull as a sin-offering, and they shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The sin of original man, Adam, and that of the Jewish people in the desert had something in common; this is the reason that our sages were of the opinion that Adam offered a bull as his sin-offering. (Chulin 60). This is also the reason that our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 5,6 made a point of commenting that this is the reason it is the only sin-offering of which the Torah writes that it was to be brought at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (verse 4). The matter may be understood by means of a parable. A king had a friend who had brought him a valuable gift. The king was so impressed that he told his friend to display it at the entrance to his palace for all to see what a valuable gift he had presented to his ruler.
      The author’s own teacher, Rabbi Shlomoh ben Aderet, explained that the beautiful gift referred to in the parable was the repentance (not the bull). When a person has followed the instincts of his heart and thereby committed a sin, there is no nicer gift he can make to His Creator than to present the very item with which he sinned as a gift to his Creator. This proves that his repentance is unreserved. When the Torah repeats the expression: “in front of the Tent of Meeting” no fewer than three times in connection with this sin-offering of the bull, i.e. “he will bring it,” “he will slaughter it,” “he will sprinkle its blood seven times”, this underlines the point. [The people’s sin, of course, was that of the golden calf, and atoning for it by offering a bull makes the parable fit. Ed.] Thus far רשב"א. (The author elaborated on this in his commentary on Genesis 3,6 ויאכל).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . והזה שבע פעמים לפני ה' את פני הפרוכת, “he is to sprinkle (the blood) seven times before the Lord, before the curtain.” When describing a similar procedure performed with the sin-offering of the High Priest, the Torah wrote את פני פרוכת הקודש. What is the difference? We may again use a parable to illustrate the difference. When a king faces the rebellion of a small number of his subjects, his regime and his ministers will endure. If all his subjects rebel his regime will topple. As long as only the High Priest was guilty of a sin, the matter is not serious enough for the inner Sanctum, i.e. Dividing Curtain and what is beyond to lose its “holiness,” i.e. symbol of the kingdom. When the whole people rebelled, i.e. the entire Jewish nation was guilty of a sin of disloyalty, the “Dividing Curtain” could no longer be described as “holy”; its whole function had been undermined. By omitting mention of the adjective “holy” when speaking about the Dividing Curtain the Torah alluded to this difference.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   חטאת הקהל הוא, “it is a sin-offering by the congre-gation.” The word הוא [masculine, instead of the word היא which we would have expected as the appropriate pronoun applicable to the feminine חטאת, Ed.] refers to the word הפר, “the bull,” earlier in our verse.  It is possible to view the word as an allusion to the sin of the golden calf (a male calf) which had been the only such collective sin of all the Jewish people in the desert. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 42,5 state that because of this sin one of the feet of the merkavah, the carriers of G’d’s entourage, slipped at that time. They base this on Ezekiel 1,10 “and the face of the ox on the left of the four of them.” [In other words the “ox” symbolised the fact that through their sin at the golden calf the Israelites had undermined G’d’s throne, in particular the חיה with the face of an ox. Ed.] 
      The type of sin-offerings to be brought by either the High Priest or the people [when they followed faulty High Court instructions] were the same, i.e. a two year old bull, because Aaron the High Priest had committed the error first [when making the golden calf, Ed.] and the people’s sin was a consequence of Aaron making the calf. The Torah ascribes the calf to the people when writing (Exodus 32,20) “the calf they had made.” A few verses later (verse 35) as if correcting itself, the Torah writes: “which Aaron had made.” In other words, the Torah is trying to explain the sin of the people as due to Aaron having committed the first error.
      You should also appreciate why, when the Torah describes the sin-offering of the High Priest in verse 3, the bull is described as 'תמים לה, “unblemished for the Lord,” whereas here the Torah only mentions “the congregation shall offer a two year old bull as a sin-offering,” without mentioning anything about it being unblemished. All of this is evidence that the Torah wishes to preserve the impression that Aaron’s part in the entire golden calf episode had been of pure, unblemished intention. When he had invited the people to celebrate a festival for the Lord on  the morrow of the golden calf having emerged (32,5), he could not have known that some of the people had impure idolatrous intentions at that time and would treat this calf as a deity, as we know from Exodus 32,8: “they prostrated themselves before it and sacrificed to it.”
  
  Verse 22
  
   אשר נשיא יחטא, “when a prince (king) will sin inadvertently,” The word אשר in this instance is the same as if the Torah had written אם, “if a prince has sinned, etc.” We find the word אשר substituting for the word אם also In Deut. 11,27 את הברכה אשר תשמעו, “the blessing, if you will listen, etc.”  
  Alternatively, we could understand the word to reflect a definitive statement, i.e. the Torah assuming that at one point or another a king is going to commit a sin and will have to offer a sin-offering. This then would account for the fact that the Torah did not choose to write אם נשיא יחטא, “if a king will sin, etc.” Seeing that the Torah had written אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the High Priest will sin,” and it had written ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, “and if the entire congregation of Israel err, etc.,” the reason could be that seeing the High Priest is so careful not to sin, and the entire High Court cannot be presumed to err, the Torah did not want to write the word אשר in those instances which would have made a flat statement that these representatives of the people who are imbued with Holy Spirit would commit inadvertent sins. A king, who is no religious authority and to whom neither the people’s purity nor their piety is directly entrusted, is much more likely to err and sin; therefore the Torah used the expression אשר, to indicate that the Torah considers the fact that a king will sin at one time or another as a given. Kings have a hard time combating their arrogance and it is therefore not unusual for them to become guilty of sins. Keeping the pressures on kings to combat their egos in mind, the Torah devoted several verses to this in Deut. 17,20 and legislated certain restrictions on them to restrain their feeling all-powerful and above the law   It was not accidental that the princes- the nearest thing to kings the Israelites had in those days- donated the precious stones for the shoulder piece and breastplate of the High Priest as they were to atone for the sin of arrogance. Compare what we wrote on Exodus 35,27.
      A Midrashic approach (Sifra Vayikra 5,1) to the words אשר נשיא יחטא: According to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai the word אשר may be understood as אשרי, i.e. “hail to the generation whose king offers a sin-offering for having committed an inadvertent sin. If he is humble enough to acknowledge an error and to seek forgiveness, how much more so is he likely to repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed knowingly!” If the people observe that their king acknowledges errors by offering a sin-offering how much more so will their subjects be encouraged to acknowledge their mistakes and bring sin-offerings and ask G’d’s forgiveness!   I might have thought that when the Torah writes the word נשיא it refers to a mere tribal head such as Nachshon prince of Yehudah. In order to make clear that this is not the kind of נשיא the Torah has in mind here, we find the words ועשה אחת מכל מצות ה' אלו-היו אשר לא תעשינה, “and he becomes guilty of committing one of the acts from all the commandments of Hashem which may not be done, etc.” In Deut. 17,19 the Torah writes: ”in order that he (the king) should learn to fear the Lord his G’d.” The message is that just as the king who has no human authority above him must respect divine authority, so here too, the “prince” is to understand that he must respect divine authority. The word נשיא as describing the highest temporal authority is also used in Ezekiel 12,12 where the prophet writes: והנשיא אשר בתוכם  אל כתף ישא, which means that “that the king (Tzidkiyahu) should carry the vessels of exile on his shoulders.” The term נשיא is appropriate for a king as he is the most elevated person in the nation. This is also what the Torah meant in Exodus 22,27 where we read אלוהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “you shall not curse G’d, nor shall you revile the leader of your people.” In that verse the Torah first warns against cursing the most high Being, i.e. G’d, followed by the most highly placed human being, i.e. the king who rules the land (or on earth). Our sages have said that when the people sin it is usually found that their king is punished for their sin. They base this on verse 21 in our chapter where the sin is described as חטאת העם, “the sin of the people,” and these words are followed immediately by the words “when a ruler sins.” They use this sequence to teach that anyone in authority who is able to protest wrongdoing and does not do so is considered as guilty of the wrongdoing committed (Shabbat 54).
  
  Verse 23
  
   או הודע אליו, “or (the sin) becomes known to him, etc.” The meaning of the words is the same as if the Torah had written either והודע or וידע חטאתו, “he is aware of his sin.” In other words, the word או here is to be understood as the same as the connecting letter ו, “and.” We find a similar construction in Proverbs 30,31 זרזיר מתנים או תיש, where the words do not mean “a greyhound or a male goat,” but “a greyhound as well as a male goat.” [This is the view of commentators such as Rabbi Yonah quoted by Kimchi רד"ק.] 
  This leaves us with the need to explain why the Torah chose this way of writing the word הודע with the letter ה in front as well as the additional word או. The reason may be that the sin-offering is related to the last letter ה in the tetragram. This is also why the Torah speaks of שעירת עזים תמימה נקבה in verse 28 where the reference to the subject which is masculine, i.e. קרבנו, should have rated the expression תמים instead of תמימה with the feminine ending at the end. The fact is that the letter ה really does refer to the word קרבנו and the message is that G’d inflicts afflictions on the sinner in order to prompt him to repent and to offer the sacrifice as proof of his repentance. It is the attribute of Justice represented by that last letter ה in the tetragram which initiates the afflictions setting the process of repentance-sin-offering in motion. The verse means that had the sinner not been victimised by such afflictions he would not have become aware of his sin.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  נפש כי תחטא ושמעה קול אלה, “If a person will sin, having heard  a sound (demand) for an oath, etc.” Tanchuma Vayikra 7, commenting on this introduction writes as follows: “take note that when both the creatures in the celestial regions and the ones in the terrestrial regions were created their creation was the result of G’d employing only one half of His name, i.e. Isaiah 26,4 כי ביה ה' צור עולמים, ‘that the Lord employed only the letters י-ה of His name when creating the universe.’ He did so in order that the sinners should not become guilty of desecrating His entire name when sinning.” Observe the sequence of the wording of the Torah in our verse. Instead of the Torah writing אדם כי יקריב מכם לה’ קרבן, the Torah writes אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה'. The reason that the name “for the Lord” appears only at the end is to prevent the possibility of someone dying after having uttered the words “for the Lord” without his being able to complete the sentence. This is how careful one has to be not to utter the name of the Lord in vain. This attitude is reflected in Solomon writing in Kohelet 5,1 “be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before G’d.”  Our sages (Tanchuma Vayikra 7) said that Jews should not be rash with offering vows and they should not make a practice of uttering oaths (even true ones). .hey tell of a king called Har in whose time 2,000 towns were destroyed all because of a true oath, because the oath was not called for. What was the oath all about? A person (not just one) swore an oath to his friend that he would go to a certain place and eat and drink there. He completed the journey and kept his oath. All the towns in which they confirmed all their intentions by phrasing them as an oath were ruined. If this is what happened to towns whose inhabitants honoured their oaths, how much worse is in store for people who do not honour their oaths! When in the future, G’d will judge people, the ones who will be accused for swearing a false oath will be put in the same company as the witches, sorcerers, and adulterers. This is all based on Maleachi 3,5: “But I will step forward to contend against you and I will act as a relentless accuser against those who have no fear of Me; who practice sorcery, commit adultery, who swear falsely, who cheat labourers of their hire and who subvert the cause of the widow.” G’d said: “the mouth which I gave you was meant to be used to sing My praises. Instead you use it to defame Me.” This is what is meant by Solomon in Proverbs 16,4: “the Lord made everything for a purpose, for His sake.” Another verse commenting on this subject is found in Isaiah 57,20: “but the wicked are like the troubled sea which cannot rest, whose waters toss up mire and mud.” Just as the waves of the sea in their arrogance rise higher and higher only to collapse upon themselves and be broken as soon as they hit the sand along the shore and the wave following it does not learn a lesson from the fate of the preceding wave, so the wicked do not learn from the fate which has befallen other wicked people before by becoming penitents. This is why they are compared to the waves of the sea which do not know the meaning of ever coming to rest in the world. The righteous, on the other hand, do know the meaning of calm and quiet as testified by Jeremiah 30,10 who writes: “and Yaakov shall again have calm and quiet with none to trouble him.”
     והוא עד או ראה או ידע, “and he was a witness who either saw or knew, etc.” According to Nachmanides we are not dealing with three separate subjects here. There cannot be someone who is a witness unless he has seen and knows. The meaning of the verse is that if the witness in question has been appealed to by an injured party to come forward and to testify to what he has seen and what he knows of, he will bear guilt if he fails to come forward.
     In fact, if one speaks of money which is under dispute it is impossible to be a witness unless one has seen and has knowledge of what has been agreed upon. However, it is possible to understand the verse in such a way that it does speak of three separate situations. Each of the situations would be a testimony all by itself. There is such a thing as having witnessed something with one’s eyes without one understanding the meaning of what one has seen. Similarly, it is possible to have knowledge of something even if one has not seen it with one’s eyes. There can even be testimony involving neither seeing nor having knowledge. Let me illustrate: If someone observed Reuven handing over money to Shimon  but he did not know whether this money was a loan, a repayment of a loan, or a deposit for safe-keeping, or even if the recipient was a messenger taking possession of the money on behalf of the person who had asked him to do so; in all these cases merely seeing something is not sufficient basis for relevant testimony. The reverse, i.e. knowledge of something without having witnessed the truth of the statement with one’s eyes could be that Reuven heard Shimon admit that he had borrowed money from him. Since at the time he admitted it he did not make repayment, Reuven is in no position to testify to a transaction. The testimony of such a witness may still be of benefit to the plaintiff  even when there is neither knowledge of a transaction or the transaction having been witnessed in cases where the person called upon to testify knows the signature of the party or parties concerned and can affirm or deny them. His testimony may help the plaintiff recover his money on the basis of the debtor’s signature to a document being independently confirmed. You could therefore justify the meaning of the word או as meaning “or” in the words והוא עד או ראה או ידע “and he is (either) a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.”    On the words: אם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו, “if he fails to testify he shall bear his iniquity,” our sages (Sifra Vayikra 11,5) comment that the meaning is that he fails to testify in a place where he is duty-bound to testify, i.e. at court. If such a witness withholds his testimony in private conversation with either of the litigant parties he is not guilty of anything. The Torah’s warning applies to him only if he fails to testify in a legitimate court. A Biblical example is Achan who was not obligated to reveal his misdemeanor before Joshua took him to court. This is why Joshua pleaded with him: (Joshua 7,19) “please tell me what you have done (i.e. confess).” Seeing that there have to be at least 2 litigants, one witness, and three members of the court, the letter ו in the word והגד, in that verse was added to allude to the 6 people involved. In our verse too the word לוא instead of being spelled לא as is customary, had the letter ו added in order to make the same point. It suggests that “if not,” the party concerned will be guilty of the penalty implied in the words ונשא עונו, “he will bear his guilt.” The allusion is that he is guilty only if he fails to testify in the presence of the 6 people represented by that letter ו.
      One may also see in the words והוא עד, “and he is a witness,” that the meaning of the whole verse is that if he withholds his testimony by not testifying before a court thinking that he can get away with it seeing no one will ever know that he suppressed evidence so how could he be convicted of something? The letters in the words והוא עד refer to G’d being a witness to suppressed evidence even if there is no such evidence in a human court. This would not be the first time that the word הוא  is used to describe G’d. One such appearance is in Isaiah 42,8 אני ה' הוא שמי, or Psalms 100,3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him.” A third example is Psalms 19,6 והוא כחתן יוצא מחופתו, “and He (G’d) is like a bridegroom emerging from His wedding canopy.” Still another example of the word הוא meaning “G’d” is Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, “and the Levite will serve G’d.” There are many other examples to confirm what we have said. It is therefore appropriate to translate the words והוא עד in our verse as “and He (G’d) is a witness.” He examines all of man’s motivations, thoughts, etc., and administers punishment based on what He discovers.
      There is yet another possibility that the additional letter ו in the word לוא is an allusion to the six days of creation and that it is meant to teach us that he who suppresses testimony on behalf of his friend is considered as if he suppressed testifying to the fact that G’d had initiated the universe all by Himself in the space of six days. When a person becomes guilty of committing relatively minor sins he will eventually commit major sins such as heresy.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “he will confess that wherein he has sinned.” We speak about someone who was in doubt if he had committed an error and upon closer examination finds that he has indeed committed that sin inadvertently. This is indicated by the choice of the word והתודה, “that he makes himself confess, attains certainty.” Our sages (Sifri Nasso 2) say that the word teaches that every sin requires that it be confessed. The same explanation occurs elsewhere in the Sifri on Numbers 5,6 “this person has committed a sin etc.,” where the operative word is the repetition of the word נפש, meaning that by the sin he has forfeited his life. That verse is used as the classic verse demanding that every sinner is required to confess his sin in order that his guilt can be expiated.  [Even sinners who are executed for their sins do not obtain atonement if they did not confess their guilt prior to execution. Achan, who was mentioned earlier, is a case in point. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 6
  
   והביא את אשמו לה' על חטאתו אשר חטא, נקבה מן הצאן, “he shall bring as his guilt-offering to Hashem a female from the flock, etc.” Our sages called this paragraph the עולה ויורד, meaning that although the expression אשמו occurs here the nature of the offering is not the kind of offering called אשם elsewhere at all. The offering known by the name אשם is invariably a male animal and here the Torah speaks of a female animal being the guilt-offering. Why then do we encounter the word אשמו usually translated as “his guilt-offering?” The reason is that his sin or guilt is the cause of his having to bring an offering. Just as on occasion a verse in Scripture refers to חכמה, “wisdom” as לב, “heart,” seeing that the heart is the seat or cause of wisdom, so here the Torah refers to the cause for the offering and calls it by that name.
      The term עולה ויורד, “ascending or descending,” given by the sages to the category of guilt-offerings discussed now is that the value of the offering is adjusted to the economic circumstances of the person who has to offer this sacrifice. If a person was wealthy at the time he committed the sin but became impoverished by the time he could bring his sacrifice, the Torah bases the sacrifice on his most recent economic circumstances. The same is true in reverse. Even though at the time he committed the offense he was poor and would have qualified for a less expensive offering to make expiation, if in the interval he became wealthy, inherited money for instance, he must bring a sacrifice commensurate with his present economic status. The Torah distinguishes between the rich, the poor, and the destitute. The former has to bring a sheep or goat, the person who is poor brings either two pigeons or two turtle-doves. The destitute brings a meal-offering consisting of a tenth of an epho of fine flour and oil. The Torah is explicit concerning the value of a guilt-offering consisting of a ram, writing that its valuation is 2 “holy shekalim,” i.e. four times the half shekel every male over 20 years of age had to “donate” for the Tabernacle for expiation of his participation in the sin of the golden calf as stipulated in Exodus 30,12. The author explains what the value of these two shekalim was in Arabic currency in his time, something not very relevant to us [approx. 28 grams or 1 ounce of pure silver in our weights. Ed.] It was presumed that the two birds which the poor had to bring was worth about one tenth of that, whereas the value of the meal-offering by the destitute was worth one tenth of the two birds, i.e. 1% of the value of the “wealthy” sinner. You find an allusion to this in the missing letter י in the word עשרית האפה instead of the normal עשירית האפה when the Torah discusses this measure. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וכפר עליו הכהן....ונסלח לו, “and the Priest will provide him atonement....and it shall be forgiven him.” Forgiveness will originate in heaven as the guilt will disappear together with the burning up of the sacrifice. The meaning of וכפר as making atonement occurs for the first time when Yaakov brought gifts (similar to sacrifices) to his brother Esau hoping that he would forgive him (ואכפרה פניו) for obtaining the birthright by trickery (Genesis 32,21). There is a difference between what is described as כפרה “atonement,” and סליחה, “forgiveness.” The latter means that the guilt has been totally forgiven, is now “non-existent” whereas the former is merely concerned with culpability for the sin committed. It is not within the capacity of human beings to grant forgiveness; only G’d Himself can wipe the slate clean completely. This is why David writes in Psalms 130,4: “forgiveness rests with You.” The High Priest, while initiating the process of forgiveness, cannot complete it, only G’d can. When someone was guilty of שבועת בטוי, (verse 4) “a false oath,” there is atonement only. The Torah does not add the words that “it will be forgiven him.” [Swearing a false oath is hardly an unintentional sin qualifying for total forgiveness. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  'נפש כי תמעל מעל וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה, ”if a person commits treachery and sins unintentionally against Hashem’s holies;” in this instance the Torah prefaces the expression מעל, “commits a trespass,” before mentioning the word חטא, “sin.” On the other hand, in the paragraph dealing with someone denying that he had received an object in trust for safe-keeping, etc., (verse 21) the order of describing the sin is reversed, i.e. first we have the word תחטא before the word מעלה. Another difference between both instances involving מעילה and unintentional sins not being described as “trespass” is the requirement to repay punitive damages, i.e. “one fifth.” The reason for all this is that here the Torah does not speak of unintentionally committed sins. There clearly was an intent to defraud either the Temple treasury or a fellow human being. Proof that the word מעילה implies deliberate wrong-doing is found in Ezra 9,2 where the subject is the mixed marriages of Jews to Gentiles. The author stigmatizes the leaders of the people for setting a poor example to the rest of the population by being the first ones to indulge in this sinful practice, calling it מעל. [One does not engage in the wholesale practice of marrying unconverted Gentiles through an error. Ed.] When the Torah uses the word חטא, however, this describes a sin committed erroneously, inadvertently. We have proof that this is the meaning of the word from Judges 20,16 ולא יחטיא, “and he would not miss (fail to hit his target).” A miss certainly would have been unintentional.   When the Torah deals with trespass against holy, sacred property, where no human being suffers from the intent to defraud, the Torah mentions the nature of the sin, “trespass” first. Seeing G’d did not “suffer,” He is able to treat the sin as if it had been committed unintentionally. The verse may be translated as “a person commits a trespass sinning unintentionally, etc.” In verse 21 however, where the sinner defrauds a fellow human being the Torah emphasizes the sinful nature of the act by mentioning the word תחטא before defining the sin, i.e. “a trespass.” The noun מעל implies the sinful, deliberate nature of the act. [The author feels that the last word is the word which carries the emphasis in both instances, the first word being like an adjective though it describes the action. Ed.]  It is typical of the Torah to treat sins committed against one’s fellow human being as more difficult to atone for than sins committed against G’d directly.
      It I also an important rule in the Hebrew language, or at  least in Biblical Hebrew, that when the order of certain words is inverted there is an important message in such apparently arbitrary use of the sequence of these words. Let us consider the example of תפשום חיים or חיים תפשום, which we translate in English as “capture them alive” (compare Kings I 20,18 where both expressions are used in the same verse, and it appears at first glance as if there were no difference between the two instructions of Ben Haddad). Seeing that Ben Haddad commanded that the men in question be captured alive regardless of whether their intention had been peaceful or hostile, why did he change the wording, using the expression “capture them alive” in the event that they were peaceful, and the expression “alive you shall capture them” in the event that the men’s intentions were hostile?  The meaning of the words תפשום חיים “capture them alive”  is “do not only not kill them when attempting to capture them, but let them continue to live.” In the second command the emphasis on the word חיים first means that you are to “capture their lives,” i.e. to kill them.   Let us illustrate what is meant by G’d reacting more sternly to wrongs committed between people than to wrongs committed by His creatures against Himself. In Genesis 12,3 G’d states that “he who curses you (Avraham) I will curse,” i.e. G’d personally will avenge Avraham’s injured dignity. By way of contrast we read in Samuel I 2,30 that “those who honour Me I will honour whereas those who spurn Me shall be dishonoured.” G’d did not say that He, personally, will dishonour the people who spurn Him, whereas He, personally, will honour people who show Him respect. In connection with Jerobam, King of Israel, who had dared offer a sacrifice to an idol on the altar he had built illegally, we find that G’d punished him immediately, making his arm lame, because he had given orders to arrest the prophet who had spoken out against the altar. G’d had failed to take visible revenge on Jerobam who had built the altar and sacrificed to idols upon it. Again we have proof of how concerned G’d is with the dignity of his creatures, in this instance “the man of G’d.” [even the ones who spurn Him. Ed.] In Kings II 6,18 where the subject is war between Aram and  Israel during the days of Elisha we find that while G’d never struck the soldiers of Ben Haddad’s army with blindness although they had been worshipping idols all their lives, when Elisha asked G’d to strike them with blindness G’d obliged so that they could not capture him. Here too you see that G’d’s concern for His creature, Elisha, was greater than His concern with insults the same people had heaped upon Him.   Concerning the payment of a penalty of 20% (25% respectively) for having violated another person’s trust, the Torah writes in verse 24 of our chapter וחמישתיו יסף עליו. We need to understand the sequence of the paragraph as follows: after the person to whom a deposit had been entrusted denies that he either received it or had not yet returned it, he aggravates his sin by swearing an oath that what he said was true, he ought by rights to pay many such extra 20% penalties. This explains the plural form of the word חמישתיו instead of חמישתו which we would have expected. The extra penalty would be imposed for the original refusal to pay a single extra 20%. Actually, in practice, the Torah does not impose the multiple penalty payments; however the Torah wants to be on record that strict Justice would have demanded that the guilty party now pay several times what he had to pay before he swore a false oath. [Here too we see that in practice G’d waived the penalty for the insult addressed to Him by means of a false oath, whereas the original denial vis-a-vis the wronged party did carry such a penalty. Ed].  Sifra Vayikra 21,3 commenting on the words 'ונפש כי מעלה מעל בה, where the word “against G’d” is peculiar seeing that the trespass was directed against a fellow human being, states in the name of Rabbi Akiva that all loans, etc., should have been executed with a document, witnessed, etc. The party who extended a loan without insisting on a written receipt is partly at fault for causing the borrower to be tempted to deny his liability seeing the lender could not offer proof of the borrower’s indebtedness to him. Seeing this happened, the borrower now has to have his denial of the debt witnessed by witnesses and a document.    The person who entrusted his belongings for safe-keeping to a third parry without witnesses did so precisely because he did not want a third party to know anything about the whereabouts of the object. This is why he is not criticised by the Torah as having trespassed against G’d in what he did and how he did it. The word 'בה therefore alludes to the third party to the transaction described, i.e. G’d. Only He knows about it in addition to the two parties directly involved.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, “and he did not know and became guilty, he shall bear his guilt.” According to Rashi this paragraph deals with someone who may or may not have committed a sin for which he penalty is the karet penalty when it has been committed intentionally. The classic example given in the Talmud is a person who has both permissible and forbidden fat in front of him and has eaten some,   believing both kinds to be permissible. When he was told subsequently that one of the two pieces of fat in front of him had been חלב, i.e. fat the deliberate consumption of which  carries the karet penalty, he has to bring an offering known as אשם תלוי, a “guilt-offering that is pending;” [his culpability is “suspended” until he can be sure of what he did eat. Ed.]    Another scenario described by our verse could be that of a  woman in a man’s bed of whose identity he was not certain, i.e. if she was his wife or his sister. He had slept with her not having made sure of her identity. Our sages  in Nazir 23 understand the words “he did not know and becomes guilty, carrying his guilt” as astounding. It is amazing that if a person who is faced with two distinct choices such as in the first example has to bring an אשם תלוי, is it not clear that if someone who did not even have two different entities in front of him is surely guilty of bringing at least such an offering?
      One may raise an objection to the entire line of reasoning involved here. In the earlier paragraph the party who has committed a sin in error has to bring a regular sin-offering  (compare 4,28), whereas here where the person is not even certain that he has committed a sin at all the Torah refers to his offering as אשם, which has a much stronger connotation of sin than the word חטאת, a term reserved for offerings atoning for inadvertent sin. Why should the Torah give the impression that the person who does not even know if he committed a sin is guilty of something more than the person who does know that he committed a sin, but in error? The very expression אשם is related to the word שממה, wasteland, something desolate, i.e. a very negative connotation. It is called thus to remind the sinner that he has become guilty of destroying his entitlement to life, so to speak. So why treat the possible sinner as worse than the definitive sinner?    Furthermore, why is the offering of the person who is aware of having sinned the female she-goat, something we characterized earlier as indicating less guilt than when one has to bring a male animal, whereas the person whose guilt has not even been established as yet has to bring a male animal, אשם, as if his sin were more severe than that of a person who knows definitively that he did commit such a sin? (The author adds that the ram has more blood than the she-goat, so that shedding more blood is symbolic of a greater sin). 
  The answer to these questions is that once one knows that one has committed a sin the very knowledge weighs upon one and produces the guilt feelings desired by G’d. When a person is in doubt about having committed a sin altogether his conscience does not bother him so much as he tries to convince himself that he may not have committed a sin altogether. In order to bring home to the person who is not certain that he has indeed committed a sin, the Torah, by treating this “maybe sin” as if it were more serious than the definite sin, hopes to achieve the psychological effect it desires. Having achieved this result the “maybe sinner” may resort to confession of his laxity in not making certain that what he ate or whom he slept with was permissible beyond the shadow of a doubt. This is why the person described in verse 17 is called אשם as if he were someone guilty of a serious sin. This is also why the word אשם, אשום אשם appears three times in verse 19 of our chapter. The matter is comparable to what our sages explained in connection with the sin-offering on the new Moon in Numbers 28,15 where the male goat is described as לחטאת לה' as “a sin-offering for the Lord.” Seeing the Torah had not mentioned any specific sin this offering was to atone for, the sages (Shevuot 9) concluded that the meaning of the words are that only the Lord is aware of what possible sin this animal is to expiate for.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Sifra Vayikra 12,7-13):The author quotes Rabbi Yossi Haglili as saying concerning the words ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, “here the Torah punishes a person who is unaware for his very being unaware.” From this we can only deduce that if people who were unaware of having committed a sin are held responsible for their lack of awareness, how much more so must people be guilty and face punishment when they have been aware of wrongdoing! Rabbi Yossi adds the following thought. If you want to get any idea of the degree of reward in store for the righteous, consider the case of Adam, first man. Adam had been commanded only a single negative commandment. When he violated the commandment untold number of deaths were decreed on mankind, i.e. his descendants for thousands of years. We have it on the authority of G’d Himself that when determining reward for commandments performed G’d employs a multiple of the ratio He demonstrated when He punished people for sins committed (compare Exodus 20,6). How much reward may be expected for people who abstain from violating negative commandments such as fasting on Yom Kippur, not eating sacrificial meat past the time limit allocated for it, etc., etc. Surely, by comparing what happened to the descendants of Adam because he violated a negative commandment, how much reward is in store for all the people not violating 365 commandments most of which they are capable of violating!”   Rabbi Akiva draws attention to the following: The Torah writes that for a matter to be considered as definitive two or three witnesses are required (Deut. 17,6). If two witnesses suffice  for a court to arrive at a valid judgment, why did the Torah bother to mention that three witnesses suffice? The reason the Torah mentions a third witness is to impose an additional responsibility on the third witness. Assuming three witnesses testified falsely that they had seen someone commit a crime at a certain location at a certain time, and it turns out that the testimony is refuted by other witnesses who testify that the first three were seen at a different location at the time in question, the third witness cannot claim exoneration by saying that his testimony never made any difference in the first place as only two witnesses had been required to establish guilt or innocence. In other words, we find that the Torah punishes anyone who even incidentally assists the sinners. If that is so, how much will G’d reward people who, while not actually performing certain commandments, enable others to do so by their actions?  Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah points out that the Torah (Deut. 24,19) wrote: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a bundle in the field, you shall not turn back to take it....G’d will bless you in all your handiwork.” The Torah in this instance promises a blessing to people, who though unaware of it, were instrumental in a good deed being performed through their oversight (Sifra Vayikra 12,7).
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . או בגזל או עשק את עמיתו, “or by robbery or by defrauding his fellow.” There is a difference between “robbery” and “defrauding.” This is why the Torah writes in Leviticus 19,13:  “You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery.” Each of these actions is considered violation of a separate law, commandment. A person may be guilty of robbery even when he admits that he has committed this deed as long as he has not made restitution. “Defrauding” implies that the guilty party denies his guilt by claiming to have already made restitution or having paid the rent, as the case may be. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 111) determines that “robbery” means someone admitting having someone else’s property in his possession and refusing to give it back, while “defrauding” means  that the accused party claims to have returned the object or money in question.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   והיה כי יחטא ואשם, “it will be when he has sinned and realises his guilt, etc.” The reason why the Torah repeats the words meaning “he has sinned,” using both the term יחטא and אשם is to bring home the point that in all these instances the sin is two-fold. The sinner committed a crime against his fellow man but he also sinned against G’d the Law giver. The sin discussed in this verse is an intentional one. This is why the paragraph commences with the words נפש כי תחטא instead of writing merely כי תחטא בשגגה, “if he sinned erroneously.” All the other instances in which the Torah has used the term חטא the word בשגגה, “inadvertently,” or words to that effect accompanied the term  חטא (compare 4,2; 4,22; 4,27; 5,15). It is a well known fact that most sin-offerings are brought only in respect of unintentionally committed sins. There are only four instances when a guilt-offering is prescribed for sins committed knowingly; they are: 1) if someone slept with a Gentile servant girl (slave); 2) a Nazirite who defiled himself; 3) swearing a false oath as part of one’s testimony. 4) swearing a false oath concerning matters entrusted to him (compare Keritut 9).
     והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל, “he has to return the object which he had obtained through robbery;” It would have been sufficient for the Torah to write: “he shall give back the object obtained by robbery.” Why did the Torah add the words “which he has robbed?” The Torah taught that it is not sufficient to return the value of the object but that the actual object which has been obtained by robbery must be returned. (assuming it is still in existence and in its original condition). If, assuming we are speaking about coins, it had already become mixed with other coins so that it cannot be identified with certainty, the guilty party has to make restitution in kind (Baba Kama 66). The text of the Talmud, (omitting mentioning the divergent views expressed by some scholars) is: “if he stole (robbed) a beam and has used it in building an upper floor in his house and he now tears down the entire upper floor and restores the beam to the owner he has done more than the law requires of him.” [The school of Hillel  decreed this so that the guilty party would not be discouraged from making restitution.]     The type of repentance which the people of Nineveh (whom the prophet Jonah had threatened with destruction) performed was of that nature. We are told in Jonah 3,8  that the king of Nineveh issued orders to his countrymen that “they shall turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty.”  Our sages in Baba Kama 11 commenting on the apparently redundant words אשר גזל, “which he obtained through robbery,” read the words as if they meant “which are similar to having been obtained through robbery.” They mean that assuming the original object has become worth less by the time the guilty party is willing to make restitution, he has to base the restitution on the value at the time he committed the crime. The same rule also applies in the case of deposits or wages withheld that someone is accused of and has first denied. The Torah also repeated the unnecessary words אשר עשק in order to make this point quite clear. 
  
  Verse 24
  
   לאשר הוא לו יתננו, “he shall give it to its owner.” This means that the party who had first been guilty of denial has to give both principal and premium to the injured party. Restitution is not effected through the good offices of the court but directly by the guilty party to the injured party. It is also possible that the words לאשר הוא לו mean that the money is to be returned to the party entitled to it, i.e. the heirs of the person from whom it has been taken against his will, if that person had died in the interval.
     ביום אשמתו, “on the day he admits his guilt.” The day in question is the day that he realizes his guilt. This day may even be the very day on which he committed the wrong. The Torah teaches us here that as long as the guilty party has not actually refunded the object in question he is considered as still as guilty as before. There are basically two categories of sin; 1) sin against the Creator not involving one’s fellow, i.e. acts of rebellion against G’d. 2) crimes committed against fellow human beings. The first category of sin originates in a person becoming estranged from his G’d by not realizing that he is a constant recipient of G’d’s kindness. Such a sinner basically commits his “violence” against himself and his life. The matter is comparable to what Solomon wrote in Proverbs 6,32: “anyone who commits adultery with a woman (consenting adults) lacks understanding; he who wants to destroy himself does such a thing.” The sinner just described committed his sin “only” against one party, i.e. against G’d.   The second category of sin is that committed vis-a-vis his fellow man. For instance, he may abuse his fellow man verbally, or he may even inflict bodily harm upon him. When doing this the guilty party also sins against G’d at the same time. This is why the crime of robbery is such a severe crime. Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 33,3)  said that if a person is guilty of a whole measuring cup full of sins, the one which demands justice from G’d is only the crime of robbery. The decree to wipe out the generation of the deluge was issued on account of their being guilty of robbery, indiscriminate lack of respect for other people’s property The Torah spells this out unmistakably in Genesis 613, “the end of all flesh has come before Me...for the earth has become full of violence, robbery.”  We also find that when the prophet Ezekiel listed a whole slew of sins committed by the Jewish people (Ezekiel 22,2-13)  that it was the sin of shedding (innocent) blood, i.e. violence which led to the city of Jerusalem’s destruction being sealed. The abuse of widow, orphan, and the poor are mentioned. The desecration of the Sabbath, spurning sacred offerings, committing the sin of slander, all serious sins, did not bring about the final decree of destruction, but robbery and murder did (compare verse 13 in that chapter).
      When G’d spoke about “pounding His hand” in Ezekiel 22,13  this occurred only after He had mentioned the sin of robbery, seeing that this is such a grievous sin. In the following verse G’d says: ”can your courage endure or your hand be strong in the days when I shall deal with you?” Although the commandment not to rob is the type of commandment which is linked to the positive commandment of making restitution, i.e. it can be atoned for relatively easily, the sin is very grievous as one cannot always locate the injured party when one is finally ready to make restitution and as a result the sin remains unatoned. Even if the victimised party is located but does not want to forgive the robber, he has no way of rehabilitating himself. Alternatively, the robber may have become a poor beggar and as such is simply unable to make amends. For all the above-mentioned reasons the sin of robbery is very serious although tied to the positive command- ment of making restitution.    Material wealth has a way of disappearing as we know from Solomon  (Proverbs 23,5) “riches grow wings, fly away heavenward like an eagle.” Even a wealthy robber may not have much time to make restitution then. Another problem with robbery is that the robber may often not even know whom he has robbed, such as when he robbed money belonging to a group of people. How can he make restitution when he does not even know to whom he owes how much? Concerning this latter eventuality the Torah wrote: “he has to bring his guilt-offering to the Lord” (verse 25), so that after he has made restitution he can at least be clear vis-a-vis Hashem. Having made restitution he is then in a position to bring the guilt-offering as spelled out in verse 26, i.e. that the Priest will provide him with atonement.   There cannot be effective repentance based on words and on an offering unless it has been preceded by action, i.e. restitution. This is what the prophet Isaiah 1,16 meant when he said: “wash yourselves clean, put your evil deeds away from My sight.” He also said (verse 17) “learn to do good!” Furthermore, it is written in verse 18 of the same chapter: “if your sins be as crimson they can turn snow-white.” Job’s friends (Job 11,14) said to him “if there is iniquity with you, remove it; do not let injustice reside in your tent.” In this verse they warned Job not to be guilty of the sin of robbery either in public or in private. The first half of the verse addresses the sin of robbery which is plain for all to see, the second half mentioning his tent, speaks of concealed acts of robbery. His friends ask Job to examine if he had been guilty of that sin (which could account for the afflictions he was suffering). His friends continue by promising him relief if he found he had been guilty of this sin and had taken steps to make restitution. This is the meaning of “life will be brighter than noon, etc.” (verse 17). They add: “you will be secure, for there is hope, and entrenched you will rest secure; you will lie down undisturbed.” His friends promise him that he will be secure both in public and in private. Even when you find yourself in difficulty you will not have cause to be afraid.   David echoes similar sentiments when he says in Psalms 51,6:  “I have only sinned against You (G’d).” David implies that he is free of such sins against his fellow man as robbery or sins related to it. We find that David offered a similar prayer on another occasion (Psalms 19,13) “who can be aware of errors? Clear me of unperceived guilt.” David did not pray to be protected against sins he was aware of. He wanted relief only from sins committed unwittingly in circumstances where no one had seen him commit them and which he did not remember having committed. He implied that he had been careful not to become guilty of deliberate sins. It is a well known fact that he who is careful to avoid sinning will have his reward stored up by G’d; this is what Isaiah 40,10 referred to when he said: “see his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The same sentiment is echoed by the words (Psalms 19,12) “Your servant pays them heed; in obeying them there is much reward.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   הוקר רגלך מבית רעך פן ישבעך וישנאך, “Visit your neighbor's house sparingly, otherwise he will become fed up with you and hate you” (Proverbs 25,17). 
  In this verse Solomon taught us both ethics and manners. On the one hand, a person should endeavor to acquire friends and strive to socialize with them. On occasion he should take his leave before he becomes a burden or intrusion to his friends. It appears that both here as well as elsewhere Solomon counsels us to exercise one’s discretion, to walk the middle path between seclusion and imposing one’s presence on one’s friends all the time.  When friends and companions meet at a central location such meetings are apt to increase mutual friendship and comradeship. This is why Solomon writes in Proverbs 18,24: ”a man who has friends must himself be friendly, some friends cling to one another more than a brother.” Basically, what Solomon is saying is that if someone has the attribute of winning friends, this is proof that he is of a friendly disposition himself. The meaning of the word להתרועע in that verse is “to be praiseworthy.” The word is connected to בצלצלי תרועה, (Psalms 150,5) “cymbals” being two matching instruments. It is presumed that if one is seen to have friends, other people will search out the company of such a person. He is likely to possess two positive virtues: 1) humility, (seeing that people to not flock to keep company with the haughty, the arrogant but they flee the company of such people). 2) He is not shy of contact with other people. When one possesses these two positive attributes one is saved from two  major problems which are usually associated with both poverty and material wealth. The poor usually speak in a beseeching manner, whereas the rich usually respond in a harsh manner (Proverbs 18,23). A poor person has reason to be afraid of society, of people; he does not like to have to flatter people because he needs to rely on their goodwill. The damage which results from being materially wealthy is that one tends to brag about one’s wealth. When Solomon wrote the verse we just quoted he actually downgraded both the possession of too much wealth and the lack of sufficient economic means. Both are not character-building but tend to be character-destructive. This is not the only time Solomon has voiced such ideas. We find a similar verse in Proverbs 30,8: “give me neither poverty nor riches, feed me with bread allotted to me.” He explains the reason for his request saying: “lest I become so sated that I renounce You and say: ‘who is the Lord?’ then I would become impoverished and steal and profane the name of the Lord.” We find similar sentiments expressed by a famous scholar who said: “excess of material wealth is just as damaging to a person as excess blood.” The meaning of the earlier verse is that the poor man is in the habit of speaking beseechingly as he is in fear of people, lacking self-confidence; the rich man, however, will become pro- gressively more arrogant as his “so called” friends by appearing to agree with him, flattering him, reinforce his own self-esteem. This is why Solomon added immediately: (Proverbs 18,24) “a man who has friends must be friendly;” he is saved from both dangers. 1) The fact that he has friends means he has no need to be afraid of people and does not have to speak beseechingly; 2) the fact that he is of a friendly disposition saves him from becoming arrogant.
      Solomon cautions even such people not to “overdo this friendliness” by allowing themselves to become viewed as intruders in their friends’ homes when showing up at all hours, overstaying their welcome, etc. Unless such people practice restraint they are liable to find themselves unwelcome and hated after a while. Solomon compares the experience to people who eat honey, something delectable at the beginning but apt to become revolting when overindulged in. All of this is a simile for the principle never to overdo anything as even the best of virtues when practiced to excess is bound to turn people off. Rain is  certainly necessary for the plants on earth, for the climate, and for our general well being. Too much rain in too concentrated a form is not only no blessing but a curse. The reason that Solomon illustrated his point by choosing someone’s friend as the example is precisely because he wanted to drive home the point that not only should one keep one’s distance from the “wrong kind” of people, but one should even be discreet in one’s association with one’s friends as they too are entitled to a degree of privacy, etc.    There are times for social intercourse, such as the gatherings mentioned earlier. Nonetheless, at other times, one must know when to leave the company of one’s friends in order to keep the relationship at its best level. When it is time to retire to bed one should not overstay one’s welcome resulting in resentment; neither should one stay at meal-times unless invited as one interferes with one’s friend’s family’s routine.
      A Midrashic approach to Proverbs 25,17 (based on Rashi, Chagigah 7): On the one hand Solomon wrote הוקר רגלך מבית רעך, “visit your neighbor's house sparingly;” on the other hand David wrote in Psalms 66,13 :אבא ביתך בעולות, “I enter Your house with burnt-offerings.” The apparent contradiction is resolved by applying the “house” mentioned in Proverbs to the occasions when one has to offer sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. One should strive to minimize the need for such visits to the Temple. On the other hand, the verse in Psalms refers to the occasions when one approaches G’d bearing burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, i.e. voluntary gifts, not offerings in order to obtain atonement and forgiveness. The message of this Midrash is that both Solomon and David refer  to the Holy Temple as “the house of your friend.” We find a similar comment by our sages when they said that the Israelites are called “friends” i.e. ריעים of the Lord, citing such verses as Psalms 122,8 למען אחי ורעי, “for the sake of my kin and friends...for the sake of the house of the Lord.” Solomon also says of G’d: רעך ורע אביך אל תעזוב, “do not abandon your friend or the friend of your father” (Proverbs 27,10), and in Song of Songs he speaks of זה דודי וזה רעי, “this is my beloved, and this is my friend” (Song of Songs 5,16). The thought behind all these verses is that a person should be careful not to sin so that he does not have to abuse his friendship with the Lord by entering His house too frequently in order to offer sin-offerings. It is best not to have to offer such offerings altogether.    We find that the prophet Samuel (Samuel I 16,22) expresses similar sentiments when he says: “it is better to listen to G’d’s commandments (observe them) than to offer meat-offerings to the Lord (in the Temple).” The reference was to the animals captured from the Amalekites. which the people and Saul offered to G’d as sacrifices, consuming their meat. When Solomon counseled not to be a frequent visitor in one’s friend’s house he referred to the House of G’d who should remain one’s “friend.” When Solomon wrote in Proverbs 21,27 that the meat-offerings of the wicked are an abomination, he meant that at the time when a wicked person brings an offering to G’d, G’d automatically thinks of his sins turning the entire procedure into an abomination. However, when the offerings are not connected to sin but are brought by righteous people and this is reflected in the kind of animals being offered, David tells us that such offerings are welcome, i.e. אבא ביתך בעולות, “let me enter Your house with burnt-offerings.” One of the temptations we must resist is taking advantage of having a “friend” in the house of G’d to whom we bring זבח i.e. meat-offerings, as if it were something “He” needs, until “He gets fed up” with these frequent unwelcome intrusions by us. When David speaks about bringing burnt-offerings to the Temple, he means offerings which are to atone for sins not actually committed but contemplated. Such sinful thoughts occur mostly at night, and they are difficult for a person to be saved from as there are no social restrictions to man thinking sinful thoughts. He is not found out and his image with his peers is not affected by what he merely thinks about. This is one of the reasons that the time for bringing such an offering is the night when the sin is still fresh and can be forgiven immediately.
  צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, זאת תורת העולה, היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבוקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: ‘this is the law of the burnt-offering: it is the burnt-offering that stays on the flame, on the Altar, all night until morning, and the fire of the Altar shall be kept aflame on it.’” According to the plain meaning of the text this paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering contains four elements. First of all it teaches that the burnt-offering is the most highly regarded of all the animal offerings and that its effect in obtaining forgiveness for its donor is very powerful indeed. The second lesson to be derived from this paragraph is that it is of the utmost importance for man to serve his Creator, and to do so visibly. The third lesson our paragraph teaches is that there occurred a great miracle on this Altar on a regular basis. The fourth lesson is the great punishment which the wicked will incur because they spurn the opportunity to obtain atonement from G’d for their sins. They will suffer afflictions in gehinom which do not come to an end. Our sages (Rosh Hashana 17) say that even though the institution of gehinom may be abolished at some time in the future, the afflictions to which the wicked have been subjected will not thereby terminate. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there are a total of 13 different categories of offerings corresponding to the 13 attributes of His which G’d revealed to Moses. (Compare Maimonides Maaseh Hakorbanot 12,4). Five of these offerings consist of different combinations of meal-offerings מנחת סולת, מנחת מרחשת, מנחת מחבת, מנחת חלות, מנחת רקיקין. All of these are referred to by the term קרבן. The other eight categories of sacrifices are animal-offerings: The names of the offerings are: עולה, חטאת, אשם, תודה, שלמים, בכור, מעשר (בהמה), פסח. Some of the offerings (or part of them) may be eaten by the Priests, such as the חטאת, sin-offering; the אשם, guilt-offering, and the בכור, first-born male animal of the pure domesticated beasts. Other categories of offerings may be consumed by their owners (minus the parts reserved for the Priests and the Altar). Examples are: מעשר, the tenth animal of the new flock; the פסח, Passover (of which the Priest does not receive anything), and the תודה, thanksgiving offering. The latter offering is mandatory if a person has been saved from danger through an obvious miracle, for instance (Berachot 54). He also has to bring such an offering if he has been cured from a normally fatal disease. The Talmud Berachot writes that these people are to bring the offering in question and to tell praises of the Lord in a loud voice. When a person celebrates joyful events such as a wedding, it is also appropriate to offer such sacrifices to the Lord in acknowledgment of His kindness. This is based on Jeremiah 33,11. There are also some sacrifices of which no part may be eaten by either the Priest or the owner. This is first and foremost the sacrifice discussed here, the עולה, burnt-offering, concerning which the Torah stipulated that all of it is to be burnt up on the Altar. This is the meaning of the word כליל, (verse 15). This burnt-offering is the most highly regarded of all the offerings and that is why the Torah emphasises that היא העולה, “it is the upwards striving offering, etc.” Similarly, in Ezekiel 10,20 when the prophet describes היא החיה אשר ראיתי, “this is the chayah which I saw.” the extra word היא shows that of a variety of similar offerings or beings the one singled out with this extra word is considered the most elevated, the most highly regarded.  The burnt-offering also possesses the quality of atoning for sinful thoughts as we know from Job, 1,5 where we are told that Job would offer such burnt-offerings after family gatherings  during the various feasts in respect of each member of his family. [Had the offering been in respect of deeds committed, he would not have had to do this on behalf of everyone. Ed.] According to Ezekiel 20,32 this offering was in respect of sinful thoughts.  Seeing man entertains these kinds of thoughts mostly at night the offering may remain on the altar all night long to counteract the thoughts of the person at night which are not carried out until daytime on whose behalf it had been brought. The prophet Michah 2,1 phrases it thus: “Ah, those who plan iniquity and design evil on their beds; when morning comes they do it, for they have the power.” This is why the Torah commanded that the atonement should occur at the time the iniquity is being committed. Seeing that in essence the sin was insubstantive, i.e. only in the mind, the offering is to dissolve entirely in the wind, the smoke rising into the air. The animal, so to speak, returns to the regions of the spirit it came from. No substantive part of the world, i.e. a body, is allowed to derive any benefit from this offering. This is one aspect of the burnt-offering.  The second aspect is the lesson of how important it is for the creature to serve his Creator. It is a well known fact that man has to relate to his G’d from a position of being submissive, humble. One needs to demonstrate this both while praying and while performing any of the other relatively easy commandments or even the difficult commandments. One needs to remain aware that performance of such commandments is not meant to be a “feather in our cap,” but is meant to enhance G’d’s glory. We need to remain constantly aware that our flesh is weak and that it is not capable of fulfilling the commandments in the manner they ought to be performed. We have to learn from Avraham who described himself as עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes,” though he had already offered his very life for Hashem (Genesis 18,27). King David expressed a similar sentiment when he said (Psalms 15,4)  “man must be contemptible in his own eyes.” [He must feel that he has done less than a fraction of what is expected of him. Ed.]
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד ילבש על בשרו והרים את הדשן, “The Priest shall put on his fitted tunic and he shall put on linen trousers on his flesh; he shall remove the ash.” The Torah here teaches that even such a seemingly inconsequential activity as removing the ash from the altar is considered as part of the sacrificial service. Were this not so it would not be necessary for the Priest to don the garments reserved for performing service in the Temple or Tabernacle.  When the Torah writes the word מדו, “its measurement,” the meaning is that the garments are to be fitted individually to each Priest according to his size. The words על בשרו mean that they are to be worn directly on the skin, no other matter is to be a חציצה, a screen or intervening object, between the trousers (or the tunic in the appropriate part of the priest’s body). Furthermore, if the trousers were short and did not reach until the Priest’s feet, if he did perform the service while wearing such attire it would be considered as unfit, i.e. invalid. Why did the Torah mention only two of the Priest’s four garments? The fact is that having mentioned these two garments it is understood that the כהן הדיוט, ordinary Priest, must wear his four garments, and the High Priest his eight garments, for any part of the service that he performs. This is made plain by Sifra Tzav 2,1. They deduce this from the word ילבש, “he must don, etc.” 
  One may also understand the very word מדו as referring to “garment,” such as when the word appears in Samuel I 17,39: מעל למדיו, “on top of his garment.” The word occurs in that context also in Psalms 133,2 על פי מדותיו, “over the top of his robe.” If that is the meaning of the word מדו here it automatically includes all of the Priest’s garments. Onkelos also translated the word as לבושין, “garments".   The ethical teaching of all this is that when performing sacred tasks, especially in the Temple, regardless of how demeaning the same task would be considered for a socially highly placed individual outside the sacred perecincts, one must wear the finest garments in order to enhance the reputation of the Lord in whose honour this whole service is being performed. If this holds true, we may learn that even when in the synagogue or the Yeshivah while studying Torah it is only elementary good manners vis-a-vis G’d whose Torah we study to be properly attired. We have learned from King David (Psalms 57,9) “awake, O my honour!  Awake, o harp and lyre! I will waken the dawn.” David did not speak about “Your honour”, i.e. the Lord’s honour, but he spoke about his own dignity, honour. He adresses himself, admonishing himself that his honour and dignity are of no consequence at all. We know that he lived up to this when he danced in front of the Holy Ark so that even his wife Michal considered such behaviour as unseemly in a King (compare Samuel II 6,14). We have an additional verse on that subject by David in verse 22 of that same chapter where he explains to Michal: “and dishonor myself even more, and be low in my own esteem, but amongst the slave-girls that you speak of I will be honoured.”
      Logic teaches that one cannot be considered a “slave” until one has a master. Neither can the term “master” have meaning unless this master owns a slave. The two terms are mutually exclusive, one not having any meaning without the other. Seeing man is a servant of his Creator and is obligated to serve Him as his Master, his service cannot be described as being carried out properly until after he has formally accepted his status (conditions implied in that relationship) as servant. These conditions include submissiveness and an appropriate degree of humility. He is not to carry himself as if he were someone of authority and was in control of matters as this would be an insult vis-a-vis the honour and dignity of his Master. This is why Solomon writes (Proverbs 25,6): ”do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence.” If such advice is good advice, how much more so is it good advice when applied to one’s posture vis-a-vis the King of Kings, the Lord! G’d’s “garment” is “grandeur,” as we know from Psalms 93,1 “the Lord is king, He is robed in grandeur.” Anyone daring to wear the king’s robes is guilty of treating him with contempt.   Due to such considerations the Torah commanded the Priest who performs even such a relatively simple task as removing the ashes from the Altar to wear the appropriate garments when performing this task as he is, after all, G’d’s representative on earth. By performing such menial tasks, especially when dressed in garments testifying to his elevated status as Priest he humbles himself before his Master in heaven.   We find that when Hillel the elder, was engaged in celebrating the libations of water on the festival of Sukkot, he danced  and said: אם אני כאן הכל כאן, אם אין אני כאן מי כאן? [when translated literally and superficially this statement seems like the height of arrogance, i.e. someone saying: “if I am here everybody and everything is here; if I am not here who is here?” Ed.] Of course, this is not what Hillel, famous for being self-effacing meant. He used the word אני as a pronoun for G’d, saying: “if G’d is present everybody (who counts) is present; if G’d is not present who is present?” He meant that there is no worthwhile presence other than the presence of G’d (compare Sukkah 53).  Rabban Gamliel, (President of the Sanhedrin, Hillel’s grandson)  and his colleagues would dance in the courtyard of the Holy Temple and disport themselves in what we would call an undignified manner, all in honour of heaven, i.e. showing G’d that the decorous behaviour normally expected of them when fulfilling their functions vis-a-vis the people over whom they presided was not meant to accent their own importance but only to lend weight to the importance of the office to which they had been appointed. This is why they had to demonstrate to G‘d (in the presence of the people) that they themselves felt totally submissive and unimportant when compared to Him.
      You know that the Levites were the most “holy” tribe of the Israelites and that the Torah appointed them to walk behind the wagons transporting the components of the Tabernacle whenever the people were on the move. Walking behind the wagons was certainly a very minor kind of duty, something more appropriate to the least skilled and educated amongst the people. We read in Numbers 7,6-8: “Moses (personally) took the carts and the oxen and gave them to the Levites. Two carts and four oxen he gave to the Gershonites, as required for their service, and four carts and eight oxen he gave to the Merarites, as required for their service.” These verses teach you that a person (Moses as well as the Levites) has to “lower” his own dignity in order to accord honour to the Lord. These verses prompted our sages (Bamidbar Rabbah 4,20) to say “when someone does indeed diminish his own stature in order to enhance the stature of heaven then not only will heaven’s stature be enhanced through his actions but his own stature will be enhanced also. Conversely, if someone tries to enhance his own stature at the expense of heaven’s stature, his own stature will suffer whereas heaven’s stature remains unimpaired.”   In connection with this subject we find that a man by the name of Issachar, a resident of a village called Barkai, was punished as he was desecrating sacred property while bestowing honour upon himself. Our sages in Pessachim 57 speak of four indignities which occurred in the courtyard of the Temple. [The Talmud presents the matter as if the courtyard were a person and gave voice to its feelings. Ed.] The result of the first indignity was the expulsion of the sons of the High Priest Eli from the holy precincts because they had caused defilement inside those precincts with their conduct. A second occasion when the courtyard banned someone from its precincts was an incident involving this Issachar from the village of Barkai who had “used” the Temple to enhance is own stature at the expense of the sacred contents of the Temple. His sin consisted in the fact that he was too considerate of his own hands, wrapping them in silk before performing his priestly duties. A third occasion which provoked protest by the courtyard was when the courtyard called out protesting angrily שאו שערים ראשיכם, “raise your heads o gates and observe how Yochanan son of Narbai, disciple of Pankai enters the sacred precincts and stuffs his belly with the meat of the sacrifices.” They said of this man that he had a daily intake of 300 calves and that he drank three hundred jars of wine daily and had 40  measures of pigeons as dessert. [Whenever the number 300 appears in the Talmud it is a figure of speech employed to describe unbelievably big quantities. Ed.] They say furthermore that as long as this Yochanan son of Narbai was alive there was never any leftover sacrificial meat to which the law that it had to be burned needed to be applied. What happened to this Issachar from Barkai? Another person concerning whose conduct in the holy precincts the courtyard protested was a certain Yishmael son of Pabi, disciple of Pinchas whom the courtyard was instrumental in appointing as High Priest in lieu of the infamous Issachar. It happened once during his time that the king and queen sat at the table arguing whether the taste of a young goat or that of a young sheep was superior. The queen favoured the taste of the young sheep (lamb) whereas her husband the king preferred the taste of the kid (young male goat). In order to settle their argument they called in this Issachar and seeing that he had eaten plenty of either animal in his capacity as High Priest they asked him which tasted better. Thereupon this Issachar made a disrespectful motion with his hand indicating that the question was silly as if the goat’s meat were better surely the Torah would have stipulated that the daily public burnt-offering should consist of a male young goat. When the king observed that the High Priest had failed to observe good manners and had waved his hand about, he decreed that the offending hand of the High Priest be cut off. Issachar bribed the executioner to cut off his left hand instead of his right hand. When the matter of the bribe became known he lost his right hand also. Upon hearing about this, Rabbi Yossi asked his students the rhetorical question of what caused the High Priest Issachar to become a victim of such cruelty? The student Rabbi Ashi said  that it was his failure to have studied the relevant Mishnah in which it is stated that  sheep always take precedence over goats. Nonetheless, Rabbi Ashi added that he thanked the Lord who punished this Issachar in this world so that he could enter the hereafter having already paid his dues. This is not the only time that someone in Biblical times was punished while on earth in order to preserve his reward in the hereafter intact. During the period of the prophet Isaiah and King Chiskiyahu (compare Isaiah 22,15) there was a certain scribe by the name of Shevna who according to some scholars was also the High Priest. At any rate, he was a highly placed individual who, if not the High Priest, was in charge of the King’s palace. Seeing he had treated sacrificial offerings with  disdain, he was killed by Sancheriv, King of Assyra. Concerning this Shevna the prophet Isaiah said  quoting G’d: (Isaiah 22,25) “the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way.” Isaiah had prophesied his downfall and it had been fulfilled in his lifetime in order for Shevna’s merits for the hereafter to be preserved intact. [The nature of Shevna’s sin has been the subject of much disagreement. Our author’s assumption that he was remiss in his attitude to the Altar is difficult to substantiate. Ed.]  The third matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the great and ongoing miracle which was an adjunct of this Altar. We are speaking about the so-called copper altar which was overlaid with a sheet of copper the thickness of the coin called dinar in those days. The fire on top of the Altar never ceased to burn. Neither the wood underneath the copper was burned by the heat nor did the copper crack, melt, or otherwise lose its effectiveness. This was one of the 18 miracles which occurred in connection with the Tabernacle and the first Temple (they are listed in Pirke Avot chapter 5,7 and another eight in Yuma 21). The Torah draws attention to this miracle by repeating the fact that the fire on the Altar was never to go out. (verses 2 and 5). Seeing the Torah had already stipulated in verse 2 that the fire had to be kept going, what need was there to repeat this in verse 5? Clearly, what is a commandment in verse 2 is a promise in verse 5, i.e. the fire would never go out. Not only that, but the Altar itself would remain undamaged.  The fourth matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the magnitude of the punishment suffered by the wicked during their stay in gehinom. This explains why the fire on the Altar is mentioned a third time in our paragraph in verse 6., where the Torah writes: “a permanent fire shall remain aflame on the Altar; it shall not be extinguished.” Seeing that the purpose of the Altar is to secure atonement the wicked are not in line for such atonement because they had denied the power and function of the Altar and the sacrificial offering thereon. The Torah therefore hints by repeating this message about the never-dying fire that it is a hint to the wicked of what is in store for them. The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 33,14) remonstrated with the people saying to them: “Sinners in Zion are frightened, the godless are seized with trembling; ‘who of us can dwell with the never-dying blaze?’” These sinners had become frightened of the very fire whose power they had been in the habit of mocking when they refused to repent and to accept atonement. This is also what the verse in Isaiah 33,14 is all about which means that the wicked are to be made afraid of the fires of gehinom concerning which it is written in Isaiah 66,24 that their worms shall not die, nor their fires quenched, they shall be a horror to all flesh.” The meaning of “it shall not be quenched” in Isaiah is parallel to the words “it shall not go out or die” in our verse here.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tzav 2) to the words היא העולה, “it is the burnt-offering.” The reference is to the Roman Empire which is the most arrogant Empire, constantly aggrandizing itself. The same Midrash also states that anyone who aggrandizes himself will eventually be judged by fire. They base this on what happened to the generation of the deluge  who had boasted of their own importance saying: (Job 21,15)  “who is Shaddai that we should serve Him?” They were judged by fire as it is written (Job 6,17) ”when they thaw they vanish; in the heat they disappear where they are.” The people of Sodom were judged by fire because they were too proud, as we know from Ezekiel 16,49: “Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: ‘arrogance!’ She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; “ they were judged by fire as we know from Genesis 19,24: “G’d caused it to rain on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire.” Pharaoh was also judged by fire seeing he was so arrogant and had said: “who is Hashem that I should listen to Him?” (Exodus 5,2). He had also claimed: “the river Nile belongs to me and I have created it!” (Ezekiel 29,3). We know that he was judged by fire from Psalms 18,14: “Then the Lord thundered from heaven, the Most High gave forth His voice, hail and fiery coals.” We have also been told in Exodus 9,24: ”there was hail which contained fire within it.” Another arrogant king who was punished by fire was Sancheriv who had boasted (Kings II 19,23) “it is I who have climbed the highest mountains, to the remotest parts of Lebanon, and have cut down its tallest cedars, its choicest cypresses.” He was judged by fire as we know from Isaiah 10,16 ”and under its body (כבודו) shall burn a burning like that of fire, destroying frame and flesh.” Something similar happened to boastful Nebuchadnezzar who had been arrogant enough to proclaim (Isaiah 14,14): I will mount the back of a cloud- I will match the Most High.” He had also said (verse 13): “I will climb to the sky higher than the stars of G’d.” Furthermore, he had said: (Ovadiah 4)  that he would ascend beyond the stars. As a result of such boastful statements by their king, his soldiers were burned by fire.  When you check Daniel 3,3 where the preparations for the inauguration of Nebuchadnezzar’s giant golden image are described, mention is made of eight nations, i.e. you will find the names: Adragozariah and seven others. When mention is made of the celebration a second time, i.e. in verse 27, we find that 4 of these nations are no longer mentioned. The Talmud Sanhedrin 92 suggests that the other four nations (i.e. their honour guards representing them at Nebuchadnezzar’s court) had been burned to death. According to Rashi it was the same fire which consumed the men heating the kiln into which Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were to be thrown.” Thus far the Midrash [approximately. Ed.]
      When the Torah in our paragraph wrote: “command Aaron and his sons,” this is very unusual as throughout the Portion of Vayikra we find Aaron’s sons mentioned instead of their father such as: “the sons of Aaron shall throw, etc.” (Leviticus 1,14), or “the sons of Aaron will (arrange) prepare” (Leviticus 1,8.). The reason that in these instances Aaron was ignored is still the fallout from his part in the making of the golden calf. When Moses became aware of this he said to G’d: “how can a well be hated whereas the water it produces is well beloved?” If You G’d have honoured the wood (to be used on the Altar) on account of  its offspring as we know from Tamid 2,3 that all kinds of logs are suitable to be used as kindling on the Altar with the exception of olive wood and the wood of the grape vine, surely Aaron should be admitted on the Altar if only on account of the fine sons he had produced!” When our portion starts with the words: “command Aaron and his sons,” etc., this reflects G’d’s response to Moses’ plea on behalf of his brother.
      A rational/investigative approach to the words: “this is the law of the burnt-offering; it is the burnt-offering, etc.” The Torah here alludes to the superior nature of the soul, the intellectual part of man. The words may be understood as if the Torah had written: “this is the superior nature of the soul which is constantly ascending on account of the input by the Torah which is the subject of the pronoun היא “she” in our verse.” There are numerous instances in the Bible where the Torah is referred to by the pronoun היא, such as in Proverbs 3,18 עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, or in Psalms 19,8 תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש, i.e. that the soul is enabled to return to its Maker thanks to the Torah it has studied. על מוקדה על המזבח, these words are also an allusion to the lofty nature of the intellectual part of man which is able to rise beyond the world of the planets and  which is superior even to the attributes with which angels have been equipped. The word מוקדה, is reminiscent of the world of the planets whereas the word מזבח, alludes to all the angels. We could understand the. words  על מוקדה as if the Torah had written על האש, “above the fire,” such as in Isaiah 10,16: “and it wastes away on account of the heat.” [The heat described is fever burning up man’s flesh. Ed.] Our author understands the word אש in this verse as a reference to the sun, i.e. the soul will rise higher than the sun. He views the sun as the immediate cause of all movements involving fire. In a similar way he views the moon as the origin of all influences on the motion of water.  King Solomon, who, in his Book Kohelet 1,9, describes all the things in this world as being תחת השמש, “beneath the sun,” makes an exception when he refers to the soul (רוח), and describes it as ascending beyond that domain, i.e. העולה היא למעלה, “which ascends on high” (Kohelet 3,21). In other words, the spiritual-intellectual part of man has access to regions above the sun which itself serves as a model for the entire planetary system in Solomon’s summation. 
  In Solomon’s time the sun was viewed as the central planet, the middle one out of a total of seven. As such it is considered symbolic of the essence of the system as Solomon always counsels that man take the “middle path,” stay away from extremes, from fringes.  When the Torah continues with the word על המזבח this is a simile for the lofty spiritual niveau of the angels, the expression מזבח being a term including all of the angels, the species, so to speak. Just as the altar on earth is a site for the sacrifices which express G’d’s goodwill towards man seeing G’d Himself describes the sacrifices as ריח ניחוחי which Onkelos translates as “that which I accept with goodwill” (Numbers 28,2), so all that the angels are doing is to congregate around G’d in order to carry out His will and to listen to His instructions (compare Psalms 103,20).    When the Torah continues speaking about כל הלילה עד הבוקר, “all night long until morning,” this is an explanation of the merit which enables man’s soul to ascend to these lofty spiritual regions, and what it is that enables it to soar so high above the domain of both the planetary system and that of the angels. The merit is the preoccupation with Torah and its precepts. It is presumed that the fact that the soul is imprisoned in a body in this terrestrial world is equivalent to its residing in the “night,” i.e. לילה. If the soul will spend the time it is imprisoned in a night-like earth by devoting itself to Torah until בוקר, until morning, i.e. until it is released from that imprisonment, then it will soar to regions above those inhabited by the angels, even. The “morning” the Torah speaks of here is a morning which does not bring with it disappointments (compare Samuel II 23,4 where David extols such a morning describing it as “without clouds”). When the Torah continues with ואש המזבח תוקד בו, ”and the fire of the Altar shall be kept aflame on it,” the meaning is that notwithstanding the fact that the “fire” of the angels is very strong and powerful, the “fire” of the righteous described outclasses even that of the angels.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words היא העולה may be understood as והיא מתהלכת, “it keeps progressing,” (compare Ezekiel 1,13, i.e. “it made progress amongst all these chayot spiritual, disembodied  beings”). The Torah describes a virtue which commences the ascent of the soul towards the “quarry” in heaven from which it was originally “hewn. The process is set in motion with the thoughts of the person offering the sacrifice. (Compare author’s comments on Leviticus 1,9  last paragraph and this Editor’s translation).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . וזאת תורת המנחה, “and this is the law of the meal-offering.” Actually this had already been mentioned in Leviticus 2,1 where the Torah wrote: “if a person wishes to offer a meal-offering, etc.” It is mentioned here again on account of four additional commandments listed in this paragraph. 1) It has to be eaten as unleavened bread; 2) It has to be consumed inside the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Temple) as the Torah writes: “in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (6,9). 3) It may be eaten only by male priests (verse 11). 4) It confers sanctity on anything which touches it. This means that such matters will henceforth be subject to the stringent regulations governing holy things. Even when things which are already “holy,” such as parts of offerings which have the status of קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a relatively mild level of sanctity,” touch the meal-offering, they will be upgraded in their sanctity, i.e. be subject to the more stringent regulations of קדשי קדשים, “most holy things.”
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . זה קרבן אהרן ובניו, “this is the offering of Aaron and his sons.” Our sages have told us that there were four matters which Moses found difficult to comprehend, and that the offering Aaron was to bring on the day he was anointed was one of them. The four are easy to remember when one thinks of the first letters of them forming the word מקש'ה, i.e. “he has trouble under-standing.” [they are the laws of the מנורה, קרבן, שקלים, החדש, (laws about the lampstand, the sacrifice (of Aaron), the coin called shekel hakodesh, and the legislation of the new moon).The mystical dimension of our verse is this: the word זה in the sequence זה קרבן אהרן  ובניו אשר יקריבו לה', refers to an attribute Aaron and his sons are to offer. They are to present G’d with a certain  character-virtue represented by this offering about which the Torah now gives the measurements and components. When the prophet Ezekiel 44,27 speaks about the inauguration sacrifices of the third Temple, he also lists the size and composition of that sacrifice as consisting of עשירית האפה סולת, calling it “a sin-offering.”(although Ezekiel did not spell out what this sin-offering consisted of the Talmud Moed Katan 15-16 states that it was the same as that mentioned in our verse here). Since no specific sin was being atoned for, the meaning is that this offering symbolised a spiritual cleansing of the priest prior to his commencing his sacred vocation.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, לא תאכל, “and every meal-offering of a Priest is to be whole (completely consumed by the Altar), it shall not be eaten (by man).” The meaning of this verse is that any offering brought by the Priest as a voluntary offering shall be like the burnt-offering, i.e. all of it remaining on the Altar going up in flames. Our sages (Sotah 23) use the word כהן as restrictive, meaning that what is written here does not apply to an offering brought by a female Priest. There are many laws which dscriminate between male and female Priests, i.e. daughters of a Priest, one of them being that whereas the meal-offering of a male Priest may not be eaten, the corresponding voluntary meal-offering offered by a female Priest may be eaten. Whereas a male Priest is cautioned not to defile his body there is no such law which applies to a female Priest. Our sages derive this from the words בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron,” i.e. not the daughters of Aaron (Leviticus 21,1). The reason why Priests of the female gender are discriminated against is the fact that women introduced mortality into the world. This is why it is not appropriate to have women Priests offer sacrifices, seeing the procedures are designed to preserve life not result in mortality. This accounts for the fact that a male Priest must not marry a divorced woman,  whereas a female Priest is permitted to marry a divorced Priest. Similarly, the gifts provided by the Torah are given only to male Priests, not to female Priests. Halachically speaking, while these gifts may be presented only to male Priests in order for the party handing it over to be discharging his obligation, female Priests are allowed to eat the parts known as קדשים קלים, sacred matters of a relatively mild degree of sanctity.
      Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3 chapter 4 that the reason for the ruling “every meal-offering of the Priest is to be whole, it may not be eaten (by humans)” is  the fact that when a Priest offers such an offering he does in effect offer his very essence to G’d. If he were allowed to eat even part of that offering he would in effect “eat himself” and nullify what he had hoped to achieve when presenting his offering to G’d. The only parts of the meal-offerings of the individual which are burned up on the Altar (for G’d’s consumption) are the frankincense and the fistful of the flour and oil mixture. If he were allowed to consume the fistful of meal it would appear as if nothing remained for the Lord at all. Due to considerations of this nature the Torah decreed that all of the offering be burned.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   זאת תורת החטאת, “this is the law of the sin-offering.” The Torah refers to this offering as קדש קדשים, “it is most holy,” the same description applied to the meal-offering. Similarly, the status of the guilt-offering אשם is also that of “the most holy” (7,1). The sequence of subjects dealt with in the various paragraphs is as follows: the paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering, followed by the meal-offering; this is followed by the paragraph dealing with the sin-offering, which in turn is followed by the guilt-offering. All of the foregoing are described as “the most holy,” At the conclusion of all these paragraphs the Torah states once more: “this is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.” The reason that these sacrifices and their laws are all lumped together is that the Torah wanted to explain the rules pertaining to offerings called “most holy.”   Following the sacrifices referred to as “most holy,” the Torah discusses the rules pertaining to the offerings known as קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a milder degree of sanctity.” Examples of the latter are the peace-offerings, and the thanksgiving-offerings.
     במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט החטאת, “The sin offering is to be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt-offering.” The burnt-offering must be slaughtered in the northern part of the courtyard (עזרה). It is offered to atone for sinful thoughts as has been mentioned earlier at the beginning of this portion. Seeing that the Torah did not want to embarrass the sinner offering a sin- offering, we are told that his offering has been assigned the same site for slaughter as the burnt-offering which is totally burned up on the Altar, i.e. an offering very dear to the Lord. Seeing that this is so, an outsider will not know whether the person offering this particular offering was guilty of an actual trespass or whether he was guilty only of sinful thoughts.
  
  Verse 19
  
   הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה, “the Priest who is instrumental in conferring atonement through it, he shall consume it.” The meaning of these words is not that the Priest who sprinkles the blood on the Altar and burns up the fat parts is to be the only one to consume the meat of this offering, and that the other Priests are not to receive any part thereof. If this were so it would lead to friction amongst the Priests as each one would say that he wants to perform the service of the sin-offering. Rather, the meaning of the word המחטא, refers to all the Priests theoretically suitable to perform this procedure, so that only the temporarily ritually impure Priests are excluded by these words. Even Priests who suffer from a brief ritual impurity such as the emission of semen, something that can be purified by sunset, are excluded from eating any part of the sin-offering or guilt-offering offered on the day of their impurity. Neither could they share in the eating of the meal-offerings or be recipients of the chest and upper thigh of peace-offerings which the owners have to give to the Priests.    We know that this rule applies in the case of the sin-offering as the Torah writes הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה; the Torah writes in connection with the guilt-offering: הכהן אשר יכפר בו לו יהיה, “it will belong to the Priest who performs the atonement rites on it” (7,7). In connection with the peace-offering the Torah writes (7,14) “the Priest who sprinkles its blood, it shall be his.” In connection with the meal-offering the Torah writes (7,9) “every meal-offering baked in an oven....it shall be the Priest’s who offers it up.” Seeing that all the aforementioned sacrifices are of the category which the Torah described as “most holy,” and may be consumed only on the day they are being offered, anyone who was not ritually pure at that time is automatically excluded from eating part of such an offering seeing it cannot be saved up for the following day.
  
  Verse 20
  
  . תכבס במקום קדוש, “you shall wash in a holy place.” We have already learned from the previous verse that the reference is to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, as it has been spelled out with the words: “it shall be eaten as unleavened bread in a holy place, the courtyard of the Tabernacle.” This courtyard corresponded to what was called עזרה during the period of the Temple.
  
  Verse 21
  
    חרס אשר תבושל בו ישבר, “and an earthenware vessel which it has been cooked in must be broken.” This means that the boiling of the meat must also take place in the sacred precincts, just as the washing had to take place in sacred precincts.
     ואם בכלי נחושת בשלה ומרק ושטף במים, “But if it was boiled in a copper vessel, it should be purged and rinsed in water.” These words are also governed by the previous rule that this must take place in sacred precincts. Every procedure took place in a מקום קדוש “a holy site,” i.e. the washing, the breaking, or the rinsing.    Rashi explains that the reason the earthenware vessel had to be broken is that seeing this is a porous material which does not release what it has once absorbed, the remains of the meat would be נותר, “leftover,” on the day following the offering of that sacrifice, and as such it is subject to destruction by fire (normally, when the meat is identifiable). In this instance the next best way of destroying any vestige of what is left over is to break the vessel.    The term ומורק is related to the expression תמרוקי הנשים which we read about in Esther 2,12, i.e. “feminine cosmetics.” The entire procedure of purging and rinsing it is designed to remove any part of it which was absorbed by the copper walls of the vessel in question. Seeing that the walls of an earthenware vessel do not yield up what they have once absorbed, the vessel itself must be destroyed. 
    The Torah informs us here that copper vessels as well as vessels made of other kinds of metal in which forbidden food has been cooked are subject to cleansing through boiling water and that mere rinsing out with water is not sufficient for these vessels to become usable again for other foods. By contrast, earthenware vessels cannot be made fit again and thus have to be destroyed.   Water possesses three properties (powers), depending on whether it is cold, lukewarm, or boiling. If the forbidden item fell into cold water the metal vessel which contained such a mixture only has to be thoroughly rinsed out before it is again fit for use. If the water in the vessel was lukewarm when the forbidden item fell into it, it does not suffice to rinse it with cold water but the vessel has to be rinsed out with lukewarm water, i.e. of at least the same degree of warmth as  the water into which the forbidden object had fallen. If the water in the vessel was boiling-hot when the forbidden item fell into it, neither of the previous two procedures are adequate to cleanse out this vessel and make it fit for use again, but it must be cleansed through being immersed in boiling water. The scientific principle underlying the procedure is that the way to reverse the process of the walls of the metal vessel absorbing some of the forbidden substance is through a repetition of the conditions during which this had occurred in the first place, i.e. כבולעו כך פולטו, “in the same way that it penetrated it will escape.”    As a result of such considerations, our sages (Avodah Zarah 75) state that vessels which are normally used cold such as cups, water carafes, etc., need only to be washed out properly before they can be used again on Passover. Pots and kettles which are placed on the stove and used hot need to be immersed in boiling water and afterwards they are considered as having been cleansed. Utensils which are used directly on the fire, such as spits, roasting pans, etc., need to undergo a process of being made red-hot else they cannot be used again for permissible food including Passover. The reason is that whatever has penetrated the pores of the metal will not contract and come out by any other process. After you have heard that the forbidden particles do not resurface except by the application of a reverse process of how they penetrated in the first place, you may ask why the Torah writes concerning such a vessel ישבר, “it shall be broken,” using the third person, indirect speech. When speaking of the need to wash the vessel in verse 20, the Torah used direct speech writing תכבס i.e. ”you shall wash.” The difference is that  the procedure of breaking the vessel consists of breaking it into several pieces to ensure it cannot be used again for its original purpose. Had the Torah employed the form תשבר, we would have concluded that it must be broken into such small fragments that it is unfit for further use of any kind. The form תשבר in that sense occurs in Psalms 48,7 תשבר אניות תרשיש, a reference to ships bound for Tarshish which would or did break up utterly to frustrate their attempt to invade the land of Israel. On the other hand, when a relatively minor fracture is described such as in Judges 7,20 where the earthenware broke as a result of sound waves, the author speaks of וישברו הכדים instead of ותשברו הכדים, to tell us that all that happened was that these jars could no longer hold water or wine as a result of becoming fragmented. The shards could be used for other functions. When the Torah writes in Leviticus 11,33: כל אשר בתוכו יטמא ואותו תשבורו, “all that is contained therein becomes defiled, and the vessel itself you shall break,” and it did not say תשברו, “shall be broken,” this means (Keylim 2,1) that the act of their becoming broken purifies the shards for further use. Our sages mean that as soon as the vessel has been broken it no longer bears its original “name,” i.e. connotation, and as such its constituent parts may be used freely. When the Torah writes in connection with eating the Passover in Egypt, (Exodus 12,46) “you must not break a bone of it,” this means that the bones must not even be broken in half. It is typical of free people not to consider the bones as valuable once they have finished eating the meat attached to them. Only slaves, destitute people, try to get at the marrow inside the bones. Our sages (Yuma 21) explained that the shards of such earthenware vessels which had become defiled became miraculously absorbed by the floor of the עזרה, the courtyard of the Tabernacle/Temple. Had this miracle not occurred the floor would have become so filled with these shards as to make walking there impossible. This was also one of the eighteen miracles which we mentioned earlier as occurring regularly in connection with the Temple. Here is a list of all these eighteen miracles: 1) no pregnant woman ever lost her fetus prematurely on account of the smell of the sacrificial meat being burned up. 2) This sacrificial meat never exuded an unpleasant odor. 3) The High Priest was never incapacitated on Yom Kippur due to involuntary emission of semen. 4) There never was found a fly in the area designated for slaughtering and dressing the animals. 5) No blemish which would disqualify the offering of the first two loaves of the new barley harvest (Omer) or the first two loaves of the new wheat harvest (Shtey Halechem) ever occurred. The same applied to the “show-breads” offering presented in the Temple every Sabbath. These three offerings were considered as one in the count of the miracles which occurred. 6) The rains never extinguished the flames on the woodpile of the Altar (which had no roofing). 7) Even the strongest wind would never deflect the column of smoke rising from the offerings being burned. The reference is, of course, to the fire contributed by man, not to that which descended from heaven. The Priests were commanded to contribute their own fire in Leviticus 1,7. Although fire descended from heaven, it was a positive commandment for the Priests to contribute fire of their own  (Sifra Vayikra 4 [5,10].The reason for this was that the heavenly fire did not leave behind a trail of smoke, as pointed out in Yuma 21, where five peculiarities of the heavenly fire on the wooodpile of the Altar are listed. This fire is described as: “crouching like a lion, disappearing like the sun, its flame being tangible, consuming the wet and the dry alike, not producing smoke.” Rabbi Chaninah there claimed that when he saw this fire it was not crouching like a lion but like a dog. The Talmud answers this by saying that the fire which descended from heaven during the first Temple crouched like lion; the fire which descended during the second Temple crouched like a dog. 8) Although people stood very close together so that they had to touch one another (during the festivals), when the ritual called for them to prostrate themselves on the ground, they miraculously found adequate room for this. [An aspect of the extra-terrestrial nature of the Temple Mount, as was evident also concerning the size of the wings of the cherubs in the Temple which according to their description could not fit into the terrestrial dimensions described there. Ed.] 9) No scorpion or snake ever bit anybody within Jerusalem. 10) No one was ever heard to complain that there were no lodgings in Jerusalem so that he had to spend the night outside the city. The foregoing are the ten miracles listed in the fifth chapter of Pirke Avot.    The remaining eight miracles were as follows: 11) the shards of earthenware vessels which served as pots to boil the remains of the sin-offerings and which had to be burned or destroyed as the tiny fraction absorbed by the walls became נותר, “leftover,” and as such forbidden, were absorbed by the floor of the courtyard of the Temple. 12) The Altar for the burnt-offering (the one in the courtyard) which had a woodpile on it which was kept aflame and which stood on a thin copper overlay, never melted the copper nor damaged the wooden beams underneath it. (Tanchuma Terumah 11). 13) All seven lights of the candlestick in the Sanctuary were constantly at the same level of oil, none burning faster or slower than its counterpart. None of them ever went out before dawn (Shabbat 22). During the long winter nights there was never insufficient oil, nor was there an excess of oil during the short summer nights. The light in the centre shaft had the same amount of oil as those on either side of it. It would be the first one to be lit in the evenings and the last one to be cleaned in the morning. 14) A tongue of red colored wool would be hung at the entrance of the Sanctuary at the beginning of Yom Kippur; this would turn white by evening of the day (Yuma 67). 15) The scapegoat which was thrown off a cliff would break up in innumerable pieces before it ever hit the bottom of the valley into which it was thrown. Not a single of its limbs would remain intact by that time. 16).
   Concerning the Menorah procedure I have seen the following comment in Tanchuma Tetzaveh 3: When the lights of the Menorah in the Sanctuary were kindled in the evening, every courtyard in Jerusalem made use of the illumination provided by it. This is the mystical dimension of Exodus 27,20: “they shall take for you pure olive oil, pressed, to provide illumination.” 17) As soon as Solomon had built the Temple he planted in it all kinds of confections made of gold which would produce fruit at the appropriate  seasons. This is what we have been told in Yuma 21. 18) Another miracle related there is that the show-breads which were placed on the Table in the Temple every Sabbath retained their warmth at the same level as when they had come from the oven for the entire week. This is based on Samuel I 21,7 לשום לחם חם ביום הלקחו, “to place bread which was still hot on the day it was shared out” (8 days after it had been baked). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that a great miracle occurred with the show-breads, i.e. that it was as hot and fresh when it was removed from the Sanctuary as when it was introduced there. He quotes the verse from Samuel in support of this. The question is raised there: “were there then no other miracles?” Did not Levi say that the place where the Holy Ark stood did not consume terrestrial space, and Samuel (the Amora) said that the cherubs stood by means of a miracle!” The answer given is that only miracles which were visible to the people, i.e. the ones which were manifest outside the actual Sanctuary were included in the count. This does not mean that there were no additional miracles inside the Sanctuary.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והכהן המקריב את עולת איש, “and the Priest who offers a person’s burnt-offering, etc.” the word: “the Priest” does not apply exclusively to one individual Priest, suggesting that his colleagues on duty on that day do not have a share in that hide. The word has to be understood in the same vein as the word המחטא in 6,19 where we already explained that the Priest in question is not the only one eating of that sacrifice. The words הכהן המקריב apply to any Priest who is in a fit state to perform the service at that time, i.e. the Priests of that roster. [There were a total of 24 rosters of Priests who performed the Temple Service in rotation. Ed.] Anyone of that roster who was ritually impure at the time was excluded from participating even in receiving part of the hide. The reason that the Torah adds the words אשר הקריב, “which he had offered,” words which appear superfluous, is that the entitlement to the hide does not begin until after the procedures of offering the animal have been completed, not at the time when the hide was removed from the carcass. If, for argument’s sake, it was discovered after the animal in question was slaughtered that it was diseased and not fit for burning up on the altar, the Priest has no claim to the hide. The same holds true if other errors occurred in the procedure such as the blood being spilled, etc. (compare Zevachim 103). Our sages say that all the animals underwent a physical examination prior to being slaughtered in order to minimize the chance of blemishes being found later. Even minor blemishes in the eye of animal were minutely examined at that time [to determine if this was a temporary or permanent blemish. Ed.] This is alluded to in the words “which he had offered,” meaning that after the examination the Priest had thought himself as entitled to that hide (Compare Maimonides’  comments on Erchin 2,5).
  
  Verse 9
  
   לכהן המקריב אותה, “to the Priest who offers it.”  Seeing that I might have thought that this meal-offering is exclusively that of the Priest who has offered it, the Torah adds in verse 10 “it shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man alike.” What precisely is meant by these words? The words mean that the members of the roster for that day are all equally entitled to participate in the edible parts of that meal-offering. The arrangement of these rosters is already referred to in Kings II 11,9 “The chiefs did as Yehoyadah (High Priest) ordered, each took his men-those who were on duty that week and those who were off duty that week- etc.” Whatever accrued to the roster of the priests during the week they would share equally. This is what the Torah wrote in Deut. 18,8 חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.”    The Torah here mentions each category of meal-offering separately by name first and afterwards added the words איש כאחיו, “each man alike,” to make sure that each Priest receives equal shares of each category of meal-offering, not that one Priest gets a share of the meal-offering baked in the oven whereas his colleague is compensated by getting his share from a meal-offering made in a deep pan. Even if the meal-offering consists of a mixture of fine flour and oil, מנחת הסולת, something not ready for immediate consumption as it is raw, the Priests also share in this alike. The reason the Torah teaches us this rule in connection with the most inexpensive type of offering, the meal-offering, is to make it clear that a similar rule applies to the sharing of the more expensive offerings, i.e. animal offerings. The compensation for performing the various duties in the Temple is the entitlement to the parts of the offering designated for the Priests. All Priests in a state of ritual purity belonging to the roster of the week (day) are entitled to share equally. [The week’s roster was divided into the six week days, each “roster” or משמר, being further divided into what are called בתי אבות, family groups, of which each performed the service on one of the weekdays, all participating on the Sabbath. Ed.] Although some Priests performed their part of the service individually whereas others did so in groups of two or three, each one qualified equally for the parts to be shared out. Even Priests whose duties did not require them to perform manual tasks were entitled (Taanit 26). The procedure followed was similar to the sharing of the spoils of war where the people of the “home-front” also shared equally with the soldiers who had gone into battle. (Based on Nachmanides interpreting Samuel I 30,24).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   וזאת תורת זבח השלמים, “and this is the law of the peace-offerings, etc.” There were two types of peace-offerings, the one called תודה and the one simply referred to as שלמים. The תודה offering was accompanied by both unleavened bread and leavened bread. There were a total of 40 loaves, of which ten were leavened. The technical names for each group of ten loaves were: Matzah, Chametz, Rekikim, and Revuchim. This is all spelled out in verse 12, i.e. that these loaves be mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil and scalded fine flour mixed with oil. The Torah there continues with verse 13: “With loaves of leavened bread shall he bring his offering, with his feast thanksgiving-offering.” In verse 14 we are told that -one of each of these types of loaves be offered “as a portion to the Lord; it shall belong to the Priest.” In other words, the Priest’s function here is to receive a tithe from the offering, 10%. It is very similar to the gift called תרומת מעשר which the Priest receives from the Levites in respect of the tithes the Levites had received from the Israelite farmers.  Our sages (Menachot 77) explain that the total weight of the ten loaves of leavened bread was equivalent to the total weight of the other 30 leaves consisting of three types of unleavened wafers, etc., so that in effect there was an equal amount of leavened bread and unleavened bread which constituted the meal-offering part of the תודה. This can be deduced from the syntax of our verses seeing that the 30 loaves of unleavened wafers, etc., are all mentioned in a single verse, whereas the Torah devotes a separate verse to the ten loaves of leavened breads. This suggests that the quantity of what is mentioned in verse 12 is equal to the quantity (weight) of material mentioned in verse 13.    The offering called שלמים without the word תודה, is not occasioned by the need to express one’s gratitude to Hashem for His having rescued one from danger of one kind or another, but is a free-willed offering called either נדבה or נדר, depending on the wording of one’s vow to donate such an offering. This is why the Torah introduces the legislation pertaining to such an offering with the words: “if his feast-offering (peace-offering) is for a vow or donation, etc.” (verse 16). Anyone bringing this kind of שלמים does not have to add the loaves of leavened and unleavened bread associated with the thanksgiving offering, תודה. [Seeing that it was mandatory to bring such an offering in Jerusalem on the three festivals requiring every male Jew to make this pilgrimage, the translation “feast-offering” as an alternative for “peace-offering” is quite appropriate. Ed.]. There appears to be a contradiction here in the regulations concerning the תודה offering and the fact that it was made up partially of leavened loaves, seeing the Torah had stated elsewhere (Leviticus 2,11) that “no manner of leavened material or honey is to be offered up on the Altar.” The fact is that these loaves of the תודה offering were not put on the Altar at all. Hence there is no contradiction with what the Torah wrote in Leviticus 2,11. The loaves were only “waved” above the Altar not deposited or burned up on it.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . וכל דם לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם לעוף ולבהמה, “You shall not eat any blood in any of your settlements, be it the blood of birds or of a four-legged animal.” The precise wording of the restriction makes it clear that the “blood” of fish or grasshoppers may be eaten. Similarly, blood found in eggs is not subject to a Biblical prohibition (Keritut 20). Blood found in eggs is forbidden due to a Rabbinic decree and even then only if it is found in the yellow part of the egg, the yolk. If blood is found in the albumen, the white part of the egg, one has to throw out that part of the egg but may eat the yolk. This is the opinion of Rav Alfassi  (Chulin 22 and Maimonides Maachalot Assurot 3,9).
      However the Tossaphists on Chulin 64 claim that when such blood is found at the junction of the yolk and the albumen it is subject to a Biblical prohibition as this is the area where the chick begins to form. The reason that all scholars agree that blood found in the yolk is prohibited is the uncertainty about whether the chick begins to develop there, in which case the blood is considered already as part of the “flesh.” Seeing that the entity is not yet a bird, anyone eating of that egg would transgress the prohibition of eating שרץ השורץ על הארץ,  (Leviticus 11,41-42).
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  'את החזה להניף אותו תנופה לפני ה, “the breast in order to wave it as a wave-service before the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Priest would wave only the breast and not the thigh, seeing that in connection with he thigh the Torah writes:” the right thigh you shall give as a heave-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 10,15), and no mention is made there about it being waved.
      However we find  the expression: “the thigh of the heave-offering  and the breast of the waving of the fire-offerings’ fat parts as a wave-service before the Lord.” This line creates the impression as if both the thigh and the breast were to be waved, and that after the waving the Priest would burn up the fat parts just like in the case of 7,31 where the Torah writes: “the Priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the Altar and the breast and the thigh shall be given to Aaron and his sons.” The Torah writes there (verse 32) “and the right thigh from your peace-offerings you shall present to the Priest.”   According to Maimonides Maasseh Hakorbanot 9,6-7 the procedure of “waving” was as follows: The Priest would first place the fat parts on the hands of the owners of the sacrifice and the breast and thigh above them. He would then “wave” them together in front of the Altar. This “waving” of the thigh and breast was a motion similar to the motion performed when we shake the Lulav on Sukkot, i.e. in all six possible directions, forward and backward or upward and downward as the case may be. By doing this the owner acknowledges symbolically that the entire globe belongs to Hashem. 
      I believe that the reason that just the thigh and the breast were the parts of the animal selected for this procedure is because both in man and in animal these two parts of the body symbolise our movements, i.e. the impetus to move originates in the breast, i.e. in the heart, whereas the execution of the will to move is carried out by the leg, the thigh. The Talmud Sukkah 37 describes the reason for shaking the Lulav as symbolising our recognition that G’d owns all parts of the universe.
      Another allusion present in the upward and downward motion of these parts of the animal which after all represents its owner, is the concept of exile and redemption. The term מוליך used in the Talmud for the forward motion is reminiscent of the verse in Lamentations 1,6 וילכו בלא כח לפני רודף, “they could only walk feebly before the pursuer.” The backward motion symbolises redemption as the motion called מביא in the Talmud is reminiscent of the verse in Jeremiah 31,8: “here I will bring them in from the northland.” The reason upward and downward motions are performed also is to symbolise the One who raises His holy Presence Shechinah away from the Jewish people, reminding us of the verse in Ezekiel 11,23: “The Presence of the Lord ascended from the midst of the city.” The downward motion symbolises that this Shechinah will return to the Jewish people, i.e. descend to rest over us as promised in Isaiah 31,4 ”so the Lord will descend to make war against the mount and the hill of Zion (ushering in the final redemption).
      Finally, there is also an allusion to the resurrection of the dead in this procedure of the “waving.” The expression  מוליך is reminiscent of Kohelet 12,7 where Solomon speaks of the resurrection saying  רוח הולך, “the spirit is walking,” whereas also the word מביא is reminiscent of a similar connotation as it occurs as ותבא בהם הרוח ויחיו, “as soon as the spirit entered them (the bones and the skin and flesh) they revived” (Ezekiel 37,10). The word מעלה also is featured in connection with resurrection in Kohelet 12,7, where Solomon writes והרוח תשוב אל האלו-הים אשר נתנה, “and the spirit returns to the Lord Who had provided it;” Finally, the word מוריד also appears in such a connotation in Ezekiel 37,9: “and blow into these slain ones that they may live.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם, ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים, “This is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the consecration offerings and the peace-offerings.” You will note that the order in which the categories of offerings are listed in this verse corresponds to the order in which they appear in the respective paragraphs in the Torah. The Torah commences in Vayikra with the rules of the burnt-offering, which are followed by the rules for the meal-offering, and so on. Why does the Torah in our verse suddenly insert the words: “and the offering of the consecration rites, smack in between the guilt-offering and the peace-offerings, whereas in the earlier paragraphs dealing with the sacrifices no mention is made of the מלואים, “consecration offerings” at all? This presents a problem. If we were to say that  the words קח את אהרן ואת בניו in 8,2 is the reference to the consecration offerings, then our entire order has been thrown out of gear. If, on the other hand, the consecration rites offerings are the ones mentioned in Parshat Tetzaveh (Exodus 29,35-42) the order listed in our verse here would also not be parallel to what the Torah had written thus far. Actually, the order is perfectly fine as the offerings listed in Parshat Tetzaveh as being offered by the Priests when they were consecrated do not represent a separate category of offering at all. You cannot compare these offerings to such sacrifices as the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, etc. If you will review the offerings listed in connection with the consecration rites you will find that they include such diverse sacrifices as the sin-offering, burnt-offering as well as peace-offerings. The very expression מלואים in the plural indicates that we are speaking of multiple categories of offerings here. All of the categories of offerings which formed part of the consecration rites have already been described by the Torah in detail before now. 
      Our verse here mentioned the burnt-offering first, concluding with the peace-offerings. The reason that the burnt-offering deserves to be mentioned first is that it is the choicest of the offerings. The reason why the peace-offering deserves to be the one with which the Torah concludes the list is that as indicated by its very name it brings about peace in the world which ensures the continued existence of the universe.   Our sages (the men of the Great Assembly) who are responsible for  finalizing the wording of our liturgy have made the blessing of peace the final benediction in the central prayer עמידה, as without this blessing all the other blessings are ultimately worthless seeing that they will not endure. Solomon similarly concluded his Song of Songs (8,10) with the words: “so I became in his eyes like someone who finds an abundance of peace.” Our sages (Menachot 110) state that peace is a blessing which is indispensable even in the celestial regions. They base this insight on Job 25,2: “Dominion and strength are His, He imposes peace in His heights.” On the words of our verse: “this is the law of the burnt-offering, etc.,” our sages in Menachot 110 say that anyone who studies the laws of these offerings is considered as if he had personally offered them on the Altar. What the sages mean is that once one has familiarized himself with the deeper meaning of each type of offering, it enables the student of these laws to gain new insights which in turn will strengthen his resolve to meticulously observe all the precepts of the Torah. Seeing that offering the sacrifices is also meant to bring us closer to G’d, it is no more than reasonable that studying these laws will have a similar effect. Such study and new resolve to observe the Torah will result in the sins of such people being forgiven, similar to their having performed the actual procedure of offering the relevant sacrifices. It is certainly unreasonable to suppose that the sages meant that the mere mouthing of the words of the oral Torah listing the detailed laws of the sacrificial rites would have such an elevating effect. There is a somewhat similar statement by the sages in Berachot 4 concerning people who recite Psalm 145 every day qualifying for a place in the hereafter. They certainly did not mean to imply that all that is necessary to ensure for one his place in the hereafter is a mindless recital of the words in that Psalm. What the sages meant was that by reflecting on the words in this Psalm and by understanding the allusions contained in them, the reader (student) will emerge with a newly strengthened belief in G’d and His loving care for mankind. This will trigger his serving G’d with greater intensity than before he had studied this Psalm. This in turn will result in that person earning or retaining his share in the world to come.    It is because of such reasoning that the men of the Great Assembly have included in our daily prayers such sections as the fifth chapter of Zevachim and they added that G’d said that when this chapter is being recited “I will account it for you as if you had offered the sacrifices listed therein (all of them).”
      A Midrashic approach to our verse: “anyone studying the Torah with a view to performing it (עוסק) is considered as if he had offered a burnt-offering as well as all the other offerings mentioned in our verse.”
      Remember that the offerings are divided into nine different categories when you include the fact that different offerings had to be offered at different locations such as the ones which had to be slaughtered on the northern side of the Altar, the ones which could be slaughtered anywhere within the courtyard (עזרה), etc.; The nine types include: עולה, מנחה, חטאת, אשם, תודה, שלמים, בכור, מעשר,פסח.You are aware already that the number nine represents the highest number of emanations and what they represent which can be attained by mortal man. The reason that the Torah provides for nine different categories of offerings is to keep the thought alive in our minds that all the offerings have to be addressed to what is beyond the ninth emanation, i.e. exclusively to Hashem. and not to any spiritual force or attribute of His below that level. This idea has also been spelled out in Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 2,5) whose author stresses that we never find any lower attributes of G’d mentioned in connection with offerings, such as אל, אלהים or אלוהיך, for instance, but only the tetragram, i.e. the attribute known as י-ה-ו-ה. The reason for this is not to enable anyone to claim subsequently that he had offered his offering to a different attribute.    Our sages (Sanhedrin 60) also stated that the meaning of the words בלתי לה' לבדו in Exodus 22,19 is that all sacrificial offerings must be directed to G’d’s attribute י-ה-ו-ה exclusively. Anyone dedicating his offering to a subordinate attribute even of G’d is guilty of a major trespass.  The sacrifice was presented on the Altar. The Altar was ten cubits high as we know from Chronicles II 4,1 “its height was ten cubits.” Seeing that according to the Torah (Exodus 27,1) the height of the Altar was three cubits high, we have to understand  that the Torah referred only to the area on which the woodpile was prepared and lit. (the reference is to the “upper” cube, above the סובב, “rampart” on which the Priest walked around the Altar). The measurement given in Chronicles referred to the Altar in the Holy Temple, not the Tabernacle. Its location was never changed. This is the meaning of Chronicles I 22,1:  “and this is the Altar for the burnt-offering.” The site is the place where G’d created first man, Adam (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 7,2). This is based on the statement there that “Man was created in the very place whence his atonement occurs, (the Altar).” This was also the site where both Adam, and Kayin and Hevel his sons offered their respective sacrifices, the ones described in Genesis. This is also where Noach offered is thanksgiving offerings after the deluge. It is also the site where Yitzchak was bound and where Avraham offered the ram in Yitzchak’s place. From all of these historical facts we can see that this was a very special place and serves for the offerings of the righteous  and pious in all ages.    Seeing that there is such a special site for all the nine types of offerings we described earlier you will find that in connection with the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov this site was described in the Torah as מקום, as we note in Genesis 22,3 “he (Avraham) arose and went to the מקום; (Genesis 22,4) “he raised his eyes and saw the מקום from a distance.” Genesis 22,9: “they (Avraham and Yitzchak) arrived at the מקום.” Genesis 22,14 again mentions this מקום, this time as the site named by Avraham “the Lord will see.” In Genesis 28,11 the same site is referred to as the מקום where Yaakov spent the first night on his way towards Charan. In verse 16 of that same chapter Yaakov refers to that מקום as one at which G’d’s presence is manifest. In verse 15 there he is overwhelmed and awestruck by this מקום, so that in verse 17 he erects an Altar in that מקום there and in verse 19 he names this Altar as the forerunner of “the house of G’d.” If you will bother to count, you will find that the word מקום occurs nine times, an allusion to the nine kinds of offerings which we listed earlier and which are to be offered by the Jewish people on that site, (מקום).  When the first Temple was destroyed, this מקום was “swallowed” up by the earth [another manifestation of extra-terrestrial measurements occurring in connection with the Temple, the Holy Ark and the cherubs, as we mentioned earlier. Ed.] This is what the prophet Jeremiah referred to in Lamentations 2,9: טבעו בארץ שעריה, “its gates sunk into the earth.” If you will look at the text you will find that the letter ט in the word טבעו, “they sunk,” is written in a smaller script than the other letters. This is an allusion to the fact that the site, מקום, was swallowed up, not just the gates of the Temple. The letter ט, i.e. 9, referred also to the nine kinds of offerings which could no longer be offered on that site, מקום.
  
  Verse 38
  
   אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני , “which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai.” Our sages in Sotah 37 explained that all of the Torah’s commandments were commanded to Moses on Mount Sinai, both in their general outlines and in all their minute details. Here we have confirmation that the laws contained in the Book of Leviticus date back to the revelation at Mount Sinai but were repeated once more.
      According to the plain meaning of our text the reason that the Torah in our verse gives two locations, i.e. “Mount Sinai,” and “the desert of Sinai,” means that the verse has to be understood as follows: “this is the law of the burnt-offerings and the other offerings which the Lord commanded at Mount Sinai, and on that same day He instructed him to offer these sacrifices in the desert of Sinai.” The reason the location “in the desert of Sinai” was given is to ensure that we do not think that this entire legislation was given on the Mountain itself where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Another reason why the words “in the desert of Sinai” were needed as clarification is  that we should not think that this legislation was not given until after the people had started their journey away from beneath the mountain. The words בהר סיני do not mean literally “on Mount Sinai,” but “at Mount Sinai,” within sight of the mountain. It was in “the desert of Sinai,” i.e. close enough to the mountain to be considered as within the confines of the mountain itself.  This is where the Tabernacle was located (afterwards). This is what is meant in Leviticus 1,1, “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.” At this point the Torah tells us where precisely the Tent of Meeting was located when G’d issued these instructions (at least ten months after the giving of the Ten Commandments). When the Torah (Numbers 28,6) speaks about the “daily burnt-offering prepared at Mount Sinai,” the meaning is “facing Mount Sinai,” not literally “at” or “on” Mount Sinai. No offerings were ever presented immediately on or next to Mount Sinai. (compare Nachmanides on verse 38).
     ביום צותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם לה' במדבר סיני, “on the day He commanded the Children of Israel to offer their sacrifices to Hashem in the wilderness of Sinai.” In this verse we have clear evidence that G‘d commanded the bringing of these sacrifices. Seeing that this is so, how could Jeremiah 7,22 say: “for when I freed your fathers from the land of  Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifice?”  The fact is that G’d did most certainly command the offering of sacrifices; in fact it was one of the great acts of kindness on G’d’s part, seeing that man is flesh and blood and hence subject to sin, that G’d instituted the system of different sacrifices in order to facilitate our atonement and rehabilitation from unintentional sin. When He sees our penitence and sacrifices, G’d may reconsider His intention to punish us, etc. However, the premise underlying the legislation of sacrificial offerings is that  we should pay heed to His voice and not continue to become guilty of sins. When the prophet spoke about G’d not commanding us to bring animal sacrifices he meant that the animal sacrifices were not meant to be in lieu of penitence and proper conduct on our part. This is what Samuel had already said many hundreds of years previously to King Saul (Samuel I 15,22) “heeding My commands is much preferable than to offer Me good meat-offerings.” We have another very explicit verse on this subject in Psalms 40,7: “(You gave me to understand that) You do not desire sacrifice and meal-offering; You do not ask for burnt-offering and sin-offering.” What did G’d desire instead? (same verse) “Ears You have given me;” i.e. You made it plain that I should use my ears to heed Your words rather than to offer sacrifices. It is quite clear therefore that the sacrificial service is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. The “end” is obedience to (and love) of G’d. The sacrificial offering by the owner is acceptable only if he submits to G’d’s will. This concept is also reflected in Psalms 4,5: “so tremble and sin no more; ponder it on your bed, and sigh.” In the very next verse David writes: “offer sacrifices in righteousness and trust in the Lord.” The meaning of the entire sequence is: “ensure that you offer the kind of sacrifices that result in your not sinning again.” If someone offers a sacrifice without undertaking to heed G’d’s instructions such a sacrifice is not only not welcome but is called זבח רשעים, “a meat-offering by the wicked,” concerning which Solomon has said in Proverbs 15,8 that “the meat-offering of the wicked is an abomination to G’d, whereas the prayer of the upright is pleasing to Him.” Solomon repeats a similar message in Kohelet 4,17: ”more acceptable is obedience to G’d than the offerings of fools, for they know nothing but to do wrong.” In other words, prayer by the righteous unaccompanied by offerings is preferable to G’d to sacrifices offered by fools.   The prophet Isaiah also addresses the subject of the wicked offering animal sacrifices believing them to be an end in itself, as if they could “fool” G’d with their actions. In Isaiah 66,3 the prophet writes: “as for those who slaughter oxen and slay humans, who sacrifice sheep and immolate dogs; who present as oblation the blood of swine.....and take pleasure in their abominations;” what the prophet means is that when a wicked person such as those mentioned slaughter oxen as a sacrifice then this is equivalent to their slaying humans in the eyes of the Lord. If a wicked person sacrifices a sheep, it is no better than immolating a dog. If such an individual presents a meal-offering then this is in the same category as if he had offered swine’s blood. 
  Both the swine and the dog are impure animals although each one of them possesses one of the two properties required for a domestic animal to be pure and hence suitable for the altar. The dog, though it does not chew the cud, has split paws (though not hooves). The swine has perfectly split hooves but also does not chew the cud. The reason the prophet used these animals as examples of offerings which are totally unacceptable is that it is the nature of the wicked to display the part of him which does correspond to the requirements of the Torah while concealing properties such as whether it chews the cud [for who can see this by merely looking at the animal?]. In essence Isaiah’s message is identical to the one mentioned by other prophets, i.e. G’d asks obedience not superficial gestures of compliance such as offering sacrifices on His Altar.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ותקהל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד, “and the assembly was gathered in the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” This required a miracle, of course This is one of several places in the Bible where a very small area was able to accommodate a very large number of people (compare Tanchuma Tzav 12.). When Moses was told to assemble all the people at the entrance of the Tabernacle, he turned to G’d saying: “how can six hundred thousand men and six hundred thousand youngsters fit into the entrance [an area of 50 by 100 cubits] of the Tabernacle? G’d replied: “is this what you are concerned about? Was not the heaven at one time no bigger than the eye of a needle and I managed to fit the entire earth through it?” G’d quoted Isaiah 40,22: “Who spread out the skies like gauze, stretched them out like a tent to dwell in?” At the revelation at Mount Sinai G’d appeared surrounded by 22,000 chariots filled with ministering angels as we know from Psalms 68,18: ‘G’d’s chariots, myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands, the Lord is among them as in Sinai in holiness.’ Each of these chariots was similar to the one Ezekiel saw in his vision. Seeing this was so, how could the mountain have supported all these chariots? Clearly, miracles happened which temporarily suspended the rules applying to terrestrial space. At the time G’d had told the mountain: “expand and accommodate all the loyal people.” When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan river 40 years later the entire Jewish people found space between the staves of the Holy Ark behind the Priests who marched ahead. This is based on Joshua 3,9: “Joshua said to the Children of Israel: ‘come close and listen to the words of the Lord. your G’d.’” In the future these miracles will be re-enacted when all the people ever since Adam who qualify for  resurrection will have to be accommodated on earth. Aren’t they going to complain that they do not find room to stand? However, G’d promised that at that time “I will expand the size of Jerusalem” as prophesied by Isaiah 54,2 who quotes G’d as addressing Jerusalem saying to her: “enlarge the size of your tent, extend the size of your dwelling; do not stint!” Thus far the comments of the Midrash Tanchuma Tzav 12 on the subject.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  'ויתן עליו את הכתונת ויחגור אותו באבנט וגו, “He placed the tunic upon him and girdled him with the sash, etc.” The sequence in which the High Priest donned his priestly garments was as follows: the tunic, the girdle, the robe, the ephod, the breastplate, the turban, the Tzitz (golden headband worn on forehead). These are a total of seven in which Moses clothed Aaron. Together with the trousers which each Priest put on himself this makes eight garments worn by the High Priest when he performed the service. The order in which the seven garments were put on corresponded to the seven layers of heaven (שבעה רקיעים). The trousers which covered the Priest’s private parts corresponded to the lowest region in heaven in which the moon covers the “tent” comprising the lower world, the one described as בשגם הוא בשר, (Genesis 6,3) “while they are of flesh.” The tunic corresponded to the heaven which contained the planet כוכב, Mercury. The girdle corresponded to the heaven containing the planet נוגה, Venus. The robe corresponded to the heaven containing the planet חמה, Sun, whereas the ephod corresponded to the heaven containing the planet מאדים, Mars. The breastplate corresponded to the heaven containing the planet צדק, Jupiter. The name was an allusion to the Urim Vetumim worn inside the breastplate which helped the High Priest to establish צדק, righteousness, by consulting with G’d when he needed answers. The turban corresponded to the celestial region containing the planet שבתאי, Saturn. Seeing that Saturn is in the highest celestial region it was appropriate that the garment worn on top of the High Priest’s head should be a symbol of it. We have a verse in Job 22,12 describing Saturn as the highest planet. [I have mentioned on previous occasions that all these data and the authors of those periods finding it necessary to establish these co-relationships, are based on outdated astronomical data. Ed.].  The ציץ, which was inscribed  with the words 'קודש לה, ‘holy for the Lord,” corresponded to G’d’s throne of glory which is above the seven celestial regions paraphrased by the words שבעה רקיעים, “seven layers of heaven.” The author also sees some allusion to the seven lower emanations in the seven garments listed here as worn by the High Priest. [These allusions are rather obscure. Ed.]
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ויתן אל החשן את האורים ואת התומים, “he inserted in the breastplate the Urim and Tumim.”  These “urim vetumim” were a parchment with the Ineffable Name written on it. We have explained all this in Exodus 28,30. This represented one of the various stages of the Holy Spirit. Access to G’d by means of the urim vetumim was on a lower level than that at the disposal of a prophet, but it represented a higher level of Holy Spirit than hearing a בת קול, “a heavenly echo.” You should appreciate that the difference between what is commonly known as “Holy Spirit” and “prophecy,” is that when a prophet receives a communication from G’d all his normal faculties are interrupted. At such a time he is as if deprived of all bodily functions, remaining temporarily as if a disembodied spiritual being. This phenomenon occurs while these prophets are awake (Maimonides, Yessodey Ha-Torah 5,2) and represented a special prophetic level of what is called the “eighth level.” On the other hand, the level known as רוח הקדש, “Holy Spirit,” does not involve that the recipient is deprived of his normal functions; he speaks like an ordinary individual but is imbued with a supra-natural ”antenna” which puts words in his mouths which he conveys in ordinary language. Such a person will reveal matters which will happen in the future seeing G’d put these words in his mouth. The third part of the Bible, known as Ketuvim was written under the influence of this kind of divine inspiration. The level of divine inspiration possessed by Moses was far superior to that of any of the aforementioned. His prophetic insights exceeded those of any other prophet. This is the reason why whenever our sages speak of the Bible they apply three separate names to it in the same order, i.e. תורה, נביאים, כתובים, “the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, Holy Scriptures.” Everything written in the Torah is of a superior degree of direct communication from G’d. Our sages have even stipulated that when such Books are bound separately, it is inadmissible to place the Book of the Prophets on top of the Torah, or the Book of the Holy Scriptures on top of the Book of Prophets for instance; all this to remind us of the different degrees of sanctity between these three parts of the Bible (compare Maimonides, Hilchot Sefer Torah 10,5). All of this in order for us to appreciate whence prophecy emanates.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויתן על תנוך אזן אהרן ועל בהן ידו הימנית ועל בהן רגלו הימנית, ”he placed it on the middle part of Aaron’s right ear, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.” I believe that the symbolism of these three procedures is connected to the three parts into which the universe is divided, ‘the world of the angels, the world of the planets, and the terrestrial part of the universe.’ Moses had been commanded to make the Tabernacle symbolic of these three parts of the universe. Whatever was inside (west) of the dividing curtain, פרכת, represented the world of the angels, disembodied spirits. Anything inside the Sanctuary but east of the dividing curtain represented the world of the planets (outer space in modern terms). The courtyard of the Tabernacle represented the terrestrial part of the universe. Seeing that the High Priest embodied within himself the awareness of his Creator and all these different divisions of the universe, it was important that this idea be given concrete expression in that his very body was treated as if it too consisted of three parts, each representing one part of the universe. Man himself may also be viewed as a microcosm of the universe. The three parts of man represent the world of communication by means of speech, i.e. the head, the part which corresponds to the world of the angels. The world of the “chayut,” physical, biological life, is from the chest down to the loins. This portion of man contains the heart, the source of all motion, i.e. the heart is perceived as issuing the directives which result in every move made by man. This part of man corresponds to the world of the planets, whose whole function appears to be their movements, their orbits. Finally, the lower part of man, that which may be described as representing עולם הטבע, the world of nature as we know it, begins from the loins downward and contains the reproductive organs. Seeing that the purpose of the offerings is the continued existence of the universe, (Taanit 27) a world which is divided into three parts, Moses had to give some of the blood which is the agent conferring the atonement aimed at by the animal-sacrifices, on the respective three parts of the Priest to ensure that all parts of the universe are recipients of the power of the sacrifice to bring about atonement. This is why the ear, the hand, and the foot, were chosen to represent these 3 parts of the microcosm as symbols for this atonement. The blood smeared on the ear symbolised the domain of speech in man or the world of the angels in the macrocosm. The blood smeared on the thumb of the Priest symbolised the world of motion, or the world of the planets in the macrocosm. The blood smeared on the big toe of the right foot of the Priest (Aaron) represented the area in man which needs atonement, and symbolised the terrestrial universe in the macrocosm.
      The word בהן used by the Torah to describe the thumb, is known in Tamudic Hebrew as the גודל, (compare Ketuvot 5) because it is the thickest of the five fingers. Some say that the thickest one is זרת and the smallest is גודל. These five fingers are generally known in the Talmud by the following names: אצבע, אמה, קמיצה, גודל, זרת. The reason the first &amp; thickest finger is called זרת is because when fully extended sideways it completes the distance called זרת in the Talmud describing the distance from the extreme left point of the outstretched thumb and the corresponding point of the right by extending the little finger. [Most authorities consider the standard זרת as being approx. 28 centimeters, i.e. half a cubit. Ed.] The index finger is called אצבע as it is used to sprinkle the blood on the Altar or flick it against the dividing curtain on Yom Kippur. The middle finger is called אמה because it is the longest one protruding more than any of the others and therefore completes the measurement of the arm known as אמה. The  fourth finger is called קמיצה being that it is used to measure the קומץ of the מנחה the Priest has to place on the Altar; The fifth &amp; smallest finger is called גודל which may be related to גדילים  the fringes i.e. ציציות we are to put on four-cornered garments. The word has a connotation of: “at the extreme outside, edge.”
       In the beginning of Tractate Ketubot 5a it is written: זו אצבע זו זרת זו קמיצה זו אמה זו גודל. Rashi explains this as follows: This small finger זרת is for measuring the distance between the little finger &amp; the tip of the thumb, which is used in measuring the breastplate of the High Priest; this next finger קמיצה is used for taking a fistful of the meal-offering; this middle finger אמה is used for measuring a cubit, the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, used as a measuring tool when measuring buildings or instruments.; this one next to the thumb אצבע  is the finger used to sprinkle the blood of offerings on the altar; this is the thumb גודל, on which the blood and oil is placed in the purification ritual of Aharon. Each finger has a specific purpose, even for sacred functions. Thus far Rashi on Ketuvot 5.
  Scientists have written that just as every organ in the human body has its specific function, many of them having been designed to perform multiple functions, so every one of the five fingers on the hand also has been created in order to perform a specific function. They believe that each of the five fingers has been assigned a task corresponding to one of our five senses, which between them account for most of man’s activities. The powers of the soul [invisible life-force, Ed.] are revealed by means of these five fingers. The first finger is meant to clean out the mouth, i.e. it corresponds to the sense of taste. The second one which is used in the nostrils corresponds to the sense of smell. The third one  is used to touch  things, i.e. to identify objects and people by means of the sense of touch. The fourth finger is designed to clean one’s eyes; in other words it corresponds to the sense of sight, whereas the fifth finger is designed to clean one’s ears, i.e. it corresponds to the sense of hearing. According to this theory G’d created man with five different senses and provided each of these senses with a specific outlet, i.e. one of his fingers. This is all part of the concept of the completeness of nature, i.e. a world in which everything has been assigned a specific function. We observe that each one of the five fingers performs its functions almost automatically, as if it were simply a reflex movement giving expression to the directives issuing from the respective senses. Blessed be the Lord, Creator, who has created man using so much intelligence in doing so (compare Berachot 60).
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   כי שבעת ימים ימלא את ידכם, “for you shall be inaugurated for a period of seven days.” G’d had said something similar in Exodus 29,35 where the Torah wrote: ”for seven days you shall inaugurate them.” A kabbalistic approach: the days of inauguration were seven as the people already realised the significance of the seven garments of the High Priest (the trousers not being a specific garment of the High Priest). We read in Isaiah 63,12: מוליך לימין משה זרוע תפארתו, “who made His glorious arm march at the right side of Moses.” This is a reference to Moses who trained Aaron and gave him some of his prophetic powers. According to the Zohar Tzav 34,2, this is why Moses had to anoint Aaron. During these seven days Moses performed the High Priest’s duties (dressed only in a white tunic) in order to confer all this sanctity upon Aaron. Rabbi Abba said that seeing that Moses was firmly rooted in the holy place whence all this power stemmed, he was able to transfer this sanctity to Aaron. This is why the Torah wrote earlier (30,12): “he poured from the oil of anointment on Aaron’s head, and he anointed him and sanctified him.” This is also the reason that these days of inauguration were described (in the Zohar) as “days of שלמות, “days of perfection, or perfecting.” 
  
  Verse 34
  
   כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה' לעשות לכפר עליכם, as he did on this day, the Lord commanded to be done to provide atonement for you.” Our sages in Yuma 2 interpreted these words to mean that the day referred to as ‘this day” was the eighth day of the consecration rites; G’d referred to the seven days the Priests had observed prior to that day. The lesson is that the procedure involving the red heifer which needs to be isolated for seven days before it is burned is derived from a similarity in the Torah’s expression (גזרה שוה) i.e. the word  צוה used both here and in Numbers 19,2. [Such comparisons have halachic significance only when the word itself is not necessary in the context in which it appears. Ed.] Here the Torah (repeated) the words צוה ה', something which we knew already; in Numbers too it was clear without these words that G‘d had commanded the procedure. The additional words לכפר עליכם, “when arranging atonement for you,” refer to the Day of Atonement procedures prior to which the High Priest is to isolate himself as stated in Yuma 2. He leaves his private residence and takes up quarters in an office adjoining the Sanctuary just as he does for seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer (compare Parah 3,1 and quoted in Yuma 2). The meaning of our verse then is: “this day on which the High Priest is instrumental in obtaining atonement for the people has been preceded by seven days of isolation” (and spiritual preparation for that eighth day).
  
  Verse 35
  
   ופתח אהל מועד תשבו יומם ולילה שבעת ימים, “and at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall dwell for seven days.”  Moses warned the Priests not to leave the proximity of the entrance of the Tent of Meeting at the time they performed the service, i.e. until they had completed all the parts of the service which they were meant to perform at that time, i.e. on that occasion. This commandment remained in force not only during the  days of the inauguration but for all future times. This is the meaning of the verse (Leviticus 21,12) “he shall not leave the Sanctuary so that he will not desecrate the Sanctuary of his G’d.” The answer to the question of when not leaving the Sanctuary ensures that the Sanctuary will not be desecrated is: “during the time the service is in progress and has not been completed.” If the Priest were to leave the Sanctuary during this time he would commit a capital crime and would be liable to die at the hands of G’d. This is an instance where the negative commandment  which is spelled out, i.e. not to leave the holy precincts, allows for a halachically valid inference that if the party concerned does the reverse, i.e. leave the holy precincts during this time, he is guilty of death. [In practice this means that when the High Priest has become an אונן, lost a close relative who has not yet been buried, he must not leave the Sanctuary and leave the performance of the service to a substitute. Ed.]
      The meaning of the words יומם ולילה, “both by day and by night,” is not an absolute statement meaning: “around the clock.” It means that during the hours when a Priest is supposed to be on duty in the Sanctuary (or adjoining it) he must not leave these precincts regardless of whether it is night or day. Seeing that every human being sometimes has to answer calls of nature, the Priest is not only allowed to do so but commanded to do so. The Torah refers to times when there is no such call of nature which would provide a legitimate excuse for the Priest to temporarily absent himself.  We find parallel meaning of the words “seven years” in connection with the building of Solomon’s Temple (Kings I 6,38-7,1) “He built it for seven years; and it took him thirteen years to build his palace until his whole palace was completed.” The prophet means that it took this number of years to build excluding the Sabbaths and festivals on which no work was performed. Just as these days were excluded in the prophet’s summation of how long it took to build the Temple, so here too the time out when a Priest had to answer a call of nature was excluded when the Torah spoke about “day and night.” 
      A Midrashic approach based on (Tanchuma Shemini 1): when the Torah speaks of “and you shall remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting day and night,” this is a reference to the seven days of mourning for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. While it is true that at that point in time these two sons of Aaron had not died as yet, we know that G’d Himself observed seven days of mourning for an event which had not yet occurred. This was the reason that the Torah wrote in Genesis 7,10: “it was after the seven days, and the waters of the deluge came upon the earth.” G’d had observed seven days of mourning over the necessity that He had to destroy so much of His handiwork. In connection with that verse, the sages asked: “can one then mourn someone before he died?” If such a thing is not possible or not appropriate why did G’d mourn the event before it happened?” Man who does not know what is in store in the future cannot mourn an event which has not yet occurred. G’d who does know, is able to do so. In our instance, G’d told Aaron and his sons to observe seven days of a special nature although they were not aware of the reason. He wanted them to act as He had acted prior to the deluge. This is why the Torah wrote the words 'ושמרתם את משמרת ה, “you shall observe the observance observed by the Lord.” [If I understand this Midrash correctly, Nadav and Avihu sat in mourning of their own deaths prior to it having occurred. It would prove that Nadav and Avihu’s death had already been decreed prior to their taking “alien fire” into the Sanctuary, i.e. something unbidden, that this was only the occasion which determined when G’d’s decree would be carried out. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 36
  
   אשר צוה ה' ביד משה, “which G’d had commanded through Moses.” According to Nachmanides the Torah in this instance did not write the usual words כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “just as the Lord had commanded Moses,” as in this instance Aaron’s sons did not do exactly as the Lord had commanded. Rather, they had done “all the things G’d had commanded through Moses,” but they added something, i.e. they introduced alien fire into the Sanctuary” (10,1). This whole paragraph dealing with the rites of anointing following the appointment of Aaron and his sons as Priests was told the people seven days prior to the Tabernacle being erected, seeing Moses had been commanded to erect the Tabernacle on the twenty-third of Adar. Moses spent the seven days till the first day of Nissan erecting and dismantling the Tabernacle. On the eighth day, G’d called him and commanded him the details of the sacrificial offering legislation, as from that day on the Shechinah had taken up residence in the Tabernacle between the outstretched wings of the cherubs. All the chapters from the beginning of the Book of Leviticus until here were revealed to Moses at that time. The Tabernacle was inaugurated with the seven days of מלואים offerings.
      When I wrote earlier in connection with verse 33 that the inauguration rites took seven days, it was logical that those מלואים offerings should serve as consecration offerings of the Tabernacle as they comprised the various categories of regular offerings, i.e. עולה, חטאת, שלמים. By offering these sacrifices the Tabernacle was consecrated in all its aspects. During the seven days prior to the first of Nissan in the second year, Moses performed the sacrificial service and practiced dressing Aaron and sons in the priestly garments. The purpose of all these procedures was to draw down the presence of the Shechinah to the Tabernacle. This was finally accomplished on the eighth day.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the reason that the inaugural sacrifices comprised both burnt-offerings, sin-offerings as well as peace-offerings, was that the sin-offering was in order to obtain atonement for any desecration of the Altar that might have occurred by oversights in these various procedures. The Torah had already spelled this out in 34,15 ויקדשהו לכפר עליו, “he sanctified it (the Altar) in order to enable it to serve as a source of atonement.” The reason the Priests had to offer the burnt-offerings was in order to establish G’d’s goodwill vis-a-vis the Priests. The peace-offerings formed part of the inaugural procedures in order to express thanks to the Lord for His having given the Jewish people the means to establish close relations with Him through the presence of the Tabernacle and everything connected with it.  When you examine what Maimonides writes in Maasseh Ha-Korbanot 2,14  you will find that when the Temple of the future will be inaugurated similar inaugural procedures will take place when the Altar will be consecrated. In fact, according to Moed Katan 9, these rites will override the Sabbath and those offerings will be offered on the Altar also on the Sabbath. All of this is spelled out in Ezekiel 46,4. May the Lord grant us that we see the fulfillment of all these promises including the rebuilding of the Holy Temple soon in our days. May Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 60,7) “all the flocks of Kedar shall be assembled for you, the rams of Nebaioth shall serve your needs; they shall be welcome offerings on My Altar, and I will add glory to My glorious House,” be fulfilled speedily.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  חכמות בנתה ביתה חצבה עמודיה שבעה. טבחה טבחה מסכה יינה אף ערכה שלחנה. שלחה נערותיה תקרא, על גפי מרמי קרת., “Wisdom has built her house, when she has hewn seven pillars. She has slaughtered the meat, mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids, she cries out from the highest places in the town.” (Proverbs 9,1-3). 
     In these verses Solomon draws a comparison between our faith and that of the idolaters. He compares our faith to a wise woman, whereas he compares the idolaters to a foolish woman (verse 4 and onward). The words חכמות בנתה ביתה, are a reference to the wisdom contained in the Torah. The reason that the word appears in the plural is to remind us that all manner of wisdom extant are contained in the Torah. This is why he describes the house built by such a woman (faith) as based on seven different pillars. The number seven is a simile for "many pillars.” Any structure built on numerous pillars, foundations, is bound to endure.     The number “seven” is not to be considered as literally seven, just as in Proverbs 24,16 the word “seven” in the line: “for the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times,” is not to be taken literally. The wise woman endeavours to prepare the food herself, mix the wine herself, and set the table herself instead of relying on others to do all this for her. This is implied in the words אף ערכה, i.e. she also does this herself. The wise woman, i.e. the Torah, also calls out to the women of her age, the foolish ones, trying to convince them that our faith is the only one which has substance. [This is the meaning of “she sends out her maids” Ed.] The paragraph is a parable describing the perfection of Torah in all its aspects, the Torah of which it is written לא תחסר כל בו, “it does not lack anything at all” (Deut. 8,9).Torah is a guide for the individual leading him to His Creator. Anyone who immerses himself in Torah thoroughly will find answers to all its detractors, i.e. to people who believe in the Trinity (the Catholics) or those who believe in other power-sharing by G’d and other deities. When he has studied Torah thoroughly he will feel that the table is set for him and all the food and drink has been served ready to eat. Torah can fill the needs of the mind of the foolish just as food and drink can serve the needs of our stomachs. This is what David had in mind when he wrote in Psalms 19,8 “The teaching of the Lord is perfect, renewing life; the decrees of the Lord are enduring, making the simple wise.” Solomon warns all people to preoccupy themselves with Torah and to abandon their previous foolish pursuits. This is the meaning of  Proverbs 9,4: ”Who is a fool let him enter here; to the person who is devoid of sense she says.” What does Torah (the wise woman) have to say to such people devoid of sense? “Come and eat my bread, drink the wine which I have mixed, Forsake foolishness and live!, Walk in the way of understanding.” As a result (verse 11) “your days  will be multiplied; you will experience added years of life.”    Solomon compares the belief in idolatry to a foolish woman who offers the kind of advice which makes the multitude stumble and fall; she strengthens those who indulge in a sinful life style; she praises the foolish practices perpetrated by the sinners, the wicked deeds performed by them. This is the meaning of Proverbs 9,13-14: “a foolish woman makes a lot of noise, she is full of foolishness, knows nothing. For she sits at the entrance of her house or on a chair in the highest place in town.” The meaning of this verse is that the woman described here is the reverse of the one described in verses 3-4 of the same chapter.  The meaning of the verse is that the woman mentioned made herself the foremost, the highest in rank. Normally, the highest ranking position is accorded to wisdom; in this instance the woman occupying pride of place is a foolish woman. The truly foremost woman, the one mentioned in verses 3-4 built her house with wisdom, while preparing everything in her household she kept silent. The foolish woman, who is unable to do what the wise woman has done, substitutes for her failure with noise. This is the meaning of the words: “she does not know anything.” To the degree that the woman in verses 3-4 is accomplished with all degrees of perfections, the one mentioned in verses 13-14 is without any of these accomplishments. All she knows how to do is “sit in the entrance of her house.” This expression is a simile for the way such a woman, i.e. philosophy, is unproductive and a waste of time. The “woman” sitting perennially at the entrance to her house indicates by her conduct that there is nothing worthwhile inside her house. The idolaters are in a similar position. Although totally devoid of accomplishments they can point to,  they are unwilling to enter the shadow of G’d’s House, or the protection of his wings, preferring to remain on the “outside.”    Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah answered the Roman Emperor in a similar vein  when he said to him that whereas he and his colleagues were at liberty to worship any philosophy they desired, they would forever remain outside the fold, (Judaism) even if they wanted to. Our verse points out the audacity of idolaters who, though not able to boast of any true accomplishments, boast of the efficacy of their faith, extolling their evil deeds. This is what Solomon meant here with the words  על כסא מרומי  קרת, as opposed to על גפי מרומי קרת in verse 3. The difference is that the maids of the wise woman call to people warning them not to enter the  house of the foolish woman, the foolish woman by way of contrast praises “the sweetness of stolen waters, and the tastiness of bread eaten in secret” (verse 17 there). This is an example of how the foolish woman (philosophy) entices her followers to become enmeshed in further sin. The former woman gives advice which results in added years of life, whereas the foolish woman’s advice hastens the onset of decay and death. (compare verse 18 at the end of that chapter).
      A Midrashic approach to the verses in question: The words “she built her house with multiple wisdom” refer to the Torah which was the blueprint with which all the various worlds were built. The words חצבה עמודיה שבעה, mean that the world is hewn out of seven heavens, רקיעים. If man accumulates merits by busying himself with Torah he will inherit seven different “earths.” If not, he will be expelled from seven earths, i.e. worlds. The expression שבעה ארצות, “seven earths,” refers to our terrestrial world which consists of seven regions each with a different climate. Promising us “seven earths” is equivalent to promising us that we will inherit this earth, whereas the people ignoring Torah are told that they will lose their life in the hereafter, the region of seven heavens.
      This Midrash (Midrash Mishley chapter 9) interpreted the word שבעה, “seven,” which Solomon mentioned in verse one literally. The reason is that the number seven has equal significance in the celestial regions and the terrestrial regions. There are many commandments in the Torah where the number “seven” plays a significant role. The Sabbath is the seventh day; the Jubilee year is the conclusion of seven cycles of seven years, שמטה. Both the festival of Passover and Tabernacles consist of seven days. The components of the four species of plants used on the festival of Sukkot total seven, (1 lulav, 1 etrog, 2 willow-branches, and 3 branches of the myrtle). We observe a period of seven days of mourning for close relatives who have died; we observe seven days of celebration when a couple get married. The common denominator of all these commandments or practices involving the number seven is that they somehow symbolise the seven days in which G’d created and completed the universe. Even a Gentile prophet such as Bileam built seven altars for G’d before embarking on his nefarious scheme of cursing the Jewish people (which was thwarted by G’d). He told G’d specifically that he had erected seven altars (Numbers 23,4). It is not surprising therefore that there were seven days of inauguration for the Tabernacle. G’d Himself referred to them as such (Leviticus 8,33). The spiritual origin of these rites involving the number seven is one and the same.  If Aaron did not get consecrated on the seventh day itself but only on the morrow, the eighth day, this was because of the special nature of performing service in the Sanctuary of the Lord. Seeing G’d is essentially “One,” this is symbolized by the fact that Aaron did not commence his duties until the “first” day after the seven days of his consecration, i.e. the day of the “One.”
   ויהי ביום השמיני קרא משה לאהרן ולבניו ולזקני ישראל , “It was on the eighth day; Moses called  upon Aaron, his sons, and the elders of Israel.”  The reason that the office of the High Priest began functioning on the eighth day was due to yet another cause in addition to what we have mentioned. We observe that in connection with the Tabernacle and the Temple the number eight plays a very significant role. The High Priest wore eight garments. The number of fragrances consisting of anointing oil, and incense was eight. The anointing oil contained four such fragrances, i.e. מר, קנמון, קנה, קדה,  (Exodus 30,23-24) whereas there were four additional fragrances which made up the incense. They were נטף, שחלת, חלבנה, לבונה (30,34). The number of staves used to carry the furnishings of the Tabernacle also amounted to eight; 2 each for the Holy Ark, 2 for the golden Altar, 2 for the table, and two  for transporting the copper Altar. Animals which were basically fit as sacrifices on the Altar had to be at least eight days old  (Leviticus 22,27). The musical instruments used when the Levites sang the daily hymn during the service numbered eight as we know from Psalms 4,1 and others.    In this instance the eighth day was the first day of Nissan, a day when the Tabernacle was not only erected but remained standing. The day was distinguished with “ten crowns” in the language of our sages (Rashi). In other words, it was distinguished, honored in ten different ways. 1) It was the beginning of the second year since the Exodus. 2) It was the first day on which Aaron functioned as High Priest. 3) It was the first day on which sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle. 4) It was the first time the people of Israel received the priestly blessings. 5) It was the first day on which heavenly fire descended onto the copper altar. 6) It was the first time the male goat of the New Moon offering was ever offered. 7) It was the first time that animals which had been slaughtered without previously having been designated as a sacrifice were no longer permitted to be eaten. 8) It was the first day when the Shechinah took up residence on earth. 9) It was the first of the twelve days on which the princes offered their respective offerings. Nachshon ben Aminadav, prince of the tribe of Yehudah, was the first to offer same. 10) It was the first day on which people who had contracted certain types of ritual impurity had to leave the camp, i.e. a testimony to the sanctity of the encampment of the whole people.   We find a similar description in Torat Kohanim describing the day as “taking” ten crowns, i.e.  it was first in order of the creation. [There are two views as to whether the world was created (completed) on the first of Tishrey or the first of Nissan; this is the latter view. Ed.]. It was the first day of the offerings by the princes; the first day when the institution of the Priesthood began to function; the first day that service on the Altar in the Tabernacle was performed; the first day on which heavenly fire descended; the first day when sacrificial meat could be eaten; [incompatible with the view that Yitro arrived before then. Ed.] the first of the first of the months. It was the first day on which the Shechinah rested over the Jewish people on a permanent basis. It was the first day on which the Israelites received the priestly blessings.
   A Midrashic approach to the words: “it was on the eighth day” (based on Tanchuma Shemini 2) David says in Psalms 75,5: אמרתי להוללים אל תהולו, “I said to the frivolous men: ‘do not be frivolous!’” Instead of reading אל תהולו, read אל תחולו, “do not break out in dance.” The reason is that true joy does not linger with man in this world but only in the world to come. Many people who rejoice and are happy today may find that on the morrow they have no such cause for happiness and exuberance. This is why Solomon, [using the same expression as David, מהולל, Ed.] said: (Kohelet 2,2) לשחוק אמרתי מהולל, “of revelry I said: ‘it is mad!’” If you require proof of the truth of both statements take a look at what happened at the creation. When G’d completed His handiwork at the end of 6 days and He reviewed it (Genesis 1,31) He was very pleased  as we know from Psalms 104,31: “may the glory of the Lord endure forever, may the Lord rejoice in His works!” In the verse from Genesis we are told that “G’d looked at His entire handiwork and behold, it was very good!” Only a few chapters later (Genesis 6,6) the Torah reports וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו, “Hashem had to comfort Himself that He had made man on earth, and it caused Him sadness in His heart.” Keeping this verse in mind, Assaph said in Psalms 75,5 not to indulge in frivolous merriment. If even G’d’s joy did not endure, how much less is the chance that man’s joy on earth will endure!     Avraham progressed in his life and became exceedingly great and wealthy killing the most powerful kings on earth in the process. In his old age G’d gave him a son from Sarah. His joy was unbounded. A few years later G’d commanded him to take his son and to offer him up as a sacrifice. Even after having mastered that trial and being commended by G’d (Genesis 22,16-17), he went back from Moriah and had to bury his beloved wife Sarah. His joy had been short-lived. He even had trouble being given a suitable plot where to bury Sarah. In the end, he was literally fleeced, having to pay an astronomical sum of 400 shekel for a hole in the ground.   Yitzchak  who enjoyed phenomenal success in Gerar, seeing his investment returned one hundred-fold, (Genesis 26,12) faced expulsion shortly thereafter as the Philistines became jealous of his wealth. His joy had been very short-lived. After Avimelech realized that he had wronged him and apologized and made a treaty with him (Genesis 26,28) and he surely thought that “he had it made,” we read that his eyesight failed him and that he almost made a fatal error bestowing the blessing on a son whom he had considered worthy but who in the event had been unworthy all along. His joy had proven to be short-lived. If a Yitzchak who had been a living example of what it means to be a “total-offering, i.e. burnt-offering,” was not allowed permanent joy on earth, i.e. the fruits of his total dedication to G’d’s command, how much less may we ordinary mortals expect joy on earth to be enduring.  Yaakov experienced great joy when he had the dream with the ladder, seeing angels ascending and descending, a promise from G’d that He would be with him, etc. (Genesis 28, 12-13). Not long afterwards he experienced a whole string of misfortunes, beginning with being tricked out of his chosen wife Rachel, the rape of Dinah, and concluding with the disappearance of Joseph. If Yaakov the righteous, of whom G’d had said that He would boast of such a man (Isaiah 49,3), could not hold on to his joy in this life, what can we lesser individuals expect in the way of enduring joy on earth?   Joshua experienced great joy in his time, he settled the Jewish people on their land, killed 31 Kings, was promised by G’d that no one would rise against him successfully, and enjoyed unchallenged authority by his people (compare Joshua 1,18) but died without leaving behind any children. Surely, this must have dimmed his joy on earth. If this was his lot, how much less joy can the righteous in our time expect to enjoy while on earth!   The High Priest Eli who did have sons had to experience the loss of the Holy Ark, the curse on his children who had disgraced him. When he died at a ripe old age the  immediate cause  of his death was the news that both his sons had been killed in battle (compare Samuel I 1,9; 1,10). If this happened to a righteous person such as the High Priest Eli, what sort of joy can there be in store in this world for the wicked?  Consider the fact that on this day, Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav experienced greater joy than any man or woman before her. She saw her husband begin his career as High Priest; Her brother-in-law, Moses, became king of Israel. Two of her sons became deputy High Priests. Her brother Nachshon became the first of the princes to be honoured with bringing the sacrifices by laymen. Even she did not long remain in such a blissful state of joy seeing that two of her sons, Nadav and Avihu, died on the very same day at the hands of G’d. Considering all these examples we need not be surprised at Solomon’s warning not to be frivolous, not to dance with joy, as such joy is apt to be all too brief.
     קרא משה לאהרן ולבניו, “Moses called out to Aaron and his sons.” Our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 3) comment that the word קרא ל.. means that Moses called upon Aaron to wear the mantle of the position of High Priest. When told that he was to be the High Priest, Aaron said to his brother: “seeing you have worked tirelessly to make the Tabernacle a reality, it does not seem fair that I should be the High Priest.” Moses answered him that although Aaron had been appointed to this position by G’d, He, Moses, was as happy for him as if he himself had been appointed to that position. He added that just as Aaron had rejoiced at the time when Moses was appointed the leader of the people, although he was the older of the two, now it was his turn to rejoice in Aaron’s promotion. The occasion when Aaron had rejoiced at Moses’ appointment is recorded in Exodus 4,14 where G’d told Moses that his brother Aaron would rejoice in his appointment. One of the reasons Moses had not wanted to accept the position was that he was afraid that Aaron who had been the people’s spokesman up until then would be offended. This is what Moses had meant when he said to G’d: “appoint (send) the one whom You are in the habit of sending on such missions” (Exodus 4,13).   Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said that the heart which had been able to sincerely rejoice at the promotion of his younger brother was the most suitable one to wear the urim vetumim, as is written “he shall carry the judgment of the Children of Israel on his heart” (Exodus 25,30). This is why during the seven days that Moses performed the sprinkling of the blood on the Altar, offering incense, etc., G’d said to him: “Moses in case you think that you are going to be the High Priest, call in Aaron and appoint him to the position.” Why did Moses also have to call in the elders of the people? G’d told him to appoint Aaron in their presence in order that later on no one could claim that Aaron had appointed himself to this position.
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ויאמר אל אהרן: קח לך עגל בן בקר לחטאת, “He said to Aaron: “take yourself a young bull for a sin-offering, etc.” This was intended to atone for the affair of the golden calf, of which the Torah had written that Aaron had made it (Exodus 32,35). 
      A Midrashic approach to these words (Tanchuma Shemini 4): “the reason Moses diod not simply say: “take a bull,” but “take yourself a calf, etc,.” is  to remind him that whereas on account of the golden calf  he had almost lost his claim to the position of the High Priesthood, he now would re-establish his claim to it by offering a calf as sin-offering.
  
  Verse 3
  
   קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת ועגל וכבש בני שנה תמימה לעולה, “take a he-goat for a sin-offering and a calf as well as an unblemished  sheep in its first year for a burnt-offering.” In Sifra Shemini 3 the question is posed why the Israelites had to offer more sacrifices than Aaron, i.e. both a he-goat, a calf and a sheep. The answer given is that the Israelites had sinned with a he-goat when they had drenched Joseph’s coat in its blood at the time; now they had been guilty of committing a sin using a calf. It was appropriate therefore that they receive expiation for both of these sins. Each of these two sin-offerings was to atone for the sin committed with its counterpart.
      I believe that the fact that the calf offered by the people was a burnt-offering whereas Aaron’s calf was a sin-offering was to demonstrate that although Aaron had committed the sin of the golden calf with his hands, his heart had not had any part in the sin at all. This is why the calf could be his sin-offering. [I believe the author tries to explain why the principle of אין קטגור נעשה סנגור, “that the prosecutor cannot change his garments and suddenly appear in the guise of the counsel for defense,” has not been violated here, as the sin-offering was of a technical nature only. Ed.]   Furthermore, the author believes that the very words: “which Aaron had made,” referring to the golden calf Aaron had made, are superfluous, and are to be read as limiting Aaron’s guilt, i.e. though he had “made” it, he had had no emotional or intellectual part in that whole episode. The Torah had described how Aaron had made the calf in Exodus 32,4, so there was certainly no need to tell us in 32,35 that he had made it. Aaron had to bring the calf as a sin-offering precisely because the sin-offering atones for a deed not for a thought. The Israelites, on the other hand, whose sin had consisted of their sinful thoughts connected to the golden calf had to offer it as a burnt-offering, to atone for their thoughts. [The Israelites who had sinned in deed on that occasion had long since been executed or died at the hand of G’d. Ed.] Those who had been guilty of auxiliary deeds required the sin-offering to atone for that part of their sin.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ושור ואיל לשלמים, “and an ox and a ram as peace-offering.” Our sages in Torat Kohanim Sifra Shemini 4 comment on this: “why did the Israelites have to bring two animals, i.e. a calf as well as a fully grown bull?” The answer is that the Torah had described what came out of the crucible into which Aaron threw the gold both as “calf” and as “bull,” on separate occasions. In Exodus 32,8 it was described as a calf, whereas in Psalms 106,20 it was described as a bull when David said: “they exchanged their glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass.” It was appropriate then that the bull would atone for a deed that was as animal-like as that of a bull, whereas the calf was to expiate for a deed comparable to that of a calf. The proof that G’d was willing to relate to the people again with His goodwill is found in the words לזבוח לפני ה' “to slaughter in the presence of the Lord,” meaning that the (symbol of) sin the people were afraid of had already been slaughtered in the presence of the Lord. We would have expected the Torah to write that these animals be slaughtered as “peace-offerings,” rather than as “in the presence of the Lord.” Moreover, atonement is accomplished through the sprinkling of blood not through slaughtering, a merely preparatory act. According to Torat Kohanim then these words indicated that the very act of slaughtering these animals already resulted in atonement for the people on that occasion.
     כי היום ה' נראה אליכם, “for this day the Lord has appeared to you.” Actually Moses should have said “nireh” with the vowel segol under the letter aleph instead of the vowel kametz that we find here. [Seeing that the word refers to Hashem, who is certainly masculine]. The variation in the regular use of the vowel may be an allusion to the feminine attribute of Justice which would also manifest itself on that day killing Nadav and Avihu. We find something parallel to this in Psalms 130,3 אם עונות תשמר י-ה אדוני, מי יעמוד?, “if You G’d were to keep account of sins, O G’d, who will survive?” The name used for G’d is the attribute of Justice. In our chapter we encounter a verse (23) describing the manifestation of G’d  which is described as כבוד ה', an attribute below that of the tetragram without moderating adjective. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . קרב אל המזבח, “approach the Altar!” According to the plain meaning of the text these words mean that Aaron is to approach the northern side of the Altar, the area where the slaughtering of the animals took place.
      According to a view in the Midrash Sifra Shemini Miluim 8, the Altar appeared to Aaron as looking similar to the shape of a bull and he was afraid of approaching it. Moses approached him saying to him that he should not be afraid but should approach it without worry. This is why we find these instructions here which we do not find anywhere else.
      According to Nachmanides we must not misunderstand this Midrash as meaning that Aaron saw (a non-existent) figure of a bull on the Altar. The Midrash means that the only sin which Aaron had been guilty of was the making of the golden calf (bull). This is why the sin was constantly in his thoughts. It was just like when David said in Psalms 51,5 concerning his own sin: “my sin is constantly present in my mind.” Aaron looked at the Altar as if it were the personification of his sin, reminding him of it even more visibly. He was afraid that such thoughts would interfere with his ability to offer sacrifices from here on in. This is why Moses had to put his mind at rest telling him that he did not have anything to worry about as his part in that sin had already been forgiven.
     וכפר בעדך ובעד העם, ועשה את קרבנך ואת קרבן העם, “and make atonement for yourself and for the people, and prepare your offering and that on behalf of the people.” The sequence of the words may mean that Aaron was first to initiate atonement for his own sin before bringing about atonement for the people, or it might mean  that the words “and for the people,” are a reference to his immediate family, i.e. the members of the house of Levi. In that event the words קרבן העם, “the offering for the people,” would refer to the people at large.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
    ואת הדם יצק אל יסוד המזבח, “and he poured the blood upon the foundation of the Altar.” He did this in order to achieve atonement for man whose existence is dependent on blood. This is the meaning of Leviticus 17,14: “for the life-force of all flesh resides within its blood.” It is also written (Leviticus 17,11) “for he atones for the blood which resides in the נפש, ‘life-force.’” This then was the reason that the High Priest was burning up the following three items, “the fat parts, the kidneys, and the tissue attached to the liver.” All of these parts of man had to partake in order for the sin to be carried out (golden calf) and they were instrumental in turning the people away from the path of goodness to the path of evil. This is the deeper meaning of “and the fat-parts, the kidneys and the tissue adjoining the liver of the animal which was the sin-offering he made go up in smoke on the Altar” (verse 10). The part called חלב is the fat which causes man to become gross, arrogant; it is responsible for man’s inherent pride and arrogance. Moses alluded to this when he said (Deuteronomy 32,15) “Yeshurun grew fat and kicked, you became fat and gross and coarse;” we also have a verse in Job 15,27 depicting something similar: ”his face is covered with fat and his loins with blubber.” [The speaker refers to a king rebelling against the Lord. Ed.]   The kidneys are the source of what is called עצה, “counsel,” in the language of our sages (Berachot 61); they base this on Psalms 26,2 “ונסני צרופה כליותי ולבי, “and try me, test my heart and kidneys (mind).” Another verse (Psalms 16,7) carries a similar message, i.e. אף לילות יסרוני כליותי, “my kidneys (conscience) admonish me at night.”   The reason the tissue adjoining the liver had to be burned up is that desire, carnal and other kinds of greed which permeate man, have their origin in that region of the body. It is also the region which is the (physical) cause of anger and rage. All the negative virtues in man are connected to the liver. All of these parts the Priest burned up in the northern part of the Altar as the north is the region from where all evil originates, (compare Jeremiah 1,14). In other words, evil is consigned back to where it originated (symbolically speaking). All these procedures have one purpose, to achieve atonement for man’s sins which originate in the fatness of his heart and the planning of his ego which originates in the liver.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם, “Aaron raised his hands in the direction of the people and he blessed them.” The meaning of the words אל העם, normally translated as “in the direction of the people,” should here be translated as: “for the sake of the people, i.e. to meet their needs.” The commentators who disagree with us and dress themselves up in fancy garments to lend weight to their words, are wrong when they said that the meaning of these words is that Aaron lifted his hand in order to indicate to the people that they should raise their right hand as affirmation. These commentators [Christian theologians, compare St. James version of the Bible, Ed.] quote a Midrash (see gloss of Maimoniot on Maimonides Hilchot Tefillah 14,3) that the word ידו with the vowels of the plural, is spelled without the letter י indicating that it is really a singular, i.e. “his hand.” Our answer to them is simply that traditionally we read the word as if it had been spelled with the letter י, i.e. that Aaron raised both his hands. Their argument that Aaron only raised his right hand is null and void. The reason that we encounter this unusual spelling is to indicate that the right hand is more important than the left hand concerning mystical matters which are revealed only to select individuals. This is why the Kabbalists have said that the word is spelled ידו in the singular to allude to the select individuals who are recipients of deeper insights from the “right” side of G’d. In this way justice is done both to the spelling and the traditional reading. When you compare the prayer Moses uttered  when he prayed for the victory of the Israelites against the attack by Amalek in Exodus 17,11 you will also find this dual spelling of the word ידו, i.e. והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל. “Whenever Moses raised his hand (s) Israel would prevail.” In the following two verses the word is spelled as ידיו in the normal way. Had Moses used only one hand at a time, it is hard to understand why he needed two men to support his hands as is evident from verses 12 and 13 in that chapter. If the people who understood our verse as Aaron raising his hands towards the people (instead of towards G’d) would be correct, the Torah should have written instead of וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם, the formula וישלח אהרן את ידיו אל העם. It is the custom for a father who prepares to bless his son to put his hand on his head, just as Yaakov did when he prepared to bless the two sons of Joseph. In that instance the Torah wrote וישלח ישראל את ימינו, “Israel extended his right hand.” In our verse the Torah employs the verb וישא to show that Aaron’s hands were stretched upwards (towards heaven). We have a parallel example in Kings I 8, 54-55 ויהי ככלות שלמה להתפלל אל ה' את כל התפלה והתחנה הזאת וכפיו פרושות השמים ויעמוד ויברך את כל קהל ישראל, “it was when Solomon had completed this entire prayer and entreaty with his palms outstretched heavenwards, he stood and blessed the entire congregation of Israel.” It is clear that the meaning of the verse is that Solomon’s hands were in an upright position aimed towards heaven.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויבא משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד ויצאו ויברכו את העם, “Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting, and when they came out they blessed the people.” They both had to enter to enable Moses to teach Aaron the details of the incense offering. Aaron had not been allowed to enter beyond the entrance of the Tabernacle during the seven days of inauguration as we have read in 8,38 that Aaron and his sons were to remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting during this entire period. Now, on the eighth day, permission had been given for him to enter. Moses accompanied him in order to teach him the procedure. Moses had already acquired expertise in this procedure having performed it for the last seven days. You know that Moses had performed all the various procedures connected with the service in the Tabernacle from 8,19-21 “Moses sprinkled the blood, Moses slaughtered. Moses cut up the animal into pieces, he burned up the ram, etc. etc.” Up until the eighth day Moses had performed all these procedures. This is why Psalms 99,6 describes both Moses and Aaron as “His Priests.” When the Torah describes both Moses and Aaron as emerging from the Tabernacle and blessing the people, this means that they did so immediately after having offered up the incense. The reason is that at that moment  prayer is accepted by G’d with a minimum of delay. It became the custom for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement to offer the incense and even to leave his pan inside the Temple in order to immediately leave the Sanctuary and offer his (famous) prayer for the economic welfare of the Jewish people in the coming year; at the same time he requested from G’d that all the various needs of the Jewish people be met (Yuma 53). This is also what prompted David to say in Psalms 141,2: ”Take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice.” David singled out the incense offering by name from amongst all the others, because it is the most beloved. Hence prayer offered at the time of day when the incense would be offered is most effective.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל על המזבח את העולה, “Fire emanated from heaven and consumed the burnt-offering on the Altar, etc.” Now, on the eighth day of the Tabernacle being inaugurated with various animal sacrifices all of which had been offered in order to atone for the sin of the golden calf, heavenly fire descended to accept these offerings. This fire remained a constant phenomenon until the generation of Solomon when he built the Holy Temple. (Zevachim 61). In fact it did not cease until that Temple was destroyed. According to our tradition King Menashe had extinguished it personally (about 100 years prior to the destruction of the Temple). We find an allusion to this in Leviticus 6,6: “the fire on the Altar will remain constant, it shall not be extinguished.” We find that during various times in our history there have been twelve recorded occasions when fire descended from heaven (to accomplish a specific task). Six of these occasions were for the sake of accepting sacrificial offerings; the other six occasions were demonstrations of Divine displeasure and anger.  The first of these twelve occasions was the instance recorded here, where the fire which descended indicated G’d’s pleasure and acceptance of the sacrifices offered.  The second such occasion occurred in the days of Gideon who had asked for a sign from the angel that he had not fantasized but that G’d really wanted him to become the leader of the nation in order deliver the people from the yoke of Midian. The wording there (Judges 6,17-18) is: ”If I have gained your favour, give me a sign that it is You who are speaking to me; do not leave this place until I come back to You and bring out my offering and place it before You.” He answered: “I will stay until you return.” In verse 21 of that chapter we read that Gideon’s offering was consumed by supernatural fire. Seeing that the angel had requested that Gideon perform five tasks, Gideon in turn requested a sign to be certain in his heart that the matter would come true. The angel had requested (Judges 6,25) that Gideon take the ox belonging to his father  (and destroy it) as well as “a second” seven-year old bull and offer it as a sacrifice to G’d after he had first torn down the altar of the Baal which belonged to Gideon’s father. He asked him to cut down a sacred post, to build an altar for the Lord, on level ground on top of this stronghold. He was to take the other bull and offer it as a burnt-offering on that newly erected altar. The meaning of the word “second” when the prophet spoke about a second seven year old bull was the “second of the womb of its mother.” The angel went on to say to Gideon: “destroy the altar of the Baal  belonging to your father as well as the sacred post which is upon it you shall cut down.” He then instructed him to build an altar for the Lord on a fortified place on a specified site on that fortress and to offer a burnt-offering consisting of this second bull, using the wood from the sacred post as firewood. The expression מעוז which we translated as “a fortified place,” refers to a protruding rock and was supposed to symbolise the Azzazel. Seeing that these instructions sounded very strange, Gideon requested a sign from G’d that this was indeed what G’d wanted. The fire which consumed his offering on that altar was that sign.   The third time we find heavenly fire as demonstrating G’d’s approval,  was when Manoach had offered a thanksgiving offering after his wife and he had been told that they would have a son who was to be raised as a Nazir and who would begin to redeem the Israelites fom the stranglehold exerted on them by the Philistines. [Israel only defeated the Philistines finally in the days of Chizkiyahu, Kings II 18,8, some 400 years after Shimshon. Ed.]  We are told in Judges 13,16 that the angel told Manoach that there was no point in delaying him as he would not eat from the gift Manoach had in mind to prepare. He told him to prepare an offering to the Lord instead. When Manoach did so and the smoke from the  flame and fat rose heavenward, the angel rose to heaven within that flame. According to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon, Manoach had first (verse 19) referred to the slab of stone where he prepared the offering as צור, “a rock.” When he observed what happened he suddenly called this rock “altar,” (verse 20). Once there was evidence that their offering had been accepted by G’d, Manoach knew that the prophecy would be fulfilled.  The fourth time heavenly fire represented G’d’s pleasure occurred in the time of David after pestilence had struck the people (as a punishment for the head count) and David purchased the threshing-ground of Arona the Jebusite as the site for the Temple to be. We are told in Chronicles I 21,26 that “David built there an altar to the Lord and he sacrificed burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. He invoked the Lord who answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offerings. Thereupon the Lord ordered the angel to “return his sword to his sheath” (the pestilence would cease).    The fifth occurrence of heavenly fire signaling G’d’s approval occurred in the days of King Solomon when the Temple had been completed. When Solomon had completed the inaugural prayer and had blessed the people, heavenly fire descended on the altar and consumed the offering, and the attribute of כבוד filled the Sanctuary (Chronicles II 7,1). If you were to ask why there was a need for this demonstration and renewal of heavenly fire seeing that we said previously that it continued unceasingly ever since the inauguration of the Tabernacle in our chapter, the answer is simply that Moses’ copper altar was far too small to accommodate all the offerings presented by Solomon on that occasion (compare Zevachim 59). As a result, the Priests were forced to utilize the entire courtyard and convert it into a temporary altar (compare Kings I 8,64). It was forbidden to introduce alien fire into the courtyard as it would be classified as “alien fire.” It was also forbidden to take from the fire on the altar and use it to burn the meat and fat of the offerings in the courtyard. Transferring such fire from a site of intense sanctity to one of lesser sanctity runs counter to the general principle מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין, “one may add to levels of sanctity but not diminish it.” As a result of these problems there was a need for heavenly fire to become manifest in that courtyard for Solomon and the people to know that what they had done had met with G’d’s approval.    The sixth time heavenly fire descended to demonstrate G’d’s approval was on Mount Carmel when Elijah had his famous confrontation with the prophets and priests of the Baal (Kings I 18,38) Elijah pleaded with G’d to respond to what he had undertaken without consulting G’d. This is why he had to plead twice, saying  ענני ה' ענני, “answer me O Lord, answer me!” G’d responded positively in stages. The first response was when heavenly fire consumed Elijah’s offerings as well as the moat of water surrounding it. The second response by G’d was the rain which materialized seemingly out of nowhere, just as Elijah had predicted (verse 44-46). 
  Rabbi Ami (Berachot 9), commenting on the repeated words ענני, claims that Elijah asked for two responses. He wanted a demonstration of heavenly fire which should consume the prophets of the Baal together with the offerings. His second request was that the people watching should not consider what was going to happen as a form of witchcraft.  Now to the six occasions when heavenly fire represented signs of G’d’s anger or displeasure: The first such instance occurred here when Nadav and Avihu were killed by heavenly fire as we read in 10,2. The second incident occurred in Numbers 11,1 when the Israelites complained for no apparent reason. The destructive fire on that occasion stopped only in response to Moses’ prayer. The third instance occurred during the uprising of Korach and Datan and Aviram. We are told in Numbers 16,35 that “fire came forth from the Lord and consumed the 250 men who had offered incense” which had been rejected. The fourth such incident is reported in Job 1,16 where heavenly fire falling down and killing boys and sheep is mentioned. Both the fifth and sixth incidents occurred in connection with Elijah who called down such fire to burn the detachment of a captain and 50 soldiers whose task it was to capture him (Kings II 1,10 and 10,12). The reason that these people were punished was the arrogance they displayed vis-a-vis the accredited prophet of G’d. [The third detachment was spared as the captain related to Elijah with deference. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויתנו בהן אש וישימו עליה קטורת, “they put fire in them (the censers) and placed incense in them.” According to the plain meaning of the text Nadav and Avihu’s sin consisted in that they introduced alien, i.e. man-made, fire into the sacred precincts. The regulations pertaining to the incense offering required that the fire be taken from the Altar and that the incense be burned up by that fire. The Torah had spelled this out in Leviticus 16,12: ”he shall take a shovelful of fiery coals from atop the Altar that is before Hashem.” Nadav and Avihu thought that the actual fire from the Altar was required to totally consume the animal sacrifices. This was a sin as they demonstrated a lack of faith, not trusting G’d to make heavenly fire descend on the sacrifices and able to consume the sacrifices; this is why they brought additional fire to consume the incense.  By bringing their own fire they made the miracle of heavenly fire descending seem less relevant, thereby causing a desecration of the name of the Lord in the eyes of all those who had observed what they did. This is why their punishment fitted their sin, as that same heavenly fire they did not trust to materialise consumed their own insides. This is the explanation of Rabbi Aderet (ראב'ד) of what happened .
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Acharey Mot 6). They entered the Sanctuary while in a state of intoxication. This accounts for the fact that the Torah spells out the prohibition of priests entering the Sanctuary while drunk immediately after having reported this incident (compare 10,8-11). The Sifra Shemini Miluim 22-23 writes as follows: “G’d said to them: ‘I have honoured you more than you honoured Me. You introduced impure fire into My holy Place, whereas I will burn you  with pure, heavenly fire.’” How exactly did they die? Two threads of fire came out of the Holy of Holies and entered their nostrils becoming divided into four “threads.” Two entered the nostrils of Nadav and the other two entered the nostrils of Avihu.’”
      A kabbalistic approach: We can gain a clearer picture of the sin of these sons of Aaron when noting that the Torah wrote: וישימו עליה, instead of writing וישימו עליהם, “they placed on it” instead of: “they placed on them.” [There had been two censers, each brother having entered with his own censer. Ed.] When you compare what the Torah writes in connection with the 250 men who offered incense (Numbers 16,18) you will find that the fire and incense is described with the words “they placed it on them, (the censers, plural). When the instructions as to the correct procedure is issued in the Torah (Numbers 16,17) Moses had told these men ונתתם עליהם קטורת “place on them incense.” (No mention had been made of fire although the 250 men added their own fire) The word עליה as distinct from עליהם is an allusion to the attribute of Justice. The Torah is trying to give us an insight into the thinking of Nadav and Avihu at that time. They knew that incense was intended to counter, to stop the attribute of Justice in its tracks, as we know from Moses in Deuteronomy 33,10: “they place incense to placate Your anger.” The word קטורת itself means התקשרות רוח במדות, “establishing a spiritual affinity.” The Aramaic translation of the word ותקשור, (Genesis 38,25) “she tied” is וקטרת. The spiritual affinity established by means of the incense is meant to draw down an abundance of heavenly  blessings by means of the attribute of Justice, which in turn will confer these blessings on the person burning up the incense. The sin of the person offering incense with such considerations consists in the fact that it is not permissible to direct one’s offering to any other attribute of G’d than the tetragram, i.e. Hashem. Seeing that Nadav and Avihu erred in the address to which the offered their incense, we do not find it described as אשה ריח ניחוח לה', “as a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord,” but the very attribute of Justice to whom they addressed their offering smote them. This is the meaning of the words ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם, “fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and consumed them so that they died” (verse 2).
      Most of the commentators claim that Nadav and Avihu brought their incense into the Holy of Holies. As proof for their opinion they offer what is written in Leviticus 16,2 that even Aaron must not enter the Holy of Holies on any day other than the Day of Atonement on pain of death. The only occasion on which the High Priest is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, equipped with incense, is the Day of Atonement. The warning of the death penalty there is linked to the death of the two sons of Aaron, suggesting that this is precisely what they had been guilty of. This is also the opinion of Rashi. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (on Leviticus 16,1) agrees. 
  However, Nachmanides (Leviticus 16,2) does not believe that Nadav and Avihu entered the Holy of Holies but that they only entered the outer Sanctuary. He finds it impossible to believe that these sons would be arrogant enough to enter holy precincts which even their father and Moses had not entered. Why should they offer their own incense in a place holier than where their father had offered his own? The Torah mentions specifically that Aaron presented his incense in the Sanctuary; (compare 9,23: “Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting).” The expression ויבא in that verse refers to the preparation and offering of the incense.
  
  Verse 2
  
  'ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם וימותו לפני ה, “Fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died in the presence of the Lord.” Seeing that they had sinned by abusing fire, they were punished by fire. The kind of death described here by the words “in the presence of the Lord” means that their body and soul underwent a “surgical” separation, the fire entering their bodies through their nostrils separating soul from body. We must be careful not to understand the verse as saying that their souls were burned, i.e. that they lost their claim to the hereafter. If that were so the words בקרובי אקדש, “by those very close to Me I become sanctified,” which Moses told Aaron in G’d’s name, would not make any sense. Why should the souls of people G’d describes as close to Him be destroyed, burned?  In reference to verse 3 our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 1) quote Moses as saying to his brother Aaron: “I knew all along that the Sanctuary would be sanctified (that someone prominent would die), but I thought it would be either I or you. Now I know that Nadav and Avihu are greater than either you or I, as G’d has chosen them to sanctify His name.” No doubt such statements are not made concerning people who have lost their claim to the hereafter. There cannot be any doubt that their very death was the atonement for their sin, that they were elevated to the celestial regions immediately and that this is the reason the story of their death is repeated in connection with the atonement rites described in Acharey Mot (Leviticus chapter 16).   In the Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 1,1 the question is raised why the death of Nadav and Avihu is mentioned in connection with Yom Kippur, seeing their deaths occurred on the first of Nissan? The answer given is that the (premature) death of the righteous acts as atonement for the people left alive.  Just as it is wrong to understand the “burning” of these sons of Aaron literally as far as their souls are concerned, so it is wrong to understand the word as referring to the burning of their bodies or even their clothing. After all, the Torah writes (verse 5) that “they carried them (out of the Sanctuary) in their tunics.” Each of these sons of Aaron had his individual tunic as we know from Exodus 28,40. The text refers to their death as “burning,” as we  know from verse 6 where the Children of Israel as a whole are commanded to weep “for the conflagration which had befallen, which the Lord had ignited.”
   It would appear that this wording is the source for our sages (Sanhedrin 52) stating that one of the four death penalties, called שרפה, burning, is to consist of the victim having molten lead poured down his throat. As a result of this procedure the victim’s windpipe and gullet would be burned and his soul would  leave his body. There is no law in the Torah which decrees that someone’s body be burned. The only example of anyone dying by what is described as “burning,” are the sons of Aaron and their bodies clearly were not burned.  The army of Sancheriv which perished on a Passover night (185,000 of them) also died in the same manner as did Nadav and Avihu as we have been told in Sanhedrin 94. The prophet Isaiah 9,4 had predicted  this when he said: כי כל סאון סואן ברעש ושמלה מגוללת בדמים והיתה לשרפה מאכולת אש, the meaning of this verse is that whereas in all other wars and battles victory and defeat are earmarked by deafening noise and the soldiers uniforms are tainted with blood, in the case of Sancheriv the soldiers of his army will suffer burning, being devoured, not like soldiers in other battles. Kings II 19,35 reports that on that night (anniversary of the Exodus) “an angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 of the Assyrian camp and the following morning they were all dead corpses.” The plague which struck the Assyrian army was the result of the combined prayers of King Chizkiyahu and the prophet Isaiah as reported in Chronicles II, 32,20-21: “Then King Chizkiyahu and the prophet Isaiah, son of Amotz, prayed about this, and cried out to heaven. The Lord sent an angel who annihilated every mighty warrior, commander, and officer in the army of the King of Assyria, and he returned in disgrace to his land. He entered the house of his god, and there some of his own offspring struck him down with the sword.”    Seeing that the deaths of the sons of Aaron consisted of their souls being “burned,” on the inside, their bodies and clothing remained intact. This is why the prophet Isaiah 10,16 in describing heavenly fire when predicting the downfall of Assyria uses the word יקוד several times in describing that fire, i.e. it is not fire in the physical sense as we understand it, but it is like the fire that killed Nadav and Avihu, leaving no outward trace. The words תחת כבודו in that verse mean that the כבוד of a person, i.e. his clothing which lends him a measure of dignity will be untouched as the “fire” operates beneath the clothing and the body, even. The Talmud (Sanhedrin quotes Rabbi Yochanan as referring to his clothing by the description כבודי, “my honour, my dignity.” Concerning the phenomenon we have just described Isaiah said in verse 18 of the chapter quoted וכבוד יערו וכרמלו, “it will burn its great army which looks like a forest wiping it out body and soul, so that it will remain like something that has been eaten by worms.” The simile of the worm was used by the prophet to describe something destroyed from the inside though until the last moment none of that destructive process had been visible on the outside. The woodworm leaves the bark of the tree untouched providing no warning of what goes on inside the trunk. The word סס occurs also in connection with the moth devouring woolen garments. The word was borrowed in this verse of Isaiah to describe a silent process unnoticed by outsiders. This entire army of the Assyrians was composed of descendants of Japhet, second son of Noach who had enjoyed the protective merit that their clothing was saved as their ancestor had been a party to his brother Shem when he covered the nude body of his father by walking into the tent backwards (Genesis 9,23). His brother Shem, who initiated that move and whose descendants we are, merited the commandment of wearing ציצית on our garments (compare Tanchuma Noach 13).   The word אותם at the end of our verse which is spelled with the letter ו in this instance, is an allusion to the “sixth fire of the Shechinah.” We are told in Yuma 21 that there are a total of six different categories of heavenly fire. They are: “a fire which eats” but does not “drink;’ fire which “drinks” but does not “eat;” fire which both “eats and drinks; fire which consumes both dry and wet material;” fire which supplants another category of fire; fire which consumes another category of fire. The fire which “eats but does not drink,” is the fire of which the Torah says that it descended on the altar and consumed the meat of the offerings. Fire which “drinks” but does not eat is fever, which dries out a person at the same time killing his appetite. Fire which eats and drinks was the fire that consumed both Elijah’s sacrifice and the water in the moat he had made around it. The fire which consumed both wet and dry matters was that on the woodpile of the altar which was not extinguished by rain. Fire which supplanted competing fire is the fire of the angel Gavriel  which descended into the kiln where Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah had been thrown by Nebuchadnezzar. The latter had stoked the kiln for seven consecutive days (Daniel 3). The angel used “fire” to cool man-made fire. Fire which consumes fire is the fire of the Shechinah. The Midrash tells of G’d burning angels who had opposed Him when He wanted to create man. The letter ו in the word אותם, may also allude to the six sins which our sages claim that Nadav and Avihu were guilty of and which combined to cause their deaths.
  
  Verse 3
  
   הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמור בקרובי אקדש, “this is what the Lord had said, saying: ‘I will be sanctified by those nearest Me.’” Where had G’d ever made such a statement that Moses could now refer to it? The first time was in Exodus 19,22 at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, where G’d had warned the Priests not to look too much at supernatural phenomena. The Torah had written: “even the Priests who approach Hashem should sanctify themselves lest Hashem will burst forth against them.” [The expression יתקדשו used in this verse always implies imposing restrictions upon oneself. Ed.] This was a warning that the Priests are at greater risk than ordinary Israelites because they are in a preferred  position, being closer to Hashem. The expression יפרוץ בהם, “He might burst forth against them,” describes precisely what happened to Nadav and Avihu who were killed immediately they committed this sin. The words used in Exodus 19,22 are that the Priests are coming close to Hashem, i.e. 'הנגשים אל ה, whereas in Leviticus 16,2 the word used by the Torah is בקרבתם לפני ה, “when they approached the presence of the Lord.” Proof that both expressions are more or less identical is found in Jeremiah 30,21 where the prophet uses both expressions in one breath, saying: והקרבתיו ונגש אלי, “I will bring him near that he may approach Me.”    The second time G’d indicated that He would be sanctified by those closest to Him was in Exodus 29,43 (compare Rashi) where the Torah writes (quoting G’d) ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, “and there I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My glory.” The word ונקדש in that verse is an allusion to what would happen, i.e. a revelation of G’d’s Shechinah to the sons of Aaron. The word לכבודי is a further reference to what Moses told Aaron his brother that G’d had said ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “and I shall be glorified in the presence of the whole nation,” at the end of our verse. The expression בקרובי, “through those close to Me,” in the plural, hints at a variety of matters which could trigger such a sanctification of the Lord’s name. However, seeing that the Torah does not have vowels, it is possible to read this word as a singular i.e. be-kirbi, seeing the word has been spelled without the letter ו which is common to the spelling of the word karov, קרוב. The word would then be a reference to an angel (attribute) attached, within Hashem. We would then have an even more literal allusion in the words quoted from Exodus 29,43 ונקדש בכבודי, meaning  ונקדש בקרבי,”I will be sanctified by means of this attribute (angel) within Me.” Similar constructions are found in Hoseah 11,9 בקרבך קדוש, “the Holy One in your midst.” Another similar expression is found in Deuteronomy 31,17 where the people suffering a lot of disasters blame the fact that אין אלו-הי בקרבי, “that it demonstrates that my G’d is not near me” (not “within” me). In that case also, Israel, instead of addressing itself to the essence of G’d, i.e. Hashem, addressed itself to a lesser attribute of G‘d, i.e. the attribute of Justice.” Failure to address one’s prayers or offerings to Hashem, the tetragram, results in retribution by the very attribute of Justice to which one addresses oneself. (Compare what we wrote on verse 1 under the heading “a kabbalistic approach”).
     וידום אהרן, “Aaron remained silent.” Silence is one of the ways in which mourning is expressed; the various ways in which mourning is to be expressed have been spelled out by Ezekiel 24,16-17: “O mortal man, I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence; but you shall not lament or weep or let your tears flow. Moan, softly; observe no mourning for the dead. Put on your turban and put your sandals on your feet; do not cover your upper lip, and do not eat the bread of the comforters.” During the next few verses the death of Ezekiel’s wife is reported. From verse 21-22 G’d continues His instructions to the prophet saying: “Tell the house of Israel: ‘thus said the Lord, G’d: I am going to desecrate My Sanctuary, your pride and glory, the delight of your eyes and the desire of your heart; .....and you shall do as I have done. You shall not cover your upper lips or eat the bread of comforters, and your turbans shall remain on your head and your sandals on your feet. And Ezekiel shall be become a portent for you.’”  Ezekiel had been prophesying the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the exile of the population to the lands of their enemies so that they would not have time to observe the normal rites of mourning. 
  The prohibition of things a mourner must not do mentioned in that chapter comprises five items: 1) washing oneself, 2) anointing one’s skin with oil or other lotions; 3) sexual intercourse, 4) attending to one’s business, 5) study of Torah. Anyone of the aforementioned activities comes under the heading of שמחה, an activity which causes joy. Seeing that joy is the opposite of mourning, it stands to reason that these items are forbidden to people observing mourning. Attending to business and the study of Torah are lumped together in a single verse when David said in Psalms 119,162: שש אנכי על אמרתך כמוצא שלל רב, “I rejoice over Your words as one who has found a great spoil.” This proves that both pursuits are described as resulting in joy. Isaiah 9,2 also makes it plain that joy, גילה, is associated with the acquisition of spoils.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . בני עזיאל דוד אהרן, “the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron.” Rashi explains that Uzziel had been a brother of Amram as it is written (Exodus 6,18) “and the sons of Kehat were: “Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uzziel.” Seeing that this is spelled out in the written Torah, what did Rashi contribute with his commentary? Rashi concentrates on the words “an uncle of Aaron” in our verse. Seeing that we were aware of this genealogy we also knew that Uzziel was an uncle of Aaron. Why then did the Torah provide this well-known information? The reason the Torah added these words was to teach us that the uncle and nephew were alike not only in their hereditary genes but in their acquired characteristics, their מדות טובות. Just as Aaron was known as a lover of peace and harmony, so his uncle before him had been known for these qualities.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He will be angry at the entire community.” It is not reasonable to understand these words to mean that G’d will punish the entire Jewish people for a sin committed by the Priests or an  individual Priest. G’d does not punish one nation for the sins of another, and the Priests are considered as a separate nation in this respect. Even if the Israelites were to do the very thing that the Priests are forbidden to do, i.e. leave their heads unshorn or their clothing rent, this would not be accounted a sin for them at all as the whole legislation applies only to the Priests.  However, G’d’s anger and wrath would apply to the Israelites if, when they are commanded to observe mourning and to weep for the death of the sons of Aaron, they fail to do so. (Compare Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon). The word יקצוף does not mean “He will be angry,” but “there will be קצף,” i.e. there will be a manifestation of that anger. We find a similar construction in Samuel II 2,32: ויאור להם בחברון, “day broke upon them in Chevron” (after marching all night). The word ויאור in that verse does not mean “He made it light for them.” We find that “the Children of Israel mourned the death of Aaron for thirty days, the entire nation,” (Numbers 20,29). When Moses died (Deut. 34,8) we also find that “the Children of Israel mourned for him for thirty days in the wilderness of Moav.” Here too, mourning for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu was mandatory and this directive is couched in the words “and your brethren  the entire House of Israel shall bewail the conflagration.” We know from Exodus 24,1 that Nadav and Avihu were members of the elite of the people, unsurpassed by any of the elders except Moses and Aaron. This is why G’d mentioned them by name before the elders -who obviously were senior to them in age- before mentioning the elders (without naming the latter). In fact, the mourning rites for these two sons of Aaron exceeded the mourning for Aaron and Moses as Moses himself had described them as their brethren (Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon). [Moses and Aaron were mourned as leaders, not as close family members such as brothers. Ed.].
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   יין ושכר אל תשת, “do not drink wine or intoxicating liquids!”  Sifra Shemini 1,2 writes that if the Torah had not added the word שכר I would have understood the prohibition as applying only to the drinking of wine, not to the consumption of other liquids causing drunkenness. If the word שכר includes all intoxicating liquids, why did the Torah have to single out “wine?”  Drunkenness due to consumption of wine is punishable by death; intoxication with other liquids, while forbidden, is not punishable by death at the hands of heaven.
     אתה ובניך אתך בבואכם, “you and your sons with you, when you enter, etc.” The reason the Torah mentions the word “when you enter,” is that it refers to the times when the Priests in question are on duty. The Priests were divided into 24 groups each group performing the service in the Temple for one week at a time in rotation. The prohibition not to drink wine or intoxicating drink applied only during the week that this particular Priest could be called upon to perform service in the Temple. The reason the Torah added the wordאתך , “with you,” is to say “the ones like you,” i.e. the ones fit for priestly duties. Had the Torah not added this word but had written only אתה ובניך, “you and your sons,” the meaning would have been that all of Aaron’s sons or for that matter all of any sons of Priests regardless of whether he suffered from a physical blemish which made him ineligible to perform Temple Service, would still not be allowed to drink intoxicating drinks. If a Priest had married a woman of a category forbidden to him he would have been disqualified from performing service in the Temple. During the time he remained married to such a woman no restriction would apply to him concerning the consumption of wine and liquor. We find a clear indication of this in Leviticus 21,1 where the Torah introduces the legislation of whom a priest may marry and whom not. Instead of writing אמור אל בני אהרן, “speak to the sons of Aaron,” the Torah writes: אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, “say to the Priests who are the sons of Aaron.” The difference is that only people who fit the description כהנים are subject to the legislation applicable to Priests. He who has forfeited the privileges associated with being described as כהן, is not subject to some of the restrictions imposed on the Priests.   When the Torah adds in our verse חקת עולם לדורותיכם, “an eternal statute for your generations,” this does not mean that this legislation is in force at a time when no priest can fulfill his priestly function due to the absence of a Temple. It means that during the various periods when the Tabernacle moved from one location to another, such as Gilgal, Nov, Shiloh, Givon, this legislation would remain in force and would continue in force once the permanent Temple would be built. 
      Seeing that the Torah adds the words ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול, בין הטהור ובין הטמא, ולהורות את בני ישראל וגו', “and to distinguish between the sacred and the profane and between the pure and the impure; and to teach the Children of Israel, etc.” (verses 10-11) the letter ו before להורות is an indication that those who have to make such decisions have to apply to themselves similar restrictions to the Priests who serve in the Temple. It is incumbent upon the people who have to make these various rulings mentioned here, i.e. the judges to abstain from alcoholic drink before performing their duties; this is also alluded to in the extra letter ו at the beginning of verse 11 in the word ולהורות “and to give instruction, to make rulings.” 
  It is well known that drinking wine induces three phenomena, sleep, grossness of the spirit and a confused mind. If one falls victim to even a single one of these phenomena one cannot perform one’s duty as a judge or expert in Torah rulings.  Our Parshah actually contains allusions to all three of these phenomena. The fact that drinking wine induces sleep is such a well known phenomenon that it does not need to be proven by examples; the alcohol in the wine rises to the brain in the form of moist and warm vapor. This in turn induces sleep; hence the words “when you enter the Tent of Meeting” are also a warning not to go to sleep inside the holy precincts, especially within the Sanctuary. This is why Yaakov was so upset when he awoke after his dream with the ladder, exclaiming: “how dreadful! This must be the gateway to heaven and I was unaware of it” (Genesis 28,16). Yaakov clearly implied that had he been aware of the sanctity of the site, he would never have gone to sleep in that place. He would not even have lain down there. This is also the meaning of Samuel I 3,3 ונר אלו-הים טרם יכבה ושמואל שוכב בהיכל ה'. The meaning of this line is: “Samuel lay down to sleep before the light went out in the Sanctuary.“ [The author means that this verse most certainly does not mean that Samuel lay down to sleep in the Sanctuary before the lamp went out.] If proof were needed for our interpretation it is found in the separating tone-sign etnachta under the word שוכב.  It is also not appropriate to sit down in the Sanctuary. The Priest is to perform all procedures standing up. We know this from Deuteronomy 18,7:ושרת  בשם ה' אלוהיו ככל אחיו הלוים העומדים  שם לפני ה'; “he is to minister in the name of Hashem, his G’d, like all his brethren the Levites who stand there in the presence of the Lord.” The word לעמוד לשרת in verse 5 of that same chapter in Deuteronomy further underlines the fact that the Priests had to be standing when performing service in the Temple.   The fact that drinking wine results in grossness of spirit is due to the heating up of the powers residing in the heart which results in grossness. This is alluded to when the Torah refers to the need to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. When one is in a state of spiritual grossness one does not consider that some things are holy whereas others are not but treats all of them as being on a comparable spiritual level, making no distinctions.  The fact that drinking wine may result in one’s mind becoming confused is because the vapors or fumes generated by the wine rise to the brain. They create a barrier between the area where the independent intelligence is located and the area activating other bodily functions. The comparable example would be clouds in the sky forming a barrier between the light of the sun and our terrestrial world. Just as the surface of the earth is darkened by the failure of the rays of the sun to break through the clouds, so the power of the intelligence is prevented from making itself felt when blocked by the vapor or fumes created by the wine one has drunk.    When the Torah speaks about the Priests having the task to instruct  the Children of Israel in the statutes, etc., these words were added because such instructions presuppose that the instructor is of sound mind at the time he lectures. Drinking wine might interfere with that. Solomon roundly condemned the intake of too much wine as he wrote in Proverbs 23,31: “do not look at wine because it is red.” Our sages explain Solomon’s warning there to mean that too much wine results in one’s inhibitions becoming loosened, one’s libido becoming aroused (compare Vayikra Rabbah 12,1 [The reading of the words כי יתאדם would be emended to כי יתאוה דם, it arouses the libido in one’s blood. Ed.]. The balance of the verse we quoted from Proverbs concludes with Solomon saying כי יתן בכוס עינו יתהלך במישרים, “when he (only) looks at the cup he will walk upright,” are understood as follows: the word עינו is similar in meaning to the word עין in עין הבדולח, “like the colour of crystal” (compare Numbers 12,7 where the Torah describes the appearance of the manna). The word for cup, כוס, in that verse is spelled כיס, “pocket,” instead of in the usual way. Solomon may hint that he who is seduced by the attractive looking cup of wine will experience financial loss because of the folly which the wine-intake will lead to.  The matter is not unlike the seduction of Chavah by the serpent who also relied on the exterior eye appeal of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It induced overpowering curiosity in Chavah to taste that fruit. The Torah had described the tree as “good to eat, a desire-arousing phenomenon for the eyes, and lovely as a source of enlightenment” (Genesis 3,6). As a result, It brought death in its wake. Similarly, wine, though alluring at first both in appearance and taste eventually causes the death of those who indulge. Our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 5) state that “just as the earth was cursed on account of the serpent, seeing that the Torah writes; (Genesis 3,17) “the earth is cursed because of you,” so a third of the earth was cursed on account of wine as the Torah writes: “Noach awoke from his sleep” (Genesis 9,24), followed by “cursed be Canaan,” [Noach’s first grandson from his third son (Genesis 9,25)].
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וידבר משה אל אהרן ואל אלעזר ואל איתמר בניו הנותרים, “Moses spoke to Aaron, to Eleazar and Itamar his surviving sons;”  Seeing that we already had a similar line in verse 6 of our chapter, why did the Torah not report what Moses said on this occasion immediately following verse 6? The reason that the Torah interposed the legislation about not entering the Sanctuary while in a state of intoxication was to teach that it is good form to offer one’s condolences to the bereaved. Aaron was a mourner; the Torah therefore displays its manner of comforting him in his bereavement, by speaking to him exclusively about rites to be observed by mourners. He was not to drink wine while in mourning. This is why in verse 29 only Aaron is addressed. The idea that G’d personally observes such good form has already been demonstrated in Genesis 18, where G’d appeared to Avraham in order to fulfill the custom of visiting the sick, seeing Avraham was recuperating from his circumcision at the time.    Our sages, who have taught us to emulate characteristics observed in the way G’d acts (Sifri end of Eykev), derive the law that one is to visit the sick and comfort the bereaved from these verses. If G’d Himself went to the trouble to observe these customs, we must emulate Him and not consider it below our dignity. The same applies to the commandment to bury the dead. G’d had buried Moses, (Deut. 34,6). If G’d Himself takes the trouble to bury a mortal, how much more must mortals bury their peers! 
  Such considerations prompted Solomon to write in Kohelet 7:2: “it is better to go to the house of a mourner than to go to the house where a feast is in progress.” According to Midrash Kohelet, what Solomon meant is that it is preferable to be in the company of people who are concerned both with the living and the dead than to keep the company of people who are only concerned with the living. [By visiting the mourners one pays his respects both to the departed and to those surviving him. Ed.] G’d conveyed the thought that we are to learn from Him, Who had temporarily interrupted sharing the joy of His children on the occasion of the inauguration of the Tabernacle and had comforted Aaron instead, displaying His sorrow that Nadav and Avihu had had to die. Our sages (Sotah 14) find yet another source proving that G’d comforts the mourners, quoting Genesis 25,11 “It was after the death of Avraham that G’d blessed his son Yitzchak.” According to the understanding of the Talmud the “blessing” described there was the comfort expressed to the bereaved over their loss, in that instance over Yitzchak having lost his father.
     ואכלוה מצות אצל המזבח, “and eat it unleavened near the Altar.”  the Torah also writes  ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to eat it in a sacred place.” These words mean that the meal-offering of which the Torah speaks may be eaten anywhere in the courtyard of the Tabernacle/Temple. In order that we should not interpret the words “near the Altar” too literally, the Torah added the words: “in a sacred place.” The entire courtyard of the Tabernacle is sacred. In that event, what do the words “near the Altar” contribute? The Torah wishes to tell us that the closer to the actual Altar the Priest stands when eating his share of the meal-offering the better (Zevachim 61).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   תאכלו במקום טהור אתה ובניך ובנותיך אתך, “you shall eat it in a ritually pure place, you, your sons, and your daughters with you.” The reason the Torah did not write that these parts of the offerings have to be consumed in a “sacred” place is that women are also entitled to eat them and they were not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle, (compare Kidushin 52). [The Talmud there speaks of the עזרה adjacent to the Temple, an area similar in its degree of sanctity to the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Ed.] 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ, “these are the creatures which you may eat from among all the animals on earth:” If you will take a good look at this paragraph and at the paragraphs following them, you will realize that there is an overall pattern to the sequence in which they have been written. They correspond to the four basic elements of the universe which we explained in connection with Genesis 1,2. Here the Torah proceeds in an ascending manner. You are aware that in Genesis they appeared in a descending manner. The four basic materials of terrestrial earth are: fire, wind (atmosphere), water, earth. This is also the order in which Solomon arranged these four basic components of our terrestrial universe in Proverbs 30,4. He writes: “Who has ascended heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollows of his hand? Who has wrapped the waters in his garment? Who has established all the extremities of the earth?” In the paragraphs before us the order of these phenomena and allusions to them has been reversed, so that their identifying symbol instead of being ארמ'ע has been reversed to become עמר'א. Here the Torah commenced with the element earth, dust, when it wrote: “these are the creatures on earth that you may eat.” In the second paragraph the Torah speaks of the element water, telling us what creatures in the water we are allowed to eat. In the third paragraph the Torah speaks about the atmosphere, telling us which birds (categories) must not be eaten. The Torah tells us which birds or winged creatures we must abhor (11,13). In the fourth paragraph the Torah alludes to the element fire which is the fourth element, the least substantive of all. The paragraph (11,29) begins with the words: “these are the contaminated ones, (ritually impure) among the teeming animals that teem upon the earth.” Among the categories listed is the צב which consists of two groups including the salamander. it is alluded to in the word למינהו, “according to their kinds,” an expression not found with the other seven of these contaminated creatures. According to an ancient tradition this salamander has its origin in fire; it is the product of a furnace which has been heated for seven years consecutively both by day and by night. This enabled the salamander (dragon?) to mature during all this time. If it were to separate from the fire even for a moment it would die, just as fish die when they are removed from their element, i.e. water. [Our author bases himself on the Sifra of Talmudic times. Tosafot Chagigah 27, speak of such creatures which we think of as strictly belonging to mythology, Ed.] When Rabbi Akiva came to the verse והצב למינהו (verse 29), he exclaimed: “how great and marvelous are Your works o Lord, You have created them all with wisdom; You created huge monsters in the sea, huge animals on land, If the ones in the sea would be placed on land they would die at once, whereas if the huge land animals like elephants were to be placed in the sea they would drown at once. You created great creatures with fire and large creatures in the atmosphere. If the ones which thrive on fire would be placed in the atmosphere they would die immediately, whereas if the ones whose habitat is the atmosphere were to be put to the fire they would burn to death immediately. This then was what David had in mind in Psalms 104,24 when he wrote the words quoted above”  (compare Sifra Shemini 8,7).
      I believe that there is a common denominator between the creatures of the atmosphere and those of the element fire, seeing that in introducing them the Torah used the expression אלה, “these,” and  ואלה, “and these,” respectively (compare 11,13 and 11,31). The very word אלה has a spiritual connotation as it is the singular of the word אלה-ים. The last two letters in the word אלהים are simply plural ending. What the Torah alludes to by using the word אלה in connection with the creatures whose habitat is the atmosphere or fire is that both these two elements are devoid of substance, not really tangible. This is the reason that they appear so often  in connection with the word אלהים. The idea is that the less tangible something is the closer it is to celestial domains rather than terrestrial domains. The word אלה occurred when the people who asked the Israelites to worship the golden calf said: אלה אלוהיך ישראל,”these” are your gods o Israel, a call to idolatry. You are no doubt familiar with certain nations who worship fire and wind respectively. They do so because they realise the lack of physical substance of both of these elements. By serving them they hope to benefit by increased success and good fortune.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Shemini 6 or Vayikra Rabbah 13,2). The words זאת החיה אשר תאכלו, “this is the category of creature that you may eat,” reflect Chabakuk 3,6: ”when He stands He makes the earth shake, when He glances, He makes nations tremble.” At the time when G’d was about to give the Torah to the Jewish people, He stood and contended with  the earth and gave the Torah to Israel in public, in full view of everyone. At that time He lifted the restrictions against spilling the blood of the seven Canaanite nations inhabiting the land of Israel. We have several verses to that effect, one in Isaiah 60,12 “for the nation that does not serve you shall perish;” a reference to the lives of those seven nations. We have another verse in Deuteronomy 20,16: “you shall not let live anyone;” the repetition  of such permission in Isaiah means that also the money, physical possessions of those nations, was permitted to be kept as loot. This is supported also by the words “you shall consume  all the (7) (seven) nations” (Deut. 7,16).   Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says that the meaning of the verse in Chabakuk 3,6 is that G’d spied out amongst all those nations, searching for a country which would be suitable as a homeland for the Jewish people, a mountain suitable to give them the Torah, etc., and that He found none other than the land of these seven nations. Rabbi Hunna from Tzippori understood the word וימודד in that verse to mean that G’d (allegorically speaking) loosened their girdles, i.e. much as in Job 12,8 which is the reverse of חגור מתניכם, “tighten your belt ready for war or marching.” Rabbi Tanchum, son Chanilai said that the meaning of those words is that He let loose against them all the forbidden creepers. According to Vayikra Rabbah 13,2 this is a simile comparing the situation to a farmer who came to a threshing ground with a donkey on one side and a dog on the other. He loaded the donkey with five measures of grain and the dog with two. The donkey trotted along contentedly whereas the dog was clearly resentful. So the farmer took one of the measures of grain from the dog and added it to the load the donkey was carrying. Whereas the donkey did not protest the dog was still resentful. The farmer told the dog that it was not much good to him seeing it was unwilling to accept any responsibility (the seven Noachide laws) at all. Similarly the Gentile nations and the Jewish people. Seeing that the former do not even observe the basic seven Noachide laws G’d does not have much use for them and has permitted the Israelites to dispossess them completely. [In the version in the Midrash the restrictive word “seven” is absent. It appears that our author was careful not to offend the Christians in his host country. Ed.]   Another parable illustrating the relationship between G’d and the Jewish people.  A physician went to see two of his patients. To the family of the one who was in a life-and death-situation he did not prescribe a specific diet for the patient, permitting him to eat whatever he wanted. To the second patient he gave very precise instructions what not to eat as this was apt to save his life. After a while the patient to whom the doctor had not prescribed a specific diet died whereas the other patient recovered. The families of both patients became aware that the doctor had prescribed only for the one patient and they wanted to know why. The doctor explained that the patient who died had been doomed already. There was therefore no point in denying him what he could enjoy on a short-term basis. The same applies to the Israelites and the seven Gentile nations who are doomed. Seeing that the latter are headed for death anyway, there is not much point in prescribing a restrictive diet. The Israelites, however, may be saved from their sickness if they keep a strict diet. Hence the Torah issued the instructions in this chapter, while allowing the Gentiles to eat whatever they want. This is the mystical dimension of introducing this chapter with the words זאת החיה, this is the life-giving legislation regarding food which may be consumed, etc.” Seeing that the Israelites are attached to eternal life, it is important hat they not consume food which could endanger their hereafter.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  את הגמל...ואת השפן...ואת הארנבת...ואת החזיר. “the camel...and the hare...and the swine..etc.” Unless the mammals in question possess two distinct features, i.e. split hooves and chewing the cud they are not permitted to be eaten by the Israelites The fact that the list of forbidden mammals does not include the horse and the donkey is simply due to the fact that they do not even have a single one of these two distinguishing marks. The Torah singles out only such animals by name which possess at least one of the two mentioned. When the Torah mentions the pig, the dog is automatically included, seeing that dog has a cleft paw (if not hoof). We also find that Isaiah 66,3 lumps the pig and the dog together as being of a similar category when he says of the people who offer both as sacrifices to the Lord that what they do is abominable. The Torah lists three animals in the masculine for it is clear that the corresponding females are also forbidden, seeing that the female of the species is considered a sub-category of the male. The same rule applies to the ארנבת “the female hare;” the reason that in this instance the Torah chooses to list the species in its female form is to indicate that the species is bisexual, hermaphrodite by nature, having both male and female genitals.
      Midrash Tanchuma Shemini 8 points out that four animals are mentioned here in four separate verses to allude to four different empires which will play host to the Jewish people in exile. Verse four speaks of גמל, the camel, a reference to the Babylonian exile;  we have a hint of this in Psalms 137,8 בת בבל השדודה אשרי שישלם לך את גמולך שגמלת לנו, “fair Babylon you predator, a blessing on him who repays you in kind what you have inflicted on us.” [The letters of  the word גמל, “camel, appear twice in that verse. Ed.]    In verse five, the Torah speaks of the שפן, hyrax.” (it has short ears and hoofed feet).This is a reference to the exile under the Greeks which forbade the study and practice of Torah as we know from Amos 8,11: “a time is coming, declares my Lord G’d, when I will send a famine upon the land; not a hunger for bread or thirst for water, but for hearing the words of the Lord.” It is also written in verse 12 of that chapter: “men shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.” [The connection of the above verse to שפן is not clear, there is also a variant in the Tanchuma relating the above verse to the hare, ארנבת, Ed.]  Concerning the hare, ארנבת, mentioned in verse six, this is a reference to the exile under the Medes, (Ahasverus) which treated the Jewish people as a פאה, the corner of a field the farmer must leave unharvested allowing all comers to help themselves. This is what almost happened under Haman, the regent of that empire. The name of the wife of King Talmay was ארנבת, hare. [Ptolemaus of Egypt, one of the heirs of Alexander’s empire who staked a claim to the land of Israel as part of his share, and was defeated by Antiochus. He commissioned translation of the Bible from Hebrew to Greek. That day was considered a black day in Jewish history by the scholars of the Talmud, Ed.]   The pig,חזיר, mentioned in verse 7 is a reference to the Roman empire, the fourth exile, the one which we still endure.  David says in Psalms 80,14: “wild boars gnaw at it and creatures of the forest feed on it.” The word חזיר in that verse is a reminder of the Romans and their Satanic origin, the forest being considered where Satan has its lair. The words וגרה לא יגר, “it does not chew the cud,” is taken as a hint that this is the last exile, i.e. it will not repeat itself. Whereas these animals appear in separate verses in our chapter, in Deut. 14 where the gist of this legislation is repeated, the first three animals mentioned here appear in a single verse except for the pig. The message is that although the first three exiles occurred at different times they have something in common, i.e. the period that they lasted was relatively short. The present exile is in a totally different category  equivalent to all the previous exiles combined. David arranged four separate Thanksgivings in Psalms to acknowledge our salvation from each of these exiles in chapter 136 known as הלל הגדול, “the great Hallel.” He commences with the words “Praise the Lord for He is good, His steadfast loves is eternal.” This line referred to our being redeemed from the Babylonian exile. The second verse “Praise the G’d of G’ds, His steadfast love is eternal,” is an expression of gratitude for our having been redeemed from the exile of the Greeks; the third verse, i.e. “Praise the Lord of lords, His steadfast love is eternal,” refers to our redemption from the exile of the Medes. David uses the expression הודו, ”praise!” in three successive verses to allude to the three animals Moses mentioned in verses 4-5-6 in our chapter. In the last verse of this “Hallel hagadol” where he concludes with the words הודו ל-אל השמים, this is a reference to the redemption from the yoke of the Romans. Seeing that he had foreseen  all these exiles and their redemptions by means of his Holy Spirit, he mentions the word השמים, seeing that of that final redemption it is stated in Psalms 96,11 ישמחו השמים ותגל הארץ, “both the heavens and the earth will rejoice then.” [That psalm which commences with the words שירו לה' שיר חדש, clearly speaks of the final redemption as it will be different from the weaker שירה חדשה which earmarked the thanksgiving for the Exodus from Egypt. Ed.] 
      There is a version in the Tanchuma according to which the reason that the exile of the Roman empire is compared to the pig is because in the future G’d will repay these people יחזיר, with the attribute of Justice. There is even a version according to which the very Romans who destroyed the Temple will be the ones who have to rebuild it, thus making history come full circle and as implied by the meaning of the word חזיר, i.e. something subject to reversal. [This is compatible with Maimonides’ view that the Messiah will build the third Temple, (using the labour of the people who are the political heirs of the Romans, so that they repay their debt to the Jewish people). I have paraphrased some of this paragraph. Ed.]
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
    כל אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת אותם תאכלו, “all that has fins and scales, it you may eat.” The reason why these distinguishing features make fish “pure” is that fish which possess these features always make their habitat in the upper parts of the sea or rivers. The waters there are clear and absorb a certain amount of daylight and sunshine. This influences their growth and development. The scales are for fish what hair and wool are for mammals, helping them retain warmth. Fish which lack these features make their habitat in lower layers of the water being exposed to the darkness prevailing there and the murkiness of the waters. They have no protection against these negative influences prevailing in their habitat. (based on the writings of Nachmanides). [The reader is aware of the speculative nature of these comments, especially at a time when the authors did not know of such phenomena as the gulf-stream and other “streams” some warm some cold, which are present in different parts of the oceans. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   מבשרם לא תאכלו ואת נבלתם תשקצו, “you are not to eat of their meat, and you must abhor their carcass.”  After the Torah forbade consumption of fish or creatures dwelling in the waters which do not have fins and scales, the Torah also forbids trading in them. This is the meaning  of the words ואת נבלתם תשקצו, a Biblical prohibition according to Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon, not merely a rabbinic decree based on an allusion in the verse.
   There are altogether eight objects which one may not trade in; four are forbidden to trade in because they are of such elevated status; the other four are forbidden because they are considered of such inferior status. The four whose elevated status makes them unfit as a subject for trade or barter are: 1) anything which has been sanctified for the Lord; seeing the object is G’d’s it is unseemly to barter it; also, G’d does not need to make a profit (compare Ketuvot 106). Seeing that everything in this universe is G’d’s anyway (compare Chagai 2,8 “Mine is the silver, and Mine is the gold, says the Lord G’d of Hosts”), the treasurer of the Temple is not allowed to even engage in negotiations to increase the Temple treasury by selling sacred object at a profit. It would be demeaning for G’d. It is his task to keep all these objects safe, no more, no less. What we have said so far concerns items which have been declared as sacred, i.e. property of the Temple treasury without the donor having given specific instructions concerning them  However, if someone donates money to the Temple treasury with a condition attached, such as that the Temple Treasurer use this money to lend it at interest (to Gentiles) this is perfectly in order. This is why many Jewish communities are in the money-lending business. 2) anything which has been designated for tzedakah, charitable purposes (Ketuvot 96). One of the reasons that the treasurer of such a charitable fund is not allowed to convert the funds into something other than cash is that if suddenly he were called upon to pay out money to free certain captives, or to provide food for certain desperately needy families, he would be unable to do so unless all the money on deposit with him for charitable purposes were at hand for immediate use. In such an event, the “profit” which would accrue to such a fund when the loan is repaid with interest would actually turn out to have been a loss as the inability to meet demands made upon the fund immediately might result in the death of a person entitled to support from it. 3) It is also forbidden to trade in the proceeds of the firstborn which is blemished and therefore unfit to be offered on the Altar, or to trade in tithes (tenth animal). Both of these categories of animal, seeing they cannot be offered on the Altar, may be eaten by their respective owners, but the owner must not use them as an object of barter. This is the meaning of Deut. 15,22: “you may eat them within your gates,” i.e. you may consume them but not trade with them. 4) the produce of the Shemittah year is also forbidden to trade in though the person who gathered it may freely eat from it. This is what our sages derived from the words לאכלה, “for eating,” but not for “trading in them,” (Leviticus 25,6 and the Talmud Bechorot 12).   The four items which are of too inferior a status for the Torah to allow us to trade in them are: the meat of animals which died of natural causes, the meat of animals which died through disease or injury; the animals described in the Torah as שקצים ורמשים  “loathsome, and creepers.” If one happens to own such animals already, not having acquired them, it is permitted to sell them just as he may trade in or sell pure animals which are in his possession. [The above definition of “in his possession” includes animals which were trapped but are of the forbidden category, whereas the hunter had meant to trap only permitted animals, an impure animal became trapped.] In the case of forbidden fish and other creatures of the sea such as lobsters, crabs, oysters, etc., they are forbidden to be traded in both when dead and when alive. This is why the Torah added: “and their carcass you should treat as something loathsome.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and the following you are to treat as loathsome categories of birds, etc.”  the word מן means “from among,” i.e. “from among the birds the majority of which are pure and wholesome.” Chulin 63 confirms that there are more birds which are pure, i.e. which theoretically may be eaten (if one can capture them intact). This is why the Torah lists only the impure ones by name, seeing that they are in the minority and make a shorter list. In fact, our sages used this list as an example for saying that when teaching one should be careful to teach matters to one’s student in a compact form. When a person asks someone to choose one object amongst many he does not ask him to eliminate the many but to single out the one he wants as this takes less time and effort. The Torah follows this principle when writing (Leviticus 20,25) “You shall distinguish between the clean (pure) animal and the unclean (impure), and between the unclean bird and the clean;” when mentioning the four-legged animals the Torah first mentioned the pure categories as they are fewer than he impure beasts; in the case of the birds the Torah referred first to the unclean birds as they are fewer than the clean birds.
      Nachmanides writes that the distinguishing mark between birds which qualify for consumption by Jews and those we may not eat is  דריסה, the manner in which the bird walks, i.e. how its toes are arranged. Any bird which attacks with its claws is automatically known as an “unclean” bird. Our sages (Chulin 62) mention that the reason the Torah forbade consumption of such birds is that it is more hot-blooded, the blood turning black, the character of the bird revealing a cruel streak. Eating such a bird would leave a residue of the character of the animal in the person who consumed it. The objectionable part of such a bird of prey is that it hunts live prey, does not kill it first before feasting on it. Apparently hawks operate in this manner. As to four-legged beasts, perhaps the fact that among those that chew the cud and have split hooves we do not find a single beast which is a beast of prey, may account for the fact that the Torah permitted these categories as food fit for Jews. All other types of four-legged mammals are forbidden by the Torah. 
  We find another peculiarity distinguishing between the forbidden and the permitted species of animals. The milk of all the forbidden animals does not lend itself to making cheese, i.e. it does not keep, does not congeal, whereas the milk of the animals we are permitted to eat can be converted into cheese. 
  The author speculates further on the deficiencies resulting from such strange behaviour of the milk of the forbidden animals, adding that he read in a medical textbook that if one suckled from the pig’s milk a child might contract leprosy as a result. This would be just an example that everyone of these forbidden animals contains within it negative influences for those who eat or drink of it. Thus far Nachmanides. An additional reason why the impure birds are forbidden may be simply that G’d loves humility and similar good traits and hates arrogance and similar repugnant traits. The animals which have been approved by G’d as fit to serve as sacrifices for Him, are also suitable to be eaten by us. Seeing that G’d rejected all birds described as impure as possible sacrifices, He also excluded them as potential food for the Israelites. All this is to teach us and impress upon us how much G’d hates the negative virtues displayed by birds of prey. This is why very often the prophets compared evil and cruel people to certain categories of birds of prey such as Jeremiah 49,22 who wrote: “see like the eagle he flies up, he soars and spreads his wings against Bozra.” Or, Deut. 28,49 where Moses says: “the Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, which will swoop down like the eagle;”  evil people have been compared to the predatory animals such as the lion in Jeremiah 5,6: “Therefore, the lion of the forest strikes them down, the wolf of the desert devours them; a leopard lies in wait by their towns” (the prophet speaks of the hypocrisy practiced by the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem). David mentions wild beasts in such a context in Psalms 58,7 when he writes: “O G’d smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of lions, O Lord.” Or, Psalms 57,5: “as for me, I lie down among man-eating lions whose  teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongue is a sharp sword.”    By contrast, the righteous are usually compared to the kind of animals that are harmless, models of creatures with whom one can live in peace. Examples are Isaiah 5,17: “the lambs shall graze as in their meadows,” or Maleachi 3,20: “you shall go forth and stamp like stall-fed calves;” or Hoseah 11,11: “they shall flutter from Egypt like sparrows, from the land of Assyria like doves.” 
      Another reason why all these birds are considered impure may be the curious fact that the מנחשים, soothsayers and fortune-tellers, always use the bones of the birds which the Torah classifies as impure to practice their art. The Torah hates sooth-saying, has categorically forbidden it and decreed the death penalty for Jews practicing this art. We may therefore surmise that in addition to forbidding such birds because they are cruel birds of prey they are also symbolic of a form of rebellion against G’d when they are being used to reveal the future which G’d in His wisdom has seen fit to conceal from us. [The author quotes from theories of soothsayers regarding the efficacy of using different birds of prey in their craft. I do not consider this worth repeating. Ed.]
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . הדוכיפת, “the duchifass.” This is a wild rooster  whose comb is doubled over and according to Rashi the bird known as hoopoe. It brought the shamir worm to the Temple (not deliberately) to enable Solomon to split stones without having to use metal tools (Chulin 63.). There is a comment in Gittin 68 that  relates that the prince of the demons Ashmadai told Solomon that he had no idea where to get the shamir and that perhaps the duchifass could get it for him. The Talmud relates how the duchifass was tricked into releasing that worm, explaining the strange-sounding translation by Onkelos who renders the word as נגר טורא. “carpenter of the mountains.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   והחומט והתנשומת, “the snail and the mole.” The Torah lists eight creeping creatures saying: “these are contaminated as far as you are concerned,” without including the snake. Surely this is puzzling as we would have expected the snake to be the prime example of a contaminated creeping creature, seeing it had introduced impurity into the world! 
  We must answer that it is the way of the Torah whose paths are those of striving for peace, not to make touching the snake an offense resulting in ritual impurity; if the Torah had done so it might cause people not to kill snakes in order not to run afoul of that prohibition seeing killing involved touching. This is why the Torah refers to the snake indirectly when referring to “all that crawls on its belly, etc.” (verse 42) which clearly includes the snake. The words “it walks on four (legs)” is a reference to the hornet (according to Sifra Shemini 12,2 ) on the same verse. The creepers described in verse 42 as “walking on many legs,” are the centipedes. These creatures (verse 33) pose grave threats to human beings seeing they infect them with poison. They also cause fatal diseases. This is why the Torah adds the words כי שקץ הם, they are “loathsome,” in addition to the prohibition to eat these creatures. Touching those creatures is perfectly permissible. The eight previously mentioned creatures do not possess poisonous teeth or glands.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  . וכי יותן מים על זרע, “But if water had been placed upon a seed,” this verse prompted our sages (Sifra Shemini 11,5) to say that water is a preparatory step to cause plants -including seed which has not yet taken root- to contract ritual impurity. As soon as water (rain) falls on such produce (provided the owner is content that it does) they become capable of being ritually contaminated. They then remain potentially capable of becoming impure even while perfectly dry. The reason is that if we were to treat the cause of the impurity as only objectionable when it sticks to wet or moist produce (after harvest) then the Torah would introduce a double standard, something halachically never accepted.  Either certain produce is subject to ritual impurity or it is not. To make it potentially impure only when it is in a state of wetness is not practical.
  
  Verse 39
  
   וכי ימות מן הבהמה, “if any of the animals (which are pure) has died by natural causes, etc.” The Torah should have used the expression תמות, (feminine form of “it will die”) seeing that the noun בהמה is feminine. Had the Torah written the word תמות we would have concluded that such a carcass can confer ritual impurity only when it is whole, but that sections of it could not confer impurity. By using the masculine ימות we infer that any part of it חלק (masc.) is capable of conferring ritual impurity through contact with it. The expression מן הבהמה must be understood as “part of the beast,”‘ not as “any of certain categories called בהמה.” The expression matches the words וכי יפול מנבלתם “if part of their carcass falls, etc.,” in verse 37. Seeing that the word נבלה which is the subject in that verse is feminine, the Torah could also have been expected to write וכי תפול instead of וכי יפול. Seeing it did not, we can surmise that the same considerations which prompted the use of the masculine form in verse 39 also prompted the use of the masculine form in verse 37.  As to the words: “he who touches their carcass” (verse 36), or the words: “who eats of them” in verse 40, our sages explained that such parts of the carcass as the hooves, antlers, horns, skin and hair are exempt from the rule that they confer impurity provided these parts are no longer attached to the flesh when one touches them or eats them. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Ma-achalot Assurot 4,18). Proof of this is that we find that the Israelites took as part of their booty in war numerous vessels made of leather after the campaign against Midian (Numbers 31,20) and the Torah okayed their use by the Israelites after they had been duly immersed in a ritual bath. If these items had possessed the same degree of impurity as the carcasses they had been removed from, no amount of immersion in a ritual bath or other process of purification would have sufficed to permit their use by the Israelites.  We also find that Solomon made for himself a throne of ivory (tusk of the elephant, same category as horns) as reported in Kings I 10,18.
  
  Verse 40
  
  . והאוכל מנבלתם, “if someone eats of the carcass of any of these animals, etc.” Here the Torah speaks of the carcass of a pure bird which had not (previously) conferred ritual impurity on the person eating it through his having touched it. Four-legged pure animals which have died by natural causes (נבלה) do confer impurity by mere touch of their carcass. Not only does the carcass of a pure bird not confer impurity through touch of its carcass by one’s body, but it does not confer impurity when contacting the clothing of the person touching it. The only time it confers impurity is while it is in the gullet of a person swallowing it and that person wears clothing. The clothing of such a person does become ritually impure through such indirect exposure. (Maimonides She-ar Avot Hatum-ah 3,1). It follows from the above that in our verse the word בהמה must include birds. Seeing that this is so there was no need for the Torah to write that the carcasses of free-roaming four-legged pure animals are also included in this legislation (compare Sifra Shemini 2,8).
      Do not be amazed that according to our tradition the immediate subject of this verse are the pure birds, nor that we understood the term בהמה as applying to a category of bird. This is not the only time in the Torah that such a meaning of the word בהמה is accepted in halachah. We find that the Torah writes (Leviticus 24,21) “one who strikes an animal (בהמה) shall make restitution.” There is certainly no reason to assume that that legislation does not include birds and people who have harmed them. It is simply the style of the Torah to mention examples of things more common rather than situations which are rare. When the Torah writes (Exodus 22,9) that the owner of an ox or a donkey or other four-legged beast which he has entrusted to someone and which has died, is entitled to either compensation or an oath that the person in charge had not been negligent, it goes without saying that if the dead animal had been a bird the same rule would apply.
  
  Verse 41
  
   וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ שקץ הוא לא יאכל, “and all teeming creatures that teem on the ground, it is something abhorrent, it shall not be eaten.” This refers to the worms growing in fruit such as in dates and figs, as well as the ones in lentils and peas (Chulin 67). In verse 42 the Torah mentions  לכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, which sounds like a repetition. Actually, there the Torah had modified the word השורץ first by saying ההולך על הארץ. The animals mentioned in verse 42 are the result of the male and female of those species having mated in the accepted manner. Man endangers himself by eating these creatures. The ones described as “walking on its belly” are the snakes; the ones described as “walking on four,” are the hornets; the expression כל, i.e. “all,” is applied to four-legged dung beetles and the like. The word מרבה רגלים, “having many feet,” refers to centipedes of all kinds. The words על הארץ repeated once more, refer to such moths, worms, etc., which are generated in mould, garbage, compost, etc.
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   בכל השרץ השורץ, “through any of the teeming creatures which teem.” Significantly, the words “on earth,” are absent in this verse. If the Torah had added these words (as previously) we would have thought that the warning not to allow these abhorrent things to contaminate us was limited to the creatures moving about on the earth. We are aware already that the creature known as עכבר, exists both on land and in the sea (compare Chulin 126). When seen on land we know it as “a mouse.” The same applies to some of the species which we are not familiar with. By omitting mention of “on land,” the Torah ensures that we know that all the creatures bearing the names mentioned here, be they land-based or water-based, fall under the same prohibition. He who eats them makes himself an abomination and defiles himself ritually. 
     ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם, “and do not contaminate yourselves by means of them so that you will not become contaminated through them.” The first warning לא תטמאו refers to our bodies, whereas the second warning i.e. ונטמתם refers to the effect eating such abominable things would have on our souls. The word ונטמתם is written without the letter א after the letter מ. According to Yuma 39 the hidden warning in that missing letter א is that anyone eating these creatures would become מטומטם, “dull-witted” as a result. Man’s heart becomes “encrusted” through the ingestion of such forbidden creatures so that it is no longer accessible to the Holy Spirit.
      It is possible that the origin of this interpretation is the fact that the letter א symbolises the One and Only Creator. Absence of this letter where it should have appeared suggests that the One and Only One was unable to gain entrance to the heart of the person who had contaminated himself by eating these abhorrent creatures which the Torah has forbidden. G’d’s presence always withdraws from where ritual impurity prevails. Compare what is written in Deut. 23,15: “for Hashem,  your G’d, walks in the midst of your camp to rescue you and to deliver your enemies before you, your camp shall be sacred. He shall not see any shameful thing (anything obscene) among you and turn away from you.” This is also the meaning in another verse where the letter א has been mysteriously omitted.     We read in Genesis 20,6 where G’d appeared to Avimelech in a dream and the latter complains that seeing he was innocent why should G’d warn him of killing him, that G’d responds that his innocence in deed was due only to ואחשך אותך מחטו לי, “I, G’d have prevented you from sinning against Me.” The word מחטו in that verse should really have been spelled מחטא, i.e. with the letter א added at the end. Absence of that letter then indicates that G’d is holding something back, in Avimelech’s case He frustrated his free choice to rape Sarah by making him impotent.   When reflecting further on this concept, we may say that when we call someone קדוש, holy, in referring to him, we have in mind someone who has distinguished himself in devoting himself exclusively to the service of the Lord. By the same token, if someone has devoted himself with equal enthusiasm and determination to carnal pursuits the Torah calls such a person קדש, almost the same word without the letter ו. The letter ו is part of the tetragram; its absence in the word קדש points out the chasm between one kind of dedication and the other kind of dedication. Sanctity, i.e. קדושה  cannot co-exist with dedication to ritual impurity such as sexual misconduct. All this gives you an idea of the power of the Hebrew language if such a radical change in behaviour can be expressed by such a minor change in the spelling of a word. It defies our imagination to realise what tremendous concepts “hang” by the slender thread of a single vowel or consonant.
      Our sages in Yuma 39 taught that the words in our verse: “do not contaminate yourselves so that you do not become contaminated,” mean that if a person begins by contaminating himself just a little, others will ultimately contaminate him a lot. If a person becomes guilty of contaminating himself here on earth, there are forces in the celestial regions which will contaminate him there. If a person contaminates himself in this life, he will be considered as contaminated regarding life in the hereafter. It is due to considerations of this nature that the Torah continues with the exhortation (verse 44): “sanctify yourselves so that you will be holy, for I am holy.” The Torah promises: “if you sanctify your body, I, G’d, will sanctify your soul.” and will assure you of life in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 44
  
   והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני, “Sanctify yourselves and become holy for I am holy.” The sanctity the Torah speaks of here is one which is associated more with the Jewish people than with any other nation. It is attainable only through the study of Torah and performance of its tenets. Study of Torah and performance of its commandments strengthens the forces of our intelligence and weakens our tendency to indulge our various cravings. It is a well known fact that these cravings are a constituent part of our psyche and initially are more powerful drives than our intellect. We possess cravings from the moment we are born whereas our intellect begins to develop only as we grow older. It is not surprising therefore that initially man has a tendency to indulge his cravings and to allow them full reign. Maturity in years is the time when the intellect, the force which is to predominate within us proves itself capable of displacing the influence of these various cravings we experience since youth. Unfortunately, these various cravings also become more powerful as our body develops, so that they threaten to overpower the voice of reason, i.e. our intelligence. Seeing that the intelligence with which man has been equipped originates in the celestial regions, it is an alien in this terrestrial world and as such has to contend with many entrenched forces in its efforts of trying to  assert itself. It is a solitary force within man, not enjoying natural allies as do the various cravings all of which are enjoying the encouragement of various parts of our bodies. This is why Torah and its commandments are so essential to the development of our intellectual/spiritual forces as if left to its own devices the intelligence and spiritual forces of man would be overpowered by opposite tendencies.    Seeing that the Torah contains commandments addressed to the way we treat our bodies, i.e. what not to eat, what not to drink, etc., fulfilling these directives is a powerful tool in reining in the various cravings man is subject to. Restrictions on the sexual outlets we are permitted, the commandment to spend time devoted to prayer, handing out charity, etc., etc., all play a vital part in keeping our cravings under control and in eventually attaining the Torah’s objective that we become holy. This explains the comment in Sifrei that the words והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים mean “if you will keep the commandments you will achieve sanctity.”
      The word והתקדשתם, may also be understood in terms of פרישות, asceticism, introversion, abstinence. Anyone who displays abstinence from the pleasures this world has to offer is considered holy, קדוש. Similarly, our sages in Torat Kohanim Sifra Shemini 12,3  explain the verse simply by reversing these words and translating: “just as I am holy, I want you to sanctify yourselves. Just as I am ascetic, separate, I want you to practice similar traits.” The idea is that man should try not to indulge in any of the cravings which are natural to him unless they are vital for his health and well-being. When someone manages to deny himself all the physical gratifications which are permissible but not necessary for his health and well-being he is called קדוש, holy. Anyone however, who indulges bodily cravings over and beyond the necessary minimum is called כסיל, “fool.” The more one indulges physical cravings the greater the likelihood of committing infractions of Torah law (compare Proverbs 20, 3). This is why the Torah had to write the instruction “sanctify yourselves!” Restrictions that are desirable do not only include too much food and drink and marital relations with one’s wife, but also excess use of one’s mouth for unnecessary conversation. This is why Solomon said in Proverbs 15,2: “the tongue of the wise uses knowledge properly; the mouths of fools express folly.” Solomon continues immediately, warning: “the eyes of G’d are everywhere; they behold both the good and the wicked.” He meant that G’d’s supervisory stance is such that people guilty of offending speech may expect to pay the price. The prophet Isaiah 9,16 deals with the same subject when he said: “that is why my Lord will not spare their youths, nor show compassion to their orphans and to their widows; for they are all ungodly and wicked and every mouth speaks impiety.” The reason the prophet singles out the youths, the immature in years, is that they more than older people are guilty of such abuse of the power of speech. The Talmud Shabbat 33 remarks on the subject of improper use of one’s power of speech that anyone guilty of this sin will experience that he will sink even lower inside gehinom, purgatory. They base this on Proverbs 22,14: “the mouth of the immoral woman  is a deep pit; he who is doomed by the Lord will fall into it.” We also find that the prophet Ezekiel has something pertinent to say on this subject in Ezekiel 35,10: “because you said: ‘the two nations and the two lands will be mine and we shall inherit them!’ But Hashem was there.” The prophet goes on to threaten retribution for such abuse of one’s mouth, telling us that G’d is mindful of such boasts.
      A Midrashic approach to our verse is that it is a warning to man to have a clean body and clean hands, seeing this all comes under the heading of פרישות. Accordingly, they view the word והתקדשתם as an instruction to wash before the meal and the words והייתם קדושים as a warning to wash one’s hands after the completion of the meal (what is known as מים אחרונים). The words כי קדוש אני are understood by that Midrash as referring to the use of oil for anointing one’s body. Finally, the words אני ה' אלו-היכם are understood as a blessing (compare Berachot 53). The idea underlying this interpretation is that when man sits down to eat, i.e. to indulge a basic physical craving he is to sanctify himself with three different kinds of sanctification in order to make the meal something spiritual rather than a mere physical indulgence. The first two kinds of “sanctification,” (washing) are meant to cleanse the body, the third one (the anointing), is intended to arouse the dormant spiritual forces within the body through the pleasant fragrance of the oil. When he has done all this, such a person is entitled to G’d’s blessing.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שמחה לאיש במענה פיו ודבר בעתו מה טוב, “A ready response causes man joy; how good is a word spoken at the right time!” (Prov.15,23)
   In this verse Solomon explains that if a person speaks wisely, weighing his words carefully, he will derive pleasure from this; the reason is that such words originate with the intellect at the instigation of the intellectual soul which is part of man. This is what gives man his advantage over other creatures on earth. This is why the gift of speech is attributed to G’d of whom Isaiah 57,19 said בורא ניב שפתים, “who creates the fruit of the lips.” By making this comment the prophet praised the Lord just  as he had praised Him for having created heaven and earth and the stars (Isaiah 42,5) which are viewed as “independent” creations imbued with intelligence (compare Maimonides Yesodei Hatorah 3,9). The gist of Solomon’s statement is that when man prepares his words carefully so that they express his thoughts accurately, and he uses his G’d-given intelligence to do so, he will enjoy the results. It is well known that whereas it is within man’s power to plan what he wants to do, the actual words he speaks (execution of his plans) are not under his control but are under G’d’s control as we know from Proverbs 16,1: לאדם מערכי לב ומה' מענה לשון, “a man may plan with his heart; but the answer of the tongue comes from the Lord.” When man’s planning and the thoughts he expresses as a result of his planning are in tandem, reflect his thoughts, this is cause for joy as it proves that G’d has approved what he had in mind. It means that he enjoys Divine assistance in what he is embarking on.   Solomon also means that although everything man thinks may be fully correct, expressing his thoughts at the wrong time and at the wrong place are not. If a man has composed a beautiful poem and set it to music and proceeds to sing his song in the house of mourning, this would be a prime example of  doing the right thing at the wrong time. The same applies to someone composing an elegy and proceeding to read it in public at a joyous occasion. In both instances the misplaced sense of timing results in the composer’s words not being appreciated, not causing joy to the composer. Hence Solomon emphasises in the above verse the importance of “speaking the right words at the right time.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 27,4 have said that at a time of joy it is appropriate to say things of a joyful nature, whereas at a time of mourning the reverse is in place. Our sages in Megillah 32, speaking of the same subject, have stipulated that the laws about the observance of Passover should be studied and discussed at or before Passover, whereas the laws pertaining to Tabernacles should be discussed thirty days prior to that festival, etc. Discussing the laws of Tabernacles around Passover time does not reflect a proper sense of timing. All these considerations prompted Solomon to write the verse we quoted at the introduction, i.e. emphasising the importance of a sense of timing. Sometimes we have an urge to share some thought with our peers or our students because we are so convinced of the importance of the message of our thoughts. One needs to consider carefully if the time is appropriate for voicing such a thought, as voicing it at the wrong time or in the wrong environment may diminish its impact. Even the best ideas must be presented only at the appropriate time.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Bereshit Rabbah 3,3). The words שמחה לאיש which Solomon speaks about in Proverbs 15,23 are a reference to G’d, seeing G’d (the Lord) is described as ה' איש מלחמה, “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15,3), similarly, the expression במענה פיו, “with the expression of his mouth,” refers to the timing of G’d saying: “let there be light and it was light” (Genesis 1,3). The words ודבר בעתו מה טוב, “and how good is a word spoken at its appropriate time,” reflect what the Torah said “G’d saw the light and it was good,” i.e. He had given the directive at precisely the right time, [having waited 974 generations for that moment according to our tradition. Ed.] Thus far the Midrash.
      We know that the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” appear in connection with all the six days of creation [except the second day, but twice with the third day, Ed.]. This means that G’d’s directives calling the respective parts of the universe into existence and arranging for them to function were all the result of דבר בעתו, “a word spoken at the time appropriate for it.” This does not conflict with the view we expressed that the entire universe was created at one and the same moment. Our sages have already illustrated how we are to understand this apparent contradiction when they told us the parable about the farmer who planted six different seeds all at the same time. The plants growing out of these different seeds each germinated, grew and became ripe at different times (Bereshit Rabbah 12,3). Even though they were all put in the earth at the same time, they did not grow at a uniform rate of speed. Concerning such careful timing by G’d Solomon said in Kohelet 3,1: “He did everything at the appropriate time.” The creatures which matured later were not inferior, but on the contrary, they were superior, more sophisticated. As a result, man was the most superior creature of all coming into meaningful existence last. Similarly, the Sabbath is the best of all the days seeing it was last to make its appearance. Israel was the last nation to emerge as a separate nation, 70 other nations having preceded it. This makes the Jewish nation the choicest of them all. Although the last to make their appearance on the stage of history, G’d had planned to have a Jewish people on earth long before He made provision for all the other nations to become historical entities. By the same token, the hereafter, known as עולם הבא, precisely because it takes such a long time to mature, to emerge from its cocoon, is a superior world. We have evidence that Israel was first in G’d’s planning from Jeremiah 2,2: “Israel is holy to G’d the first (and choicest) of His harvest.” In other words, the first (and finest) harvest G’d looked forward to was Israel. The other nations may be viewed as “miscarriages,” fetuses prematurely aborted. When G’d referred to the Jewish people in the verse from Jeremiah we just quoted in translation, He did not use the adjective kadosh or kedoshim to describe their being holy, but He chose the word kodesh, a noun, meaning that Israel was holy in its own right. The implication is that the Jewish people draw on the source of holiness for their existence. We find a similar word when the Torah commands or promises the Jewish people that their destiny is to be or become אנשי קודש, “men (and women) devoted to holiness” (Exodus 22,30). When the Torah describes the Jewish people as G’d’s portion (Deut. 32,9), the idea is similarly that the Jewish people are part of G’d, i.e. of His Holiness. G’d did not assign inter-stellar forces, signs of the zodiac known as mazzalot to supervise the fortunes of the Jewish people as He had done for the 70 nations of the earth, but instead He supervises them personally by means of what is known as hashgachah peratit, “personal benevolent supervision of our collective and individual fates.” When Israel was described as G’d’s first harvest, ראשית תבואתה, (the reading of the last letter is “au”, i.e. the masculine pronoun referring to Hashem). Remember that there are five species of grain all of which are “harvested.” The word ראשית derived from ראש, head, means “the choicest.” The letter ה at the end of the word תבואתה  may refer to the 5 kinds of physical harvests, i.e. the five different kinds of grain from which bread is made, or, in the case of the Jewish people, to the five kinds of spiritual harvest, i.e. the “Five Books of Moses,” the Torah. The choicest of the five species of grain is wheat, whereas the choicest Books of the Bible (Torah) are the Five Books of Moses. Concerning all this, the Midrash quotes a parable. There was a king who betrothed a bride to himself giving her five rings as token of the betrothal. The number “five” corresponded to the betrothal between G’d and Israel described in Hoseah 2,21-22 with the words: “I will betroth you to Me forever, with righteousness, with justice, with goodness and with mercy; and I will betroth you to Me with faithfulness, and you will be devoted to the Lord.” This then is the meaning of the word ראשית, i.e. it ranks first. The “first” of which the prophet speaks includes that Israel ranks higher in attributes than the other nations, and that it also enjoys an advantage in time, i.e. they were the first consideration G’d entertained when He planned to create man, etc. The word ראשית denoting superior quality is found in Amos 6,6 ראשית השמנים, “the choicest of the oils.” The same word describing precedence in terms of time occurs in Genesis 10,10  ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל, “the first country under his rule was Babylon.”  We have established that whereas Israel was first in terms of G’d’s planning it was last in terms of that plan being executed. Consider the fact that Esau and the rulers descended from him preceded Yaakov’s development as a nation commencing with Esau’s birth which is described as “the first one emerged (from Rivkah’s womb) very reddish looking, etc.” (Genesis 25,25). Esau developed much earlier than his twin Yaakov. Esau married at the age of 40. The only reason the Torah bothered to tell us all these details about Esau and his descendants is to contrast them with Yaakov who was a “late bloomer,” not marrying until he was 84 years of age. Nonetheless, David already said in Psalms 40,6 “You have set out wonders and  devised them for us.” We find a saying in the Kuzari 3,73 that תחלת המחשבה סוף המעשה, “that which came first in planning was the last to be carried out.”     Let us illustrate the reason for such apparently illogical behaviour. Reuven wanted to study Torah but did not have a study hall with the requisite library. In order to carry out his plan he first has to build the study hall and acquire the necessary books. In other words, the Torah study, the purpose of all these endeavors, can only be carried out after preparatory activities. The parable we just described has much in common with a comment by our sages on Deut. 2,19 exhorting us not to harass the Moabites or Ammonites. In answer to the question why G’d had singled out these two nations, warning the Israelites not to harass them, our sages in Baba Batra 35 explain hat this was on account of two great descendants that would emerge from these two peoples, Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite. Clearly, although these women were born many hundreds of years later than the Israelites’ trek through the desert, this is another example of future events casting long shadows ahead, i.e. G’d’s foreknowledge determining present day behaviour. All of the examples mentioned showed that fruits which develop later are superior to results which are visible immediately. One may compare this to someone who has lost a pearl at the beach and who sieves through bucket after bucket of sand, until finally, he finds the pearl. All that sand, though apparently having no immediate use, was necessary in order to enable the pearl to be found. All the tedium of sifting the sand proved worthwhile in retrospect. This explains much of human history, and even much of Jewish history. Tanchuma Vayeshev 1 explains the ten generations between Adam and Noach and the ones between Noach and Avraham as necessary preludes to someone like Avraham. All of human history and G’d’s frustrations with its disobedience to Him must find their justification in the eventual emergence of such pearls as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.   The tedious process of ploughing, seeding, etc., etc., has only one ultimate but long delayed objective, i.e. the fruit which the soil or tree will yield as a result. Man is described by David in Psalms 139,5 as ראשון ואחרון צרתני, “You have formed me both first and last;” David meant that though man was the last creature to emerge on earth on the sixth day, he was the first in G’d’s planning of the entire creative process. The word ראשון in that psalm may also mean “choicest, most accomplished.” The word אחרון of course, applies to the process of actual creation.    As soon as G’d created man, He gave him the first positive commandment as well as a negative commandment. The first commandment was that he was to eat from all the trees in Gan Eden; the first negative commandment was that he was not to eat from the tree of knowledge.    In a manner paralleling what G’d commanded Adam when He had placed him in Gan Eden, in the previous portion the Torah devoted three paragraphs to different categories of life in this terrestrial earth and how such animals may or may not interact with superior forms of life, i.e. man. First the Torah deals with the mammals, animals whose primary raw material is earth, dust, i.e. the most primitive of the four elements making up the terrestrial universe which we discussed already. Secondly, it deals with what  may and what may not be eaten of the animals primarily formed from the element water, a slightly more sophisticated element. Thirdly, it dealt with which birds may not be eaten, i.e. creatures whose primary element is the רוח, the wind, i.e. an element much closer to the celestial domain than the previous two. Finally, beginning with our portion, the Torah addresses the most superior creature, i.e. man and immediately repeats the commandment of circumcision as if to emphasise that further refinement of man the species was still necessary. The Torah makes plain by means of this commandment that the principal reason man has been created is to perform G’d’s commandments. This is what Job had in mind (Job 5,7) when we are told there that אדם לעמל יולד, “man has been born in order to toil.” The “toil” referred to is the effort involved in studying and observing G’d’s Torah. This is the reason why the commandments connected to a woman giving birth are surrounded by a variety of commandments both before and after that particular paragraph. The commandments preceding the laws to be observed in connection with the birth of a human being all deal with permitted or forbidden food. This is what our sages (in Tanchuma Tazria 1) had in mind when they interpreted the above-mentioned verse in Psalms 139,5 to mean that the אחור, “after,” the prophet referred to were all the mammals, birds and creeping creatures which had been created before man, whereas the word קדם they understand as applying to the human baby being born to whom G’d already gave directives concerning how to conduct itself after it would leave the mother’s womb. In other words, man’s creation or birth is conditional on his keeping G’d’s commandments. The immediate commandment is the perfor- mance of circumcision of the male baby. [Or, seeing the fetus is taught the Torah while still in its mother’s womb, this is what entitles it to be born. Ed.]
   אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.,” Actually, the Torah should have written simply: “when a woman gives birth, etc.” What duties devolve upon her as a result of merely conceiving? The Torah reveals here that even if no live fetus is born and the fetus is no longer recognizable as such when aborted (compare Rashi based on Niddah 27), the rule about impurity contracted as a result of pregnancy or abortion applies. 
  This word is why our sages in Niddah 31 state that when the woman is the first one to experience orgasm during marital relations the baby born will be male. The reverse is true when the husband reaches climax first. When the Talmud uses the expression מזרעת in describing this process we translated as “orgasm” or “climax” when applicable to the woman, this refers to the fluid supplied by the woman [seeing that the word appears to be a misnomer, a woman not having semen, Ed.]. The fluid meant by the Talmud (according to our author) is the menstrual blood inside her womb. This fluid is called אודם, a reddish looking fluid in the Hebrew of the Mishnah. The parallel fluid of the male is known as לובן, i.e. a whitish fluid. Both fluids are known as זרע, “seed,” “semen.” Compare Niddah 31 where we are told that there are three partners needed to produce a human being, 1) G’d, 2) the father; and 3) the mother. According to the Talmud the father’s contribution of the לובן will result in the infant’s brain, tendons, and bones as well as its nails and the white of its eye. The אודם contributed by the mother will turn into the skin, blood, and flesh of the infant, the hair and pupil of the eye. G’d contributes the spirit, the soul, and the exterior appearance of the face as well as the ability of the eye to see, the power of speech and the lips, as well as the ability of the legs to walk, knowledge, insight and intelligence.
     The word תזריע is transitive, i.e. denotes an active participation. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this word (Ibn Ezra) is that she hands over the “semen” which is on deposit with her from the male much as the earth yields up the seed deposited in the soil of the field for it to emerge at the proper time as the desired product. This is the reason why Exodus 21,22 writes כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, “as the husband of the woman (who aborted due to the injury) will impose on the guilty party.” Seeing that the children of a woman are considered the husband’s (property), the Torah did not write כאשר תשית עליו האשה “as the woman (the actually injured party) imposes on the one who caused her injury.” The husband may  assess the loss he has suffered in financial terms. See my comments in Exodus 21,22. 
     However, the scientists claim that the entire fetus (body) is part of the mother and that the man’s part or contribution to it is only an ingredient they called היולי, “genes”  (something primeval, original) which influences the shape and composition of the material as soon as the man’s semen mixes with the blood of the woman. At the same time it also eliminates the sperm which will not fertilize the ovum of the woman. Its effect on those parts is similar to the effect of the stomach of an animal introduced into milk to make it congeal and become cheese. According to these scientists there is evidence supporting their claims.  1) They compare the formation of a human fetus to the fertilization of a hen’s egg which grows and hatches a chick through having been fertilized by the male, the rooster. Whenever the hen absorbs that semen from the earth through rolling around on the ground and not directly from the rooster, it fails to produce a chick. This is due to absence of physical contact with the rooster which alone would provide the shape and outward appearance of the product. [If I understand correctly the egg remains an egg unless it had been fertilized by the rooster at the outset of its formation. Ed.] This agrees with the opinion of our sages at the beginning of Tractate Beitzah 7 where the Talmud engages in scientific observations such as that when intercourse occurred by day the birth of the creature resulting from such intercourse will be born by day. In connection with the hatching of chicks, the Talmud is on record that when a certain person asked around who had the egg of a hen which had been laid by a live hen, they brought him instead the egg of a hen which had been slaughtered (before the egg was laid). The buyer went to Rabbi Ami demanding that the sale be annulled and his money be refunded as he had been tricked. His money was returned. Another incident related there refers to someone who specifically requested an egg from a hen which had been fertilized by a rooster. He was brought instead an egg from a hen which had absorbed the semen of the rooster through rolling around on the ground. He too complained to Rabbi Ami and had his money refunded after the egg failed to produce a chick. The sale was considered based on deception. It was understood that the condition attached by the buyer was clear evidence that he did not mean to eat the egg but to hatch it. Unless Rabbi Ami had thought that semen absorbed by the hen indirectly could not result in a chick being hatched, he had no reason to reverse that sale.    2) Some birds produce eggs through oral contact or mere “hugging” with their mates, there being no emission of semen by the male. [Rabbi Chavell refers the reader to an halachic responsum by Rabbi Mendel Kirshenbaum based on the Midrash to Proverbs 30,19: “the way of a man with a virgin.” Ed.]  This would prove that the male semen does not form part of the fetus.   3) Female fish produce eggs without ever having been in contact with their male counterparts. These eggs are subsequently sprinkled with male semen. The ones which absorb it hatch in due course, the ones which fail to be sprinkled with semen do not develop. This is a phenomenon we do not only find among the species of living creatures but it occurs all the time amongst the plants. When you take a male palm tree and you graft the branch of a female palm on to it, it becomes capable of producing fruit. The assumption is that the male provides a certain degree of warmth for the female to enable it to produce dates. These are the theories of the leading philosopher (Aristotle) on the subject, including a few of his proofs.
    The reason that when the woman performs her part in cohabitation with her husband first the result is a male child and the reverse, is very simple. If the woman has already contributed her part to the process the male semen is added last and as such will assert itself over the already present female part of the resulting embryo. If the male performs his part of the sexual act first this process is reversed and the female asserts its dominance over the semen already absorbed by the woman.   If we want to understand this phenomenon more graphically, picture a field  which is being seeded. In our parable, the first drop of semen be it male or female, is compared to the soil of the field; the last drop of semen, be it male or female is compared to the grains of seed implanted in the soil of the field. We all know hat that which is contributed last determines the shape and appearance of the ultimate product which the earth produces. Therefore, if the male partner in the union of husband and wife contributes its part first it is like the seed, whereas if the female partner contributes its part first, it is like the soil. Whoever contributes his or her part last determines the nature of the product i.e. a male or female infant.
   An approach based on the approach of experts of natural science, i.e. that the man’s semen does not become part of the fetus at all. The statement that when the woman climaxes first the result is a male infant must be understood as follows: when the woman enjoys the warmth and embrace of her husband she concentrates so much on the image of her husband, the male, that this hastens her climax. The mental images she entertained during those moments leave an enduring imprint on the ovum which is fertilised so that a male infant will be born from that union. We have an example of such a result when Yaakov peeled the sticks near the watering troughs in Genesis 30,37. When the flocks became stimulated by the appearance of the white streaks or whatever, which Yaakov arranged to simulate the desired skin pattern he wanted these ewes to give birth to, the stratagem worked perfectly. The important thing was for the mating of these animals to take place while they had these images firmly in focus. There is no difference between the reaction of the males or the females of the species, and the same holds true in an even stronger degree when humans react to visual images of this kind. If even animals which react only instinctively, having no intelligence or power of imagination, react so strongly to such images, people do so even more.   If someone is able to control his urges and wait with achieving his climax until after his wife has done so his reward will be that his wife will give birth to a male child. This is what the sages (compare Iggeret Hakodesh page 328 by Nachmanides, Chavell edition) referred to when they explained the meaning of Psalms 127,3: “sons are the provision of the Lord; the fruit of the womb, His reward.” The people so rewarded are the husbands who display patience while lying on their wives’ wombs giving their wives a chance to climax first.
      Some people offer an additional meaning for the words: “when a woman climaxes first she will bear male offspring;” they claim that the woman’s “semen” has a hidden power, i.e. the power of the male. [Just as we perceive of G’d’s attribute of Mercy, for instance, to harbour within it a small fraction of the attribute of  Justice, and vice versa,  so the whole concept of male and female, attributes which were united in one body before Chavah was separated from Adam, also each contains a minute part of its opposite. Ed.] Seeing that woman is a derivative of man, so to speak, it is no more than natural that a male child is a derivative of the female of the species. If woman climaxes first this means that she activated this potential male power within her, whereas the reverse is the case if man climaxes first. Having said this we realise that both man and woman have it within their power to recreate a complete set of human beings, a male and a female, “a complete building.”
      If we want to round out this picture, remember that the full name of G’d, the tetragram, does not appear in connection with the entire story of creation until after the creation of the human species. In their commentary on Genesis 2,2 and 2,4 וייצר י-ה-ו-ה אלו-הים את האדם, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 13,3) remark cryptically: “a complete name of G’d applicable to a complete universe.” How is it possible to describe the universe as complete when woman had not yet been created? [We hear about Chavah becoming a separate body only in Genesis 2,22] The answer clearly is that Adam had been equipped with the female hormones, or whatever, to enable him to produce female offspring. This full name of the Lord is used again when G’d is described as building up the side He had removed from Adam into a separate human body, a female, i.e. Chavah. This conveys the idea that Chavah too has been equipped with the potential to reproduce either as male or female. In other words, each human being is theoretically able to determine the gender of the offspring it produces.   We have a complete verse illustrating this concept in Genesis 46,15: אלה בני לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב בפדן ארם ואת דינה בתו כל נפש וגו’, “these were the sons of Leah whom she bore for Yaakov in Padan Aram, and Dinah his daughter; all the persons, etc.” The Torah attributes the male children to the mother and the female children to the father. When we said that the male harbours within him the essence of the female, and the female harbours with her the essence of the male, the meaning is not that as a result of such biological factors a woman can give birth to a female and a male to a male (each unassisted by the other). Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 14,9 have already said that  there is no barber who can shave himself, i.e. man or woman each require a partner of the opposite sex in order to perform the act of procreation.
      A Midrashic approach to our verse (based on Tanchuma Tazria 3): the words אשה כי תזריע mean that when the woman initiates and climaxes first וילדה זכר, she will give birth to a male child. By inference, when the man climaxes first she will give birth to a female child. This is borne out by the words ואם נקבה תלד, (in connection with the birth of a male child the Torah described a dual process, i.e. climax and birth; when describing the birth of a female child no mention is made of the woman climaxing.)   Miracles are performed by G’d with this infant (before it is born).When a person is locked up in a jail for even a single day his entire personality yearns to be set free. The fetus, a human being at some stage, is locked up inside the womb of a woman for nine months and G’d protects it there during the entire period. Rabbi Meir elaborates explaining that during the entire nine months the fetus draws blood from its mother whereas as soon as it is born this blood is transformed into milk and the baby starts nursing from its mother’s breast.
      An intellectual approach to our verse: man experiences three different worlds in the course of his existence. He experiences the first such world while he is within his mother’s womb; during this stage man begins to develop and to admire the wondrous ways of his Creator and the greatness of His works. Concerning this stage of man’s development David has said in Psalms 139,15: “My frame was not concealed from You while I was being shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth.” He had already referred to this phenomenon earlier in verse 14 of the same psalm when he said: “I praise You for I am awesomely, wondrously made; Your work is wonderful.” David was speaking about all the wonderful ways required for G’d to produce a sophisticated creature such as man.  The men of the Great Assembly who perfected the liturgy of the daily prayers for us already acknowledged all this when they bade us recite every morning the words: אשר יצר את האדם בחכמה וברא בו נקבים, , “Who has fashioned man with wisdom and provided him with numerous orifices any one of which if not functioning correctly would prove fatal to him” [loosely translated. Ed.]. The signature of this short prayer concludes with ומפליא לעשות, “and doing wonders.” Considerations of this nature prompted Solomon to write in Kohelet 11,5: “Just as you do not know how the life breath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of G’d, who causes all things to happen.” in other words, all of G’d’s works are of a mysterious miraculous nature. Solomon simply uses as an example something we are aware of and familiar with to illustrate a principle which operates throughout the universe. Just as it is beyond our understanding to understand how something spiritual is introduced into the womb, so it is beyond our understanding to understand the workings of G’d’s השגחה, benevolent supervision of what goes on in His universe, and how His designs in it can be assured despite our freedom of choice.    Concerning this part of the cosmos and the mysterious ways in which G’d operates within it, Job says (Job 10,9-11): “consider that You fashioned me like clay; will You then turn me into dust? You poured me out like milk, congealed me like cheese; You clothed me with skin and flesh and wove me of bones and sinews.” Job referred to the world in which man spends a strictly limited time, nine months plus a few days at the outside. In that part of his world man is devoid of intelligence and knowledge and is not exposed to external pressures. He would be quite content to remain within this mini-cosmos for all his life seeing that all his needs are taken care of without his having to lift a finger, were it not for the fact that he has no control over being born into a larger cosmos. This is what our sages in Avot (end of fourth chapter) referred to when they said: “man is born against his will.”    No wonder man cries at the moment of birth seeing that he leaves behind such an ideal existence. This is merely an indication that the world the baby is born into is one full of pain, disappointments, and confusion. Man had been transferred from the world in which he was formed into the second world he experiences during his existence, this present terrestrial universe. He does have certain advantages compared to the world he has left behind when he left his mother’s womb. In this world as a general rule man’s intellect grows more or less apace with the development of his body. His wisdom keeps increasing until he becomes wise as a result of having studied the Torah and performed its commandments. As a by-product of all this he acquires a degree of understanding of the workings of G’d, his Creator. In spite of all this, man’s stay in this present terrestrial world is of very limited duration, as a rule not exceeding eighty years. When he dies, i.e. is removed from this life, this also occurs against his will, and this has prompted the sages in Avot 4 which we quoted already as commenting on our involuntary birth to say that our death is equally involuntary. Had man been asked about his preference, the chances are that he would have opted to live on earth forever.  From this terrestrial universe man is transferred to the third world he will experience, i.e. the world known as עולם הבא, “the world to come,” the world of the future. There are no limitations of time in that world. The delights enjoyed in that world are not transient. In that world man is compensated for all the good deeds he has performed while on earth. 
  Considering all that we have described, it is clear that man progresses in an ascending manner from one world to the next, from good to better to best. The first world man lives in is dark. The second world man lives in is illuminated by two luminaries, the sun and the moon. In the third world man will attain is full of unbounded brilliant light. That world knows no boundaries and no darkness.   Solomon alludes to all these three worlds in a single verse (Kohelet 7,1) when he says: “a good name is better than fragrant oil, and the day of death than the day of birth.” This verse has to be understood in the following manner: “the treasures” i.e. accumulated merits man acquired while alive on earth, and  in store for him in the celestial regions are superior to even the most fragrant oils on earth; oil, i.e. body-oil for rubbing, is perceived as a means to make the body feel good and to enhance the quality of life on earth. Solomon says that what is in store for the soul in the world to come is better than the best of what the body can experience here on earth. He also uses the word “oil” as a commodity similar to “money,” saying that all the money in this world cannot compete with the spiritual treasures in the next world. His meaning is similar to that in Proverbs 21,20: “precious treasure and oil are in the house of the wise man.”    The words: “and the day of death is better than the day of his birth,” mean that that day is better than the world the fetus spent in his mother’s womb. Solomon’s point is that just as the terrestrial world is superior to the fetus’ existence within the womb of his mother, so the world to come is superior to life on terrestrial earth. That life is the follow-up of death in the world of the womb. In other words, leaving behind the life in the womb, “dying” from it, is an improvement on what went before; similarly leaving behind life on this earth ushers in an even better life for the person concerned, hence “the day of death is better than the day of entry into that life which one leaves behind.” Solomon follows the principle that phenomena with which we are familiar, i.e. life in the womb and life on earth and their relative pleasures provide us with a clue to what is ahead and has not yet been experienced.
     וטמאה שבעת ימים, “as a result she will remain in a state of ritual impurity for seven days.” It is G’d’s decree that just as the state of impurity lasts for seven days, the purification rites require seven days. The number “seven” applies equally to days of impurity, days of purification, days of joy (after a wedding or the duration of certain festivals) and days of mourning.
     כימי נדת דותה תטמא, “her impurity is as long as her impurity due to menstruation.” The expression דותה is derived from מדוה, a description of a “natural” sickness, i.e. the menstruation period a woman experiences at regular intervals. Our sages (Niddah 9) have also explained that during such a period a woman’s heads and limbs feel very heavy. Although the excretion of blood by the woman every month is the excretion of superfluous material, it is still considered a disease. The word נדה means to “be distant;” similarly the word מנודה is a term for people who have been ostracised, banished and banned from society. The term is used in Nedarim 4 in connection with someone vowing to not benefit from certain people’s belongings or eating a meal at their place, or not to come within 4 cubits of the property of such a person.   The reason a menstruous woman is referred to as נדה is that other people shun her, keep their distance from her while she is in the throes of that disease. Even her women friends keep their distance from her. She usually spends that period in isolation. Throughout ancient history all the nations considered that period in a woman’s monthly cycle as one requiring her to be isolated, even considering the earth a woman in such circumstances walked on as contaminated. One did not speak to such a woman for fear of being contaminated. When Lavan wanted to search Rachel’s tent and she apologized for not rising in his honour (she was sitting on the teraphim her father was searching for) we note that Lavan did not speak a single word to her. This was because it was considered unhealthy to engage in conversation with a menstruating woman. Clearly, Rachel was sitting isolated in her tent, presumably without any maidservant at her side. The exhalations of such a woman and the odors coming from her were all considered potentially contaminating (compare Genesis 31,34-35). [Halachah, of course, does not recognize such superstitions and in the main a woman’s state of being נדה affects her husband’s relations with her and her inability to touch sacred objects including food for sacred purposes which she would contaminate by her touch. Ed.] According to Nachmanides even what such a woman looked at was considered as harmful, similarly to the evil eye. (Nachmanides on Leviticus 18,19 reports that when a menstruous woman in the very beginning of her period looks at a gleaming sword or mirror, drops of blood can be seen on that sword or mirror according to the eye witness reports of some “scientists.”) It is clear that if even some of all this is true cohabiting with a woman while she is in that state is a health hazard to her partner.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וביום השמיני ימול, “and on the eighth day he shall be circumcised.” The word ביום means that even if that day happens to be a Sabbath circumcision is to be performed (Shabbat 131). This holds true only when one can be absolutely certain that the Sabbath is indeed the eighth day after the baby’s birth. When there is any doubt about this, such as the baby being born after sunset but before dark, the circumcision is postponed as we do no desecrate the Sabbath unless we are sure thereby to comply with the Torah’s instructions. The Talmud Shabbat 137 states that an infant may legally be circumcised (earliest opportunity) either on the eighth, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh or the twelfth day of his life. He must not be circumcised sooner, and unless sick and weak not later (on pain of neglecting performance of a positive commandment incumbent on the father). If the baby has been born clearly during the day or night and is healthy he is to be circumcised on the eighth day. If he was born during dusk he is to be circumcised one day later providing that day is neither Sabbath or festival. If he is born at dusk on Friday he is to be circumcised on Sunday, i.e. the tenth day. If the Sabbath is followed by a festival such as Passover or Tabernacles his circumcision takes place on Monday, i.e. the eleventh day. If the Sabbath is followed by New Year, he is circumcised on the twelfth day of his life, i.e. on the Tuesday following New Year. If the baby was sick, circumcision is postponed until after he is well again.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 5). The wicked Roman governor Turnusrufus once asked Rabbi Akiva whose works were more beautiful (beneficial to mankind) G’d’s or man’s? Rabbi Akiva answered that man’s accomplishments were superior. Turnusrufus, [taken aback by the unexpected answer, Ed.] countered: “can man then create heaven and earth that you say man’s accomplishments are greater than G’d’s?” Rabbi Akiva answered: “do not speak to me of matters which are above earth or below earth (beyond the human habitat), but let us discuss only matters within man’s province. Thereupon Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “why do you people perform the rites of circumcision?” Rabbi Akiva said: “did I not know that this was the question which really troubled you! This is precisely why I told you right away that man’s accomplishments on earth are greater than G’d’s.” Rabbi Akiva proceeded to illustrate his point and brought Turnusrufus both ears of corns and hot rolls. He pointed to the former, saying “this is G’d’s work;” then he pointed to the rolls and said: “this is man’s work!.” Turnusrufus then said: “if your G’d is so desirous of the male infant being circumcised why did He not arrange for it to be born this way?” To this Rabbi Akiva replied: “why does the baby’s navel get born with it, trailing behind, so that its mother has to sever it?” As to your question why the infant is not born without a foreskin, the reason is that G’d gave us His commandments in order to refine human beings through their observance. This is the meaning of Proverbs 30,5: “every word of G’d is meant to purify.”
  
  Verse 4
  
   ושלושים יום ושלושת ימים, “and for the thirty-three days following, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the 33 days of purification were decreed to combine with the seven days of impurity in order to complete a cycle of forty days. The fetus required forty days after its mother conceived to become something in its own right.  A kabbalistic approach: The thirty-three days given to the woman (during which she cannot halachically become a menstruant) were given to her as corresponding to the bride in Song of Songs who is viewed as possessing the thirty-two paths of wisdom. She is presumed to join these thirty-two paths thus  making a total of thirty-three [the concept of אחותי כלה “the bride is my sister,” (Song of Songs 4,10)  means in kabbalistic terms that “wisdom is my sister,” i.e. [I attach myself to wisdom as one is attached to one’s sister.” Ed.] the כלה is perceived as “carrying,” supporting these thirty-two paths of wisdom.
     תשב, “she will sit, etc.” Rashi explains that the word תשב is not to be understood in its literal sense, i.e. that this woman has to remain seated; the meaning is that during these thirty-three days she may remain in the immediate vicinity of her husband without having to worry about contracting ritual impurity issuing from her body. The word תשב in the sense of remaining in a location for an extended period is found  in Deut. 1,46: ”you dwelt in Kadesh for many years.” The meaning of the whole verse then is as follows: “she will have to wait for 33 days before being allowed to touch sacred things without contaminating them, and she must not enter the Sanctuary. This in spite of the fact that as far as her husband is concerned she is ritually pure and is allowed to cohabit with him.”    Nachmanides understands the word תשב in this instance as referring to marital relations, similar to Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי ולא תזני ולא תהיי לאיש, “you are to go for a long time without sexual intercourse or marrying.” Any woman living with her husband and having normal relations with him is called יושבת לו. Seeing that the Torah had referred to the first seven days after her giving birth as days during which she was suffering a ritual impurity similar to that of a menstruous woman, the Torah had to contrast her status during the following 33 days with her previous status.
      Maimonides in Sefer Kedushah  (Issurei Biah 11,15) writes in a similar vein. These are his words: “the fact that you find in some places (books) and in some responsa of the Gaonim that a woman must not cohabit with her husband for forty days after having given birth to a male child, and not for 80 days after having given birth to a female child even though she had not seen any blood from her normal source of blood during all those days, is an unacceptable practice based on an error. This error has crept into their writings through their copying something from the Sadducees. It is  a duty to disabuse scholars of such an error so that they no longer practice heretical practices introduced by the Sadducees. We must ensure that the rulings of the sages that the woman has to count only seven days after giving birth to a male child before being able to cohabit with her husband are upheld.”
     בדמי טהרה, “in the blood of her purification.” The words mean that such blood is ritually pure. The expression is used by the Torah to contrast this blood with blood issuing forth from a menstruous woman. 
  Ibn Ezra wrote that G’d decreed that the number of days such a state of affairs continues for the male child is shorter because it takes forty days for the embryo to gain some substance, for its major components to become recognisable within the womb. In the case of a female fetus this development requires twice as much time, i.e. 80 days. This is why there is a residue of ritual impurity for eighty days
      Our sages (majority view, not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in Niddah 30, on which Ibn Ezra based himself) hold that the time for a male or female fetus to develop is identical. According to their opinion the reason why the Torah legislated twice the amount of time for both impurity and partial impurity in the case of a female baby being born is that the female is cold and wet and as a result the mother needs more time to recover from the birth of a female baby. [An alternative reason offered also by Rabbi Dr. D. Hoffman is that the Torah may have wanted the mother to be pure at the time her son would be circumcised. This act, in turn, would hasten the progress of her recovery so that all traces of impurity disappear already at the end of forty days. Ed.]
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וכפר עליה, “and atone for her, etc.” The word כפרה, “atonement,” is never used except when applicable to a sin. This is why the very institution of the sin-offering which the woman who has given birth has to bring strikes one as just as unique as that which the Torah demanded of the Nazir, the person who voluntarily abstained from wine, grape-associated products, and impurity (Numbers 6,14). What sin did the woman commit at the time she gave birth that the Torah should impose upon her the need to offer a sin-offering? If this sacrifice were meant to express her gratitude that she was saved from the danger attending every birth, the Torah should have prescribed that she bring a קרבן תודה, a thanksgiving offering! Why demand that she bring a sin-offering?
      It is possible to understand the  reason for this offering as not so much related to her as to her “mother,” i.e. the first woman Chavah, who had committed the first sin as a result of which all women subsequently had to endure painful deliveries, pains of menstruation, separation from their husbands, etc. Had Chavah not been guilty of introducing disobedience to G’d’s command women would have been spared all this. The whole process of giving birth would have remained as natural a process as for trees to yield their fruit. Trees do not have to experience desire in order to become fertilized and to yield their fruit year after year. This woman who gave birth now may be perceived as the branch of a contaminated root, daughter of a corrupted mother and as such some of the mother’s contamination was transmitted to her. Hence the Torah requires that she atones for this by bringing a sin-offering after giving birth. By doing so she does her part in helping to atone for the original sin of Chavah.   In fact, we find that we are taught in Shabbat 31 that women have been commanded to observe three commandments specifically to help undo the spiritual damage caused to the species of man by their original “mother.” They are 1) the observance of a state of impurity with subsequent purification during their regular menstruation cycles. 2) חלה, the separating (and while the Temple was standing giving to the Priest) of the first part of any dough they bake from the five species of grain (Numbers 15,20-21), and 3) the lighting of the Shabbat candles every Friday night. [The last two commandments devolve on the male when there is no woman at hand. Ed.] In fact, according to the Talmud there, failure to observe these three commandments meticulously may result in their dying during childbirth. Seeing that that particular sin was preceded by the sinful thought before it was actually carried out, the woman offers both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering after giving birth; the first offering atones for the sinful thought and the second for the sinful deed (compare verse 5). This is the reason the Torah wrote of the requirement for the woman to bring a burnt-offering before mentioning the need for her to bring a sin-offering. In all other instances where the sin-offering has to be brought on account of a sin committed by the person bringing the offering, the Torah demands that he first cleanse himself spiritually by atoning for the deed before bringing the burnt-offering.  When the Talmud Zevachim 90 states that when the Torah wrote the words אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, “one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering,” (verse 8)  that the actual presentation of these two offerings does not follow the order in which the two offerings are listed here, this supports our contention that  the reason the Torah reversed the order in which the legislation is written is meant to teach us the lesson we mentioned, i.e. that the sinful intention preceded Chavah’s eating of the fruit of that tree, i.e. the offering we speak of here was not in penitence for an unintentional inadvertently committed sin as are most other sin-offerings.    According to the opinion of our sages (Niddah 31) the reason for the sin-offering the mother has to bring is that she presumably was guilty of swearing off marital relations with her husband seeing that the experience of giving birth was so painful and the pregnancy so uncomfortable. Her offering atones for such a lapse on her part. Seeing her oath at the time was due to her being in pain, and she is not a free agent allowed to deny her husband his marital rights, she has committed a culpable sin, i.e. she needs to atone with a burnt-offering for her sinful intent.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת או בהרת, “if a person will have on the skin of his flesh a s’eis, a sapachat or baheret, etc.” We have learned in Negaim 1,1 that there are four different-looking separate categories of skin-afflictions called נגע צרעת, the respective colour being called שאת and its derivatives, בהרת and its derivatives; these derivatives are known as בהרת עזה כשלג, the strongest symptom, white like snow; a slightly lesser degree of בהרת than the snow-like colour characterizing the original בהרת, is like the colour of the whitewash used when one paints the outside of a house, a still less pronounced white comparable to white wool, known as בהרת כצמר, and a still paler kind of skin discoloration known as בהרת כקרום ביצה, “like the shell of an egg.” The word ספחת describes a skin disorder which is a cross between שאת and בהרת related to the expression ספחני נא אל אחת הכהנות, “please assign to me one (share) of the priestly duties, etc.,” or Samuel I 26,19 מהסתפח בנחלת ה’, “so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession.” The word denotes a combination of at least two components.   The various appearances of the skin disorders are not considered the dreaded צרעת; they are symptoms which often are the forerunners of צרעת. This is why the Torah decrees isolation for people displaying these symptoms at once so that in the event the צרעת does develop no one associated with them could have been contaminated by them. This is the reason why physicians have described בהרת as something inducing fear of צרעת in people (Nachmanides). When the Torah speaks here of נגע צרעת, the meaning is that these symptoms are the ones preceding צרעת but not necessarily. These symptoms by themselves do not yet constitute the affliction known as צרעת. If, after a period of isolation, additional symptoms develop, such as described in the Torah in the verses following, the result will be the disease called צרעת. This is why the Torah describes the result of such a development as צרעת היא (verses 8), as opposed to נגע צרעת הוא in verse 3. Whenever the latter expression is used the skin disorder described is not yet a true צרעת.    The idea is that the symptoms are already those of an affliction, נגע, and the words וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, “the priest is to inspect it and to declare such a person as ritually impure,” mean that this declaration takes effect immediately as it is presumed certain that such symptoms will develop into “the real thing,” i.e. צרעת.  The words נגע הוא “it is an affliction,” mean that it is large enough to convince the priest that it will develop  and spread to larger areas of the skin-surface. Thus far Nachmanides on the subject. The symptoms described by the Torah as פשיון “enlargement of the afflicted area,” שער לבן, “white hair growing inside the afflicted area,” מחיה, “an appearance like raw flesh, not covered by skin,” עומק העור an illusion that the skin is “deeper,” recessed in the afflicted areas, all these are symptoms which indicate the presence of ritual impurity and are the criteria according to which the inspecting priest has to make his decision. Generally, such symptoms mean that the person so afflicted is ritually impure and has to leave the camp.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 9): Why has this paragraph not been introduced by the customary: “speak to the Children of Israel; if a person has such and such symptoms, etc.?” The absence of this introductory formula is to teach you that it is not the Lord who initiates afflictions as we know from Psalms 5,5 כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע, ”for You are not a G’d who desires wickedness, evil cannot abide with You;” David does not belabour the obvious; he speaks about G’d having no desire to  make any creature guilty of anything. We have proof of this also in Ezekiel 33,11: “as true as I am alive, says the Lord, G’d, I do not desire the death of the wicked.” On the contrary, what is it that G’d desires? He wants to find an excuse to justify His creatures’ actions as we know from Isaiah 42,21: ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, ”The Lord desires His creatures’ vindication, that He may magnify and glorify (His) Teaching.” If our paragraph had commenced in the normal way some people might have misunderstood and thought that G’d derives satisfaction from having to afflict people even though they were guilty of something.   Another comment by the Midrash: the words “evil does not abide with You” which we quoted from Psalms 5,5 mean that the name of G’d is not associated with events of an evil nature but only with things positive. When G’d created light and darkness, He did associate His name with the light but not with the darkness. In Genesis 1,5 the Torah writes: “G’d called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” When G’d blessed the first pair of human beings, His name was associated with the blessing for both of them, as the Torah writes (Genesis 1,28: “G’d blessed them.” On the other hand, when G’d decreed a curse on man, (Genesis 3,16) The Torah writes: “to the woman He had said, etc.,” and we find similar language in connection with the penalty decreed on Adam. The Torah writes (Genesis 3,17): “and to Adam He had said, etc.” You may ask that when G’d cursed the serpent we also find this kind of language, i.e. (Genesis 3,14) “the Lord G’d had said to the serpent, ‘because you have done this, etc.’” Our sages answered this query in Tanchuma Tazria 9 by saying that there are indeed three occasions when G’d did associate His name with something evil, such as a curse. The first instance  is the case of the מסית, someone who seduces others to worship idols; the first personification of such a seducer was the serpent who seduced Chavah in Gan Eden saying to her: “G’d knows that on the day you (pl) will eat from the tree your eyes will be opened and you will become just like G’d” (Genesis 3,5). The serpent implied that just as G’d had created worlds so she and Adam would be able to create worlds; the serpent implied that G’d had forbidden eating the fruit because He was jealous of potential competition. The serpent implied that just as a skilled craftsman is anxious not to reveal the secrets of his craft, so G’d wanted to keep the secret of how He had created the universe. Seeing that the serpent had used G’d’s name in its seduction of Chavah, G’d in turn associated His name with the punishment, the curse.    The second instance of G’d’s name being associated with something evil concerns people who deliberately transgress the decrees of the sages whose authority has been given to them by G’d and has been confirmed at Mount Gerizim. The prophet Jeremiah referred to the fact that such people are guilty of death when he wrote in Jeremiah 11,3: “Thus said the Lord: cursed be the man who will not obey the terms of this covenant which I enjoined your fathers when I freed them from Egypt, etc.” The sin of these people is that they place their trust in man instead of in G’d as the prophet said in Jeremiah 17,5: “Thus said the Lord: ‘cursed is he who trusts in man, who makes a mere flesh his strength and turns his thoughts from the Lord.’” In other words, when does the curse mentioned earlier apply? When someone turns his heart away from the Lord. When Noach blessed his sons Shem and Yaphet, he used the name of G’d in his blessing, saying: ברוך ה’ אלו-הי שם, “blessed be the Lord, the G’d of Shem,” etc. When he cursed Canaan (Genesis 9,26) he simply said: ארור כנען, “cursed be Canaan;” he did not mention G’d in that context. When the prophet Elisha prayed to G’d asking for deliverance from the Arameans (enemy of the Israelites at that time, Kings II 6,17) he invoked the name of the Lord in his prayer saying: “Lord open his eyes let him see” (a reference to his attendant who was afraid). When he then turned to cursing the Arameans (verse 18 of the same chapter), Elisha only said: ”please strike these people with a blinding light.” The name of G’d was not invoked in the prayer to bring a curse upon them. Even when the Israelites were sinful, G’d referred to them with respect and honor. When G’d legislated the kind of animals which were to be offered by the Israelites, -when, where and under what circumstances,- the legislation is introduced with the words: “if one of you wishes to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, etc.” When introducing the צרעת legislation, however, the name of G’d does not appear. Clearly, even when the legislation presupposes sins by the afflicted, the Torah still does not wish to involve G’d directly, as the One who initiates the “curse.” This is why the verse starts merely with the words: “when someone develops a white spot on the skin of his flesh, etc.”  What sins cause such afflictions? In retribution for illicit sex. (Tanchuma Tazria 11) This is also what happened in Jerusalem whose inhabitants were struck by this disease because their sexual mores had deteriorated so much (Isaiah 3,16) ”because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, making a tingling with their feet...the Lord will uncover their heads.” The word used there is שפח which is the equivalent of צרעת as we know from Leviticus 14,5.    The words אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, are equivalent to what we read n Chabakuk 1,7 איום ונורא ממננו ושפתו ושאתו יצא, “they are terrible and dreadful; they make their own laws and are overbearing.” The prophet speaks about Adam who was the direct creation of G’d, created in His likeness, who was composed of particles from all the corners of the globe and whose dominion before his sin therefore extended over all parts of the globe. At that time Adam was able to see with his eyes from one end of the earth to the other. Adam’s wife, Chavah was created from his very body, she who caused his mortality. Seeing that she gave Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge she made him mortal.  Another Midrashic explanation: The words “terrible and dreadful” which we quoted from Chabakuk refer to Pharaoh who ruled over the whole earth as we know from Psalms 105,20. The words: “they make their own laws, etc.” refer to Moses who grew up in the very house of this wicked Pharaoh and eventually deprived him of his rule after bringing ten plagues upon him. Moses used to take a look at his holy staff to see which kind of plague was appropriate to smite Pharaoh with; he would then inflict this plague upon him; hence the prophet speaks about something “terrible and dreadful.”   Yet another interpretation of that verse in Chabakuk relates the adjectives in that verse to the principal characteristics of the four host nations who had control of the Jewish people in exile at different times. [The Midrash broadens its perspective of allegorical meanings; the interested reader is referred to the original text seeing that our author does not contribute to the understanding of this Midrash except quoting its text. Ed.]
      The reason that this whole subject has been written in the Torah adjacent to the paragraph dealing with the purification rites prescribed for a woman who has given birth is to remind us that whoever is not mindful of the regulations pertaining to her ritual impurity connected with menstruation is apt to become a victim of these skin-disorders. We find an opinion in medical textbooks confirmed by our sages (Tanchuma Metzorah 1) that when someone cohabits with a woman who is in the first day of her menstruation, any baby born from that union will be afflicted with צרעת for the first ten years of its life. If the cohabitation occurred on the second day of her being menstruous this צרעת would last for twenty years, etc. If cohabitation occurs on the seventh day of the woman’s being menstruous the offspring from such a union will remain afflicted for seventy years. We learn from all this that the order in which the Torah writes certain paragraphs and subject matter is not haphazard but has deeper meaning which it is worthwhile to explore seeing that each paragraph conveys a meaning based solely on its position in the Torah over and above its other meanings. Profound study of the text of the Torah reveals what wonderful insights into the workings of nature the Torah displays.
  
  Verse 3
  
    וראה הכהן את הנגע, “The priest shall look at the skin disorder, etc.” We are taught in Negaim 1,4 that the priest must not inspect the symptoms for the first time on the first day of the week as it will be necessary to isolate the afflicted person for seven days. Seeing that the Torah writes in verse six that the priest is to inspect the symptoms again on the seventh day and it is not permitted to do son on the Sabbath, this means that the first inspection must not take place on Sunday. By the same token, the first inspection must not take place on a Monday as in the event a third inspection is necessary, the second time the seventh day would occur on the Sabbath. This is why the sages said that when the Torah speaks about 2 weeks (a second series of seven days) this means that the seventh day is counted as part of either week, i.e. the two weeks actually comprise only thirteen days.
     ושער בנגע הפך לבן ומראה הנגע עמוק מעור בשרו, “and the skin disorder appears to be deeper than the skin of the flesh,” Rashi explains that whenever the Torah speaks of “a deeper white appearance” this is to be understood as similar to the contrast between the appearance of sunny areas surrounded by shade which also appears to be “lower,” or “deeper” than the surrounding shaded area although in fact it is not.
      Nachmanides writes as follows concerning this verse: “there is a whitish looking substance which sparkles and affects one’s eyes as if one were being blinded by sunshine.” The human eye is unable to tolerate this brightness; this is why it appears to be “deeper,” recessed. The reason why the eye can tolerate the brilliance of sunshine is that it has a black area (pupil) which “absorbs” that brilliance. The pupil of the eye does not however, absorb the shine or sparkle emitted from this whitish material of which the Torah speaks here. Seeing it does not absorb it, it “rejects” it, i.e. it appears more distant than it is in actual fact. This is what the Torah means when it speaks about the appearance of this whitish mass appearing as “deeper” than the skin around it.    The whitish mass associated with the affliction called בהרת which is as bright as snow will become dimmed when exposed to sunlight, provided it will not sprout a black hair in its midst. If it does produce a black hair this is a sign that the affliction will not heal but will spread, as the black hair strengthens the ability to see.  שאת, on the other hand, while also a whitish looking mass, is not as blinding as the snow-like whiteness of the brightest בהרת. It does not weaken the ability of the afflicted person to see and as a result to expand. When one approaches to inspect it, it appears close by, “elevated instead of recessed,” similar to the impression one has when looking at the stars in the sky. The stars appear to protrude against the black sky “behind” them.”
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and here the skin-disorder remained in its (previous) color and condition.” The word בעיניו means “in its appearance.” The word עין is used in a similar meaning when the Torah describes the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7 where the wording is ועינו כעין הבדולח, “and its appearance was like the appearance of crystal.” It was similar in appearance to what is described in Ezekiel 1,22 as the קרח הנורא, the “awesome ice.”   On the other hand, Torat Kohanim based on Sifra Tazria 13,37 derives from the wording of the text that if the Torah had not written these words I would have thought that only the officiating priest at the first inspection but not that priest’s son or student would be entitled to undertake this inspection. Hence the Torah wrote בעיניו that if initially several priests had inspected the symptoms and most feel that there had been no change their opinion is accepted, (based on verse 37 in this chapter where the word בעיניו occurs again and cannot have the same meaning as in verse 5, hence it must mean “in his eyes.”) Accordingly, the correct translation of our verse here would be: “if in the eyes of the priest already mentioned there had not been any change in the skin disorder he had inspected previously, etc., then this priest shall quarantine the afflicted person for a second period of seven days.” The expression בעיני in that context is one frequently used in Mishnaic Hebrew such as in Baba Kama 41 כך אני בעיניך “so I appear in your eyes,” Or Kings II 1,13 תיקר נא נפשי בעיניך, “may my life be precious in your eyes” (the captain of fifty to the prophet Elijah pleading for his life). The principal message of the words is that the priest does not use measuring devices to determine if the skin disorder had spread but he relies on his eyes to estimate the state of affairs.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והיא הפכה שער לבן, “and it has changed hair to white,” according to Sifra Negaim 3,6 the Torah speaks of 2 hairs or more. The reason that white hair in that area is a sign of ritual impurity is simply that according to nature these hairs are normally black. If there is a deviation from what is natural this is an indication of something being diseased.
     ומחית בשר חי בשאת, ”or there is live flesh within the area covered by שאת;” the letter ו at the beginning of the word ומחית does not mean “and,” but “or.” There is no need for both white hair and raw flesh within that area in order for the priest to declare the afflicted person as definitively impure. Verse eight had already told us that white hair by itself suffices for the priest to make such a ruling. Similarly, the raw flesh within the afflicted area is enough of a symptom by itself for the priest to declare such a person as ritually impure, i.e. מצורע, definitely afflicted by the disease known as צרעת. Sifra Negaim 3,7 provides a measurement for the size of this raw flesh in order for the priest to rule it as making its victim impure. If the size is sufficient for two white hairs to be accommodated on that surface it is large enough. 
  You should know that wherever we find a white hair which is partially black we rule according to the color of the hair where it emerges from the follicle. If the hair is black at that point it is deemed to be a black hair (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Tzoraat 2,1).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   נתק הוא, “it is a scall.” This kind of tzoraat is so named as the hair has been removed from that spot. The word is used in halachah for certain commandments which are considered as separated, literally “torn away” from where they belong (Chulin 141) [When a negative commandment appears in the guise of a positive commandment it is considered as לאו הניתק לעשה, “a negative commandment couched in terms of a positive commandment”. As a result, generally speaking, the penalty normally applicable when violating a negative commandment does not apply in such a case. Ed.] The expression נתק also occurs in Joshua 4,18 in connection with the priests who carried the Holy Ark into and across the Jordan. The text says נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים, “the soles of the feet of the priests were separated, pulled, etc.”   After the original hair had been pulled out, if subsequently the new hair is blond, thin, this is a sign of ritual impurity (contamination caused by the disease). The bald spot contaminates either by blond (yellow) hair or expansion of the afflicted area. (Negaim 10,1). If, however the hair which grows back from that follicle is black, this is a sign that the affliction has healed and the priest can declare such a person as ritually pure (after he has undergone the necessary procedures).
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  . טמא הוא, טמא יטמאנו הכהן, “he is ritually impure, the priest has to declare him as impure.”  In verse 37 in  a parallel situation the Torah used similar syntax writing טהור הוא, וטהרו הכהן, “he is ritually pure, and the priest shall declare him as ritually pure.” From both of these verses we learn that even though the priest has observed unmistakable signs of either purity or impurity it is essential for him to confirm this by saying so. We have been taught at the end of the first chapter of the Tossephta of Nega-im that this was one of the reasons that prompted Hillel to return to the land of Israel from Babylon. He wanted to make certain that these procedures are understood and followed to the letter. He moved to Israel in order to explain the reasons for these rules to the local Rabbinical authorities.
  
  Verse 45
  
  . והצרוע אשר בו הנגע בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ועל שפם יעטה, “and the person afflicted with the tzoraat,- his garments shall be torn, the hair of his head shall remain unshorn, and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” According to Midrash Eycha Rabbati (introduction) the word הצרוע may be understood as a reference to the Temple (after its destruction); the words אשר בו הנגע may be understood as idolatry which contaminates in a manner similar to the skin affliction. The words בגדיו יהיו פרומים are a reference to the priestly garments (their condition after the Temple had been destroyed); the words וראשו יהיה פרוע are a reference to the Shechinah which has departed from the Temple Mount; the words ועל שפם יעטה refer to the neglect of Torah study and observance which was also a by- product of the loss of the Temple and political independence. The use of the words טמא twice in the verse mean that it speaks of the destruction of both the first and the second Temple.
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  . בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, On a woolen or linen garment.” Our sages (Nega-im 11,2) explained that only the wool of animals which are pure can confer the impurity of a person afflicted with tzoraat on others. The wool of an unclean animal such as the camel cannot confer such impurity. If the garment in question is made up of a number of fabrics including wool from a pure animal as well as wool from a ritually impure animal, if the dominant portion of the garment was made from wool of a pure animal it does transfer such impurity; if not, it does not.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  . או בכל כלי עור, “or in a leather utensil;” our sages explain that this excludes coloured vessels. utensils or garments. The main practical significance of this statement is that wool or linen confer the wearer’s impurity only when they are in the original white colour. The rules applying to dyed wool garments also apply to dyed leather utensils.
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
    “The fabric under discussion or the garment made from this fabric which has been contaminated has to be burned.” According to Nachmanides the repeated use of the words בגד, שתי, ערב, עור are all reminders of the miraculous connection between the afflicted person’s sins and the state of health of his garments or basic utensils. G’d, as it were, reminds him gently to mend his ways so that He would not have to take stronger action. [Needless to add that the premise is that as a rule Israeli society observed all of G’d’s commandments and only a very few individuals experienced such afflictions to their clothing. In a corrupt society these afflictions would become so commonplace as to lose their educational value. Ed.]
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
   והבגד או השתי או הערב או כל כלי העור אשר תכבס וסר מהם הנגע, “but if the garment, or the warp or the woof or any leather utensil which has been washed and then the affliction left them, etc.” The Torah mentioned already in verses 56-57 that a garment on which a nega tzoraat had been identified and that stain had dimmed after washing the area afflicted, has to be ripped out. If however, the stain appears to grow, the whole garment has to be burned. If the stain has been removed through washing it, the garment must then be immersed in a ritual bath in order to regain its state of purity. This is the meaning of the additional words וכבס שני וטהר, “it must be washed a second time to become purified.” This “second” washing refers to immersion in a ritual bath.  Everything connected with the legislation of afflictions to garments or skin (or houses) is of a miraculous nature (Tanchuma Metzora 4). Let us illustrate the subject by means of a parable. An unsatisfactory slave had been sold by his master. When the new master buys him he is perfectly aware that the previous master had been dissatisfied with that slave and that this is why he wanted to divest himself of him. Seeing that this is so, the new master equipped himself with handcuffs in order to restrain the slave in case of need. Similarly, G’d. When G’d created man He was perfectly aware that man (the servant) would in due course commit sins, etc. G’d therefore arranged for means of afflictions to serve to straighten out man’s behaviour pattern. When G’d felt He needed to employ means of restraining man, He would first afflict man’s house. This is the meaning of Leviticus 14,34: “I shall afflict a house in the land of your inheritance with an affliction of tzoraat.” If, as a result of seeing the stones of his house afflicted, the person concerned becomes a penitent, all well and good; if not, G’d will smite his clothing as a second warning. This is the meaning of the words והבגד אשר יהיה בו נגע צרעת, “and the garment which will be afflicted with a nega tzoraat” (13,47). If the afflicted person now does teshuvah, all well and good; only if both of these warnings were ignored will G’d actually afflict the skin of the sinner. Even then He will only afflict a small area of skin initially. If after being quarantined and ostracised temporarily, such a person still does not learn his lesson then the affliction is allowed to spread, eventually resulting in his becoming for all intents and purposes an outcast. Apparently, the initial stages of personal afflictions are the loss of hair on a man’s head (13,40). This is still not a conclusive symptom and his isolation is only of a provisional nature. If that person persists in his asocial conduct, etc., he will be smitten with a skin affliction such as שאת או ספחת as mentioned in 13,2.   In their commentary on Ruth in Ruth Rabbah 2,10 the sages stated that the merciful Lord does not punish the sinner on his body in the first instance but first exacts retribution from his possessions. Only when such “hints” fail to have a sobering effect on the people concerned does He proceed to inflict harm on the body of the person. We observe such a phenomenon in the case of Job. G’d had told Satan initially to test Job’s piety only by depriving him of his material goods (Job 1,12). Subsequently, after he had stood that test saying: “the Lord gave the Lord took may the name of the Lord be praised,” did He give permission for Job to experience the loss of his children and, eventually, he was subjected to personal suffering on his body.   The same happened when G’d struck the Egyptians with the 10 plagues. In the first instance, when the river turned into blood, this was merely a financial blow to the people as they had to buy water from the Israelites or had to dig for it (Exodus 7,21-25). G’d afflicted their livestock next, and eventually He killed their firstborn.   The afflictions mentioned both in this portion and in the next follow a similar pattern although they are not recorded in the order in which they occur. First G’d afflicts a man’s house. If he becomes a penitent, taking the hint, the afflicted stones on his house have to be removed and replaced (14,40). If he fails to respond to the implied warning to become a penitent, the entire house will have to be razed to the ground (14,45). If this also fails to produce the desired result, G’d will afflict that sinner’s clothing  (13,56). If this does not produce the desired result G’d will afflict the person of the sinner. Thus far the Midrash.
     We see from the example of the negaim that G’d’s supervision of man’s fate (Israel’s) is comprehensive. No aspect of these phenomena is due to natural causes. Every phenomenon as well as its sequence is supernatural. Moreover, no such phenomena ever occurred outside the boundaries of the Holy Land. According to Nachmanides we must not misunderstand this to mean that it was the nature of the soil in the Holy Land to respond in such a fashion to non-observance of certain laws of the Torah. The phenomena merely reflect that the Lord watches with special intensity everything which goes on amongst the Jewish people while they live in Eretz Yisrael. These phenomena testify to the presence of guilt amongst the Israelites. (compare Psalms 89,33) “I will punish their iniquity with plagues.” All of this in order to encourage the guilty to leave that path and to return to G’d faithfully so as to rid themselves of their guilt. We find an allusion to all this even in the words of our portion (13,13) כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא, “if all of him has turned white he will be ritually clean.” The line has a double meaning, i.e. that not only has the entire skin of the afflicted person turned white, but it is considered a symptom that he has become free from sin.    In order to understand G’d’s loving approach even to the ones who sinned against him, the legislation about houses displaying these kinds of stains is introduced (14,34) with the words “I will give a plague of tzoraat on your house.” Is this then “a gift” that G’d describes it as such? Indeed it is, as instead of punishing the sinner on his body G’d gives him this kind of a warning. The wording “I will give” is applied simultaneously to the giving of the land as possession to the Jewish people and as the experience of such plagues. This teaches that the whole legislation applies only in Eretz Yisrael, not even in Jerusalem as that city has not been allocated as part of any tribe’s ancestral territory but belongs to the entire nation (Yuma 12). Only the parts of the land known as ארץ אחוזה, “inalienable inherited property,” are subject to the נגעים legislation. May we all live to see that land rebuilt in the near future!
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
    מפרי פי איש תשבע בטנו תבואת שפתיו ישבע, “A man’s belly is filled with the fruit of his mouth he will be filled by the produce of his lips.” (Proverbs 18,20)
   In this verse Solomon told us something about the power of the tongue (speech), be it for good or for evil. If man employs the power of speech to speak words of Torah, to admonish people to live according to Torah and to thereby help Jewish society to acquire spiritual merits for themselves, then his reward is with him, and his works are a beacon shining before him.” [He will be recognized for his true worth. Ed.] (Isaiah 40,10). On the other hand, if he uses the power of speech to engage in slander, character assassination, and the like, his punishment will be served up to him and he will have to consume it to his being more than sated with it. We must therefore understand the beginning of this verse as applying to the dissemination of evil gossip and the like; and the end, i.e. the words “his mouth will be filled by the produce of his lips,” as referring to the reward in store for those who use their power of speech judiciously, providing spiritual merits for the society in which they live. This is also the meaning of another saying of Solomon in Proverbs 18,21 “Death and life are in the power of the tongue; those who love it will eat its fruit.” What the author is saying is that seeing the tongue controls death and life, if someone loves the tongue, i.e. is anxious to keep talking at all times, he should endeavour to choose subjects which are liable to enhance his life, i.e. speak words of wisdom, moral and ethical exhortation, etc. If he does so he will get to eat (as a reward) the fruit of the power of speech. Only in that case will people who are fond of talking increase their own merit in proportion to their frequent use of the tongue.    In the reverse case, i.e. someone who loves to talk but uses his tongue indiscriminately, so that he engages in gossiping and worse, as his punishment he will eat “the fruit of that punishment.” Considering all this it is important to be most circumspect in the use of one’s tongue. The Torah has shown us on several occasions that if someone abuses his power of speech and uses it negatively he will be afflicted with the disease of tzoraat. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 have found that the very words introducing the subject of the מצורע could be paraphrased as זאת תורת המוציא שם רע, “this is the law about people who indulge in character assassination.”
   זאת תהיה תורת המצורע ביום טהרתו והובא אל הכהן, “this shall be the law of the person afflicted with tzoraat; on the day he regains purity he is to be brought to the priest.” The sages in Tanchuma Metzora 1 have explained that this affliction is a retribution for the evil tongue as we know from Kohelet 5,5: “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh.” Solomon means to not give permission to your mouth to express words which will harm the rest of your body. Do not subsequently say to the angel who is in charge of you (remainder of the verse in Kohelet) that it was an unintentional aberration. Every word a person utters is recorded in a book, be it something appropriate or inappropriate, be it intentional or unintentional. “Why should G’d have reason to be angry at what you have said? Why should He have to thwart the work of your hands?” The “work of your hands” which Solomon refers to in that verse are the hand and feet of your body which will become afflicted with skin disorders.    Another explanation pertaining to the above verse in Kohelet: the words אל תתן את פיך, “do not let your mouth, etc.;” these words are an example of the Torah using inoffensive language for a serious admonition. In this instance it means “do not allow your mouth to become guilty, etc.;” if your wife told you that she started to menstruate do not bring sin upon her body by ignoring her state of impurity and cohabiting with her. The words following, i.e. ואל תאמר לפני המלאך  “and do not say to the angel” (who is in charge of determining the appearance and physical health of the unborn fetus) that you committed that sin inadvertently, that you were unaware of your wife’s ritual impurity at the time she conceived the fetus; the words למה יקצוף אלו-הים וחבל מעשיך, “why should G’d become angry and frustrate your actions” (the semen which was meant to produce a health child?) mean that Solomon attributes physical blemishes in children as caused by the sins committed by the parent (or parents) when having marital relations.    Yet another approach to the verse in Kohelet: Solomon means “why should you incriminate yourself and your flesh by ignoring the laws of G’d so that you will need an angel (priests are referred to as angels of the Lord by the prophet Maleachi 2,7)  who would have to preside over your becoming healed ultimately?” You would only be deceiving yourself, why make G’d angry? The words מעשה ידיך, “the work of your hands,” refer to the fetus which you helped to produce and who will be struck with the tzoraat disease as a result of your sin.
      When the Torah in our verse continues with the words “on the day he wants to become purified,” this means that on that day he must be brought to the priest. This teaches that it is impossible for the purification to become halachically effective without the priest declaring the subject to have become ritually pure. Although the word והובא, “he is brought to the priest,” sounds as if the afflicted person has to come to the priest, this is not so. The priest goes to see the afflicted person outside the camp. This is clear from the words “the priest will go outside the camp and inspect the affliction” (verse 3).
      Tanchuma Metzora 2, quoting Proverbs 18,21 that “life and death are within the power of the tongue,” says that everything depends on the tongue. If it is used properly it confers life, if it is abused it results in death for its owner. The word חיים, “life" in that context refers to Torah which has been described as עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, “it is a tree of life for the ones who hold on to it.” In fact, Torah is an effective medication against the damage one has inflicted upon oneself through indulging in evil gossip. The Midrash bases this on Proverbs 15,4: “a tree of life is a healing tongue.” If the person had been engaged in disseminating evil gossip he had thereby forfeited his life; the sin of spreading evil gossip is considered morally as worse than killing. The reason is that when one kills one only kills a single life, whereas when one spreads evil gossip about someone one causes death to at least three people, i.e. the one who tells it, the one who listens to it (approvingly), and the one concerning whom the gossip is related.    Let us take an historical example from Samuel I 22,16: Doeg the Edomite who spread gossip about Achimelech son of Achitov was killed. Achimelech was killed by Saul who had accepted the slander without investigating it. King Saul was also killed as we know from Chronicles I 10,13: “Saul died on account of the trespass he committed against the Lord.” Saul himself is quoted as telling the Amalekite youth to give him the last stab as he was already in the throes of a death struggle” (Samuel II 1,9). He had become guilty for destroying Nov the city of priests  based on evil gossip which he had not checked out. The word שבץ used by Saul and which we translated as “death throes,” are understood by the sages as a reference to the priestly garments as we know from Exodus 28,13 ועשית משבצות זהב, “make them  golden settings.”      Doeg the Edomite was uprooted not only from life on earth but also from the hereafter as we know from Psalms 52,7: a hymn composed on that occasion, “G’d will tear you down for good, will break you and pluck you from your tent, and root you out of the land of the living, Selah.” [For a brilliant analysis of this psalm read the Alshich’s commentary. Ed.]    What is a greater sin? He who kills with the sword or he who kills by shooting an arrow? We would assume that killing by an arrow is the greater sin as the archer does not have to risk his own life in personal combat in order to achieve his goal. If this is true, it is clear that he who engages in evil gossip is guilty of the worst kind of assassination as he keeps out of danger himself. This is why character assassination is compared to shooting arrows at the victim such as in Jeremiah 9,7: “their tongue is sharpened like an arrow, they use their mouths to deceive; one speaks to his fellow in friendship, but lays an ambush for him in his heart.” Another verse describing something similar is found in Psalms 57,5: “people whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongue is a sharp sword.”
      Evil gossip is a greater sin than “mere” murder, idolatry or indulging one’s carnal instincts indiscriminately. Proof that it is worse than murder is deduced from Genesis 4,13 where Kayin describes his sin as too severe to endure its burden. It is more serious than indulging one’s carnal instincts with partners forbidden to one as we know from Joseph (Genesis 39,9) who explained the severity of that sin to the wife of Potiphar. It is more serious than idolatry seeing that when Moses described this sin committed by the Jewish people to G’d when they worshipped the golden calf  he said: “indeed the people committed a very great sin.” When describing the sin of לשון הרע on the other hand, (Psalms 12,4) David invokes G’d pleading: “may the Lord cut off all flattering lips, every tongue that speaks גדולות, “arrogance.”  The commentators understand the plural of the word גדולות in that psalm as describing the sin of abusing the power of the tongue as a “double” sin, i.e. more severe than a single sin such as worshipping idols, for instance. This is why Solomon said that life and death are at the disposal of one’s tongue.   Look at what happened to Miriam who was struck with the disease of tzoraat (Numbers 12,1) because she spoke against Moses. What did she do that was so terrible? She spoke to her own brother (Aaron) privately, not within the hearing of Moses nor of anyone else. She was well-intentioned meaning to reunite Moses with his wife whom he had divorced. The Torah describes G’d’s reaction as fierce, and had Moses not interceded on her behalf she would not have been cured. To this day we recite the lines of Deut. 24,9 in which the Torah demands that we remember what Miriam was guilty of and how G’d punished her. You may apply a little logic to see how serious is the ordinary sin of spreading evil gossip when you reflect on what happened to well-intentioned Miriam who had spoken privately to her brother. How will G’d react to people who deliberately besmirch someone’s reputation by the tales they spread about him? Consider what the Torah wrote immediately prior to the reminder to remember what G’d did to Miriam (Deut. 24,8) The Torah writes: “beware of the tzoraat affliction, be very careful and act according to everything the priests and Levites teach you.” Even Aaron, who was the High Priest, (and had not said a word) was struck with that affliction seeing that the Torah said that G’d was angry “at them,”‘ i.e. not merely at Miriam. Aaron was healed immediately, seeing his was the lesser sin as he had not said anything, had only listened without admonishing Miriam. We know that Aaron must have been cured immediately as the Torah only writes of Miriam having been quarantined outside the camp for seven days delaying the Israelites’ journey during that period (Numbers 12,15).    You will also find that the original serpent, the first creature ever to engage in slander against its Creator, was struck with tzoraat as the Torah reports G’d saying to the serpent “because you have done this, etc., you are cursed” (Genesis 3,14). The curse consisted of the serpent being afflicted with tzoraat. Our sages derive this from the expression צרעת ממארת היא in Leviticus 13,52. On these words Rav Hunna quoted a comment by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who said that the scales on the skin of the snake are a form the tzoraat took when it afflicted the serpent (compare Bereshit Rabbah 20,4). This was not the full extent of the serpent’s punishment. We have a tradition that in the world to come (after the resurrection), people who suffered from diverse deformities while on earth the previous time will be resurrected as completely healthy and with unblemished bodies. The snake will be the only exception to this rule. Seeing that Isaiah wrote (Isaiah 35,6): ”then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shall shout aloud,” the prophet prophesies resurrection of the beasts mentioning that domesticated beasts and lions will graze together; however the snake will still have to eat dust  as it will never be cured from its affliction (compare Isaiah 11,6). The reason is that the serpent through its use of the tongue dragged man into the dust, (caused his mortality, Tanchuma Metzora 2).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . שתי צפרים חיות טהורות, “two live birds, of the pure species.” All “pure” birds are known as צפור. We know this from Deut. 14,11: כל צפור טהורה תאכלו, “you may eat all the birds belonging to the species known as צפור טהורה.” This excludes birds known as עופות טמאות. This means that although the bird itself has all the symptoms of purity, the fact that it has been associated with forbidden practices such as birds belonging to people of an עיר הנדחת, “a city condemned to destruction because the majority of its inhabitants worshipped idols,” makes such a bird “unclean.” Or, for instance, if such a bird of the “pure species” killed a human being, it also forfeits its status of being a צפור טהורה, and may not be eaten or used as an offering.
      A Midrashic approach (compare Tanchuma Metzora 3)  to the wording in our verse: G’d said that the sacrifice to be brought by people who have overcome their affliction should consist of birds which twitter a lot so as to remind the person offering this sacrifice that the indiscriminate use of their tongue had been the cause of their suffering the affliction in the first place. In other words: “let the sound of the bird atone for the sound made by its owner.”
     ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “and cedarwood, crimson thread and hyssop.” The verse mentioned both the most precious and the lowliest of plants. Solomon did the same thing in Kings I, 5,13 when he was described as lecturing about the cedars of the Lebanon and the hyssop. Our sages comment that the inclusion of both types of plants in the same breath teach that if one had arrogated to oneself the mien of something superior to oneself, i.e. given oneself a title that one had not earned, the only way to atone for this and to regain one’s true station in life is to demean oneself to the level of the lowest in the social order, the hyssop (compare Rashi).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   על פני השדה, “in the open country.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that the live bird is released into open country is connected to the fact that the disease it atones for, i.e. carries away with it in a symbolic fashion, was one that was infectious. It is appropriate therefore to release the bird to where it is unlikely to infect anyone (compare Ibn Ezra). This would also explain the spirit of impurity which had settled on the afflicted person as a result of his having submitted to these negative emanations originating with the original serpent. This is all due to his behavior which paralleled that of that serpent when it engaged in slander. This is also why throughout the Talmud and even in the Torah, (compare Aaron’s plea on behalf of Miriam  in Numbers 12,12) a  person afflicted with this dread disease is compared to a dead person, i.e. the root cause of all defilement and ritual impurity.    Another allusion contained in the words על פני השדה  may be to the פורחות השדה, “tramp-like demons,” which infest those areas much as Satan is at home in the desert. Remember that the bird being released here had first been dipped in the blood of its mate which had been slaughtered. The whole procedure of what is happening to the two birds and their atoning for the sin of an individual is reminiscent of the two male goats on Yom Kippur which atone for the collective sins of the people, the live scapegoat being consigned to virgin territory as a “gift, or bribe to Satan.” In this instance the live bird “carried” with it the sins of the person on whose behalf it was offered.    This bird was not allowed to be released either to the desert or the sea as we know from Torat Kohanim Sifra Metzora 2,5 where the examples given are that one must not stand in Jaffa and release the bird in the direction of the sea, nor must one stand in some cultivated area of the country and release the bird into the desert.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  . ובא אשר לו הבית, “and the one to whom the house belongs shall come, etc.” Our sages in Yuma 11 read out of these words that the house in question is under the exclusive control of one person who does not wish to lend furniture or utensils or invite guests to his house. If the house was struck with tzoraat this was in response to the tight-fisted nature of its owner. This is what is meant by “the one whose house it is must come to the priest and tell him that an affliction similar to tzoraat has infested the stones of his house.”
      A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah 17,7: The owner of the house described here is G’d; the words “he shall tell the priest” refer to the prophet Jeremiah; the words “something like the symptoms of a plague has inflicted my house,” refer to the idol placed in the Holy Temple by King Menashe of Yehudah.
  
  Verse 36
  
  . וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית, “and the priest will issue instructions and they will clear out the house, etc.” The Torah is protective about the Israelites’ possessions, even for such inexpensive vessels as the ones made of earthenware. The vessels mentioned in our verse are such as the Torah speaks about protecting against becoming impure. Vessels of other materials can be purified by means of immersion in a ritual bath, the earhenware vessels cannot. If there is food and drink left over, the person may consume them during the days when he is ritually impure, so that he would not suffer an irreparable loss. It is clear therefore that what the Torah is concerned with here are only earthenware vessels.
  
  Verse 37
  
  . והנה הנגע בקירות הבית, “and here the affliction is on the walls of the house.” Up until this point the Torah had listed 10 different kinds of negaim, afflictions; six of them occur on the body of a person; they are שאת, ספחת, בהרת, שחין, נתק, מריטת הראש. Four additional afflictions infect things other than his body such as woolen garments, linen garments, leather garments or utensils, and the walls of a house.
   You will find that the ten are arranged in the order in which we just mentioned them. There is a correlation here to the Ten Commandments. The message is that as long as the Israelites observe the Ten Commandments, i.e. the Torah which the Ten Commandments represent, they will not experience any of these ten afflictions. If they fail to honour the Torah and its precepts they will become victims of what the Torah has listed in the way of nega-im.
     שקערורות, “depressed;” Our sages in Sifra Metzora 6,5 claim that the appearance of these afflictions in the walls was as if that area was depressed, recessed. The reason that the Torah in this paragraph switches to the plural although the word נגע is in the singular, is that the owner of the house as well as his neighbour must share in the cost of removing the infected stones. This is what the Sifra Metzora 4,2 had in mind  when they said אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, “woe to the wicked and his neighbour.” As soon as talk of the demolition has been concluded, the Torah reverts to the singular such as with the words קציע, וטח, etc. This is meant to tell us that only the person whose house had displayed definitive symptoms of the nega has to bear the cost of the restoration. In other words, the labor has to be shared but the cost has to be borne by the owner of the house alone.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  . והבא אל הבית, “anyone who comes to the house, etc.,” a house which has been sealed provisionally does not confer impurity on everyone who enters it. This is why the Torah uses the expression  הבא אליו“who enters,” i.e. if the person enters through the regular doorway. If such a person remains inside long enough to eat half a loaf of bread he and his clothing and any other items he carries or wears are defiled through his stay. If his stay is of shorter duration only his person becomes impure as a result of his entering. 
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
   וכפר על הבית וטהר, “he shall provide atonement for the house and it will become purified.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the affliction on a person’s house is not viewed as seriously as an affliction on his garments or his body, the Torah did not demand that the purification rites include bringing also a guilt-offering and a sin-offering. All such a person has to do is bring the bird-offerings presented by a poor person who was afflicted with tzoraat on his skin, plus the cedarwood and the hyssop.
  
  Verse 54
  
  זאת התורה לכל נגע הצרעת ולנתק, ולצרעת הבגד ולבית, ולשאת ולספחת ולבהרת,  “This is the legislation for every tzoraat affliction and the netek; and afflictions on the garments and the house; and of the se-eth, the sapachat, and the baheret.” Even though the tradition handed down to us concerning all these laws is the reliable one, i.e. that the sequence in which G’d afflicts potential victims is that first He afflicts their houses to give them a chance to repent, followed by afflictions on the garments hoping that the sinners will mend their ways, and that only as a last resort does G’d afflict the bodies of the sinners concerned, the fact remains that in the written Torah the order is reversed, the Torah commencing the legislation with  skin disorders, followed by similar disorders on the garments followed by the houses which display signs that the walls are afflicted.    The reason the Torah chose to write the sequence which we find before us rather than the sequence our sages have told us, is  that the Torah’s ways are ways of pleasantness (Proverbs 3,17). Had the Torah followed the reverse pattern of reporting these kinds of afflictions we would have read of matters going from bad to worse; this would not have made for edifying reading. As it is, the Torah first lists the most severe afflictions, proceeding to describe afflictions which are progressively easier on the victim, i.e. that only his garments or the walls of his house undergoes an affliction.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא, “any man who will have a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is contaminated.” Rashi comments that the last two words, זובו טמא, refer to the drop of the discharge which confers impurity on the person whom it touches. The appearance of the discharge described here is similar to the colour of water from a dough made from barley flour; it is also similar in appearance to the white of an egg turned bad, i.e. mixed with the yolk. This is different from sperm which looks like the white of an egg which retained its consistency.   The Torah adds the words (verse 3) רר בשרו את זובו, “running with the discharge from his flesh;” to tell us that the discharge resembles the saliva which comes out of the mouth as a clear fluid. When the verse continues with או החתים בשרו מזובו, this describes a thicker opaque fluid which has a tendency to block the exit from the urinal canal.    The reason  that the man afflicted with this disease has to bring only two birds as an offering after he has completed the purification rites is that seeing he had been smitten with a severe and infectious disease from which he has been healed by the grace of G’d, he has to offer the thanksgiving offerings anyone who has recovered from a serious disease is commanded to offer. The Torah does not belabor that point at this stage. The sin-offering legislated here is so that G’d will grant atonement for any sin which had caused the disease in the first place. The burnt-offering is an expression of gratitude for having been healed from the discharge.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   וידיו לא שטף במים, “before he rinsed his hands in water.” The Torah does not mean this literally but means an immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath (compare Maimonides Mikvaot 1,2). The reason the Torah used the expression שטף is because the Torah wanted to indicate that nothing must prevent the water from touching the entire surface of the body. In other words, the water must be applied to the whole body just as when you wash your hands the entire hand is touched by the water. The word occurs in 6,21 ומורק ושוטף במים, “purged and rinsed in water,” where it clearly means that the copper vessel of which the Torah speaks must be completely covered by water. We find the word also in Jeremiah 47,2, לנחל שוטף, “the waters shall become a raging torrent.” According to Rashi, the use of the word for “rinsing” mentioned here means that if the water in the ritual bath did not enter hidden crevices of the body but came into contact only with surfaces of the body this would suffice. Just as the hand has no hidden crevice, so only the parts of the body which can easily be accessed by the water are meant.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ורחץ במים את כל בשרו, “he must wash his entire body with water.” This is the only time in connection with the legislation of ritual impurity that the Torah speaks of washing “the entire body.” Even when purification from more severe levels of ritual impurity is discussed, such as the person suffering a discharge, the Torah did not demand that “the whole body” be washed. The reason for all this may have to do with the four basic raw materials man is made of, i.e. fire, spirit (wind), water and dust. This was not the order in which these elements appear in the report of the creation in Genesis where the first element mentioned is the spirit (רוח) in Genesis 1,1, followed by water and  fire and dust (earth).
   In the Sefer Yetzira, (oldest kabbalistic text)  air-(רוח)- fire-water are listed as the three “mothers,” so-called because they are like mothers to all that is found in the universe. These three elements are perceived as “descended” from the other, i.e. air begets water and water begets fire. This view is supported by verses from the Scriptures, of course. When the Torah writes in Genesis 1,2: בהו, וחושך; this means that fire is descended from water. The words ורוח אלו-הים מרחפת על פני המים mean that the water is “descended” from the element  רוח, “air or spirit.” This is the reason why in our daily prayers we refer to the sequence משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם, “who makes the air blow and makes the rain descend.” Support for the statement that fire is “descended” from water comes from the scientific fact that fire is [or at least may be Ed.] extracted from water. (compare Talmud Beytzah Mishnah folio 33 that “on the festival it is forbidden to extract fire from the water.”) [apparently experiments were conducted with glass bottles filled with water being exposed to intense sunlight. After a while, due to the water having become overheated, the glass burst into flames. quoted by Rashi. Ed.] Dust, i.e. earth is “descended” from fire. The reference is to the fertiliser left behind after something has been burned up. [Dust or earth in this instance refers to the earth and its ability to produce crops, etc. Perhaps the earth thrown up as volcanic ash is the best example of fire “producing” fertile earth. Ed.]    When these three elements surface as part of a human being they have been metamorphosed, the white part of man corresponds to the element water; the red part of man corresponds to the element fire; the black part of man corresponds to the element dust=earth. The element רוח, “spirit,” which is a fundamental part of man is the basic element and dominates all the other elements of which he is composed.
      It is common knowledge that every such element contains within it particles of each of the four elements; seeing that this is so whenever one of these elements displays signs of becoming dominant, the other parts of the same element which up to that time were dormant within their respective “master” element, now awaken. Let us say that the רוח המתאוה, “the element called the spirit of desire“ awakens in a person, the parallel minor particles of that element which had been lying dormant within the other three elements now “awaken” even while the other three elements and their respective minor particles within them remain “asleep, dormant.” Seeing that the element רוח was the basic element which aroused these “dormant” particles of it within the other elements, it may be considered as “eternally awake, never dormant.” Seeing that this is so our verse demands that the person who has had an emission of sperm wash his entire body as due to the desire awakened in all parts of the body as a result of that emission, or “wakeful state of the spirit of desire,” the secondary particles of that spirit throughout the other parts of the body have been awakened, have been activated. Seeing they were all participants, they all have to be immersed in water for the entire body to become purified. The element called “spirit of desire” is different from the other three elements making up the body, as the other three are “dead” when the body is asleep. This fourth element, the רוח המתאוה, “the spirit of desire,” is not “dead” even while the body is asleep.  The reason that there is a need for purification of the entire body in water is that the drop of sperm in question was not even potentially able to fertilize a woman’s ovum seeing that its “partners” in the body of the person emitting it had been asleep, i.e. “dead” when this emission occurred. They had not agreed to it, so to speak. Seeing that as a result of these considerations the sperm was defective, useless, it produced a greater degree of impurity than normal cohabitation between man and woman.     When you look at verse 18 in our verse describing cohabitation between a man and a woman (while both are awake I presume), the Torah, while requiring that they both “wash in water,” does not require that they bathe their entire body in water as it did here concerning a nocturnal emission. The reason is that all parts of the “elements” were “awake” in both parties to this sexual union, i.e. gave their consent, thus enabling the sperm to potentially fertilise an ovum.
      A further consideration explaining the difference in the degree of purification required between people who cohabit and someone who experiences a nocturnal involuntary emission of semen, is that an intentional emission of semen prepares the semen to be imbued with the power to become alive, as it represents the natural urges of the body emitting it, its true purpose. Although the Torah does decree impurity for a person indulging in such a normal, in fact mandatory activity if he wants to fulfill the commandment of being fruitful, most people are not dominated by such lofty considerations at the time they indulge their libido. [I have paraphrased this somewhat. Ed.] However, when semen is emitted nocturnally, the very material may be considered as at least ”semi-dead” seeing that the spirit of the person is asleep, he is not in the least motivated by the intention of fulfilling a positive commandment.  You may wish to compare our verse with Deut. 23,11-12: “If there be amongst you a man who will not be clean because of a nocturnal emission of semen, he shall go outside the camp; he shall not enter the midst of the camp; when it will be toward evening he shall wash (immerse) himself in water, ירחץ במים, and when the sun sets he may enter the midst of the camp.” In that instance the Torah does not mention the words כל בשרו, “all of his flesh,” as it did in our verse. The meaning of the words ירחץ בשרו therefore is the same as in other similar verses, i.e. את כל בשרו, “all of his flesh.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואשה כי תהיה זבה, דם יהיה זובה בבשרה, “when a woman has a discharge,-the discharge from her flesh being blood;” the reason the Torah adds the words דם יהיה זובה is to contrast it with the discharge of a man who emits a whitish fluid.   שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה, “she will remain in her state of separation for seven days;” even if she saw only a single discharge she must still remain in her state of impurity for seven days. 
  This entire paragraph discusses the normal menstruation of a woman experiencing her monthly cycle. The verses are rather inconclusive when read at first glance. We do not find any mention of the woman in question requiring immersion in a ritual bath; the only thing we are told is that if someone touches the bed she has lain on while she is in the state of impurity described, such a person is contaminated by her ritual impurity. The Torah does say (verse 21) that this second person will have to immerse himself in a ritual bath in order to become ritually pure again.   We find a responsum quoted by Tosafot Yuma 78 that Rabbi Yehuda Gaon was told in answer to his inquiry that the requirement of a menstruous woman to immerse herself in a ritual bath at the conclusion of the seven days (minimum) is a Biblical requirement derived by simple logic (קל וחומר). “If someone merely touching her bed requires immersion in a ritual bath in order to regain his ritual purity, she, who is the source of that impurity, most certainly does not require any less.”    The Talmud Shabbat 64 understands the words “she shall remain seven days in her state of separation” to mean  that this is the minimum length of time before she is allowed to immerse herself in a ritual bath. This is in contrast to her companion who has touched her bed who may immerse himself immediately and be ritually clean after sunset on that day. The Torah makes her regaining her ritual purity subject to two conditions, a) the number of days after she started menstruating, b) that she immerses herself in a ritual bath. 
  Some of the authorities such as Maimonides (Issurei Biah 4:3) derived the law from the words ורחצו במים, “they are to immerse themselves in water” (Verse 18).  They consider that verse as the בנין אב, precedent, for all similar situations when people who have incurred ritual impurity have to immerse themselves in a ritual bath in order to regain their status of being ritually pure.    Our sages (Ketuvot 61) have said further that a woman who is ritually unclean due to her menstruation may perform all the normal tasks she ordinarily performs for her husband, the exception being that she must not pour wine or water into his cup, put linen on his bed, or wash his hands or feet. Seeing that she is so used to pour drinks into his cup, as long as there is a reminder on the table to remind him not to touch her due to her state of impurity she may even fill his cup. One such “reminder” would be that she performs this task with her alternate hand, i.e. if she is right-handed, with her left hand. She is not to pour directly into his cup even with the left hand but to put the jug on the table after having filled it with her left hand. Abbaye used to put the cup of wine of her husband on top of the wine-casket at such times, whereas his colleague Rava’s wife put it at the side of his pillow. Changing the linen of the husband’s bed is only prohibited in the husband’s presence; when he is not present the wife may perform this chore. Washing her husband’s hands and feet is prohibited not only with hot water but even with cold water. If the wife contravened this rule and in the process touched her husband’s body this is considered equivalent to קירוב בשר, and even touching her husband only with her small finger is prohibited. She is not even allowed to pour the water on her husband without actually coming into contact with him. Such an act would result in too close an association between their minds.   A person must endeavour to keep a certain distance from his wife during the days that she is נדה, menstrually impure. Our sages in Shabbat 13 base this on  Leviticus 18,6 לא תקרבון לגלות ערותן, “you must not approach to uncover nakedness.” The word תקרבון, implies not to come even near the person with whom sexual contact is forbidden. Seeing that within woman is the organ which enables the formation of human beings one must always conduct oneself with her in a state of purity in order for the baby to be conceived in a state of purity and for it to be able to receive its soul in a state of purity. It is common knowledge that the various character traits of a personality are strongly influenced by the condition of mother and father at the time of the baby’s conception (Compare Nachmanides Iggeret Hakodesh chapter 5).  Our sages in Keritut 2 have stated that if someone has sexual relations with a woman who is in a state of menstruation he becomes guilty of the penalty of karet, (premature death, or death without children). It is even forbidden to share the same bed with his wife if both husband and wife are fully clothed (Shabbat 13). This is based on Leviticus 18,19 לא תקרב לגלות ערותה, “do not approach (a woman in that state) to uncover her nakedness.” G’d has warned the Israelites not to conduct their sex lives in a manner similar to that of the Gentiles.
      If you will take a good look at this paragraph you will find that the Torah did not obligate the menstruous woman to offer a sacrifice at the termination of her period whereas the woman experiencing a discharge (of a similar nature, emanating from the same orifice in her body) has to bring an offering at the end of her purification period. The reason for this difference is that the monthly menstruation cycle is considered a “natural disease,” something that she does not get cured from during all her child-bearing years. This is why the Torah prescribed a fixed number of days which have to elapse before this “natural disease” is presumed to have disappeared.
      The discharge called זיבה is not of the same category; this is why when the Torah describes the phenomenon it emphasises that it occurs during the days of the month when menstruation cannot be expected (verse 25). Alternatively, this discharge may occur many days after she had finished her monthly cycle. This discharge is an abnormality just as the discharge of semen-like fluid in the male is an abnormality. In both instances the cure has to be followed by a sacrificial offering. It is worth noting that we are not familiar with the disease called נדה, menstrual discharge, amongst any other female species. It is something exclusive to the human species and due to the sin committed by the first woman when she ate from the tree of knowledge. According to Sotah 12 it was the result of a decree recorded at that time that not only she but all women after her would experience discomfort, pain, etc., in anything connected with conception, pregnancy, birthing, etc., (compare Genesis 3,16). Seeing that the beasts have no intelligence and their entire lives are not based on considerations involving reward and punishment, there is no reason to afflict the female of their species with such a natural disease.   One may speculate that due to the spirit of impurity which has become an integral part of woman ever since that experience with the serpent, woman is able to display drops of blood on a mirror or glass surface after she has looked at it with intensity during the beginning of her state of menstruation. (compare what we wrote on Leviticus 12,2 at the end.)
      You should also know that although the state of being נדה is a “natural disease,” it is something beneficial for the fetus that will develop after she has been cured and has resumed marital relations with her husband, as during the period of her menstruation her body discharged extraneous, potentially harmful materials from her body. When a new fetus is conceived its conception occurs under biologically optimal conditions. The woman’s “blood” which is her contribution is in a medically purified state at that time. In that condition the fetus is able to receive Divine input, i.e. intelligence. [The author perceives of intelligence as an “angel,” intermediary between man and his G’d, according to Ibn Ezra’s introduction on Genesis. Ed.] Elimination of menstrual blood from a woman’s body is comparable to the removal of rust from iron. Only after this rust has been removed can the iron absorb the rays of sunlight in its full effectiveness. These considerations explain why the phenomenon of menstruation is found in human females but not in female animals. An allusion to this basic difference between man and beast is that baby animals derive their mother’s milk from a part of the body adjoining the sex of the animal, whereas human babies suckle on the mother’s breast which is far closer to the head, the seat of man’s intelligence. Each species derives its nutrients from areas adjacent to those representing its primary function.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
    ימים רבים, “many days.” Our sages (Sifra Zavim section 5, items  8-9) define the word רבים here as “three.” They reason as follows: had the Torah spoken only of ימים, “days,” I would have assumed that what is meant is two days. Why would I have concluded that the word ימים refers to only two and not many? Rabbi Akiva said that whenever a word lends itself to two possible interpretations, one involving more than the other, I choose the minimum meaning compatible with that word; in this instance the minimum of ימים is “two.” Rabbi Nechemyah said: Does then the text of the Torah mean to confuse us? Surely it is meant to enlighten us! If you were to say that the word ימים without the addition רבים could have meant either ten, a hundred, or two hundred, etc., the choices would be unlimited and confusing. Therefore by understanding the word ימים as meaning the minimum, i.e. “two,” the Torah opened the way for us to understand its meaning.  Rabbi Mona said: the word ימים without further detail means “two.” In the event I would have thought that it means many days this would be superfluous as the Torah already wrote the word רבים, “many.” This indicates that the total number of days the Torah had in mind were relatively few. Seeing that such a minimum of a few days is two, it stands to reason that the word רבים increases this number by a further minimum, i.e. one day more, i.e. a total of three days.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Metzora 6): Seeing that the woman who is a Niddah has to observe at least seven days in that state how can three days be considered “many,” seeing seven days is much more than three days? Furthermore, we find in Kings I 18,1 that the prophet Jeremiah speaks of: “it was during these many years when G’d spoke to Elijah in the third year saying to him: ‘show yourself to Achav and I will bring on rain.’” The fact is that this did not take place after three years but it was only a single month after the first year full year of the drought had been completed! The drought began at the beginning of the last month of the year during which Elijah had proclaimed it; it lasted the entire second year, i.e. at the end of the second year no rain had fallen for 13 months. [When G’d told Elijah to reveal himself to Achav, one month had passed of the third year, so that altogether the famine had been in effect for only 14 months. Ed.] Seeing that the period under discussion was one in which hardship and discomfort was experienced, even a relatively short period was described as “many years;” the same is true here. Seeing that the period during which the woman remains relatively isolated and suffers indisposition is an unpleasant period for her, the Torah describes even three days of such a period as ’many days.’
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ואם טהרה מזובה, “when she becomes purified from her discharge, etc.;” when a woman with such a discharge begins the process of healing and purification she has to count seven days just as has the male who had experienced the discharge from his sexual organ. After the seven days have elapsed she is potentially pure, just as the male is potentially pure after the seven day count. This would have led us to believe that just as the male who had a similar discharge had to immerse himself in מים חיים, water directly from a spring, the woman would have to do the same.
  Seeing that the words “and after that she will be purified” are unnecessary, the sages decided that the woman though not requiring מים חיים, spring water to complete her purification rites, does require immersion in the regular ritual bath
     וספרה לה שבעת ימים, ”she has to count seven days for herself.” She does not have to recite a benediction prior to counting such as is the case when counting the Omer. The reason is that generally speaking, the benediction is recited immediately before the commandment is performed. In this instance, assuming that the woman in question were to see blood during the days she was counting, the days prior to that count would be retroactively annulled; as a result her benediction would amount to uttering the Lord’s name in vain. Due to such a consideration she is not allowed to recite the benediction over her count. 
  The reason why woman has been assigned the commandment to perform this count and the related procedures is best understood by the words of the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 13,17 that woman “spilled the blood of man,” i.e. caused his mortality. In return for this her own blood is to be spilled. This is also why the commandments to set aside challah and to light the Sabbath candles have been assigned to woman to give her an opportunity to rehabilitate the calamity original woman had caused. Adam was considered the challah of mankind, of the universe, as it were. Seeing that through her deed she extinguished the “light” of the universe on the original Sabbath eve, she was given the task to rehabilitate her species through the  lighting of the Sabbath candles every Sabbath eve.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  . והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “you shall separate the Children of Israel from their ritual impurities.” These additional words are the source for our sages having instructed husbands to separate from their wives when these are about to menstruate (Shevuot 18). As to the length of time a husband has to separate from his wife, Ravina said a 12-hour period. The Talmud Niddah 63 elaborates that if a woman was in the habit of seeing menstrual blood each month at midday, her husband has to stay away from her on that entire day, but he may cohabit with her on the preceding night. If she usually experiences this phenomenon in the second hour after daybreak, she is also still permitted to her husband on the preceding night. If, on the other hand, she usually notices such blood as beginning to flow during the night, even near daybreak, she is out of bounds for intercourse with her husband the entire night before that.  However, she is permitted to her husband during the entire daylight period preceding that night. Even if she normally experiences a blood flow during the second hour of the night, her husband may still disregard her approaching menstruation until sunset  before the night in question. According to theTalmud in Shevuot which we quoted, when a husband disregards these admonitions of the sages, his children (if not of age) even if of the excellence of the sons of Aaron, may be liable to die as a punishment for his lack of restraint. The sages derive all this from the admonition in our verse to separate themselves from contact with their contamination. Immediately after this paragraph the Torah reports (a second time) that the two older sons of Aaron had died. This may be taken as a warning. The sages have actually been warned by our verse to warn the people of the possible consequences of disregard of the instructions in this verse.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   והדוה בנדתה, “concerning a woman experiencing this flow, etc.” The sequence in which the Torah has arranged all the paragraphs describing these sources of impurity originating in our bodies is this: the Torah first listed the male who experiences an involuntary discharge of something similar to seminal fluid (verse 2); next the Torah writes about the result of cohabitation between man and woman (verse 18) resulting in contamination, seeing that also the first example (verse 16) of man having a nocturnal emission had resulted in such contamination. As a result, the Torah here can write: “this is the legislation concerning the male who experiences a discharge” (verse 32). This is followed  by the woman who experiences a vaginal discharge at times other than her menstrual cycle, followed by the woman who experiences her regular menstrual cycle (verse 33). At the very conclusion of our portion the Torah speaks about someone who defies this legislation by cohabiting with a woman while she is contaminated through vaginal discharge of either kind.
      If the Torah had remained true to the sequence followed earlier, the words ולאיש אשר ישכב עם טמאה, “and concerning the man who cohabits with a woman who is in a state of contamination,” should have been written before the words לזכר ולנקבה which would have made a more appropriate ending for this portion.   I believe the reason that the Torah changed the sequence of the words here was in order to conclude with the words עם טמאה, “with a contaminated woman,” in order to establish the conceptual linkage with the death of the sons of Aaron at the beginning of the next portion. The message is that the Israelites must be warned that unless they observe the laws legislated in our portion including separating themselves from their wives in anticipation of the menstrual cycle setting in, their children would be at risk. Tanchuma Acharey 6 quotes an opinion that the sons of Aaron died as they entered the Sanctuary in a state of ritual impurity not having purified themselves first. If that opinion is correct, the fact that our portion concludes with the words טמאה provides a conceptual link to the recapping of the death of the sons of Aaron in the following verse, the first in Parshat Acharey Mot. [Our author uses this verse to list all the various deficiencies the sons of Aaron have been accused of by the sages of the Midrash. Seeing this has been discussed at length in Leviticus 10,1, I have not repeated this here. Ed.]
       A Midrashic approach to our verse based on Tanchuma Metzora 9: when the Torah writes והדוה בנדתה, this is a reference to the Jewish people whose contamination is comparable to that of a menstruous woman. Such a woman while conferring ritual impurity on others is nonetheless slated to become purified again. Similarly, Israel, though in a state in which it disseminates impurity is liable to become purified again as we know from Ezekiel 36,17 “their way used to be before Me like that of the contaminated state of the menstruous woman.” Significantly, the prophet does not compare the impurity and contamination of the Jewish people as like the impurity and contamination of a dead body which is so severe that a priest may not even enter the house in which a body is lying, but describes it as a far lesser degree of contamination. Had the prophet compared the impurity of the Jewish people to that of a dead body no hope would have been held out for the eventual return of the Shechinah to the people. However, seeing their degree of impurity is compared to that of a נדה, this means that just as a priest may enter the house of such a woman and sit on the porch, so G’d may spread the wings of His Shechinah over the Jewish people even before they have become purified from their state of contamination, i.e. even while they are still in exile among the pagans. We have a specific verse confirming this  in Leviticus 16,16 השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם, “Who dwells with them amidst their contamination.” In that verse G’d is saying that “you are contaminated only in this world; in the world to come. I will purify you once and for all;” we know this from Ezekiel 36,25: “I will sprinkle upon you pure water and cleanse you from all your contaminations and from all your filth I will purify you.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  כי תשב ללחום את מושל בין תבין את אשר לפניך, “When you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider well who is before you.” (Proverbs 23,1).
   In this verse Solomon warns not to run after princes and after people appointed to the king’s palace in order to curry favor with them, seeing that He, G’d, is the ruler of the universe. Getting too close to the authorities will result in these people suffering damage seeing that rulers on earth are compared to fire, which while beneficial also spreads damage at the same time and consumes all those near it. The benefits derived from fire are that it warms you when you are cold and that it provides light. The damage accruing to those who come too close to it are that they will get burned. Our sages in Avot 1,10 have paraphrased this thought when they said: “hate the holding of high office and do not seek to become intimate with the authorities.”    The reason that the government is called רשות in the language of our sages is that they have the רשות, “authority,” and the power to do what they want, to open, to close, to save and to destroy. On the same subject our sages in Avot 2,3 also said: “be cautious with the ruling authorities, for they befriend you only for their own interest when it is to their advantage but they do not stand by a man in times of distress.”   The disadvantages cited as the danger when associating too closely with the authorities are in addition to the built-in problem that being involved with the authorities invariably brings in its wake a loosening of one’s ties to G’d, neglect of Torah study, seeing that time devoted to it will be interpreted as time spent at the expense of one’s duties vis-a-vis the demands of the state. This is what prompted Solomon to say in Proverbs 24,21: “fear the Lord my son and the king, do not associate with those who keep changing.” Solomon advises us to first and foremost cultivate fear of the Lord before worrying about respect for the local king. Under no circumstances should one have one’s priorities mixed up by first cultivating the relationship with one ‘s terrestrial ruler. If one were to do this it is tantamount to desecrating the name of the Lord.    Concerning this subject we can learn a lesson from the woman in Shunem who was asked by the prophet Elisha if he could do something for her such as interceding on her behalf with the king. Her response was that בתוך עמי אני יושבת, “I live inconspicuously amongst my people;” she meant that she did not want to get involved with the authorities (compare Kings II 4,8). These are the considerations which prompted Solomon to say “when you sit down to dine with the king, consider well who is before you.” Do not be in a hurry to become close to the authorities until you have weighed all the pros and cons. Consider what happened to people who preceded you in such positions. Solomon adds another verse dealing with the subject (Proverbs 29,26). ”Many seek a ruler’s audience, but a man gets justice from the Lord.” What the author meant is that although there are many supplicants wanting favors from a king only a few have their wishes granted so that they are permanent beneficiaries. If you are a discriminating intellect bent on pursuing permanently useful objectives you will refrain from chasing such favours, as the merely physical food served at the king’s table is truly not the sum total of your aspirations in life. Solomon therefore added in Proverbs 23,2: “thrust a knife into your gullet, if you are a man of large appetite.” This is the plain meaning of the above quotation.
      A more rational approach: The author speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven. Solomon warns man not to approach it over and beyond one’s mental capacities. We find other verses in Scripture describing G’d as מושל, ruler, such as Psalms 22,29: כי לה' המלוכה ומושל בגויים, “for kingship is the Lord’s and He rules the nations.” Keeping this thought in mind, Solomon warns you that when you sit down to eat with the ruler you better be clear what nearness to G’d entails, i.e. who qualifies for such an elevated station in life. You must appreciate that the food served at G’d’s table is soul-food, not of the type that is served at the table of a king of flesh and blood. The food you receive there is known as חכמה, the spiritual equivalent to the לחם, “bread,” served here on earth by human kings. The words בין תבין את אשר לפניך mean in essence that you must be sure to comprehend things about the nature of G’d by what is לפניך, “by what is before your eyes,” i.e. by the historical record of G’d’s actions. This is also what David said in Psalms 8,4: “when I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars that You set in place.” The word בין, “between,” suggests that there are two distinct kinds of insights that one must possess in order to properly appreciate the grandeur of G’d and His impact on history as well as on our individual fates. The very concept G’d, Creator, is not a point of departure in one’s thinking but is a conclusion one arrives at after having weighed all the phenomena we are familiar with. This is the meaning of Deut. 4,39: והשבות אל לבביך כי ה' הוא האלו-הים, “and let your heart come to the conclusion that the Lord is your G’d, etc.” When Elijah experienced a personal revelation at Mount Chorev after he had been disillusioned subsequent to what he thought would be G’d’s triumph at Mount Carmel, he had to experience a variety of supernatural phenomena before finally, a most insignificant phenomenon, a whisper, proved to be the real thing, the Presence of G’d (Kings I 19,11-12).    It is due to such considerations that Solomon hints that several insights have to be gained in order to appreciate certain truths about G’d.   If one is an intellectually oriented person, Solomon warns that one should not allow one’s intellectual curiosity to cause one to bite off more than one can chew (intellectually speaking); he couches the warning in these words: “thrust a knife in your gullet.” What he means is simple: you would do better to commit suicide than to reach beyond your intellectual capacity in coming close to the Lord. Solomon phrases this more clearly in Kohelet 7,16: “don’t act the wise man to excess or you will be dumbfounded.” You can  see what happened to the two sons of Aaron who were guilty precisely of the arrogance of overestimating their mental/moral capabilities when they were described at the revelation on Mount Sinai as feasting their eyes on divine visions, breaching barriers that had been designed to prevent precisely such a disaster from occurring (compare Exodus 19,24 as well as 24,10). Death was decreed for them because they approached domains which were beyond what they were allowed to approach. This is the meaning of the opening lines of our Parshah.
   אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died because they approached  the presence of the Lord.” The communication by G’d to Moses mentioned here occurred immediately after the death of these two sons of Aaron. The meaning of the words בקרבתם לפני ה' is “while they were performing service before the Lord they died.” This is the opinion of Nachmanides. 
      Looking at the plain meaning of the text I believe that this verse reveals two separate sins these sons of Aaron were guilty of. One sin was of an intellectual nature, i.e. their thinking, their attitude. Death was decreed for them for that sin. This is the meaning of Tanchuma Acharey 6 that the verse in Exodus 24,11 that “G’d did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of Israel  who gazed at G’d and ate and drank,” meant that their punishment was placed in abeyance at that time. The words make it plain that these men were already guilty of death at that time. They were temporarily saved as G’d did not want to spoil the joy of the revelation, the giving of the Torah, at that time. This is all derived by inference because in this instance the Torah speaks of  בקרבתם instead of בהקריבם. The latter word means: “when they performed an act of offering, etc.” The former word means: “when they came close,” i.e. intellectually. The sin consisting of a deed was the offering of external fire which was not authorised for them to do, (Leviticus 10,1). They offered the fire without offering incense at the same time, seeing mention of their placing incense on their censers appears to refer to a separate action. We may therefore understand the verse in front of us as meaning: “after the death of the two sons of Aaron who had died seeing that G’d had decreed death for them because they were guilty of a sin involving thought when they had come too close before the Lord during the revelation at Mount Sinai feasting their eyes on a vision of G’d.” They died only on the first day of Nissan following (almost 10 months later) because of the additional sin in deed when they introduced external fire as an offering.   When G’d spoke to Moses here He used both the form of address known as אמירה, and that known as דבור. Verse 1 mentions the latter, verse 2 the former kind of address. He was to tell Aaron (אמירה, in a friendly manner) that he and other priests must not enter the part of the Sanctuary which is beyond the dividing curtain except armed with incense. This is elaborated on in verses 12-13 where the Torah describes the cloud of incense covering the lid of the Holy Ark as insurance against Aaron (or whichever High Priest) dying during this procedure. If Aaron were to enter the Holy of Holies without the incense he would die just as his sons had died. 
  Thus the sin of the sons of Aaron was reported very explicitly by the Torah. Our portion testifies to this by writing that they entered without incense. This is the reason that Aaron was warned concerning the same matter.    As a further proof reinforcing my opinion that this is the correct interpretation consider the following comment by the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 20,8) “Nadav and Avihu died because they brought external fire into the Holy of Holies before the Lord in the desert of Sinai, fire taken from their hearths” (compare Numbers 2,3). Did then the sons of Aaron die in the desert of Sinai? [Actually they did seeing that the people did not leave that spot until the 20th of the second month of the second year (Numbers 10,11 Ed.] Did they not die in the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle? Answer: they died as a result of a decree which G’d had decreed while they were in the desert of Sinai (at the time of the revelation), i.e. a sin dating back to that occasion.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Acharey 8): The emphasis of the text on the death of “two sons of Aaron dying”  [without naming them, Ed.] suggests that actually all four of his sons were guilty of death dating back to Aaron’s share in the sin of the golden calf. Moses prayed on their behalf resulting in two of Aaron’s sons being spared. All of this is based on Moses recalling in Deut. 9,19: “G’d was also angry enough at Aaron ready to wipe him out.” The word השמדה which is the one used by Moses at that time invariably involves the death of someone’s children. Example: Amos 2,9 ואשמיד פריו ממעל ושרשיו מתחת, “I will wipe out his fruit from above and his roots from below.” Seeing that Moses prayed, G’d responded to half of his prayer saying to him: “did I not write in My Torah (Exodus 22,8) ‘concerning every liability, whether an ox a donkey, a sheep, or a garment-regarding any lost item about which he said: ‘this is it!” To the court shall come both their claims. Whomever the court finds guilty shall pay double to his fellow.’” Someone who incurred guilt on account of an ox deserves to be punished. The prophet Ezekiel 23,20 already said that the Israelites exchanged their honour (G’d) for an ox. Anyone incurring guilt “on account of a donkey,” refers to the Egyptians whose flesh has been described by Ezekiel as the flesh of donkeys in that same verse; the ones referred to were the converts whom Moses allowed to convert at the time and who were the initiators in the golden calf being made. When the verse in Exodus continues with “guilt incurred on account of a lamb,” the reference is to the Jewish people who have been referred to as a lamb in Jeremiah 50,17 when the prophet speaks of “Israel the scattered sheep.” This too is a reference to the mixed multitude of converts who had initiated the process resulting in the golden calf and had dragged the Israelites into following their lead and becoming guilty of that sin. Regarding the reference to the garment in the verse in Exodus 22,8 this is a simile for the leaders of the people, the ones wearing the priestly garments. These garments have been referred to as describing their important wearers in Isaiah 3,6 “in whose father’s house there is clothing, come be a chief over us.” The words “concerning every lost object” in the verse in Exodus are a simile for people who have lost their way, and therefore are looking for a leader. The absence or failure of Moses to return when expected triggered the whole episode of the people wanting a replacement for him. The words “of which he says: ‘this is it,’” is a veiled reference to the Israelites saying about the golden calf: ‘this is your G’d O Israel who has taken you out of Egypt.’” The words “concerning which he says “this is he;” this is also a veiled reference to the instigators saying of the absent Moses “for this man Moses, etc.” (Exodus 32,1). The words “to a judge (court) shall come both their claims,” refers to Moses whom G’d had appointed as a judge for Pharaoh (Exodus 7,1). The people were to lay their problems in front of Moses and he would arbitrate them. The words: “whomever the court will find guilty”, refer to Aaron whom Moses had accused (declared guilty) saying to him: what did the people do to you that you brought this guilt upon them?” (Exodus 32,21).The words: “they shall pay twice to his fellow” is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who paid the price for his involvement in the affair of the golden calf. This is why the Torah wrote: ”the two sons of Aaron who died.”   Tanchuma Acharey 1 exploits our verse to explain what Kohelet 9,2 referred to when Solomon wrote: “For the same fate is in store for all; for the righteous, and for the wicked; for the good and pure, and for the impure; for him who sacrifices, and for him who does not sacrifice; for him who is pleasing, and for him who is displeasing; and for him who swears, and for him who shuns oaths.” In that verse Solomon reviews his findings after he had looked at the history of man, had examined the relative fates of the righteous and the wicked. and had found that the righteous and the wicked share similar experiences “under the sun;” this is what Solomon referred to as “the evil which takes place under the sun” (Kohelet 9,3). The righteous of whom Kohelet speaks was Avraham of whom G’d had said in Genesis 18,19 “for I know him well, so that he will command his offspring to observe the path of the Lord to practice charity and justice,” etc. The “wicked” of whom Solomon spoke in Kohelet was Nimrod who instigated a rebellion against G’d throughout the world. Both of them died. This is whom Solomon had in mind when he said that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate. When Solomon added “and to the good,” he meant Moses; the Torah had reported of Moses that his mother “saw that he was good,” as soon as he was born (compare Exodus 2,2). When Solomon spoke about the “pure” in that verse in Kohelet he referred to David of whom it is written in Samuel I 16,12: “so they sent and brought him. He was ruddy-cheeked, bright eyed and handsome.” When speaking about the “impure” in Kohelet, Solomon referred to King Nevuchadnezzar. David laid the foundations of the Holy Temple and ruled for 40 years, whereas Nevuchadnezzar destroyed that Temple and also ruled for 40 years. The repetition of the words “the same fate is common to them all,” refers to the people who offer sacrifices to the Lord, i.e. Solomon, of whom we are told in Kings I 8,63 that he offered 22.000 cattle offerings at the consecration of the Holy Temple, whereas his successor Jerobam did not offer any sacrifices in that Temple. Not only that, Jerobam prevented the Israelites from making their pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Temple. Solomon had continued in Kohelet that the “good” one i.e. Moses, experienced the same fate as the “sinner.” The good one he referred to was Moses whereas the sinner referred to the spies who had slandered the land of Israel. Both died and did not get to inherit that land. When Solomon added in Kohelet 9,3 that the one who renders an oath is equal to the one who does not, he meant Tzidkiyahu King of Yehudah whom Nevuchadnezzar blinded, (Chronicles II 36,13) as a result of his having dishonoured his oath of allegiance to him, whereas Samson who had not sworn an oath of allegiance to Israel’s enemies was also blinded  (by the Philistines Judges 15,12).   An alternative way of explaining Kohelet 9,3: The words that the “good and the sinners” experience the same fate refers to the sons of Aaron being the good, whereas Korach and his rebellious colleagues are referred to as the sinners. The former were burned by heavenly fire (Numbers 16,38), whereas the sons of Aaron were burned by similar fire as reported in Leviticus 10,2.   Concerning such similarities in the fates of the good and the wicked, Tanchuma Acharey 8 understands Elihu saying in Job 37,1: “because of this too, my heart quakes, and leaps from its place.” He wondered how it could be that a dry stick of wood which was deposited in the Sanctuary began to blossom and to bear fruit, (compare Numbers 17,22-23) whereas the sons of Aaron who entered there alive and offered a gift to G’d were burned instead and had to be removed from there as corpses? Rabbi Acha commented that Kohelet 2,2 which has Solomon saying: “I said of laughter ‘it is mad, and of joy what does it accomplish?’ that Solomon referred to the attribute of Justice.”    He himself had violated the three restrictions which the Torah imposes on the lifestyle of a Jewish king; 1) not to have too many wives, 2) not to have too many horses, and 3) not to amass too much gold and silver (Deut. 17,16). Solomon had 700 wives of full wifely status and three hundred concubines (Kings I 11,3); he had 40.000 stables for his horses (Kings I 5,6)  and such an amount of silver and gold that they did not bother to keep count of the silver (Kings I 10,27). When Solomon downplayed the value of joy, G’d said to him: ‘in that case what do you need this crown for?’ He suggested that he descend from his throne briefly. In the interval someone resembling the king ascended the throne and claimed to be Solomon. No amount of protest by Solomon helped, he was treated as if insane, beaten as a pretender to the throne, fed inferior food, etc., and became a refugee in his own kingdom. When all this befell him he was moved to exclaim (Kohelet 22,10) “this is my share after all my labors!”    Another explanation of the words in Kohelet 2,2 “I said of laughter it is madness:” This was the laughter by the attribute of Justice when it heard that Elisheva, wife of Aaron, prided herself on the morning of the first of Nissan of that year that she had merited four separate joyful occasions on that day; she had seen her husband appointed High Priest; her brother Nachshon had been elevated to the position of tribal head; her two oldest sons had been appointed as deputy High Priests; As soon as these two sons entered the Sanctuary they were burned to death. Solomon referred to the brief duration of Elisheva’s joy on that occasion and on the futility of enjoying such moments.   The Midrash relates Job 39,27-30 to that event. We read there of G’d saying to Job: “does the eagle soar at your command, building high its nest, dwelling in the rock, lodging upon the fastness of a jutting rock? From there he spies out his food, from afar his eyes see it. His young gulp blood; where the slain are there is he.” In those verses G’d said to Job in effect; “if  you were able to command the eagle where and when to build his nest, then you would also be greater than Aaron at whose bidding I allowed My Shechinah to rest on top of the Holy Ark.” The various further similes such as “the fastness jutting out of a rock,” refer to the second Temple. The rock is a reference to the אבן שתיה which was the substitute in the second Temple for the Holy Ark, the kapporet and the cherubim of the first Temple and the Tabernacle. The reason that slab of stone was called אבן שתיה, “the stone of drinking,” was that the entire earth’s food supply is channeled by G’d through the site of where this stone is located. When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prayed for the economic welfare of the Jewish people, he said: ”may it be Your will O Lord that the coming year will be one of dew and adequate rainfall, a year of plenty, a year of grace before You, a year of blessing, a year of successful business dealings, a year in which the Jewish people should not have to depend on one another for handouts nor for handouts from Gentile nations. May it be a year when the people should not try and impose their will on each other by force. Their eyes should be focused on distant targets,” i.e. they should know what would be at the end of the year.    How would this blessing and the fact that it was granted be evident? If the smoke from the altar’s offerings rose in a southerly direction this would forecast prosperity for the people living in the south of the country. Similarly, if that smoke rose in a westerly direction it would signify prosperity for the Israelites living close to the sea. If it rose straight up, it would indicate that the whole country (or the whole world) would enjoy prosperity during that year. The נשר in that verse in Job is a simile for G’d who is described elsewhere as like an eagle having transported the Children of Israel out of Egypt for the first 120 kilometers on “eagle’s wings.” All of the complimentary comments in those verses in Job apply to Aaron. In spite of this great stature of Aaron, “his young gulp blood,” i.e. his sons died and yet he kept silent, did not question or complain as did Job when disaster struck him. The very presence of the Shechinah did not prevent the disaster. Thus far the Tanchuma.
      A kabbalistic approach: the wording of our text suggest that the sons of Aaron died two deaths seeing that the Torah writes וימותו, They died,” having already said it was after their מות, “death.” We have a somewhat similar construction where the word “life” is repeated as if it meant that someone should have two lives. Moses said in Deut. 33,6 יחי ראובן ואל ימות, “may Reuven live and not die.” These words are allusions to the transmigration of the souls, i.e. the implied multiple deaths of one and the same soul in different bodies. The subject as far as it concerns Nadav and Avihu is hinted at by he words “and they had not had any children” (Numbers 3,4).    You are aware that if someone dies without having had children, his soul is potentially reincarnated in a different body. The Torah provides a clear hint of this when it writes in Leviticus 22,13: “and the daughter of a priest who will either become widowed or divorced and she had not had any (seed) children (from that husband) will return to her father’s house as in her youth and eat from the table of her father.” [The plain meaning of this is that she will be allowed to resume her status as priestess. Ed.]     Our author, having introduced this commentary as kabbalistic, views the words בת כהן in that verse as a reference to the soul (any soul) inasmuch as the soul descends from the emanation בינה on the left via the emanation (or attribute) חסד on the right. The meaning of the words: “she will become widowed,” is that her soul will become widowed from its body, lose it, as a result she will be like a גרושה, a divorced woman, who cannot return to her roots in the event she does not have absorbed any seed from her husband. If she had absorbed seed from her husband she could not be totally divorced from her “husband,” i.e. soul. When the period of her enforced separation from her original partner (the body assigned to her soul originally) has been completed, she will return to her “father,” i.e. the source at G’d’s side whence all souls originate and she will partake of the “food”  she used to feed on at that time, i.e. enjoy the outpourings of the Shechinah.
  
  Verse 2
  
    דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש,  “speak to your brother Aaron -he shall not come at all times to the Sanctuary, etc.” The additional words: “so that he shall not die,” are an implied warning that what happened to his sons might otherwise happen to him. Our sages illustrated this by a parable, saying the matter is similar to a physician who enters the room of the patient telling him not to eat cold food and not to lie down on wet ground. A second physician comes and gives the patient similar instructions, adding: “so that you will not die like another patient who ignored this warning and died.” The second physician’s warning is more likely to be effective than that of the first. 
     כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for in a cloud I will appear above the kapporet.” The Torah was careful not to write: כי אראה בענן על הכפורת. Had the Torah written these words in that order the meaning would have been that G’d appears inside the cloud. If that were so, what distinction did the High Priest enjoy over the rest of the people of Israel? They all witnessed a Presence of the Lord within the cloud on a year-round basis, or at least every time the Torah wrote והנה כבוד ה' נראה בענן, “and here the glory of the Lord had appeared within the cloud.” This was an appearance visible to all the people. They did not have to enter any Sanctuary in order to become aware of it. There are several other instances where all the people witnessed such a manifestation of G’d’s glory (Exodus 33,10). In our verse the meaning of the words is that after Aaron enters the Sanctuary [Holy of Holies] in a cloud of incense the glory of G’d previously encased in the cloud will leave that cloud and take up its position on top of the kapporet. In order for us to understand this clearly, the Torah wrote the words אראה על הכפורת as a single sequence without interposing the word בענן. Actually, in that Holy of Holies the glory of G’d would be situated on top of the kapporet on the other days of the year also; only Aaron, or anybody else, were not allowed to enter that Inner Sanctuary except on Yom Kippur. The cloud of incense (which normally was offered in the Outer Sanctuary, daily,) was needed in order to ensure that Aaron would not behold that glory with fatal consequences for himself.    Our sages (in Yuma 53) understand the words כי בענן אראה על הכפורת to mean that G’d’s glory would appear within the cloud of the incense. As a result of such considerations the incense had to be offered in the Holy of Holies (the site of the kapporet) The High Priest was not to make the entire incense ready before he entered. [the view of the Sadducees, whose High Priests were so scared that their mentors could have been wrong that they declined to perform this service on the Day of Atonement for fear of dying. Ed].   In fact, the wording of verse 13 in our chapter, “the cloud of the incense shall cover the kapporet over the testimony” (the Holy Ark) will ensure that the High Priest will not die. It is stated clearly in the verse previous that the High Priest enter beyond the dividing curtain into the Inner Sanctuary before placing the incense on the fire. This is the reason why the Talmud, according to Rava, understands why this legislation was repeated. The first time the Torah had to issue the instructions not to enter at will. The second time was the warning that unless he performed in accordance with these instructions the High Priest would die.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש, “equipped with the following Aaron shall enter the Sanctuary, etc.;” according to the plain meaning of the text the word בזאת means “with this attribute;” in other words, the list of sacrifices listed immediately after these words are the “attributes” Aaron did  take with him and performed the service  on Yom Kippur.
      A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah 21,5: The letters in the word בזאת, which have a numerical value of 410, the number of years the First Temple was standing are an allusion to the service in the Sanctuary in that Temple when all the necessary paraphernalia were available, i.e. breastplate, urim vetumim, Holy Ark, kapporet, etc. The word יבא “he will come, or “it” will come, is an allusion to the Holy Temple (as opposed to the collapsible Tabernacle) that would hopefully be built soon after the Israelites occupy their own land.
      A kabbalistic approach: The word בזאת is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept represented by the Jewish people. The word יבא is proof that this is what the verse has in mind, i.e. that there will be a spiritual ascent leading to קדש, “sanctity,” i.e. the domain of true wisdom, the second highest emanation immediately below that of כתר. This emanation is the source of all blessing, and it is what David referred to when he wrote in Psalms 134,2: שאו ידיכם קודש וברכו את ה', “raise your hands towards the Sanctuary and bless the Lord” (normal translation). The sages steeped in mystical lore who were quoted in Vayikra Rabbah 21,5 mean that whenever the Torah mentions the word זאת, this occurs in connection with Israel fulfilling a commandment, such as the commandment of circumcision in Genesis 17,10 or the commandment of fulfilling the Torah in its entirety (Deut. 4,44), etc., etc. When the Torah uses the expression בזאת here, it emphasises that the measure of success Aaron (or any High Priest) may expect to accompany him on this Holy Day in his Holy Task are the “bundles” of commandments performed by the Israelites which he will “present” to the Lord on that occasion. The sacrificial offerings, are of course, included in the “bundles” of  commandments as the word זאת  here is followed by a list of these offerings. All of these “bundles” have one single destination, to be presented to the highest, the tenth of the emanations, to  כתר on the way to Hashem.
  
  Verse 4
  
   כתנת בד קדש ילבש ומכנסי בד יהיו על בשרו ובאבנט בד יחגור ובמצנפת בד יצנוף, “He shall wear a sacred tunic; linen trousers shall cover his flesh; he shall gird himself with a linen sash, and cover his head with a linen turban.” The Torah mentions four linen garments, repeating the word בד, “linen” each time. Torat Kohanim, in justifying the repeated use of the word בד, comments:  the first time the word is used is to contrast it with the breastplate which was not of linen; the second time it is used was to contrast it with the ephod which was not of linen; the third time it was used was to contrast it with the robe, the מעיל, which did not contain linen; the fourth time it was used was to contrast it with the tzitz, head-band which was not made of linen. The four garments which did not contain linen, did contain gold. The Torah wanted to drive home the point that a material  which had once served to incriminate the people could not be used in exonerating them. This is why the four garments containing gold could not be worn inside the Inner Sanctuary. Interestingly, concerning all the garments which contained gold the Torah had written לפני ה', “before the Lord,” or “in the presence of the Lord” (compare Exodus 28,29; 28,12; 28,35; 28,38). Had the Torah not associated the description of these garments with the words “before the Lord,” which gave the impression that they were to be worn inside the Inner Sanctuary also, the extra words בד in our portion would not have been needed to make clear that when seeking expiation in the Holy of Holies for the sins of the Jewish people it was inappropriate to appear dressed in something which would remind G’d of the sin of the golden calf.    The Torah emphasized that these linen garments were בגדי קדש, sacred garments, to teach that when the High Priest would wear them performing his duties in the Holy of Holies of the terrestrial Sanctuary this would parallel the service being performed in the celestial Sanctuary. If the High Priest on earth wore four garments when performing his service this corresponded to the four encampments of the Shechinah which similarly performed service in the Sanctuary in the celestial regions. Alternatively, the number four, i.e. four garments worn by the High Priest, were symbolic of the four holy chayot with their respective wings described in the opening vision of Ezekiel in Ezekiel chapter 1.   Actually, the Torah could have been expected not to describe these garments as בגדי קדש but as בגדים קדושים, an expression meaning “sacred garments;” why did the Torah write בגדי קדש which should be translated as “garments of a sacred destination,” or “garments belonging to the Sanctuary,” or words to that effect? You will find this detail discussed in Vayikra Rabbah 21,10. The wording there is: “the service being performed in the celestial regions was to be duplicated in our terrestrial regions. The garments worn down here on earth symbolise those worn in the celestial regions which are קדש. Of those regions we are told that one man (the archangel Michael) is dressed in linen garments (Ezekiel 9,2). The vision of Ezekiel teaches that only linen garments were appropriate in the Inner Sanctuary, the House where G’d’s attribute of Mercy is at home.”
      If you will examine the word בד in greater detail you will find that within that word numerous wonderful concepts are alluded to. The word alludes to humility, simplicity; it alludes to G’d’s Unity; its colour, white, alludes to forgiveness, innocence; it also alludes to the קו האמצעי, the “middle,” or “central” line (in the emanations which are predominantly divided into “right” and “left.”) It also suggests submission seeing that flax sprouts from the earth in order to humble the High Priest, i.e. to remind him that even he is merely dust of the earth. This is in contrast to wool which is taken from living creatures, i.e. its origin is of a more elevated nature.    We are told in Yuma 71 that the expression בד just as בד בבד, refers to plants growing as a single stalk not having any branches as do trees, etc. This is why the word alludes to the uniqueness, oneness, of G’d. He who communicates with Hashem as did the High Priest wears garments made of materials reflecting such an awareness. [Although the Talmud there discusses that each cord was  twisted of six threads, the word שש משזר is used in the Torah five times, whereas the word בד is used once, to indicate that this word sums up the symbolic meaning of flax or the linen made of it. Ed.]. By contrast, canvas, hemp, from which ropes are made, are fibres which grow outside, attached to the trunk of a tree, surrounding it. The numerical value of the letters in the word בד is 6. In the Torah a different word for linen is שש, which itself is an allusion to the sixth emanation, the קו האמצעי, the “middle line.” This is the line which forms the “bridge” between left and right.
      You have heard already that the two cherubs on the kapporet symbolise the letters ה and ו respectively in the tetragrammaton. The High Priest represents the letter ו in that Holy Name. The letter ה, i.e. what it represents, the number 5, is included in the number 6, i.e. the letter ו. The number 6 which is the numerical value of the word בד symbolizes that garments made of that material are fit to be worn in the Holy of Holies when the occasion arises.
      I believe there is another matter that deserves mentioning in  connection with our verse. It is well known that the human body is divided into three parts corresponding to the three parts of the universe, i.e. the terrestrial world, our earth, the domain of the galaxies, and the celestial spheres. The reason that our body reflects three such divisions is to make clear that man is indeed a microcosm. Through being such a microcosm, man, i.e. the High Priest, is able to draw unto himself the blessings from the celestial regions, and to convert the beneficial influences from the higher world for use in our terrestrial world. The immediate instrument helping to achieve this is the High Priest. When the High Priest wears linen trousers to cover his lower parts this represents the terrestrial predominantly physical part of the universe. The linen belt which the High Priest wears around his loins represents the “middle world,” the domain of the galaxies. The turban which he wears on his head represents the celestial spheres of the universe seeing the turban is worn on the head and the head symbolises the highest, most lofty spheres. This is the domain of the angels and is more distinguished than the other two parts of the universe. The order in which the garments are listed in our verse is that what is to be worn first is what is covering the lower part of the body, the other two pieces of clothing mentioned being in an ascending order. The order of putting on these garments directed the thoughts of the High Priest to progressively more lofty holy thoughts corresponding to the three layers of the universe. [I have not figured out why the author omits mention of the tunic in this analysis. Ed.]  It makes sense now why our verse begins with describing the garments as holy and concludes by repeating that the garments are holy.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   'והעמיד אותם לפני ה, “and he will make them stand in the presence of the Lord, etc.” Both of these he-goats were a gift for Hashem, both before the lots had been drawn as well as after the lots had been drawn. To make this point quite clear the Torah wrote that the High Priest is to present both of them to the presence of Hashem. Even after the lots had been drawn and one of these he-goats had now been described as לעזאזל, “for a rocky place (identified with Satan),” the Torah continues writing יעמד חי לפני ה', “that the he-goat is to stand alive in the presence of Hashem (verse 10).” In other words, one must not think that the scapegoat was addressed as a gift to Satan; it too was addressed to Hashem though by a different route. The principal difference between the two he-goats was that the one consigned to Azzazel was not slaughtered but was consigned live to the desert similar to one of the birds of the offerings of the person afflicted with tzoraat. (Compare author’s comment on Leviticus 14,7). There is a further similarity with the heifer consigned to virgin earth and killed in the process which was to atone for any negligence which might have contributed to the murder by a person unknown of the slain person described in Deut. 21,4. That heifer had to be “virginal,” had not been used as a beast of burden or otherwise made to perform tasks for its owner.  It is most certainly not the intention of the Torah to suggest that this scapegoat be presented to Satan as an offering, a sacrifice. There simply is no sacrificial service performed in Judaism whose address is not Hashem, G’d’s essence, not even any of the lesser attributes of G’d [as the author has been at pains to point out repeatedly. Ed]. After all, what sense would Exodus 22,19 make where we are told that if someone offers a sacrifice to anyone other than G'd exclusively he would be guilty of death? Does then the Torah contradict itself in Leviticus reneging on what was written in Exodus? In Exodus the Torah was at pains to state that sacrifices that are addressed to a foreign deity or to an angel are prohibited. If even sacrifices addressed to G’d’s intermediaries are rejected, how much more so would an offering to Satan be rejected?  Addressing a sacrifice to Azzazel, read Satan, would be violating the verse in Proverbs 21,27: “the sacrifice of a wicked man is an abomination.” Directing a sacrifice to the wrong address not only does not result in G’d’s grace but drives a wedge between man and G’d, is an abomination!     The fact that the Azzazel will become a beneficiary of a sacrifice which we presented to the Lord, i.e. to Hashem in accordance with His instructions, does not need to bother us as long as that secondary beneficiary is not the address of that sacrifice. The High Priest first offered the two he-goats as a gift to the Lord. The very fact that the decision which of these he-goats would arrive at its ultimate address via the detour of the Azzazel was determined by lot made it impossible to accuse the High Priest, i.e. Israel, as having aimed one of the animals as a gift, bribe, or whatever, to the Azzazel. It was as if G’d had determined by means of the lot, which of these two animals was to travel to its ultimate destiny via a detour. If the High Priest in sanctifying the two animals had said: ‘this one is for Hashem and this one is for Azzazel,” he would have compared the two, thus becoming guilty of performing a procedure which could be interpreted as offering an offering to an idolatrous destination. Seeing that the choice was determined by lot, it was as if G’d had decided which of the two animals was to make this detour via the Azzazel. While the animal was consigned to a location known as Azzazel, this was not the same as addressing it to the concept ”Azzazel.” (Compare Nachmanides on verse 8 in our chapter).    Our sages in Yuma 41 determined that in the event that the High Priest had failed to perform the procedure of drawing lots which of the two animals was to serve as the scapegoat and which was to be slaughtered for burning on the altar, the entire Yom Kippur service is voided. In other words, the drawing of lots was an integral part of the entire service.
      From a strictly linguistic point of view, פשט, the word לעזאזל means “hard,” a word related to the word עזוז, obstinacy. The location was a relatively high mountain, a rock, an uninhabited place, in the desert, as the Torah mentions in verse 22. (Compare Rashi and Torat Kohanim Sifra Acharey 2,8).
      A Midrashic approach found in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46: Satan was complaining that whereas G’d had given him authority over all the nations He had not given him any control over the Jewish people. G’d responded that on one day a year, namely, on Yom Kippur, he, Satan would have authority over the Jewish people in the event the latter were sinful. [I suppose it means that if they did not repent on that day and observed it properly. There could hardly be a question that they entered the day in a state of sin. Ed.]. The Israelites were given an opportunity to satisfy the aspirations of Samael by offering him a bribe. Whereas the offering presented to G’d was a burnt-offering, the one offered to Samael (Azzazel) was the sin-offering  which was burdened with all the sins of the people of Israel. This gift to Samael was designed to deflect his intention to thwart the value of Israel’s offering on that day. By “playing up to the ego of Samael,” G’d hoped to neutralize him through flattery so that the purpose of the Day of Atonement could be achieved without interference from that source. When, as a result of receiving the “bribe,” Samael realised that on that day the Israelites were like angels, not eating, not drinking, etc., he too joined the chorus of Israel’s admirers telling G’d that Israel were as free from sin as are the ministering angels. Once G’d hears the testimony of our perennial accuser, He grants atonement to the people, to the priests, and the entire congregation. Thus far Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer.  [Our author now addresses a difficulty in the text of that Midrash where he does not know what to make of the word יקריב in the line “this is why one gives a bribe to Samael so that לא יקריב את קרבנם,” which we translated “so that he would not try to thwart the value of our offering.” The text in our amended version of the Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer does not have either the word יקרב or יקריב which bothers our author. I will therefore omit his attempt at dealing with this problematic wording. Our text reads שלא לבטל את קרבן של ישראל, and is not problematic at all. Ed.]
      The word עזאזל  continues to exercise the mind of our author who claims to follow the approach of Nachmanides in this regard. He suggests that it is a form of reinforcing the meaning of the word עז, strong, hard, obstinate. He also claims that Satanic forces to the extent that they too are rooted in the Divine seeing that there are no competing forces to G’d unless G’d Himself had created them and given them their authority, always end with the letters אל, a form of the name of G’d. The word עזאזל could be understood as equivalent to עזי-אל “my strength is G’d-like,” or something to that effect. He finds an allusion to Satanic forces being described as “strong, hard, חזק,” in the words of the Psalm 35,10 מציל עני מחזק ממנו, “He (the Lord) saves the poor from forces stronger than he” (the reference being to Samael). We find G’d described as עזוז וגבור, in Psalms 24,8. This is a redoubling of the normal עז, for “strong, tough,” etc. The word עזאזל may reflect the evil urge=Satan, Samael,  (Baba Batra 16) in its most potent form. Our sages have told us that “Satan” and “evil urge” are merely two different words describing the same phenomenon. 
   The word סמאל, Samael, Satan, also has a connotation of שמאל, “left,” as it places itself to the “left” side of a person, its potential victim. In addition the letters in סמאל remind one of something “hidden,” סמיות, and are reminiscent of the Torah writing that “bribes blind the eyes of even the intelligent and normally discriminating” (compare Deut. 16,19). In Bereshit Rabbah 65,10 the word עונותם in verse 22 is read as עונות איש תם, a veiled reference to Yaakov who is described in the Torah as איש תם, (Genesis 25,27).
      Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer deals with the phenomenon at length as we have described already. An additional meaning of the word עזאזל is derived if we break up the word into two words עז אזל,  meaning “the powerful one has already gone away;” [the meaning is that due to being presented with the scapegoat the effectiveness of Samael-Satan-Azzazel has been broken. Ed.] If you will count the words from the first time the word עזאזל appears in our chapter (16,8-17,7) to the word לשעירים, you will find a total of thirty-three verses. This prompted Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra to comment that there are mystical aspects to this phenomenon which one cannot understand until one reaches the age of 33. He considers the key word in the procedure the word המדברה, “to the desert,” in verse 10. The message is that when the scapegoat is dispatched to the desert, an uninhabited region, the sins with which it has been laden will end up in a region where they cannot cause any damage, cannot contaminate human beings who come into contact with sins or sinners. Thus far Ibn Ezra.
      When you consider all that we have written and quoted on this subject you will be convinced that there most certainly cannot be a question of the scapegoat being an offering, a sacrifice to a Satanic force called Azzazel. All strife, war, etc., in the world have their origin in that domain where Satan-Se'ir, the other name for Esau and the negative character traits he symbolizes, reign supreme. This is the force which welcomes this scapegoat laden with sin. All goats, both male and female, are part of his domain. The nearest “relative” of this Satan-Samael-Azzazel is Esau and the nation descended from it. Esau already bore the name שעיר, a hairy man, as the antithesis of Yaakov the “smooth” man. The land in which he settled was named after him, and when pagans used to offer sacrifices to the שעירים, the he-goats, representing brute physical force and obstinacy, this was their way of paying homage to the ideals represented by Esau.   According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 27 Samael started out as a respectable angel in the celestial regions until he and his colleagues were expelled from there by G’d Himself. As a form of protest Samael held on to the wings of the archangel Michael trying to prevent his expulsion, or to drag that angel down to earth with him. G’d saved the archangel Michael and this is why that archangel became known as מיכאל הפליט, “Michael the escapee” (a veiled reference to who it was that told Avraham that Lot had been taken captive by the kings who had defeated the king of Sodom and his allies). We were told in Genesis 14,13 that the פליט came and informed Avraham that his relative Lot had been taken captive. Considering the fate of Azzazel-Samael, we know that he ended up at the lower end of the emanations which we associate with the celestial regions or domains. In fact, as the result of his expulsion from heaven, Samael constitutes a barrier between earth (the lowest of the emanations, מלכות), and heaven, i.e. the destination of the sacrifices. How can our sacrifices reach heaven when Samael forms an effective barrier to their ascent to heaven? In the words of Solomon in Proverbs 26,13 Samael is like a שחל בדרך, “a type of lion barring one’s progress.” Presenting this scapegoat to Samael is like throwing a bone to the dog, keeping it happy while one pursues one’s main objective. The Torah did the same thing when instructing us to dispatch the scapegoat to the domain of Samael in order to pave the way for our sacrifices to Hashem to ascend to heaven without hindrance and interference. This is why the author of Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46 wrote that the purpose of the scapegoat procedure is to prevent Samael from interfering with our offerings.    It is important for the Jewish people to be aware of the existence of forces such as represented by the Azzazel and only in this manner are they able to deal with such a phenomenon. This was not the first time that normally hostile forces turned supportive. We encounter the phenomenon for the first time in Exodus 11,7 where the Torah tells us that the very dogs which could have been counted on to impede the departure of the Jewish people from Egypt kept their mouths shut and did not interfere with the Exodus. [According to tradition the dogs were rewarded by the Torah in that the Torah instructs us to throw meat unfit for us to eat to the dogs (Exodus 22:30, compare Rashi). It is not a new  idea that the Torah suggests neutralizing potentially hostile forces by feeding their appetite. Ed.]   To sum up: it is not forbidden in principle to feed the appetite of our adversaries (placed there by G’d Himself) as long as we do not feed their appetites at the expense of our spiritual integrity [my phrasing, Ed.], and as long as we perform such a procedure at G’d’s command; the reason is that by doing so we are like servants of the Lord who share out gifts on behalf of the Lord to ministers of the Lord in order for those ministers not to object to the way the Lord wants to deal with us. This point is reinforced by the fact that until after the drawing of the lot it was not even clear which of the two he-goats would be dispatched to the Azzazel. The lot saying “for G’d” or “for the Azzazel” respectively would sometimes fall on the animal to the right of the High Priest and sometimes on the animal on his left. The High Priest was not allowed to change the determination made by the lot.    The Talmud Yuma 40 reports that they asked Rabbi Akiva once whether if the lot with the word “for G’d” fell on the animal to the left of the High Priest he was allowed to change it so that it would fall on the animal to his right (as usually happened); Rabbi Akiva answered that this was not permitted as it would provide a pretext for the heretics to claim that Azzazel and G’d were two separate domains, independent of each other. This is why the decision by the lot had to be honored although, according to tradition, the animal on the Priest’s right was to be offered as the sacrifice in the Temple. The heretics did not appreciate that the procedure was a decree from G’d and if He were willing to forego the animal intended as a sacrifice for Him, He was entitled to do so. If and when G’d waives His right, He does so for our benefit. At any rate, it is clear from all the above that the Israelites on their own do not give anything to Azzazel. All the Israelites and, of course the High Priest, direct all their thinking, prayers, and confessions only to the Lord, to the attribute represented by the tetragrammaton.    When we review what Manoach had done in Judges 13,20  when the angel ascended to heaven within the flame of his offering, he did not, G’d forbid, address himself to the angel, but he addressed himself to Hashem, hence his terrible fear that he would die as a result of having seen such a manifestation of the Lord.    The same consideration holds true for the gifts apportioned to the priests from the various sacrificial offerings for their consumption.  Even though Aaron and his sons quite obviously enjoyed these portions of meat, etc., this is not part of the sacrificial service anymore pertaining to the owners of the animals whose blood and fat parts have been offered on the altar; the owners have simply carried out the will of the Lord in leaving these parts for the priests. By no means does G’d and the priest share in the offerings as “principals.” The entire offering is addressed to the Lord, exclusively.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   על פני הכפרת קדמה ולפני הכפרת יזה שבע פעמים, “in front of the kapporet to the east as well as in front of the kapporet (west?).” There were a total of eight sprinklings of blood on Yom Kippur. Seven were aimed at the lower half of the Holy Ark and one at the upper half. Let me try and explain the symbolism in these sprinklings. The first sprinkling aimed at the Holy Ark was directed at the highest emanations which include the emanation of חכמה and בינה, “wisdom and insight.” The seven subsequent sprinklings aimed at the Holy Ark were to symbolize the remaining seven lower emanations.   We have been taught in Yuma 53 that the High Priest had to count aloud while performing these sprinklings. This was the formula: “one; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven.” When the High Priest said: “one,” he meant the upper three emanations which were treated as one group. When he said: “one and one,” he referred to the first sprinkling which was in respect of the three higher emanations plus the first of the sprinklings in respect of the highest of the seven lower emanations. He continued in that vein to the end. The Talmud there (folio 55) states that though there is a disagreement among the scholars concerning the subsequent countings, they are all agreed that the initial counting is obligatory. Concerning the question why the High Priest always had to repeat the reference to the first sprinkling, i.e. repeating the word אחת each time, Rabbi Eleazar says that it was to ensure he would not make a mistake in the procedure. Rabbi Yochanan says that that this was based on our verse where the Torah wrote that seven sprinklings had to take place in front of the kapporet. He considered the word יזה the second time in that verse as redundant, seeing the verse had said earlier והזה, “he shall sprinkle.” As a result of the extra word Rabbi Yochanan considers the count accompanying the sprinkling procedure as obligatory and crucial, meaning that if the High Priest failed to count in this manner the whole procedure would be invalidated. We need to understand why, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the count in this fashion is so essential. According to Rabbi Yochanan even if the High Priest did not make a mistake in the procedure the fact that he did not count in the approved manner makes his service invalid. The Torah attributed so much importance to the sprinkling of this blood on and against the Holy Ark instead of merely on the Altar in the Sanctuary that the counting of the procedure became so important. The very name of the lid of the Ark i.e. כפרת indicates the ability of contributing to atonement which was part of the latent power of the Ark, the Lid and the Cherubs. (Compare Tanchuma Vayakhel 10).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   השכן אתם בתוך טומאתם, “that dwells with them amidst their contamination.”  Even though the Jewish people are contaminated the Shechinah is amongst them (Sifra Acharey  4, 5). This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Sukkah   where he states his view that one may cover the Sukkah with material which is subject to becoming contaminated, although his view is not shared by the other scholars. He based his opinion on the text in our verse.    We also have an opinion in Sanhedrin 37 according to which the words וירח את ריח בגדיו, “he inhaled the fragrance of his clothing” (Genesis 27,23) are understood as  וירח את ריח בוגדיו, “he inhaled the fragrance of those who betray Him,” i.e. even though the person concerned is contaminated, seeing that they are Jews G’d does not totally reject them. Another allegorical approach along these lines is found in Shemot Rabbah 33,2 where the word עלית למרום שבית שבי  (Psalms 68,19) are understood to mean that even if there were unfit Jews amongst the people this did not stop the Shechinah from being amongst them. The Midrash understands the words as a rebuttal to the Gentiles who believe that because Jews have served idols at one time they are forever cut off from G’d’s grace.    Another comment by the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 18,8) on the words of Maleachi 2,16: “for I detest divorce- said the Lord G’d of Israel,” points to the fact that the prophet Malachi when mentioning G’d always uses the expression אלוקי צבאות, and only in this instance does he refer to G’d as אלוקי ישראל, “the G’d of Israel.” The author of the Midrash sees a clear message in this that the prophet wanted to reassure the people that G’d’s presence does not abandon the Jewish people even when they are sinful.
  
  Verse 17
  
   וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד, “No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting, etc.” Our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 1,5 commented that even the creatures (angels) who have been described as having the likeness of אדם פני  in Ezekiel 1,10 must also not be present in the Inner Sanctuary at the time Aaron performs this service. What a wonderful stature did the High Priest possess if he was allowed in a place where even angels were not allowed! This confirms that the High Priest was indeed מלאך ה' צבאות, “an  angel of the Lord of Hosts” (compare Maleachi 2,7). The Sadducee High Priest (Yuma 19) who was struck down by the angel because he had arranged the fire and incense before entering the Inner Sanctuary had already left the Sanctuary before the angel struck him down. 
  According to Rabbi Chiya a sound was heard in the courtyard, עזרה, at that time. When the other priests entered to see what had caused this sound they found a calf’s foot between the feet of that High Priest. The reason this happened to this High Priest was because he ignored the instructions of the sages that there is a tradition not to enter the Sanctuary with the incense already fixed on top of the fire in the censer. The reason for the traditional procedure was because of the fragrance which was so important at the time when the incense was prepared. The High Priest in question wanted to defy the tradition; this is why he was punished. May the Lord save us from punishment and requite us for the sake of His righteousness.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . איש עתי, “a man designated for this particular task.” Our sages understand the word איש in this instance to mean that even a non-priest was fit for this task (Yuma 66). The word עתי means that even if the man was in a state of ritual impurity (temporarily) this did not disqualify him for this task. The man, even if impure, was allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple in order to dispatch the scapegoat. The word עתי also means that the procedure transcends the laws of the Sabbath. The Torah means that if for some reason that scapegoat takes sick, the designated man may carry him to its destination on his shoulder. If the animal remained in good health it most certainly could be carried on the Sabbath as it is not forbidden to carry animals capable of walking, on the Sabbath. Even if the animal is sick and therefore as if tied up, unable to walk, the procedure is carried out on the Sabbath. All this is part of the meaning of the word עתי.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  . והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He is not to use these garments again on the following Yom Kippur. Our sages (in Yuma 24) said that the source for the ruling that garments worn by the High Priest on one Day of Atonement must not be worn again on another Day of Atonement are the words והניחם שם. This expression means that they have to be hidden forthwith. They added that the combined weight of these garments totaled 18 מנה, (והניחם= יח מנה) 450 shekel. A further allusion to the fact that these garments were not to be used again is found in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7 by Rabbi Chiya who derives from the word ולבשם, “and to wear them,” i.e. the combination of the letters in that word, that ובלו שם that these garments are “to rot there”. This is an outright indication that these garments are not to be used again.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר אתכם, “for on this day he (the High Priest) will provide atonement for you to purify you, etc.” This verse is an assurance for Jews throughout the generations that the Day of Atonement is a day set aside especially for forgiveness and pardon. On that day the Israelites will be cleansed of all their sins against the Lord. Yom Kippur is ineffective, however, in bringing about forgiveness, atonement, etc., for sins committed against fellow human beings. Only after the person guilty of such sins has been granted forgiveness by the person whom he has wronged will G’d add His forgiveness.  When the High Priest used to recite his confessional on Yom Kippur, he would recite this verse in his prayer. The name of G’d referred to in this verse is the one comprised of 42 letters. This is why we use the formula לפני ה' תטהרו on Yom Kippur in our prayers (a substitution for the tetragram we are not allowed to utter). The words mean לפני שם מ'ב “before the 42-lettered name of the Lord.”  The name consists of seven words, the first six representing aspects of the attribute of Mercy, whereas the seventh word represents the attribute of Justice. This is the opinion of my teacher the Rashba. This 42-lettered name is broken down into six times 7 words according to some, whereas others break it down into 14 words of three letters each. [You will find the former version printed before the Sabbath eve hymn לכה דודי, as a prayer beginning with the words אנא בכח. This dates back to the Arizal. Ed.] This prayer was most appropriate as the Day of Atonement is a day on which the attribute of Mercy achieves prominence within the framework of the attribute of Justice. The seventh of the 10 emanations, counting from the bottom מלכות up is גבורה or דין, the attribute of Justice. On that day the High Priest had to plead with the attribute of Justice, i.e. with the Judge  who was presiding over all of mankind parading in front of Him, determining their fates for the coming year [if it had not already been decided on Rosh Hashanah. Ed.] 
  The 42-lettered name of G’d is the one He employed while calling the universe into existence. By means of this name G’d extracted a ראש, beginning from the letter ב which symbolized בהו, the state of chaos prevailing amongst the universe’s raw materials prior to G’d’s first directive that there be light. [There are 42 letters in the opening words of Bereshit. They conclude with the letter ב in the word ובהו in the first verse, compare בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו וב. The message is that up until that point all was chaos. At that point, i.e. #42, G’d intervened and began to create an orderly universe. Ed.]. The first three letters (i.e. the first three words) of the prayer אנא בכח גדולת ימינך, the one composed of 42 words corresponding to the 42-lettered name of G’d, begin with the first three letters in the aleph bet. When added to one another 1+2+3 =6 they allude to the six days during which the universe was created, the six directions there are, i.e. north, east, south, west, up and down; these directions are also considered the “seal” of the Creator as I explained in connection with the word יום הששי on Genesis 1,31. The seventh word, commencing with the letter ש, [what is meant is the beginning of the last line in the אנא בכח prayer starting with the word שועתנו, Ed.] meaning אש, is an allusion to the seventh emanation i.e. the attribute of Justice. [At this point the author deals with the meaning of the vowel shuruk which serves as signature of G’d, etc. I confess I have not understood this. Ed.]
       Some of our sages believe that Aaron mentioned the tetragrammaton (and not the 42-lettered name of G’d) during his prayer. Rabbi Saadyah Gaon belongs to that group of scholars. According to these scholars, when we say in our prayers on Yom Kippur the words לפני ה' תטהרו, this is a reference to what the High Priest said on that day, similar to when the Mishnah describing the count of the sprinkling by the High Priest quoted him by prefacing his words with: וכך היה אומר. Naturally, we are not allowed to repeat the exact word used by the High Priest when he said it, therefore in our prayer we allude to it by saying “this is (similar to) what he said when he was in the presence of Hashem.” In fact, the High Priest uttered the tetragrammaton on ten separate occasions during his service on that day. Yuma 39 writes: “the High Priest uttered the tetragrammaton ten times during the course of Yom Kippur; the first three times he uttered that name when reciting the first confession recited over the bull, when he commenced with the words אנא השם וגו'. The second time he uttered the tetragrammaton was when he recited the second confession over the he-goat, which was offered on the altar. During that confession he also uttered the Holy Name three times. The third time was when he recited the confessional on behalf of all the people over the scapegoat to be consigned to the desert. Here too he uttered the Holy Name three times. The last time he uttered that name was when he drew the lots.” You will find that the Torah mentions the tetragrammaton ten times in our paragraph commencing with 16,2, followed by verse 7, followed by verse 8, followed by verse 9; we find that name again in verse 10, followed by verse 12, followed by verse 13. In verses 18, 30 and 34 the tetragrammaton again appears in our chapter.    We feel that the first opinion, the one speaking of the 42-lettered name of G’d being used by the High Priest is likely the correct one. This is why in our liturgy of Yom Kippur the wording is: “when the people outside the Temple heard the High Priest utter the holy name of G’d etc., they would prostrate themselves and proclaim G’d’s majesty using he words we use daily after the first line of the קריאת שמע, i.e. ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, “blessed be the name of His glorious Majesty forever and ever.” When the paytan, composer of this piece of liturgy, refers to בקדושה ובטהרה, he did not mean that the people would pronounce the tetragram as the High Priest had done. He meant that the thoughts of reverence filling the minds of the people at that moment were holy and reverent but they had not heard the tetragram pronounced.
      This is also the meaning of our sages known as חכמי המרכבה, (a group of Kabbalists) when they said that “the names of G’d are not actually uttered in holiness but the person thinking about them is filled with holy thoughts when he does so.” The idea seems to be that the very air into which such words would be exhaled when someone utters them by mouth will contaminate he holiness of that name. If that were to happen the Holy Name of the Lord would have been desecrated. This is why even the High Priest when he started to  form the letters of the tetragrammaton with his lips immediately “swallowed” it, not allowing the fully formed word to escape into the air around him. [He was reciting the confession while standing outside where the air was certainly less holy than inside. Ed.] compare verse 7, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, the Sanctuary.” 
  I have heard that the “swallowing” consisted of the individual words alluding to the Unity of G’d, i.e. words containing the letters in the word י-ה-ו-ה, to appear  with the vowel pattern familiar from the word אליהו הנביא, or ישעיהו הנביא, and similar examples. In other words, the meaning of “swallowing the letters,” is to pronounce them with vowels other than the ones designated for them. This is also the meaning of the expression מבליעין described in Kidushin 71 where the Talmud says that the name of G’d consisting of 12 letters must not be revealed to anyone except the most chaste of the priests. The name consisting of 42 letters was revealed only to people possessing the following three qualities: 1) chastity, 2) humility, 3) at least 35 years old, 4) not given to anger, 5) not given to drunkenness. 6) not insisting on what he feels is his due. The chaste priests to whom the 12-lettered name of G’d had been revealed would “swallow” it i.e. utter it at a time when because of the four-lettered name of G’d uttered by the other priests at the same time the 12-lettered name could not be heard or identified by the listeners.   According to the opinion of those who hold that the High Priest did indeed utter the tetragrammaton he did so using the traditional vowel pattern, even though the ultimate holiness of that name is dependent on the vowel pattern [the one we have changed and is read as elohim, especially when the letters of the tetragrammaton (consonants) appear in the Books of the Prophets. Ed.] There is a tradition amongst the Kabbalists that when the Holy Name is divulged to qualified students this is done only על המים, near the water; this is based on Psalms 29,3: “the voice of the Lord is over the waters.” In other words, the waters are to act as purifying agent for the name when it is “handed over,” much as a ritual bath acts as a purifying agent.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . דם יחשב לאיש ההוא, דם שפך, “it will be considered as bloodshed for that man, he has shed (innocent) blood.” The severity of this legislation must be viewed against a background of ante-diluvial times. Before the deluge the lives of the animals were sacrosanct, i.e. man was not allowed to eat meat, only fruit and vegetables; we know this from Genesis 1,29: “here I have given you all herbage yielding seed that is on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit; it shall be yours for food.” When, in the wake of man’s general corruption, the animals became corrupt also, and were saved from the deluge by Noach, man acquired the right to eat meat. This is why we need a prohibition here that such animals unless they had first been designated as sacrifices and been slaughtered as such, are prohibited to the Jewish people on pain of the karet penalty. Seeing that animal sacrifice substitutes for man’s dying for his sins, if such an animal has been killed for secular consumption, it is considered as if the killer had killed a human being. The status of the Israelites in the desert had much in common with the status of Adam in Gan Eden before the sin so that slaughtering an ox was similar to killing a human being (Isaiah 66,3, and Nachmanides on verse 11 in our chapter).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים, “so that they will no longer offer their sacrificial offerings to the (he-goats) demons.” While the Israelites were exiled in Egypt they were enthusiastic followers of that particular cult in order to gain some advance knowledge of what was in store for them in the future. This particular cult was known by the name שעירים because the people worshipping it either dressed up as he-goats or because people’s hair would stand on edge from fright when they beheld the worshippers of that cult. Alternatively, these apparitions were known as שדים, demons, because they would dwell in regions which are not inhabited by man such as wildernesses, deserts, regions too cold for humans to be comfortable in. 
  These “demons” were primarily composed of only 2 of the 4 elements which man is made of, i.e. of fire and air (spirit). Seeing that they are also light in weight they can fly all over at will. At the time of their creation they were composed of only two elements instead of the four elements which human beings, animals, as well as the plants have in common. As a result, instead of possessing solid bodies such as human beings and animals which therefore are tangible and easily recognizable, these demons are of such transparent shape that they cannot be easily seen and identified. However, they are able to assume a visible form when they so desire by “dressing up” as if they were humans or animals. Their “bodies” are essentially spiritual in nature The creatures composed of four elements are germane to their environment being a composition of the elements in which they exist, i.e. earth, and they fall sick when the correct balance of their four elements is disturbed so that they die as a result and the respective elements disintegrate each to merge again with its constituent part. These demons  experience a similar fate when there is an imbalance in the two elements they consist of.   This is what our sages (Chagigah 16) meant when they said that we have been told of six features possessed by these demons to help us identify them. In three respects they are like human beings, whereas in another three respects they are like angels, i.e. disembodied creatures. These demons have wings, can fly, and have foreknowledge of future events just like the angels.
   Their “knowledge” is not the result of their intelligence; rather they have overheard such information which abounds in the celestial regions originating with G’d. G’d reveals such information to the mazzalot, horoscopes, etc. The demons overhear this being able to move in those regions. In fact it is logical that the demons possess such “knowledge.” If even birds are aware of future events and communicate them by means of their twittering (and the diviners came by their foreknowledge of events through having learned to decipher the twittering of the birds) then the demons which fly much higher in much more rarefied regions than the birds are certainly privy to such information, getting their information from the planets in charge of the various mazalot. Whatever knowledge of impending events either the birds or the demons possess relates only to events in the near term; neither birds nor demons have foreknowledge of events in the distant future.   The three areas in which these demons are closer to human beings are that they eat and drink like human beings, they procreate like human beings, and they die like human beings. The Talmud did not mean that the demons eat the kind of food humans eat. Seeing that humans are composed of four elements some very tangible and substantive, the food requirements of humans are similar, i.e. man requires what is known as “solid food.” The demons being composed of very “light” elements only naturally do not require “solid” food. Their requirements are limited to fragrances needed by the fire in their components and by moisture to replenish the moisture lost through its close association with fire, its other component. The fire dried out some of the natural moisture of the air; hence this moisture needs replacement. The reason the sages in the Talmud compared the eating of the demons to our eating habits is only to describe that just as man’s body  uses up fat if he does not eat, and liquid if he does not drink and replaces those sources of energy in order to  revive these vital parts, so the demons need to eat and drink because of parallel considerations. The matter of fire consuming water is illustrated in Kings I 18,38 where the prophet describes the fire consuming the sacrifices Elijah offered as also consuming the water in which the animals had been drenched as well as the moat he built around the altar. When people (pagans) burn up sacrifices to these demons they do so in order to feed them. The smoke from the animals being burned provide the fragrance and the moisture these demons require. Seeing they receive benefit from what people do for them, the demons in return tell people of events about to happen. The discipline which studies these phenomena is known as “necromancy.” Concerning the “death” of these demons which the Talmud speaks of and compares to the death of human beings, what they mean is simply that parts (elements) which are fused into living tissue combining all these elements disintegrate after death. The parts making up the creature known as demon similarly disintegrates at some point. When it does this is called the “death” of the demon.   Regarding the matter of demons “flying,” described in the Talmud as comparable to the flight of the angels,  this is due to the lightness of their bodies, If birds can fly then these demons obviously can fly even better. After all, the bodies of the birds are composed of all four basic elements and all have to be transported by their wings.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי נפש הבשר בדם הוא ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח, “for the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you on the Altar.” Nachmanides provides a number of reasons to account for the prohibition to consume blood. One is that the blood is the part of the animal consecrated for G’d, i.e. sprinkled on the Altar, just as certain fat parts of the animals which are also prohibited even in animals which were not offered as sacrifices (compare Leviticus 3,16). As to the prohibition of the blood of free-roaming beasts (which are not fit as sacrifices) the Torah did not see fit to forbid the blood of some animals while permitting that of others. It is a decree designed to prevent us from making an error as to which blood may be eaten.   Another reason for the prohibition of blood is that the blood represents the essence of the animal and G’d had never permitted that the essence (soul) of an animal be eaten. Only the meat had been permitted. When G’d permitted Noach the consumption of animals this was because having saved the animals Noach had acquired a right to their bodies. However, G’d permitted only he bodies of the animals not their life-force (soul). It is altogether not appropriate to mix human life-forces with animal life-essence. A nation such as a Jewish people, recipients of the holy Torah, must preserve the purity of their bodies so that they can receive input from intelligence emanating in the celestial spheres Furthermore, we have been commanded to train ourselves to be merciful, soft-hearted, and not cruel. If we were to eat the blood we would assimilate animalistic tendencies within us and become cruel, ultimately resembling animals more than angels. The fact is that food consumed is assimilated by the body even though it is converted, transformed in the process. Character traits possessed by animals will surface in people eating their blood. According to the view expressed by Nachmanides the digestive process involving the assimilation of blood is different from that of converting meat-tissue; seeing it requires less of a process of digestion, more of the original enters our bloodstream and affects our tendencies.   All of these considerations caused the Torah to write: “for the personality of the flesh (in each respective animal) resides within its blood.” Life-forces destined for destruction such as the animal to be slaughtered should not be mixed with life-forces meant to remain alive. On the contrary, the very life-force to be sacrificed is to rehabilitate that of its owner through having been elevated to serve as an offering on G’d’s altar. 
      Maimonides, writing on reasons underlying the various commandments, (Moreh Nevuchim 3,46) says that the prohibition to eat blood aims at removing man from getting involved with demons. When the Israelites departed from Egypt they were experts in the discipline of demons, etc. They had picked up this knowledge from the Egyptians who were very much preoccupied with all kinds of such phenomena. Whenever the Egyptians felt the need to consult the demons they would dig a hole in the ground fill it with blood, something that would attract the demons. When the Egyptians wanted information about the future they would eat from that blood as they considered it demon-food, hoping to acquire demonic qualities through ingesting the kind of food eaten by the demons. This explains the verse in Leviticus 19,26 לא תאכלו על הדם, “do not eat over blood;” it is an injunction by the Torah against a practice by the Israelites at that time to eat in the presence of blood (Samuel I 14,33). King Saul upraided them saying: “here the people commit the sin of eating the animals they slaughtered in the presence of their blood.” [They did not eat the blood of the animals. Ed.]. The Torah forbade the eating of blood as the Torah is always concerned with destroying foolish notions entertained by the pagans. When the Torah not only forbade the consumption of the blood but commanded that the whole negative influence on man by blood be reversed, it commanded as the means to do that that the blood be sprinkled on G’d’s altar and thus play a role in man’s rehabilitation from sin.    Seeing that the matter of the demons [whom the Egyptians believed to be reincarnated in the bodies of goats, Ed.] was a form of idolatry, the Torah warned (verse 10) “I will set My face against any person consuming the blood and I will cut it off from its people.” The wording is almost identical to G’d’s warning of what would happen to people practicing the cult of Moloch (Leviticus 20,6). Thus far Maimonides in the Moreh.
      Nachmanides, in commenting on the above, writes that if these considerations were indeed the principal reason for the prohibition to eat blood, why did the Torah bother to write the word נפש every time the subject of blood is being discussed? This is the reason he wrote an explanation which is far more acceptable and applicable in our time as well.     The fact is that the wording in the text does not support the reasons offered by Nachmanides. Being aware of this, he wrote the other reasons which I quoted at the beginning of this verse.   We need to add further comments on the verses dealing with the prohibition to eat blood, i.e. that once the Torah writes: כי נפש הבשר בדם היא,”for the life-force of the flesh is in its blood,” whereas on another occasion the Torah writes almost the opposite, i.e. כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא. From these two verses we can see that whereas it is true that the life-force נפש resides within the flesh, the reverse is true also, i.e. that the flesh, life-force, נפש and blood are as intertwined as is wine which has been diluted with water. The water and the wine are inextricably mixed with one another and cannot be separated anymore from one another. Nachmanides writes later (on verse 14) where the Torah says; “the blood of any flesh (creature) you shall not eat for the life-force (נפש) of any creature is its blood,” that this verse proves that the blood itself is the life-force (נפש) of any creature.” Once blood and flesh have become part of one organism they have become inseparable, i.e. one cannot survive without the other; it is like the substance and the form of a body. One without the other is meaningless. The blood which the Torah calls the נפש, the life-force, the essence, is that which courses through the arteries and veins, known in Talmudic terms as דם שותת, “blood which flows gently.”  Such blood, be it black (initially ) or red, does not burst forth in an arc but runs to the ground immediately below the point where it leaves the body. The next part of blood bursts forth in a קלוח, gushes forth. The last רביעית of the blood in the arteries is that which actually causes death.The first two categories of blood, though its loss need not be lethal, is called דם הנפש, “blood of the essence,” but it is not the life-force itself seeing that neither human nor beast dies as a result of losing that blood. The repetition of the word נפש several times teaches that the penalty of karet which applies to consumption of the last רביעית (measurement of approx. 150 grams) of blood does not only apply to that part of the blood but also to the previous דם קילוח and דם שותת.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ואמרת אליהם אני ה' אלו-היכם, “and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your G’d.’” According to Nachmanides the plain meaning here is that the words ואמרת אליהם mean: “say to them in My name.”
      A Midrashic approach (Sifra Acharey 13,1-3):  “the words אני ה' אלו-היכם mean: “I am the Lord your G’d who has told you when you stood at Mount Sinai: ‘I am the Lord your G’d.’ At that time you accepted Me as G’d and all the authority which this implies. Now I am asking you to accept My decrees.”    Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi said that it was quite clear to G’d that many years later (in the era of Ezra) the Israelites would have an urge to contravene this legislation totally and to intermarry with all kinds of partners forbidden to them under Torah law. This is why G’d introduced this legislation now as a Divine decree. By repeating His status as the Jewish people’s G’d and lawgiver, the Torah implies that just as G’d pays a reward to those who honour G’d’s laws, He will exact retribution from those who willfully flout this legislation.
      A kabbalistic approach: There is not a single word missing here. The Torah informs us that the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. the tetragrammaton, known to the Israelites as their G’d refers to Himself as “אני” on occasion. Examples of this are found in Exodus 25,9 as well as in Exodus 16,26.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, “which man shall carry out and live by them.” These words refer to the משפטים, social laws, mentioned in this chapter. It is these laws which ensure that man can function in a civilised manner and maintain his position on earth as the dominant species. We have confirmation of this concept in Proverbs 29,4 where Solomon writes: “a king sustains the land by (social) justice.”
      A pertinent comment on the words וחי בהם “so that he may live by them,” is made in Yuma 85 where these words are interpreted as: “so that he will not die by them.” This is the origin of the ruling that the Torah’s laws are voided (at least temporarily) when performing  any particular one of them clearly leads to the death of the person about to perform them. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Yesodey HaTorah 5,1-3). There are only three commandments violation of which is prohibited even if one has to give up one’s life in order not to violate them. They are: idolatry, immoral sexual relations such as incest, and murder. In all other instances the simple rule is to rather violate the commandment than be killed on account of observing it. However, this rule of violating the commandment rather than be killed on account of it applies only if the threat of death is in private. When one is required to violate a commandment of the Torah in public or be killed one must not violate the commandment in question however trivial a commandment it may appear to be and thereby desecrate the Holy Name of the Lord. This is quite clear from the Talmud Sanhedrin 74.
      A Midrashic approach (Sifra Acharey 9,10): the words וחי בהם, “so that he may live by them,” refer to eternal life in the hereafter. This is also the view of Onkelos who translates these words as: וייחי בהון חיי עלמא, “so that he will live an eternal life.” The different kinds (categories) of life available for body and soul respectively as a result of the performance of the Torah’s commandments are four in all. The word וחי promises the observant Jew participation in all these four kinds of life. The first type of life granted to those who keep the commandments is the quality of life in store for people who keep the commandments primarily for the reward promised. This type of מצוה-observance is known as “walking on the left,” seeing that the party concerned wants to take advantage of what is written in Proverbs 3,16 that the observance of Torah precepts if intended to result in long life is considered as “walking on the right,” whereas if it is intended to secure for the person performing them material wealth it is considered as “walking on the left.” The second category of מצוה-observance is that by people who intend to secure eternal life for themselves in the hereafter. Even though such people do not perform the commandments for their intrinsic value, i.e. לשמה, the souls of such people do have their wish granted. Concerning the two types of motivations underlying the מצוה-performance just mentioned, the prophet (Isaiah 57,15) has said that fulfillment of the commandments results in G’d “reviving the spirits of the lowly and  reviving the heart of the contrite.”    The third type of motivation for performing the command-ments of the Torah is that by doing so one wants to express one’s feelings of love for the lawgiver, for the Lord, and one is not concerned at all with any benefit that will accrue to him in this world as a result of doing this. Such people will enjoy both long and happy lives in this world as well as their proper share in the hereafter. Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are models of people who served the Lord out of love and not out of the desire to secure advantages for themselves by doing so. They translated their love for G’d into the way they performed the menial chores of life on earth, be it tending sheep and cattle, engaging in agriculture, or whatever.  The fourth category of person observing G’d’s commandments is a person who, in observing G’d’s commandments, does it in such a manner that he thereby negates the physical aspects of life on earth, concentrating all the while only on the transcendental values of life, on the celestial  regions. Such people are suitably rewarded in that death has no control over them at all. They return to G’d with their bodies intact as did Chanoch and the prophet Elijah (Compare Nachmanides on the subject, page 100 of his commentary Chavell edition).
      There are yet another four types of “life” man may merit as a result of מצוה-performance: One is regular life on earth such as the majority of people enjoy who experience no special disabilities in their lives on earth and are in good health. The second category of life on earth is that of people who have recovered from usually terminal sicknesses and near-fatal accidents. Such lives may be compared to vessels which have been reconstructed after having reached what could be considered as the end of their useful existence. We find a description of something like this in Job 33,25: “let his flesh be healthier than in his youth; let him return to his younger days.” The third kind of life is that granted by G’d to the sinner who was slated for death but has repented with the result that G’d grants him an extension of life. This is what the prophet Ezekiel 33,11 speaks of when he said: ”it is not My desire that the wicked shall die but that he turn back from his evil ways and live!” The fourth category of life is life after the resurrection. All of these four categories of life are part of the Torah’s promise וחי בהם that he who observes the commandments of the Torah may qualify for some or all of these lives.
  
  Verse 6
  
   איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו, “any man shall not approach his close relative (with a view to sexual relations).” This verse expresses the Torah’s prohibition of incest. According to Nachmanides the following verses describe the type of relations-through blood or through marriage- which are included in this prohibition. The biological reason for this prohibition is presumed to be that children born from such incestuous unions have a limited life expectancy and are generally genetically deficient in some way. Seeing that the whole purpose of sexual relations is the creation of healthy children, cohabitation with the various categories of family members mentioned in this chapter is forbidden. This is the meaning of the words (chapter 20,19) כי את שארו הערה, “for he has revealed his blood-relationship,” i.e. the prohibition is due to the deficiencies in such blood-relationship.   Concerning the prohibition to have sexual intercourse with a woman while she is experiencing her monthly cycle, this  proves further that prohibitions of marital relations are rooted in considerations of health, the chance of a viable fetus being produced from such sexual unions. Seeing that the fetus is formed out of the blood of the woman either in the main or completely, reproduction of the human species from menstrual blood is scientifically not possible; the fetus would not even be started if cohabitation occurred during that period.    What would Nachmanides have to say in respect of Deut. 23,2 where the Torah permits [by implication, Ed.] the person who suffers from crushed testicles, i.e. is unable to sire children, to marry a female convert or a female Gentile slave who has been freed by her master (and has converted)? Surely if the dominating reason of the עריות legislation were rooted in biological considerations these people should not be permitted to cohabit with a Jewess, even one who was not a natural born Jewess! This proves that sexual intercourse not designed to produce Jewish offspring is not necessarily forbidden. I will explain this in context when we come to the relevant verses (Deut. 23,2). 
      The ראב"ד in his book בעלי הנפש chapter שער הקדושה, writes that sexual intercourse may be divided into five categories. Category one is a duty designed to ensure the survival of the human species. Category two is obligatory on the husband in order for him to fulfill his duty vis-a-vis his wife; this duty is called עונה in Exodus 21,10. Category three is when it serves therapeutic functions, is recommended for one’s health. Category four is when it serves to release carnal urges which preoccupy one’s thinking and may lead to sex with forbidden partners unless given an outlet. Category five, a forbidden category, is to indulge one’s lust as do the animals.
      Maimonides in the third part of his Moreh Nevuchim, chapter 49 writes that the reason for the עריות legislation is to reduce the frequency men indulge in cohabitation, to train people to accept that the sex act per se is considered revolting and that when it comes to the Torah’s prohibiting man’s pairing with the females of the species  mentioned in  our chapter, the common denominator found here is that the women in question are constantly part of his immediate environment and therefore represent a temptation due to their easy availability. Seeing that man is surrounded by such temptation, the Torah decreed harsh penalties against the violation of this legislation.   Ibn Ezra in verse 6 cites similar reasons as governing this legislation. 
  Nachmanides considers that this is a very inadequate reason for such legislation, and that to impose the karet penalty on a transgression merely because these women are close at hand is neither logical nor psychologically sound. Why should the Torah prohibit these relatives because they are close at hand, while permitting one to marry multiple women who are not his relatives? Why should one not be allowed to marry his daughter alone (as is permitted for a gentile), or marry two sisters as Yaakov did? One could not find a more suitable marriage partner for his older son than one of his own daughters, the sister of his son, and bequeath them his inheritance and have them populate in his own home,  being that G’d did not create the earth for it to remain a wasteland (Isaiah 45,18).  The fact remains that we have no valid tradition concerning the true reasons for this legislation and the choice of which relationships are objectionable. [For instance — why an uncle may marry a niece whereas an aunt may not marry a nephew (even if the nephew happens to be older than the aunt). Ed.]
      I will explain the reason for the legislation on my own account. (Rabbi Chavell traces this explanation to a well known Kabbalist, Rabbi Ezriel, quoted in the Sefer Hamitzvot of Rabbi Recanati). Relationships, i.e. kinship, are divided into three categories: The first category comprises kinship between people who had never been separated. The second category comprises new kinship between people between whom there never had been any genetic relationship before. The third category of kinship is that between people who are related by blood but have been separated at one stage or other in life.  An example of the first category is Adam and his family; all of his descendants were allowed to intermarry freely, their union being considered like branches which unite with their common root. This is how we must understand the saying of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,3) that when Adam and Chavah had their first marital union they joined on a bed and when they got off the bed there were seven human beings; Kayin and his female twin, Hevel and two female twins. The number seven symbolises the ”union” just as the Menorah (candlestick in the Tabernacle) had seven arms, all of them being part of the central shaft. Our sages say further that from a legal point of view Adam could have married his own daughter, however he performed an act of kindness toward his son Kayin giving him his daughter as a wife. This is the meaning of Psalms 89,3: “the world is built on loving kindness” (compare Sanhedrin 55). This kind of kinship where all the parties concerned had never been separated was not subject to the present legislation. Just as Adam and his wife were made of the same flesh, so their children were the product of genetically the very same material as their parents. No other genetic material was part of any of these children.   The second category of human relationships is the exact opposite of the first. Two people who are of genetically totally different background are permitted to join together in marriage precisely because they are not related to one another. Such a union is comparable to the branch of a tree which had been totally cut off and is being planted in the earth again to produce a new root.    Thirdly, the kinspeople who are too closely related to one another have been forbidden as potential marriage partners because they had at one time become separated. This is the group of people for whom this legislation has been written. Seeing these people were united generations back but had grown apart in the interval they cannot serve as a symbol of unity, something that marriage, building a family is all about.    To sum up: the rule is that people who are genetically distant from one another may unite in marriage in order to demonstrate that genetic distance from one another is no barrier to union, on the contrary the concept of unifying, creating a bond resulting in a union is best demonstrated by such people. People who are genetically very close must not enter marital unions (or sexual unions) because up until then they were symbols of the reverse of union, of separation. Seeing that the kinsmen and kinswomen were not the product of the kind of genetically unified unions such as Adam and Chavah, they do not display signs of such genetic uniformity.
      Seeing that branches should unite with their roots (if they did not remain united by not being lopped off), the Torah encourages marriage between such “stray, isolated” branches. The same is true of a solitary trunk. A trunk’s genetic excellence can be demonstrated only by means of its branches. If these branches had been cut off and scattered this is equivalent to the trunk (root) having lost its yichus, genealogical excellence. We may view people who violate the laws pertaining to עריות, forbidden sexual unions, as destroying the concept of creating unity. This is also the reason why the tetragrammaton, the name of G’d emphasizing His Unity, prefaced this legislation. This is why the words אני י-ה-ו-ה are appended at the end of verse two in our chapter. Our sages in Sanhedrin 57 interpreted the words איש איש in our verse as including members of the Gentile nations to whom such legislation (in part) also applies. We find other instances where the expression איש איש is also used to alert us to the fact that the law in question applies also to the Gentiles. A prominent example is Leviticus 24,15 where the prohibition of cursing the name of G’d is legislated. This is also one of the seven Noachide laws. Similarly, worshipping the Moloch and sacrificing one’s children to that deity is forbidden to the Gentiles. This prohibition is also introduced with he words איש איש, (compare Leviticus 20,2).
  
  Verse 7
  
   ערות אביך וערות אמך לא תגלה, “the nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not expose.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse speaks of a single negative commandment; the meaning is: “you must not reveal the nakedness of your mother for in so doing you would reveal the nakedness of your father.” Their nakedness is basically one. The same is true of verse 14 where the Torah writes “you must not expose the nakedness of your father’s brother; do not approach his wife she is your aunt.” Here too this is a prohibition aimed solely at the aunt as all the laws in this chapter are aimed at the females. The meaning is that in exposing the nakedness of your aunt you would be exposing your father’s brother’s nakedness.
    A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 54: we are dealing with two separate laws (negative) in this verse. The expression ערות אביך refers to “your father’s wife” (as opposed to his genitals being exposed). The words ערות אמך refer to “your mother who is not the wife of your father.” As to the word ערות אשת אביך in verse 8, this refers to this prohibition applying even after the death of the father when the woman is no longer your father’s wife.   The words ערות אחותך בת אביך in verse 9 refer to a half-sister not born of the same mother or the daughter of your mother who does not share the same father with you.  The words מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ in that verse refer to the fact that no distinction is made if she is born out of wedlock or as a child of a legal marriage; in either event she is forbidden to you  being considered your sister. You have to respect her kinship to you though it may not be the result of a formalised relationship. As to the Torah repeating in verse 11 ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך, this all belongs together with the line ערות אחותך בת אביך, “your sister who has not been born of the same mother as you.” The repetition simply means that violating this prohibition makes the party doing so guilty of having violated two separate commandments. Someone who has sexual intercourse with a half-sister from another mother becomes guilty of transgressing the injunction against relations with a sister as well as against the injunction not to expose the nakedness of one’s father’s wife’s legal daughter. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ערות בת בנך או בת בתך לא תגלה, “You must not expose the nakedness of your son’s daughter or you daughter’s daughter, etc.” Interestingly, the Torah failed to mention the prohibition of sexual relations with one’s daughter; the reason is that this may be arrived at by simple logic. If the Torah provides a harsh penalty for cohabiting with one’s granddaughter, the same is most certainly appropriate for a father who cohabits with his daughter. The absence of the direct prohibition of sleeping with one’s daughter is comparable to the direct prohibition of eating meat and milk. Seeing that the Torah forbade the boiling of meat in milk, (Exodus 23,19) it is clear that eating such a mixture is most certainly forbidden also.    In connection with Exodus 23,19 I explained the reason why the Torah phrased that prohibition as applying to the boiling of the two  items of food instead of simply forbidding the consumption of the two at the same time. Seeing that the Torah failed to mention “do not uncover the nakedness of your daughter,” our sages (Yevamot 3) concentrated on a different method of deriving this prohibition by insisting that there is a written link to this legislation in the Torah called גזרה שוה, the use of otherwise redundant words which contribute little to our understanding where they appear. The words in question are זמה,זמה and הנה,הנה respectively (verse 17 and chapter 20,14 ). [The sages were not happy with relying on logic, i.e. a קל וחומר, seeing that such a source for a prohibition, while adequate, cannot be used to determine that the prohibition carries such a harsh penalty as karet. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח, “you must not marry a woman’s sister in addition to her.” The word לא תקח, normally applied to a legal union, i.e. marriage, in this instance means “do not sleep with her.” There are occasions when sexual union is described as ביאה whereas on other occasions it is described as שכיבה; on still other occasions it is referred to as ידיעה, whereas here it is phrased as קיחה. The reason that the Torah employs words other than קיחה to describe the same act is to ensure that we do not think that only a formal union such as by means of קידושין, a betrothal involving the bride receiving something of value has been forbidden whereas an informal union of two consenting parties is permitted. Seeing that a legal union with one’s wife’s sister while the former is alive is altogether impossible, the word לא תקח clearly does not describe what is impossible but what is possible, i.e. a sexual union without the benefit of marriage. Chapter 20,17 as well as chapter 20,14 where the Torah uses the word קיחה refers to sexual union without the benefit of a legal contract.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואל אשת עמיתך לא תתן שכבתך לזרע, “You shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife in a manner which will impregnate her.” According to Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra sexual union can have either one of three objectives. One objective is to produce offspring; the second reason is to use it therapeutically;  to lower the body’s acidity, etc.; the third objective is to indulge one’s libido, i.e. to act like an animal. When the Torah here added the words: “in order to fertilize,” i.e. the most noble of the three objectives we have listed, it is to tell us that even when this is the objective the Torah absolutely forbids such an act.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason that the Torah saw fit to add the words לזרע is that without this word we might have thought hat even embracing and hugging someone’s wife results in the karet penalty. This conclusion would have been reasonable seeing that the whole chapter speaks of violations involving that penalty. Thus far Nachmanides.
      In other words, the verse tells us that sleeping with someone else’s wife results in the karet penalty. Naturally, when there are witnesses to the act and the party or parties have been warned they are liable to execution as we know from Leviticus 20,10 where the Torah decrees death by execution for both the male and the female partner in such an act of adultery.  Solomon already castigated participants in adultery when he wrote, inspired by Holy Spirit, in Proverbs 6,27-29: “Can a man take fire to his bosom without burning his clothes? Can one walk on hot coals and not sear one’s feet? So is he who sleeps with his neighbour’s wife; whoever touches her will not go unpunished.” The reason that Solomon used two parables to make the same point  is to tell us that the guilty party will experience punishment after death by being consigned to purgatory whereas here on earth he will be executed for his sin. Furthermore, he may refer to a physical penalty for the man who touches his neighbour, i.e. a physical penalty, whereas he faces a penalty for his soul, i.e. being burned in purgatory. The body is compared to clothing, whereas the soul is compared to hot coals. Only the body is punished by being touched, the soul being “untouchable” in the physical sense. Solomon adds in verse 29 that such an adulterer will not go unpunished; he means that if the adultery had been consummated the guilty party will not escape punishment in purgatory. By the same token, his body will not go unpunished if he touched the woman. I have already explained earlier the mystical aspect of the union of wife and husband on Exodus 20,17, and will have further comments on this in connection with Numbers 5,17.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ומזרעך לא תתן  להעביר למולך, “You shall not present any of your children to pass through for the Moloch;” There was a pagan cult called Moloch; part of the form of worship required was that the father make his son walk through two piles of wood set afire until he would be burned to death. The assumption underlying this cruel form of worship was that if he fire-god had been given one member of the family as a sacrifice the remaining members of that family would no longer be in any danger from that god. Not only that, but the surviving children would all grow up and be successful, aided by the power of that god. (Compare our comments on Genesis 12,3). The reason the letter ל at the beginning of the word למולך has the patach vowel indicating that this is an already familiar phenomenon (definitive article), is because the Israelites were familiar with that deity from their many years in Egypt. The reason it was known by the name מולך, similar to מלך, “king,” is that it was identical with a deity worshipped by the Ammonites, (compare Kings I 11,17) also known as מלכום. This deity also appears with the name “Adramelech or Anamelech the god of the Sefaryam” (Kings II 17,31). The word “adar” means “honour,” the word “An” means עונה in Hebrew, “affliction, suffering.” Each of these words has the word מלך appended to it. One single cult was known by so many different names.   According to Rabbeinu Chananel each of these names represents a different cult as he explains in his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. He writes: there are many different forms of idolatrous cults. Some consist of making the idol have the likeness of a human being or at least the face of a human being. Other cults worship a symbol resembling the appearance of a cherub, angel-like figure. Still others worship a force symbolized by the image of certain domestic beasts, free-roaming animals or birds. This is what we read in Kings II 17,30-31: “The Babylonians made Sukoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nirgal, and the men of Chamath made Ashima; and the Avvites made Nivchaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvides burned their children to Adramelech and Anamelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim.” All of these names are different gods. The expression Sukoth-benoth refers to a hen and her chicks; the name Nirgal refers to the male chicken, the rooster. The name Ashima describes a cat, whereas the name Nivchaz describes a dog. The name Tartak describes a donkey, Adramelech an ape, and Anamelech refers to the peacock.
      I believe that these idols were named after certain stars (patterns resembling such animals). This would correspond to Amos 5,26: “Sikkuth and Kiyyun of your astral deity, the images you have made for yourselves.” The words Sikkuth and Kiyyun are both names of stars and are what Jeremiah 44,19 refers to when he said: “and when we make offerings to the Queen of Heaven and pour libations to her.” The people referred to the stars as “Queen of Heaven.”    The expression  “kiyyun tzalmeychem” in Amos 5,26 refers to Zachal, otherwise known as Shabbtai (Saturn). The word “kochav eloheychem” in the same verse refers to one of the seven fixed stars (planets)  i.e. the sun. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.    The concept underlying these cults was that each of these stars, (planets) has the power to pull down from Heaven certain positive and beneficial outpourings of the Creator’s largess. They called such a deity “kiyyun” on account of the type of food they prepared and served to the image representing the particular deity. [When you consider that the Torah directs that the Altar serves as the gateway to G’d and that the sacrifices presented there are described by G’d as לחם אלוהים “bread (food) for G’d,” the cult does not sound as childish as we are wont to think. The error committed by all the cult-worshippers is that the deities they serve are demonstrably unfree, bound to an orbit we can predict to a fraction of a second, i.e. obviously under a higher authority. Ed.] The word כונים in Jeremiah 44,19 describing the food presented to these deities is an Accadian word describing small cakes.    Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the word נבחז should be spelled נבחן and is composed of the words נובח, “bellows,” and שן, “showing one’s teeth.” 
  When the Torah in our verse uses the expression להעביר למולך, instead of writing להעביר באש, “to make them pass through fire,” this  is due to the fact that everyone at the time knew that the expression להעביר meant to “pass through fire.” There are numerous verses in the Bible confirming this, such as Deut. 18,10, Kings II 16,3; this is why the sages in Sanhedrin 64 had to tell us that the mother of King Chizkiyah had smeared him all over with the blood of a salamander to make him fire-resistant. We also have a verse in Ezekiel 23,37: “and they have even offered to them as food the children they bore to Me.” [Worship of the Lord and simultaneous worship of the Moloch was particularly repugnant to G’d. Ed.]   However, the traditional view of our sages of the wording in our verse not mentioning fire specifically is based on their making the father culpable for this transgression already before the child gets to the fire, i.e. at the beginning of the procedure, the one called העברה by the Torah. As soon as even a single one of its limbs is burned the father is guilty of death (Sanhedrin 64). The reason that this verse is appended to one dealing with adultery, something apparently totally unrelated, may be that G’d displays jealousy of the Jewish people serving such cults and thereby being unfaithful to Him, just as a husband is angry when his wife is unfaithful to him. This thought is spelled out in connection with idolatry already in the second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20,5) “for I the Lord your G’d am a jealous G’d.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ושמרתם אתם את חקותי, You shall observe My decrees, etc.” What is the need for the pronoun אתם in this verse, seeing it is already a suffix at the end of the word ושמרתם? It is meant to exclude idolaters (non Jews) from the restrictions of blood relations marrying each other. If a Gentile wants to adopt these laws as applying to himself (as part of his religion) this is not legally possible. Just as when the Torah said in Genesis that man has to toil for his livelihood in the sweat of his brow, not setting aside a Sabbath for the Noachides when such toil was forbidden and thereby releasing him from toiling on the Sabbath, (Sanhedrin 58), so Gentiles who point to the Bible as showing that these laws apply to them also are in error seeing the Torah emphasised this applicability to Jews only by the extra word אתם.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם, “so that the land will not vomit you, etc.” This verse belongs to the one following it reminding the Israelites that the former inhabitants had already been disgorged by this land. The Torah wishes to emphasize that the Israelites would not only be disgorged by the land if they failed to observe the laws of עריות, family purity, but they would be subject to the karet penalty in addition.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ונכרתו הנפשות העושות את התועבות האלה, “and the persons committing these (abominations) will be cut off from their people.” The karet penalty appears in the Torah in three different guises. There is a karet penalty which is applicable only to the body of the guilty party. There is also a karet penalty which applies only to the soul; finally, there is a karet penalty which applies both to the body and the soul of the sinner in question.    A karet penalty applied to the body only is recognisable by premature death of the guilty person. If someone has led a generally righteous life but has become guilty of a single sin punishable by the karet penalty he is condemned to die prematurely, living maybe only half the number of years allotted to him when he was born. An example of such a karet penalty is the student (young scholar in the Torah Academy) who had touched his wife during the days she had to observe the ritual waiting period before immersing herself in a ritual bath after she had stopped bleeding from her monthly cycle (Shabbat 13). This is called כרת של שנים, a karet penalty resulting in the loss of years;[Seeing that the sin was committed inadvertently through ignorance and it is not recorded that merely touching one’s wife is subject to this terrible penalty even when committed knowingly, it is hard to understand that this should have been the only reason for the early demise of this young scholar. The scholar giving the widow this reason for her husband’s early death may have implied that G’d is especially strict with Torah scholars who ought to have been models of pious conduct. Ed.].    There is also another variation of the karet penalty being applied to the body only when the sin was committed late in the life of the guilty party so that the karet penalty through cutting off many years of the life of the person could no longer be applied. An example illustrating this type of the karet penalty is recorded in Moed Katan 28. We are told that when Rav Yoseph reached his 60th birthday he threw a party inviting all his colleagues the scholars. He celebrated the fact that he now had proof that up until that point in his life he had not been found guilty of the aforementioned karet penalty. He was, however, still subject to the karet penalty known as כרת של ימים, i.e. not living out his allotted time although he had reached what is considered “old age.” Rav Yoseph consoled himself with having definitely escaped the full impact of the karet penalty. Some scholars hold that the karet penalty described as כרת של ימים refers to sudden death, not being able to make preparations for one’s death.    Seeing that there is some confusion concerning the matter and the application of כרת של שנים, early death, is easily recognisable whereas the כרת של ימים is not, our sages expressed the view that G’d gives notice of this. If an old man dies after only three days of sickness this is a sign that he did not die of old age (the time which had been allocated to him being up) but died of that penalty. This is what the Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2,1 had in mind when the rhetorical question was asked: “if an old man had eaten forbidden fat or had deliberately violated basic laws of the Sabbath how do we know that he was punished by the karet penalty for his sin?” The answer given by the Talmud is that if he died one day after being taken sick this reflects some kind of anger of G’d at that person. If he died after two days of sickness this reflects death due to a different degree of anger of G’d known as behalah. If he died after three days of sickness this indicates that he was guilty of the karet penalty we described as כרת של ימים. When the Torah writes the words ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו, “this man will be cut off from the midst of his people,” the type of karet penalty which is meant is that which applies only to the body of the person in question, be it obvious premature death or fairly sudden death at an advanced age (after 60). The soul of such a person will merit immediate transfer to the hereafter in the world of the souls and his resurrection at the time when this will take place is assured.  The karet penalty which applies to the soul only applies to people who have sinned by violating very severe laws such as eating chametz on Passover, or eating on the Day of Atonement, or performing forbidden kind of work on that day. If he violated the עריות legislation in our chapter knowingly he is also subject to the karet penalty involving his soul. If the sum total of his sins was greater that his accumulated merits this penalty of karet is applied to his soul after it has been separated from his body. As a result he forfeits his share in the hereafter of the world of the disembodied souls. Concerning who is subject to such a karet penalty the Torah uses the formula ונכרתו הנפשות העושות, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא לפני, והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, (such as here, or Leviticus 7,20; Leviticus 22,30; Leviticus 14,4 according to Sifra Emor 14,4). Although the last mentioned formula appears to speak of loss of physical life, it is possible that the Torah means that such a person does not experience premature physical death but destruction of his soul. After all, we find that many people guilty of deliberately flouting the laws of the Day of Atonement live to a ripe old age. Kohelet 7,15 already pointed out that some wicked people enjoy long life of undisturbed  peace and tranquillity on earth.   Examples of karet manifest both in early death of the sinner and in loss of his hereafter apply to such sins as idolatry or sins equally serious such as blaspheming the name of the Lord (Numbers 15,30). People guilty of this will be removed from life on earth a well as from any life after death. Concerning which sins are subject to this harsh penalty the Torah writes הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this person (soul) will most surely be cut off and will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31). Our sages in Shevuot 13 stated that the word הכרת speaks of the destruction of the bodies of the guilty party whereas the word תכרת refers to destruction of his soul. We must understand the meaning of the word מעמיה, “from its people,” as applying to instances where only the karet of the soul is meant to mean that this soul after death will no longer be part of the Jewish souls who congregate together in the world of disembodied spirits awaiting the resurrection on earth. A soul subject to this penalty will be obliterated. In the words of Samuel II 14,4 לא ישא אלו-הים נפש, “Will not G’d  forgive a soul and make plans so that the outcast can find his way back?” [The author uses the wording to show that unless G’d devises a plan to save that soul from oblivion it will indeed be consigned to eternal destruction. Ed.] This is an example of what is meant by the wording: ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מלפני, “this soul will be cut off from My presence” (Leviticus 22,3). What we have written on the subject of karet thus far is the opinion of Ibn Ezra. [Rabbi Chavell points out that our author ‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra contradicts what the latter writes on Leviticus 24,30. Ed.]
      According to our author Maimonides shares the opinion he has outlined so far as is evident from what he wrote in Hilchot Teshuvah chapter 8. I quote: “The reward in store for the righteous is a life in the world of the future, a life that does not know death. The retribution which is visited upon the wicked is that they will not participate in that life but will be cut off and die. Anyone who does not participate in that life dies and is obliterated just like an animal which dies. This is the karet  of which the Torah said הכרת תכרת (Numbers 15,31). According to Shevuot 13 the word הכרת refers to death in this world, whereas the word תכרת refers to death of the souls of the people concerned. People who are subject to what is written in that verse will not experience any kind of life after death of their bodies.” Thus far Maimonides.
       We must question that seeing that purgatory, גהנם, was created specifically for sinners who had not repented, why should the people mentioned by Maimonides wind up without being aware that they have been punished for their sins? If the perfectly righteous are entitled to everlasting reward, why are not the absolutely wicked people sentenced to everlasting punishment? If the soul is totally obliterated there is obviously no way for such a sinner to experience retribution for his sins! If we were to say that the institution of gehinom was created only for the people whose lifestyle was what is called בינונים, i.e. that their accumulated merits and debits were in balance at the time they had died, it would follow that the totally wicked are better off than the people who have many merits to their credit! This is something that our intelligence cannot tolerate as being fair.   Furthermore, assuming this was really the judgment administered to the wicked, i.e. obliteration of body and soul without suffering, why did the rabbis of the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 90 not enumerate the sinners subject to the karet penalty as one of the groups which forfeits life in the hereafter?    We must understand the words in that Mishnah: “these are the people who do not have a share in the hereafter,” as referring to an individual claim to a share in the hereafter over and above the share in the hereafter which every Jew has assigned to him (as a birthright) unless he forfeits it. The people mentioned in that Mishnah do not forfeit the various outpourings of tzedakah, loving kindness from G’d’s treasuries which are dispensed to people much as alms are distributed to the poor, not as compensation for services rendered but as a demonstration of G’d’s loving kindness for mankind. If someone does not have any money and depends on being invited for the Sabbath by a neighbour, he is considered as such a person who does not receive his livelihood from G’d in is own right but only through an intermediary. Similarly, if even the souls which descend to gehinom are understood to enjoy respite from their sufferings on Sabbaths and holidays (if only to bring home to these souls that they failed to appreciate the value of these days while they were on earth), these souls are in a situation similar to the poor man we have just described. Even the souls which will never be rehabilitated in gehinom are accorded this kind of respite on the days we just mentioned.  As a result of such statements by our sages we must conclude that the concept of total obliteration of a purely spiritual soul is something that does not exist, in fact maybe inherently impossible due to the nature of such a soul. The correct interpretation of the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, “this soul will be cut off from its people (Leviticus 7,20),” is that it is cut off permanently from the original place assigned to it, the place it had originated from in the “quarry” where all the souls emanate. Besides, how can we understand the karet penalty as involving the total destruction of a soul in light of the statement in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17 that these sinful souls are being judged in purgatory throughout the generations. Clearly the author of that statement refers to the continued existence of such souls, not their perdition. Such a continued existence would not make sense unless they had a future. Could there have been any group of people guilty of more fundamental sins than Korach and his co-conspirators who denied G’d and His prophet Moses, people who have been wiped out in this life and have not enjoyed the hereafter and yet they are suffering in gehinom, i.e. their souls continue to exist? In fact, they will be granted physical life at the time of the resurrection as we know from Sanhedrin 109 based on the verse Samuel I 2,6 מוריד שאול ויעל, “G’d who lowers to she-ol (gehinom) and raises up again.”    The word מעמיה, “from its people,” means “from the other souls of its people.” Such a soul will remain separated from the people it has once belonged to. The very word ונכרתה, “to be cut off,” implies that the severing is one which is final, absolute. Just as a branch is lopped off the trunk which was its source of life, so this soul is severed from the people which used to sustain it by reason of its being part of it. In spite of all this the “solitary” soul will enjoy the radiance of the Shechinah in a place other than the one originally designated for it after it has completed its period of punishment. In other words, the word מעמיה limits the period of punishment, makes it less than absolute and eternal. The above is an opinion quoted by Nachmanides [According to Rabbi Chavell, seeing that the writings of Nachmanides on our verse do not bear this out at all. Ed.]. Similarly, when the Torah speaks of “this soul will be cut off from My presence,” the reference is to the site where G’d’s Shechina usually resides. This would refer to the land of Israel, as that country is the gateway to heaven, the place from which the souls make their ascent. This is the reason that pious people are so anxious to die there and be buried there in order to facilitate the ascent of their souls.   The prophet Jonah (1,10) made this clear when he tried to escape the presence of the Shechinah in the land of Israel; by chartering a boat to take him away from there so that the Lord would not communicate with him and give him detailed instructions as to what he was to say to the people of Nineveh. We have a tradition that as a rule, prophets do not receive communications from G’d while outside the land of Israel. [A major exception was Ezekiel, whose entire prophetic career was in Babylon. Ed.]    When the Torah refers to persons who have been contaminated by ritual impurity through contact with a dead person and who enter holy precincts without the benefit of having undergone purification, the penalty is described as  ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מתוך הקהל, “this person (soul) will be cut off from the community (which practices the rules of ritual purity).” Seeing that the person described saw fit to separate himself from the community, his penalty is that G’d will separate his soul from the community in question. This does not mean, however, that another location will not be assigned to this soul after it has served the penalty decreed for it. The soul in question will not wind up like that of an animal just because that person neglected purification rites before entering sacred ground.
      Onkelos demonstrated his superior wisdom by refraining from translating the precise meaning of the karet penalty. Whenever it is mentioned he merely writes: וישתצי אנשא ההוא, “this man will be cut off” (compare 7,20 and 19,8, et al). The fact that in this instance Onkelos relates the penalty the Torah decrees to the body of the person by writing אנשא instead of נפש, appears to prove that he does not view the karet penalty as a wiping out of the soul.
      The philosophers think that the karet penalty is one that is aimed at the soul of the sinner, seeing that the soul is something preparatory, i.e. the instrument which enables the body of man to acquire any intelligence, etc. They bring ironclad proof for their contention by citing the fact that when man is first formed he has no vestige of intelligence. As he grows up physically his intelli- gence grows and his wisdom grows apace. All of this is proof that the soul is only a preparatory stage, a receptacle enabling the intelligence to be asssimilaed. If the soul itself were intellligent man should have demonstrated his intelligence from the day he is born, they say. 
  It is well known that we do not consider the theories of the philosphers as binding on our outlook in life as their whole theories are based only on criteria which they can examine experimentally. We prefer to rely in matters like this on what we have been told by the prophets and our sages. They had traditions based on the true state of affairs.  Our prophets and sages are all agreed that the soul enters our bodies in a perfect state, not something infantile that has to rely on biological growth and food. When the Torah reports that the creation of man was concluded with G’d blowing into man’s nostrils a נשמת חיים, a living soul, it is clear that since this soul came directly from the Creator that it was not something incomplete requiring the development of the body to give it value. Clearly, it, as distinct from the body, was something of an eternal nature. It originated in celestial regions, regions where the concept of death does not exist and is not operative.    In view of the fact that the soul is something so infinitely superior to terrestrially created entities the expression ברא, “created,” (a term applicable to matters terrestrtrial) has not been mentioned in connection with it. The wisdom which the fetus was already equipped with while inside the mother’s womb became subject to loss of memory through the baby undergoing the traumatic experience of being born and leaving the secure environment in which it had existed up until that time.    The Kabbalists compared  this soul to a light which has been lit and sbsequently extinguished at the moment the baby enters this imperfect world. This is the meaning of what the Talmud said (Niddah 30 and 36) that a fetus has a light above its head enabling it to see from one end of the world to the other end. Do not be incredulous when you read such words, as it is a fact that man can lie in one part of the earth and in his sleep he sees (in a dream) matters which occur thousands of miles away. The whole concept is documented by Job 29,2-3: “O that I were as in months gone by, in the days when G’d watched over me, when His lamp shone over my head.”    As soon as the baby leaves the mother’s womb an angel strikes it on its mouth causing it to forget all (the Torah) it had learned while in the mother’s womb. This is a meaning of Genesis 4,7 לפתח חטאת רובץ, “at the entrance (of the mother’s womb) sin lies in wait.” 
  We also have a Midrash which states that ‘they place a burning light on top of the fetus’ head enabling it to see from one end of the world to the other. The Midrash quotes the verse from Job 29,3 as its source. It continues that an angel guides the fetus to Gan Eden every morning and shows him all the righteous people who sit there and enjoy their existence wearing their respective crowns on their heads. The angel says to the fetus: ‘you should know who the people are that you observe seated there. All these people were created just like you in the wombs of their respective mothers and upon leaving their mother’s wombs they went on to lead a righteous life on earth, observing the Lord’s commandments. In recognition of this they now enjoy life in Gan Eden.” The angel continues to advise the infant that he too will eventually die and if he observes G’d’s commandments during his stay on earth he will merit to share in the life just shown to him in Gan Eden. Failing this, he would wind up in a different kind of place altogether. In the evenings, the same angel would show this infant what goes on in Gehinom. He would show him all the suffering experienced by the inmates of that place, pointing out that these people were being punished for violating G’d’s laws while they lived on earth. He would warn the infant to consider all this carefully when he would leave his mother’s womb so that he would lead the kind of life G’d wants him to lead in his own interest. When the time comes for the fetus to leave his mother’s womb he would forget all that he had seen before. As a result of forgetting such important information the infant cries at the time he enters this life, knowing that there was something important he should have remembered. Thus far the Midrash.  What the Midrash makes plain is that while in the womb of his mother the infant is fully able to comprehend all that the angel shows to him, i.e. he has a fully developed intellect, otherwise what is the point of the angel showing him all this. The reason that G’d decrees for the infant to forget all he has learned while inside his mother’s womb is to ensure that when he does lead the right kind of life on earth he will merit the reward in store for people who do this of their own free will.
      Nachmanides on our verse writes as follows: when the Torah writes that the sinning soul will be subject to the karet penalty this is the Torah’s way of informing us that the souls of people who are not guilty of sins involving this penalty will survive the death of their bodies. It is simply not the manner of a king who legislated penalties against people who violate his rules not to reward those who observe the rules in an appropriate manner. 
  The soul of man may be considered like a shining light supplied by G’d (Proverbs 20,27) which was breathed into him by the mouth of the Supreme G’d  personally as described in Genesis 2,7. The very fact that the soul as distinct from the body is not an “alloy” of four elements but is one single “component,” already predisposes it for eternal life as there are no possible imbalances between the constituent parts which could lead to its disintegrating such as the body. Just as the disembodied angels are creatures that endure indefinitely, the soul is a similar type of abstract intelligence intended to exist indefinitely. Keeping this thought in mind is why the Torah wrote in Numbers 15,31 עונה בה, “its sin remains with it,” i.e. seeing the soul does not perish, the sin  which has become part of it does not perish either. Or better still, the only cause of causing the soul to perish is the sin which cleaves to it. Seeing that there is no other way the soul can perish there was no need for the Torah to spell out that innocent souls enjoy life of infinite length. This is what the sages had in mind when they said that the words מקרב עמה, “from the midst of its people” (Numbers 15,30), mean that its people will enjoy peace. (Compare Sifri Shelach 112). The very destruction of a sinful soul is proof that other souls live on indefinitely. This is why the Torah warns repeatedly about this penalty karet; it is something not “natural” but supernatural. When the Torah spells out assurances of certain rewards these are always in the nature of cause and effect, i.e. something “natural.” This is no different  when the fate of the soul is the subject. There was no need to tell us that souls survive the death of the body as it is no more than natural for things to return to their origin sooner or later. A body, i.e. dust, returns to its origin dust, whereas the soul returns to its origin in the celestial spheres. Solomon has already spelled this out in Kohelet 12,7 when he said that “dust (body) returns to earth whereas the spirit returns to G’d.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
     תאוה נהיה תערב לנפש ותועבת כסילים סור מרע, “Desire realized is sweet for the soul; it is an abomination to the wicked to abandon evil.” (Proverbs 13,19).
   In this verse Solomon warns man not to give in to his various physical urges but to suppress them and to vanquish them. Anyone who succeeds in banishing his physical urges is considered on the spiritual level of an angel. Conversely, anyone who encourages his physical urges and wants to indulge them is on the spiritual level of an animal. When we take a look at the creatures created on the sixth day of creation we find that all the creatures created prior to man can be divided into two groups: 1) abstract intelligences; 2) creatures bound to earth by their bodies. The first group comprises the angels, creatures which are totally disembodied, divorced from anything material. The second group, such as the trees and other kinds of vegetation as well as living creatures are all composed of matter, totally devoid of intelligence. Each of the two categories of creatures performs the tasks allotted to them by their Creator, the former group using their intelligence, the latter using their instinct. Both these groups are not free agents but have to obey the instructions received from their Creator, using either their natural instincts or their G’d - given intelligence but neither being overtly interfered with.    It follows that on the sixth day a third category of creature was created, one which represents a blend of the previous two. It was a creature which embodied both intelligence similar to the disembodied angels, and at the same time is made up of a body and responds to natural urges similar to the animals. This category of creatures was the human species. Man is not dominated either by the dictates of his intelligence or those of his natural urges. The principal difference between man and other creatures it that he possess willpower, i.e. decisions made by him are free-willed. If he is circumspect he can successfully overcome the natural urges he has in common with the animals. In that event he frees himself of the influence exerted upon him by the physical raw material he is made of. If he fails to resist the urges which result from his being made up of physical matter, he negates the influence of his intelligence, the element which makes him similar to the angels.    As long as Adam did not sin and as a result became enmeshed in the urges common to animals he was a true angel of the Lord although possessed of a body. He was all intelligence, unblemished. As a result, he was fit to live forever (compare author’s comments on Genesis 2,17), similar to the angels who reside in the celestial regions. He had been placed in Gan Eden, the choicest location on earth.  Seeing that he did sin, decided to respond to physical urges, he was deprived of the intelligence which had covered him like a garment and was dressed in earth-grown material. As a result he was expelled from Gan Eden and given herbs as food, similar to the animals. This is the meaning of Genesis 3,18: “you shall eat the herbs of the field.” Prior to that he had been eating fruit grown on trees, products of plantings by G’d’s own hand. Keeping in mind how Adam was demoted, or demoted himself, we must realise that it is to our advantage to break the hold that these natural urges have on us, something which if achieved is תערב לנפש, “will be sweet for the soul;” Solomon speaks of greed and similar instincts which, if they have been “broken,” conquered by man, are something sweet and pleasant for man’s intellectual faculties. The word נהיה in that verse, an unusual word, is similar in construction to Daniel 8,27 נהייתי ונחליתי, “I was broken up and ill;” we also have a similar word in Exodus 9,3 הנה יד ה' הויה, “here the Lord’s hand is about to break, etc.” Solomon urges man to break the hold these natural instincts have over him seeing that they are רע, evil. The Torah already told us that such urges are evil in Genesis 8,21 כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, “for the instinctive urges man’s heart is exposed to are evil, ever since his early years.” Seeing that the person who does break the prison walls represented by these urges is in effect סר מרע, distancing himself from evil, Solomon adds that תועבת כסילים סור מרע, that “abandoning evil is something abominable in the eyes of the fools.” Whatever is pleasant for the soul is by definition an abomination for the body, the home of these baser instincts of man.  It is a well known fact that he who allows himself to follow these base instincts is thereby violating all of the Torah’s precepts. Following one’s instincts may be divided into four categories, four levels; 1) one does so theoretically, allowing himself to feel the urge and be titillated by it. 2) One speaks about these urges, a form of coming closer to giving in to them; 3) one indulges these urges by consuming the object of the temptation with one’s mouth, tasting it; 4) one abandons one’s entire body to the delights offered by such allure. As to fantasizing about sin Solomon already taught us  that such fantasies are culpable as if the sin had actually been committed in deed.  In Proverbs 15,13 he told us that “a happy heart makes for a cheerful face, whereas a sad heart causes a despondent spirit.” Solomon did not want to tell us the obvious, rather he meant that there is a direct relationship between fantasizing about sin and translating the fantasy into practice. Just as the thoughts of the heart influence the body and its appearance, so sinful thoughts influence the organs with which these thoughts are carried out. The heart is to those organs what the root of a tree is to its branches.     The second category of following one’s instincts, i.e. speaking about such fantasies involves such sins as gossiping, character-assassination, using foul language. It is forbidden by Biblical decree. Solomon refers to it when he said that “the mouth of fools expresses folly” (Proverbs 15,2). Immediately following that verse he wrote that “the eyes of G’d are everywhere; they behold the good and the wicked.” What Solomon meant was that G’d pays close attention to the power of speech being abused as well as to those who use that power judiciously and constructively. G’d will punish the guilty. The prophet Isaiah also castigated people who abuse their mouths to speak foul words when he said: “(G’d) will not spare their youths...for all are ungodly  and wicked and every mouth speaks impiety” (Isaiah 9,16).    The third category, i.e. eating forbidden things in response to one’s instincts, overriding G’d’s laws, is also a violation of a Biblical law. Concerning such lapses David said (Psalms 40,9) “Your teaching is in my entrails.” David congratulated himself that he never fell victim to the temptation to fill his entrails with forbidden food. David did not merely refer to food which was forbidden per se, but to gorging himself on permitted food, indulging his appetite instead of eating only in order to meet the requirements of his health. Solomon described a righteous person as someone who אוכל לשבוע נפשו, “eats in order to satisfy his soul (as opposed to his body)” Proverbs 13,25. In Proverbs 21,23 Solomon elaborates further saying that “he who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps his soul from troubles.”   The fourth category of temptation one may fall victim to is the one involving one’s entire body. It concerns indulging one’s carnal instincts indiscriminately. There is no need to dwell on the list of incestuous relations the Torah has already outlawed. The temptation to overindulge in sexual activity with a partner who is officially permitted is what one has to suppress, conquer. This concludes the four categories of temptations that the body is exposed to and which it is incumbent upon us to resist. Whence do we know that if someone allows himself to pursue these various pleasures available to the flesh that he thereby violated the entire Torah legislation? Solomon provided us with the answer to this question when he wrote (Proverbs 18,1) לתאוה יבקש נפרד, בכל תושיה יתגלע, “a man exclusively concerned with satisfying his desires separates himself from all wisdom (Torah).”  The word נפרד, “alone, abandoned,” used in that verse means that he who pursues physical gratification will find himself isolated, alone.  He will lose his friends and companions in the process as his friends will not want to expose themselves to these temptations. A person guilty of such pursuits is in effect “kicking” at the Torah. This is what is meant by the words בכל תושיה יתגלע. This is why the Torah asks us not only to refrain from what is forbidden but to refrain from and to suppress desires as these might ultimately lead us to violate what is forbidden outright. Considerations such as this led our sages (Yevamot 20) to formulate the slogan: קדש עצמך במותר לך, “sanctify yourself by refraining from that which is permitted to you!” Anyone who deliberately separates himself from such urges is described as “holy.” The Torah applies this flattering description to the Nazir who undertook to abstain from intoxicating drink (wine) and all grape-products as well as from contact with ritual impurity, and who lets his hair grow to show that he is doing this. The Torah (Numbers 6,5) writes concerning such a person: “holy shall he be, the growth of his hair on his head shall grow.” Just as such a Nazir is holy, the Israelites at Mount Sinai were holy as we know from Exodus 19,6: “and you shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests, an holy nation.” The Israelites were commanded to be holy in order that they should separate themselves from the cravings of this world. 
   קדושים תהיו כי קדוש אני ה' אלו-היכם, “You shall be holy for I am holy, Hashem, your G’d.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word קדוש, means isolating oneself, being apart. This is an exhortation to the entire Jewish people to be chaste, to practices noble character traits and to impress one’s children with the importance of these virtues. Children then will look up to their parents as if the parents truly were G’d’s representatives on earth. In turn they will testify thereby that the Creator Himself is their supreme authority, the original “patriarch” who has called this world into existence. In order to make this point, our paragraph immediately commences by telling us that we must revere mother and father and observe G’d’s Sabbaths. (verse 3). The linkage of these two commandments is that the Sabbath is testimony to the fact that G’d created the universe (Exodus 20,11).    The reason the Torah writes the commandment to revere mother and father, letting the mother precede the father in importance (as opposed to a similar commandment in the decalogue where the Torah writes: “honour your father and your mother”), is that it is natural for children to love the mother more than the father and to fear the authority of the father more than that of the mother. The Torah wants to ensure that we do not make such distinctions in our relationship with our respective father and mother. If both parents were to agree that the child is to violate the Sabbath, the Torah adds immediately: “and you shall observe My Sabbath days,” meaning that this commandment overrides even a joint command by father and mother to the contrary. The addition of the words: “I am the Lord your G’d” at the end of verse three means that G’d is the supreme authority for both the child and his parents and thus has overriding authority when there is a conflict involving the loyalties of the child. Both the parents and the child are obligated to carry out His instructions.    The Torah appends the commandment not to serve any other deities nor to make molten images for oneself to make the point that even if one recognises the Lord as the supreme authority but denies that He created the world out of no pre-existing raw material one is considered an heretic, guilty of idolatry.    One must not turn to idols as this implies that one considers that they are a substantive force. The words אל תפנו, “do not turn,” are not so much an instruction not to face the idols but that in one’s heart one must not believe that there is anything to them and to what they purport to represent. We must consider idols as something devoid of any theological meaning, totally powerless to exert influence of any kind on anybody. The use of the root פנה here is similar in meaning to Deut. 29,17: “whose heart turns away today from the Lord, etc.,” or Deut. 30,17 “if you will turn away and not listen.”    The Torah adds that “you must not construct molten images for yourselves,” i.e. even though you are aware that such images are totally meaningless in theological terms, have no power or value. The reason the Torah appends the words: “I am the Lord your G’d,” means that ‘I can be trusted to pay you your reward, i.e. Hashem, (attribute of Mercy) but eloheychem, (attribute of Justice) in the event you do something for which you will deserve punishment.’
      It is also possible to explain the directive: “you shall be holy” at the beginning of our Parshah as applying to the sanctity of one’s thoughts, one’s intentions, similar to what the sages said (Shevuot 18) that when engaging in the act of marital relations with his wife both parties should harbour only pure thoughts, not wanting to merely indulge their libido. Seeing that such purity of thought at such a time has a genetic impact on the kind of children produced through the act of cohabitation, the Torah even referred to the children born as having been born “for Me” (compare Ezekiel 23,37: “and even their children which they had born to Me they passed before them the idols, -specifically the Moloch-that they may be consumed”). The prophet speaks of children conceived in holiness as children born to G’d. This is applicable to all the Israelites whose existence is dedicated to G’d. The reason this paragraph is addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel,” is because these laws apply to males and females equally. When Moses assembled the people and gave them the directive to build the Tabernacle and for the Israelites to donate materials for that project we also find the directive addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel” (Exodus 35,1). There too the directive was addressed directly to the males and the female members of the community. The reason for the formula איש אמו ואביו תיראו, is that there are three partners involved in bringing about the birth of a human being, G’d, father, and mother (Kidushin 30). The Torah mentions the mother first as it is a great achievement for the mother to attain the level of sanctity desired when she cohabits with her husband. The father, partner number two, is mentioned next as his contribution to the fetus is critical, i.e. his sperm is the most important ingredient. G’d is mentioned last as He contributes the soul, an essential component, (but only after husband and wife have already started the fetus). The words: “I am the Lord your G’d” at the end of the verse describe that G’d is the third party in the creation of the baby. The third partner, G’d, is alluded to in the words “and observe My Sabbaths,” seeing that amongst observant people cohabitation takes place primarily on Friday nights. The word תשמרו, is appropriately translated as “waiting.” We find the word שמר used in this sense in connection with Yaakov “waiting for something to occur” when told of a dream his son Joseph had which on the face of it defied interpretation (Genesis 37,11). Our sages in Berachot 3 use the word in a similar manner when they speak about שמר לי על הפתח, as the subject Elijah there waiting for Rabbi Yossi. The prophet Isaiah 56,4 speaks of the Lord having an encouraging message for the eunuchs and sterile men who observe the Sabbaths (although unable to sire children and hope for G’d’s partnership being manifest in the children they will father, resp. not father). The subject there are not people unable to produce viable sperm but people who deny themselves the opportunity of cohabiting with their wives except on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbaths. Our sages interpret the words אשר פריו יתן בעתו, “someone (normally tree) who will give its fruit at its appropriate time” (Psalms 1,3) as an allusion to people who indulge in cohabitation with their wives only on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbath in a special manner (compare Ketuvot 62). G’d rewards such people by granting them יד ושם טוב מבנים ובנות, “a memorial and name better that physical sons and daughters.” [This is the end of the verse in Isaiah 56,4 and ignores the literal promise of that verse which is understood as consoling people who have no children by suggesting that there are greater rewards than biological offspring. Ed.]
      There are those who claim that the reason the prophet singles out Sabbath observance by males who are unable (biologically) to have offspring is because the commandment to observe the Sabbath is linked by the Torah to future generations, i.e. applicable to the children and children’s children of a person (Exodus 32,16). As a result, a person who is aware that he would never have any children might balk at observing all the laws of the Sabbath and requires special encouragement. G’d therefore promises them a reward which is greater than their merely having physical offspring.   The next verse in our paragraph exhorts us not to turn to idols, (verse 4). The connection with the previous verse is that it is forbidden to look at females (in order to arouse one’s libido). Our sages (claim that when one looks at females because they are females one places oneself in the same company as people who turn to idols, deities, even if they only admire the artistry involved in their construction (compare Zohar Kedoshim 84,1). Seeing that it is also forbidden to fantasize about someone else’s wife, the words: “do not make a molten image for yourselves” in the same verse complement  the thoughts we just mentioned.
      A Midrashic approach: The “be holy for I am holy,” with which our portion commences reflects the fact that the concept of a nation such as Israel inspired G’d to create the universe in the first place. Expressed differently: Israel shared G’d’s holiness already before the universe or the people were created. At this time G’d decided that the time had come for the people of Israel to demonstrate this latent holiness in actual visible fashion (compare Tanchuma Kedoshim 2). If we were to illustrate this concept in a parable the matter is similar to a king who has become engaged to a bride, i.e. she has become designated for him exclusively. This prompts the king to say: “seeing that I am the king and you are going to become my queen you ought to share my glory. Seeing that my glory is my title “king,” you ought to share this glory of mine.” Applied to G’d and Israel respectively, G’d’s glory being His being holy, He is now (immediately prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai) desirous of His fiancee the Jewish people sharing this holiness. The way to achieve this is to observe the laws of the Torah, plus. This is precisely what happened prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai when G’d told Moses to “sanctify” the people (Exodus 19,10), whereas G’d Himself sanctified the people when He said: “you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19,6).  Rabbi Levi (Vayikra Rabbah 24,5) claimed that the entire Ten Commandments are recorded in this portion. Whereas in the Decalogue we read אנכי ה' אלוקיך, “I am the Lord your G’d,” in our portion (19,4) we read אני ה' אלוקיכם. Whereas in the Decalogue we are told לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, “do not have any other gods and do not make yourselves a hewn image, etc.,” we are told here (verse 4) “do not make yourselves a molten image.” Whereas in the Decalogue we are told not to utter the name of the Lord in vain, we are told here not to swear a false oath using the Lord’s name (verse 12). Whereas we are told in the Ten Commandments to observe the Sabbath, we are told here to observe the Lord’s Sabbath days (verse 3). Whereas we are told in the Decalogue to honour father and mother, we are told here to revere mother and father (verse 3). Whereas we are told in the Ten Commandments not to commit murder, we are told here “not to stand idly by when we see someone being murdered.” (19,16). In the Ten Commandments we are told not to commit adultery, whereas in our portion here we are being told: “do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot” (verse 29). The Decalogue commands us not to steal, whereas here we are told: “do not steal” (19,11). In the Decalogue the Torah warns against bearing false witness against someone, whereas in our portion we are warned: “do not commit character assassination, defamation” (19,16). In the Decalogue we are exhorted not to covet other people’s possessions, especially his wife, whereas here the Torah commands us to: “love what is your neighbor's just as what is yours,” i.e. not to covet what is his” (19,18). 
  A Kabbalistic approach: ...
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אל תפנו אל האלילים “do not turn to the “non-deities.”  The verse speaks about disembodied spirits beneath the (domain) of the ten emanations; the reason they are called אלילים is that they do possess certain god-like powers. The reason the word is repeated, i.e. אלילים instead of אלים, is to remind the reader that whatever power is displayed by these disembodied spirits is not an independent power but merely something accorded to them by the Creator. They derive their power from another source. This fact prompted the psalmist to say in Psalms 96,5 כי כל אלוהי העמים אלילים וה' שמים עשה, “all the gods of the peoples are mere idols, but the Lord made the heavens.” The psalmist means that the supremacy of Hashem is clearly evident in that He created the Heaven (the entire universe) single-handedly.  ואלהי מסכה, “and molten images, etc.” this refers to images of stars, zodiac signs, etc., which are below the level of these disembodied spirits just mentioned. These molten images are perceived as receiving their power from these stars, etc. The name אלוהי מסכה is appropriate and comparable to what the prophet Isaiah 40,19 described as הפסל נסך חרש, “the molten image is poured by the artisan.”   אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G’d.” “I exercise control over all levels of phenomena.” We have a similar thought expressed more unmistakably by Solomon in Kohelet 5,7 where he wrote: “for there is One higher than the high Who watches and there are high ones above them.”    The words אל תפנו also include a concept described by David as בידך עתותי,  “in Your hand are my times.” (Psalms 31,16).  We read in Exodus 3,15 that G’d told Moses concerning hidden meaning in His name, זה שמי לעלם, “normally translated as: ‘this is My name forever.” The fact is that the word forever, לעולם is spelled defective in that verse, the letter ו being missing. This means that G’d has kept something concealed, hidden. Briefly, G’d’s message was that although the believers in the stars and zodiac signs attribute significance to the timing of any action in order to ensure that they will be successful, i.e. under the influence of the horoscope, Jews do not. This is what David had in mind when he spoke about his “fate” being in G’d’s hands, calling his fate עתותי, “what is meant to happen to me at any predetermined point in time.” He expresses his absolute trust in leaving such matters to G’d, not to consulting horoscopes. When G’d concludes our verse by writing אני ה', this is a reminder to the Jewish people that their fate at least is not subject to אלילים, and it would be not only wrong but foolhardy of them to turn to cheap imitations of the real Power in this world.
     לא תעשו לכם אני ה' אלוקיכם, ”do not construct for yourselves, I am the Lord your G’d.” These words are the conclusion of the three verses 2-3-4. We find a similar ending (signature) in 19,34 which concludes the subject of the treatment of strangers (converts). This type of signature is used again in verse 36 concluding the warning not to use false weights, etc., There are still a few other commandments which are signed by G’d saying: “I am the Lord your G’d.” (verses 10-25-31). The reason underlying these statements is that all the commandments originate with G’d, but that only performance of them testifies to the fact that G’d is the lawgiver. This is what the sages meant when they said that if someone spends his entire time only studying the Torah he is comparable to a person who does not have a personal G’d” (Avodah Zarah 17). Their meaning is very clear. We are to demonstrate the existence of G’d and His law by carrying it out in practice. If we do not leave a corner of our fields for the poor, or if we do not treat the convert as an equal, or if we do not ensure that our weights and measures are fair, how do we testify to the fact that G’d whom we believe in has formulated these laws and that we have accepted them? In order to make this point the Torah keeps repeating the “signature” אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G’d, as if to say: “demonstrate that I am the Lord your G’d”
  
  Verse 5
  
  'וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים לה, “When you slaughter a peace-offering to the Lord, etc.” The Torah means that “when you have the need to perform sacrificial service to a higher power, do not sacrifice to these aforementioned disembodied spirits, etc., but address your peace-offerings exclusively to Hashem.” The word לה' includes that such sacrificial offerings should not be motivated by your desire to receive some kind of gift or reward in return. Your motivation must be לרצונכם, to express your innermost desire (to come closer to your G’d).    The reason that in this instance the Torah writes the formula תזבחהו instead of תזבחו such as in Leviticus 22,29 when we have similar sounding legislation, is explained by our sages in Chulin 29. The absence of the letter ו in the parallel word in Parshat Emor is to teach us that that when a Priest slaughters a sacrificial animal, the same Priest must not slaughter the next sacrificial animal to be offered; neither must two Priests combine to slaughter one single sacrificial animal. In the case of slaughtering animals which are not sanctified and not intended for the altar but merely for private consumption such restrictions do not apply. This is why the word תזבחהו is spelled with the extra letter ה in our verse. [I do not understand why the author speaks about a missing letter ו, when in our editions of the Torah the difference between the two verses is the letter ה. Ed.] At any rate, the Talmud derives from the spelling here that if one slaughterer severed the heads of two animals at the same time, (i.e. in one stroke) both animals are considered as having been ritually slaughtered.]
      It is also possible to say, in accordance with a kabbalistic approach, that the addition of the two letters הו in our verse here in the word תזבחהו are a deliberate reminder of the last two letters in the tetragram, i.e. symbolising the two attributes Mercy and Justice. (compare author’s comments on Genesis 46,1). This is why there was a need here to add these two letters. It is similar to the same two letters being written in Exodus 2,6 where the Torah describes the reaction of Pharaoh’s daughter when she saw young Moses in the basket as ותראהו את הילד, instead of ותרא את הילד which is what could have been expected. In that instance our sages commented that the extra letters meant that the princess also saw a manifestation of the Lord’s presence, Shechinah, when she looked at the baby (compare Sotah 12). Seeing that the תודה offering which is the subject of the word תזבחו in Leviticus 22,29 was addressed to only one attribute, i.e. Hashem, there was no reason to append the letter ה in addition.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ביום זבחכם יאכל, “on the day (and the morrow of the day) you slaughter it must be eaten.” The preferred method is to eat the meat of the offering on the actual day the animal has been slaughtered. On the second day it is permitted to eat it still, but it is not the Torah’s choice that the eating be spread over two days or not be commenced until the day after the slaughter.     When the Talmud in Zevachim 55 speaks of peace-offerings being permitted to be eaten on two days and one night, this means the day of the slaughter, the night following, and the following day. On the night following the second day the offering is already in the category of נותר, “left over,” and must not be eaten anymore, the remains to be burned. This is the meaning of the words: “and what remains of it on the third day must be burned by fire.” These words simply mean that the burning has to take place on the third day, not the eating.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ובקצרכם, “When you reap the harvest, etc.” The reason the word ובקצרכם is in the plural is because the portion commenced with Israel being addressed in the plural, i.e. as the community. Moreover, it was the custom in those days that many people began the harvesting process simultaneously. By contrast the words   לא תכלה, “do not completely harvest the corner, etc.” are in the singular seeing the warning is addressed to the individual owner of the field in question. We find that the Torah uses the singular in other parallel legislation where the onus is on the individual owner (compare verse 10). Our sages in Chulin 135 comment that seeing the Torah spoke about שדך, “the field belonging to you the individual,” I might have thought that fields owned jointly by two or more partners could escape the application of this legislation. To ensure that we do not draw such conclusions the Torah employs the plural in our verse here, speaking about a number of people harvesting.
  
  Verse 10
  
   וכרמך לא תעולל, “and your vineyard you must not pick undeveloped fruit.” The Torah means that when you come across unripe single grapes during the process of harvesting the vineyard you must leave those for the stranger, the poor, etc. The reason these single unripe grapes are known as עוללות, a word usually describing babies, is that these grapes are to regular clusters of grapes as these babies in relation to fully grown men.  They must be left as gleanings for the poor.  ופרט כרמך, “and the fallen fruit of your vineyard you shall not gather.” The individual ripe grapes which for one reason or another fall off the clusters are called פרט. Individual ears of corn are also known by that name once they have been separated from the stalk. Compare Yoel 1,17 עבשו פרדות תחת מגרפותיהם, “the seeds have shriveled under their clods.” When the prophet predicts desolation due to crop failure both of grain and fruit trees, he refers to the immediate cause being the shriveling up of these individual ears of corn used as seed. The word עבשו is similar to the word עפשו, “turned moldy.” The word מגרפותיהם used by the prophet is derived from אגרף, “fist.” The prophet uses the comparison between the whole, the combined and the separate, the individual. He describes the whole stalk full of ears as similar to a “fistful,” whereas the individual ears of corn he describes as having shriveled, עבשו. The word פרט is always found in Talmudic Hebrew as the contrast to the כלל, the community, the all-inclusive rule, for instance.
   In Megillah 26 the Talmud speaks of האי תיבותא דארפט, “a holy ark in the Synagogue which is disintegrating,” and from the usable parts of which it is permitted to make a similar smaller ark, although not something to hold secular books or scrolls. The letters רט in the word in the Talmud, though inverted, do not change the meaning of the word, i.e. that it fell apart into its components which were previously held together. In connection with defining the word פרט more closely, our sages (Peyah 6,8) stated that if one or two grapes fell off a cluster the definition פרט applies, whereas if three or more grapes fell off together this definition does not longer apply and the grower may retrieve them. The same definition applies to individual stalks of corn as opposed to sheaves. 
  
  Verse 11
  
   לא תגנובו , “you shall not steal!” At this point the Torah reverts to using the plural seeing that a similar commandment in the Ten Commandments had been addressed to the individual, i.e. לא תגנוב. The Torah did not want us to think that the commandment here was merely a repetition of what has already been written in the Decalogue. In the Decalogue the Torah speaks of someone stealing somebody for which the penalty is execution, whereas here the Torah speaks about objects or even animals for which financial compensation with or without a penalty is in place. The reason we know that in the Decalogue we speak about a different category of theft, i.e. kidnapping, is that the other commandments there i.e. “do not commit adultery, and do not murder,” are also sins punishable by execution of the person violating them deliberately. Here the Torah speaks of stealing money, or the equivalent of money, something that can be expiated by means of payments to the party concerned. We were told in Baba Metzia 61 that the wording לא תגנובו implies that stealing is prohibited even  if one committed the theft only in order to annoy the person from whom one stole without the intention of keeping the stolen money. The reason the sages in Baba Metzia had to come up with this explanation is that seeing the Torah already wrote לא תגזול, “do not commit robbery,” and everyone who steals is automatically guilty of violating the commandment not to commit robbery, the words לא תגנובו had to contain an additional dimension. 
     לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, “do not deny falsely, do not lie, and do not use My name to swear a false oath.” The Torah, with its infinite psychological insight, describes a sequence of events. One starts by stealing, then denies that one has stolen, then denies it on oath. In the end one is guilty of desecrating the Lord’s name (when others hear about it). The Torah speaks particularly of invoking the tetragram in any oath. “Desecrating the name of the Lord your G’d,” means desecrating the One name from which all the attributes, כנוים, are derived.
   The first time this injunction appears was in the Ten Commandments where the Torah also mentioned שם ה' אלוקיך, “the name of the Lord your G’d” (Exodus 20,7). At the time the Torah had added that the sin of desecrating His name by using it in a false oath was so severe that He would never completely forgive such a person for that sin.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse the deaf.”  The reason the Torah used the example of the deaf person in this verse was to teach you to apply logic. If the Torah forbids you to curse the deaf person who does not hear it and therefore does not feel angry or saddened by such treatment of him on your part, how much more so must we not curse someone whose faculties of hearing are not impaired. All of these directives are designed to improve a person’s basic character traits and to ensure that he will not become the victim of bad and addictive habits. The prohibition to curse the deaf is not based on the Torah’s consideration of the victim, rather it is for the protection of the person doing the cursing. The Torah does not want such a person even to mouth curses where these have no visible effect; otherwise, the same person, being already in the habit of uttering curses will do so where they do immediate harm. When one has trained oneself not to curse even the deaf, one will be doubly careful not to curse those who can hear. The example of not cursing the deaf is a precedent applying to any situations of a similar nature. The Torah chooses examples from real life; similarly the Torah exhorts not to put obstacles in the path of the blind because they are not able to identify of who tried to cause them harm. Unfortunately, people who do have the habit of taking advantage of the helpless tend to be guilty of such examples as mentioned by the Torah. The words: “you shall fear the Lord,” after the warning not to place obstacles in the path of those who cannot see is a reminder that G’d can see what you do. The use of the expression ויראת מאלו-היך occurs usually when the matter is left to your heart, i.e. there is no police restraining your behaviour. Similar comments were made by Solomon in Proverbs 24,12: “if you say: ‘we did not know anything about this,’ surely He who looks into the hearts will understand (the truth), the One who preserves your life will know; will He not repay everyone according to his deeds?” This is also the reminder of our sages in Avot 2,1: “know what is above you, a seeing eye, an ear that listens, and all your deeds are being recorded in a book.”
  
  Verse 15
  
   בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, “with righteousness you shall judge your fellow.” The verse speaks about the fairness to be applied in the judicial process. Justice must not be perverted. He who applies fair rules thereby strengthens the throne of the Almighty. It is said of G’d’s throne that “righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne,” (Psalms 89,16); if someone perverts the judicial system he thereby undermines G’d’s throne. This is a demeaning of G’d’s glory. The Midrash Tehillim 82 phrases the thought in these words: “if the judge judges righteously the Shechinah will be with him;” we know this as David said in Psalms 82,1: “the Lord is present in a community of true judges.” If the judges fails to apply these standards the Shechinah withdraws. We have another verse in Psalms 12,6 confirming this where it is written: “due to the groans of the plundered poor and needy, I will now act, says the Lord,” and the Holy Spirit is reported as exclaiming  (Psalms 108,6) ”exalt Yourself over the heaven let Your glory be all over the earth!”.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   את חקותי תשמורו, “observe My statutes!” What are these “statutes” the Torah speaks of here? They are primarily such laws as: “you must not mate your animal into another species, and you shall not plant your field with mixed seed, and a garment of a mixture of wool and flax fibres shall not come upon you.” 
  According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for these prohibitions is that all the things G’d created be they living creatures or merely vegetable matter each have their own mazzal, or representative in the celestial regions; each species was created as such, a principle underlying the whole creative process, where again and again G’d speaks of their being למיניהם, “according to their species.” Anyone who mixes species contravenes the expressed wish of the Lord. It is as if he denied the fact that the universe and all there is in it was created by the directives of the Lord. It is tantamount to expressing the view that G’d did not know how to best exploit the potential of the species He created. Adding new species through grafting is like second-guessing G’d.   The prohibition of using both a donkey and an ox to pull a ploughshare simultaneously is another law based on the same type of consideration. The farmers usually bring the team of animals which ploughed into the same stable thus leading them to mating with each other. If they were to produce offspring constituting a new species this would contravene G’d’s laws on maintaining the purity of the respective species.
      A Midrashic approach: based on Tanchuma Shelach 15: The words: “do not seed your field using a mixture of species of seed,” represents the verse ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, “The Lord desires His (servant’s) vindication, that He may magnify and glorify (His) teaching” (Isaiah 42,21). This means that there is no major area of life which has not been regulated by the Torah’s issuing commandments in order for the Jewish people to earn the right to a brilliant future after death due to their having fulfilled all these commandments. Our lives have been regulated concerning ploughing, seeding, harvesting, weaving fibres and even wearing mixtures of clothing containing certain mixtures of fibres. We are not allowed to eat all kinds of animals, etc., etc. By observing all these laws we truly “blanket” all our activities so that they represent obedience to G’d’s commandments.
  According to a kabbalistic approach, the legislation which is part of the group known as chukkim is an example of something not only related to matters physical, terrestrial, and this is why G’d speaks of חקות שמים, “laws of heaven” (Job 38,33). Statutes which are known as “laws of heaven” have been addressed only to the people of Israel. The psalmist speaks of: “His statutes and laws to Israel” (Psalms 147,19), and in psalm 81,4 he speaks of: “for it is a statute for Israel.” In other words, just as every species on earth has been assigned by G’d its specific function, so in the celestial regions too each category of angel, etc., has been assigned its specific function. These functions include insuring that terrestrial earth is supplied with the celestial input enabling it to function optimally. We know that the concept of peace and harmony is as important in the celestial spheres as it is on earth as we have been told in Job 28,2  that G’d makes peace in the heavenly regions as well as on earth. In other words, contrary to what we may think “peace” in the heavenly domains is not a given, something inviolate, but it may have to be restored from time to time having been fractured. When the beings in those heavenly regions each carry out their assigned tasks there is “peace.” In short, when these celestial forces stick to their assigned tasks, i.e. do not overlap with one another, all is well in heaven. Similarly, we on earth must refrain from mixing species that should not be mixed so as to maintain peace and harmony in the celestial regions. Anyone producing “bastard” species destroys the balance in the celestial regions also.     The meaning of the word כלאים is “restraining something, denying something.” It means restraining existing powers from exercising their functions. One verse which expresses this idea is the prayer לא תכלא רחמיך ממני, where David asks G’d: “do not withhold Your compassion from me” (Psalms 40,12). Another occasion when this word appears in that form is in Jeremiah 37,18: בית הכלא, “a house of detention,” a jail where one‘s movements are restricted. Anyone placed in such a jail is unable to pursue the functions assigned to him.  By the same token the word חקים is derived also from חקיקה, “engraving,” i.e. making a visual image of abstract concepts.    When someone mates two different species of animals, i.e. מין בשאינו מינו, or he plants two different species of plants closely together so that both feed upon each other this is equivalent to mixing two separate celestial forces together which each provide that species with the ability to reproduce, i.e. which instruct that species to reproduce itself. This is what is meant when the sages said (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7) “there is no herb on earth in the terrestrial universe which does not have a patron in the celestial spheres which encourages it to reproduce.” The Midrash bases this on Job 38,33: “do you know how the laws of heaven work, can you impose its authority on earth?” Seeing that the first two  human beings who were born on earth were of different species, (Kayin and Hevel), one being the result of the evil genes of the serpent, the other that of Adam’s divinely inspired spirit, and we are commanded to keep our distance from the spirit of impurity, mixing the species has been forbidden for us as we have learned the fatal consequences which this could have. Basically, mixing species is mating opposites. It does not take superior wisdom to realise that this is likely to have devastating consequences. Whoever makes a point of separating or keeping different species apart contributes to peace and harmony on earth. Conversely, he who joins opposites, i.e. different species drives peace and harmony further away from earth. The reason is also that by doing so, one causes friction in the celestial regions from where separate input to the different species on earth originated in order to promote the continued existence of these species.   כלאים, mixing species, has been forbidden on three different levels: 1) Different animals must not be mated with one another (regardless of whether biologically such mating could produce offspring). 2) Plants must not be mixed (planting seed together or grafting branches on to tree trunks). 3) certain clothing, i.e. flax and sheep’s wool must not be woven together and worn, stitched together and worn or serve as sheets, pillows, etc. The reason that regardless of outcome animals must not be mated together is because animals mate much in the same way as humans. Plants must not be mixed together at the point of planting or grafting as the woman of the human species is compared to the field (i.e. it receives input of seed passively). The reason that the mixing of the two fibres flax (linen) with lamb’s wool is prohibited is  that Kayin offered flax as his offering to the Lord and Hevel offered sheep, i.e. wool. Seeing Kayin’s offering was rejected this was a hint that these two species were not fit to be mixed with one another. (compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9). The fact that Kayin murdered his brother is seen as a warning that they could not have been full brothers genetically speaking. Hence the Torah’s prohibition of mixing flax and wool is a warning that genetic incompatibility is fraught with extreme danger. Seeing that it is Israel’s task to be a holy nation we must not do anything which would undermine accomplishing our task. When the Torah chose the wording לא יעלה עליך, “it must not ascend on you,” as the way it describes the prohibition not to wear garments containing a mixture of wool and linen, this wording alludes to the spirit of impurity which the wearer is not to “put upon his person” when he wears such a garment. [The wording reflects that of the Zohar Kedoshim 86,2].    This leaves us with the question why the Torah not only permitted but commanded the mixture of these two fibres when it ordered that the blue tzitit  (fringe) of the four strings of fringes be made of  wool even if the bulk of the garment it is attached to is made of linen (Yevamot 4). [The word תכלת does not only mean a certain shade of blue, it means wool dyed this shade of blue. Ed.] The garments of the priests contained mixtures of wool and linen as a matter of routine, especially the ones worn when they performed the service in the Tabernacle (Kilayim 9,1). In fact this is the mystical dimension of Solomon describing the ideal wife/mother weaving wool and linen in Proverbs 31,13. According to that mystical dimension, the words in that verse, i.e. “she seeks wool and flax, and works with her hands willingly,” reflect the mystique of the entire poem Solomon composed here about such a woman. When the entire orientation of a person is to fulfill the will of the Creator, as is the orientation of the eyshet chayil described by Solomon, then, and only then, joining these symbolically diverse characteristics is permitted or even commanded. It is the task of man to sublimate the “evil” influences in our universe, to place them directly into the service of the Lord. The eyshet chayil is so named because this is what she does. Performing service in the Tabernacle is designed to achieve optimal sanctity on earth, i.e. to sublimate impurity. The blue wool thread on the tzitit is the reminder of the task of each one of us to make earth such a place where all evil has been sublimated, has been rehabilitated. Whatever goes on in the terrestrial Temple on earth reflects what goes in its counterpart in the celestial spheres.
  
  Verse 20
  
   בקרת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” The court has to investigate the matter and clarify the circumstances in order to prevent an execution of the participant or participants as would be the case in a clear case of adultery involving a fully fledged Jewess. In this instance, though her betrothal corresponded to Jewish norms, she is nonetheless not yet fully Jewish and as such her sin is not subject to the death penalty.  כי לא חפשה, “for she had not been totally set free.” In other words, as long as this woman was not totally free her status was not yet that of a full wife to the Jew who married her. Whereas she was out of bounds to everyone else, she was not yet her husband’s either. This unusual status is also reflected in the choice of the word בקר by the Torah. “Morning” is the time when everything becomes quite clear. The word ערב, evening, is the opposite, a time when things become unclear, confused. Our sages (Keritot 11) interpret the words בקרת תהיה to mean תהא בקראי, “she (not he) will be subject to lashes;” had the Torah written בקרת תהיו the penalty of lashes would apply to both the male and the female partner in that incidence. One of the reasons is that the male has already become subject to a guilt-offering as the Torah writes in verse 22. This guilt-offering is referred to in Zevachim 54 as the אשם שפחה חרופה, “the guilt-offering on account of sleeping with a slave-woman who has been partially freed.” Seeing that the woman in question was not a partner to that sacrifice, she is subjected to 39 lashes. 
  It has been explained in the name of Rav Saadiah Gaon that the word בקר, with the vowel pattern kametz, kametz, means bakar, cattle; the lashes administered are made of calf-hide. It is also possible that the letter ב in the word בקרת is used instead of the letter פ to hint that the status of the woman is one of הפקר, “she was ownerless, no one had authority over her, not her former master nor her not truly wedded husband.” This is why she does escape the death penalty. However, she is guilty of the penalty of lashes for her unchaste conduct. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, “for three years it shall be forbidden to you (literally: uncircumcised);” the expression ערלה describes something which is covered up. It is as if the fruit on these trees are covered up, i.e. have not been released to the owner by the Torah. They are out of bounds for any use, such as selling them.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the idea underlying this commandment is that we give glory to G’d by putting at G’d’s disposal  the first fruit which grows in our land and not to eat from it until we have brought all its fruit as an offering (symbolic) to the Lord (the fruit of the fourth year). It is well known that the ability of the tree to produce during the first three years after it has been planted is very limited, its yield very meagre. The fruit does not yet taste well and does not yet have much of a fragrance. As such it is not suitable as an “offering” to the Lord to whom we offer only our choicest. In fact, most trees do not even produce fruit until the fourth year as its potential has not been fully realised until he end of the third year. We find something similar reflected in the development of the human species. According to halachah, i.e. the view of the sages, a girl of under three years of age is incapable of becoming impregnated, so much so that if her hymen had been penetrated at an age of less than three years and a day, it will grow back and she remains a virgin to all intents and purposes (Niddah 44). A tree, until it is 24 hours into its fourth year is not considered as one whose fruit becomes holy as described in our portion. This is why we are not permitted to taste of any of the fruit of such trees until after the first day of its fourth year. Presentation of its fruit of that year in Jerusalem is similar to the treatment of the second tithe, something while sanctified yet permitted to the owner in the holy city of Jerusalem. Bringing the fruit to Jerusalem is considered as sanctifying it to the Lord, as the procedure is linked to praising the Lord.
      A further aspect worth mentioning, something which is known to botanists, to people familiar with agriculture. Fruit grown on a tree during the first three years of its existence is harmful to the human body as the tree has not yet enjoyed the warmth of the sun to an adequate degree and it still contains acidic juices absorbed by it roots from the earth. Until these forces of the earth have been counterbalanced by the heat in the air, they represent danger to the human species. It is similar to the fish which have no scales. Such fish contain an excess of the habitat of the fish in question and such excess of that element is apt to be harmful to the human body. [— Taken from the writings of Nachmanides who bases it on the writings of a well known Kabbalist by the name of Rabbi Ezra mentioned in the notes of Rabbi Chavell].
      A Midrashic approach: (based on Tanchuma 14 Kedoshim). The reason that the fruit of the tree is forbidden for the first three years is that we consider such fruit as in a class similar to babies who are unable to speak properly for the first three years of their lives, i.e. their intellect is not yet fully formed. In the fourth year, when such a child is introduced to Torah study by its father all the father’s fruit is sanctified (i.e. a child when it starts learning Torah suddenly is of sacred nature). The word הלולים לה' describes the praises of the father to the Lord who has granted him a son who has started to learn Torah. The words: “In the fifth year you may eat” (verse 25), describe the time when the child can study the written text of the Torah already, i.e. from then on the child will add new dimensions of Torah. This is the meaning of the words להוסיף לכם תבואתו, “so that it will increase its crop for you.” This verse served our sages who said that the child is to study מקרא, i.e. the written text of the Torah from the age of five, progressing to Mishnah at the age of ten, etc. (Avot end chapter 5) as the model for their pronouncement. Seeing that in this imperfect world a father begets a son, takes him to the Torah Academy, invests time and toils indefatigably teaching him Torah and sometimes the child dies (as a minor) because of sins committed by its father, the Torah here said to the father (allegorically speaking) “in this present world, seeing that the evil urge is to be found all over and you fall victim to his lure and you sin and your children die, know that there will be a better world in the future when I will remove the evil urge and you will beget children and live happily to see them attain their potential.” This is what Isaiah 65,23 had in mind when he said: “they shall not toil to no purpose; they shall not bear children for terror, but they shall be a people blessed by the Lord, and their offspring shall remain with them.”
      An intellectual/investigative approach: Heaven and Earth jointly are the cause that the trees produce their fruit. The two may be viewed as similar to the male and the female. Heaven is the active ingredient (factor), earth the passive. Isaiah 55,10 speaks of the rain or snow dropping from heaven and soaking the earth so that it becomes impregnated.” During the first three years the earth is not mature enough to make the fruit ripen whereas heaven is not agreeable to imbue it with the power to make the fruit ripen. As a result, anyone who eats of the fruit which has grown during the first three years is as if he neither had a share in heaven nor a share on earth, seeing that  he had eaten without permission from either earth or G’d. This is why the Torah prohibited the fruit during the first three years. Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,37, claims that in those days the pagans engaged in some hocus pocus at the times when trees were planted. They had some material which they threw at the new saplings which they believed would hasten such trees producing fruit sooner than was the custom in the rest of the world. In order to counter this the Torah ordered that fruit which matured during the first three years must not be eaten. This would deprive the people (Jews bent on economic advantage) practicing this form of pagan practice, as the ones perpetrating it would not benefit by it. Most trees produce fruit in the fourth year. The directive to eat the fruit of the fourth year in Jerusalem was to counter the practice of the pagans to eat the first fruit of their trees at sites dedicated to their deities. Negative influences exerted by various horoscopic forces cannot be neutralised except by performance of rites which are the reverse of those performed under the aegis of such horoscopic forces.
      A kabbalistic approach: The three years during which consumption of fruit during the first three years is forbidden correspond to the (three highest) emanations, כתר, חכמה, בינה. which are lumped together as one as we have no clear understanding of their workings. This concept corresponds to the period preceding creation of light, a period described in the Torah as tohu vavohu vachoshech, (Genesis 1,2) something which we also cannot fathom exactly with our minds. The fourth year of the tree yielding fruit corresponds to the emanation גבורה, (nowadays known as דין); this corresponds to what the Torah describes as “the spirit of G’d hovering over the expanse of the water,” {Genesis 1,3). This was a period not completely hidden from our ability to comprehend but also not completely revealed, made accessible to our faculties to comprehend.  As a result, the Torah demands some form of פדיון, “redemption,” i.e. a process by which that which is beyond our normal capacities is made accessible before we may treat such produce as completely secular, “natural.” The fifth year corresponds to the era commencing with the creation of light, the first part of our material world. As pointed out on earlier occasions the word אור, “light” appears five times in the Torah’s report about its creation. The fifth year of a fruit-bearing tree is compared to the era of world history ushered in with the creation of light. The Torah alludes to this by writing of the fifth year להוסיף לכם תבואתו, with the letter ה added at the end [instead of the letter ו as is the spelling in our versions of the Torah, the pronoun ו “its” referring to the masculine word עץ in verse 23. The author views the letter ה which we do not have and which would be a grammatical inconsistency as an allusion to the five times the word אור, “light,” appears at the beginning of Genesis. Ed.]. In order to remind us of the relationship between the emanations and this legislation the Torah mentions the word ערלה three times in verse 23. In other words, each one of these three first years symbolizes a different concept.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   לא תאכלו על הדם, “You shall not eat over the blood;” here too the Torah warns about Jews not indulging in pagan practices which were current at the time the Torah was given. People used to dig a hole and pour blood into it and the demons would congregate around such holes. While in the company of these demons they would consume their meal. Seeing that they fraternized with the demons the demons would reciprocate by revealing future events to the people eating there with them. This was a wide-spread practice amongst the Egyptians and the Israelites had learned from them until they too began to believe in the power of these demons and they would seek out their company. In order to wean the Israelites of such idolatrous practices the Torah forbade eating a meal in the presence of blood (which had not been covered up, buried or poured out).   Our sages (Berachot 10) understand this verse as a warning not to eat breakfast before one has recited the morning prayer. They phrased it thus; “do not eat before you have prayed concerning your blood (guilt).” [i.e. have asked forgiveness for your sins. Ed.] They also used this verse to arrive at the ruling that capital offenses must not be judged except during the morning hours of the day (Sanhedrin 63). The judges were not allowed to try such cases after they had already filled their stomachs so as not to approach the accused’s fate in a smug manner. Seeing that they could not be expected to fast a whole day and not be affected by their hunger pains or a desire to prematurely conclude their deliberations in order to have a meal, the sages ruled that such trials must take place in the mornings. When the Torah decreed that we fast on the Day of Atonement this may also reflect that our lives are at stake on that day. If we had eaten already when commencing to pray we might not relate to the day with the appropriate gravity of mind that it deserves. We are more likely to repent sincerely and throw ourselves on G’d’s mercy when we have deprived ourselves of customary creature comforts such as food. If one is commanded to be careful to be in a fit state of mind when judging others, how much more so must one be in the right frame of mind when one’s own life hangs in the balance, such as on the Day of Atonement! This is what Solomon meant when he wrote (Proverbs 6,32) “he who causes his own life’s destruction will do it” (commit the aforementioned crime of adultery; i.e. sinning is like self-destruction). There was perhaps no need to stress this point when it concerns life and death decisions; but even when matters of monetary values are at stake they should be dealt with during the morning seeing we have a verse in Jeremiah 21,12: “render just verdicts morning by morning; rescue him who is robbed from him who defrauded him.” We have a saying: “he who ate and drank should not pronounce judgments or rulings on religious matters.” [Rabbi Chavell cites a Zohar Mishpatim 122 that “anyone who passed judgment after he ate and drank did not pass a true verdict.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 27
  
   לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp, etc.” This is a warning not to shave the temple with a razor  whether in conjunction with the hair on the rest of the head or by themselves. If one shaves both temples one is liable for the penalty separately for each temple.
     ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, “and do not destroy the edge of your beard.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason is that the visible sign which G’d has given man to distinguish him from the females of the species should not be destroyed. By destroying one’s beard one commits an act of rebellion against what G’d had intended. Violating this commandment is in a similar class to violating the commandment not to mate different species. During the report of the creation the Torah stresses again and again that G’d created all the species each according to their respective species, i.e. there is to be no cross-breeding.   Had the Torah written את זקנך, I would have thought that one is not liable for the penalty of 39 lashes unless one had destroyed one’s entire beard; seeing that the Torah writes את פאת זקנך, “the edge of your beard,” it is clear that even partial destruction of one’s beard makes one liable to the penalty.    The beard has five edges which are subject to this prohibition. two are on the right side of the face, two on the left side of the face, and one below the mouth. The beard is considered as starting immediately below the ear. If someone shaved off all the five corners he would be liable to five times the penalty of 39 lashes. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word פאת, “an edge of,” to indicate that each edge is forbidden individually.
      A logical approach: all of man’s activities are related to the five senses with which he perceives things, and it is not appropriate for him to eliminate (totally fail to use) even one of these senses completely as this might prove fatal for him; therefore he should make judicious use of each of these senses, i.e. seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting. He must, however, be careful to employ these senses only for matters permitted for him to enjoy. The prohibition to destroy 5 edges of the beard are a symbolic reminder that one cannot do completely without even a single one of these five senses. Otherwise the result would be destruction of one’s body.   It is permitted to perform beard-trimming with scissors or instruments other than a razor as some of the hair above the skin remains and the beard is not destroyed completely. (compare Makkot 21) 
      A kabbalistic approach: the reason that destruction of this hair is prohibited is that the letters of the Holy Name, tetragram, are concealed within the structure of the body; the respective letters י-ה-ו are featured as part of the מילה, the organ which is circumcised, the mouth, and the tongue. This is why (according to the view of Rabbi Yochanan in Nazir 59) anyone who shaves his pubic hair with a razor is guilty of the same transgression as someone who shaves the hair of the “upper” beard, i.e. the facial beard. According to our author there are textbooks on anthropology which claim that the supreme intelligence with which our body has been constructed by Divine design is manifest in the way the areas where hair sprouts freely (face and pubic area) are interrelated. It is interesting that people who are unable to beget children, are sterile, do not have pubic hair and do not grow a beard. There are tendons which originate in either area of the body where such hair grows. Women and eunuchs do not grow hair in these areas of the body as both do not possess the facility of generating male sperm. Neither of them have tendons which originate in those areas and which link these two areas of the body to each other. They are (for people who possess them) a symbol of unity, i.e. an allusion to G’d. Hence it is proper for men engaging in marital relations to sanctify themselves beforehand. This whole commandment is a warning that through improper use of these organs one is not to become guilty of “erasing” the  letters of the Holy Name which are part of one’s body (compare Shevuot 18).
  
  Verse 28
  
   וכתבת קעקע, “nor a tatoo.” Rashi understands this to mean something engraved on one’s flesh (skin) in an indelible manner. The word would be related to תקוע, “firmly in place.” The procedure is that one “writes” with a needle beneath the skin. The area remains black forever. Our sages in Sifra Kedoshim 6,9 remark that seeing one might have thought that the mere writing on the skin would have been culpable, the Torah adds the word קעקע, to tell us that unless this writing is of such a permanent nature no penalty is incurred. At the same time, had the Torah written only the word קעקע I would have thought that the fact that an indelible mark had been made this would already have been a culpable offense, therefore the Torah had to write the words כתבת קעקע, “an indelible inscription performed with a needle-like instrument.” According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as long as the writing did not include the tetragrammaton one is not liable to the penalty for violating this commandment. He derives this rule from the ending of our verse, אני ה', meaning that unless the name of G’d was part of the inscription there is no penalty. The whole verse could be translated as: “do not inscribe My name on your flesh in an indelible manner.”
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   את שבתותי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days and you are to revere My Sanctuary.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verses which repeat the warnings to observe the Sabbath are similar to those that warn not to commit idolatry. The reason for this is that Sabbath observance is equivalent to not serving idols. By the same token, failure to observe the laws of the Sabbath is considered as sufficiently heretical to be equivalent to the practice of idolatry.
      A Midrashic approach: why did the Torah use different verbs when describing our relationship to the Sabbath on the one hand and to the Sanctuary on the other? We could have thought that the Torah wants us to be afraid of that which is holy, i.e. of the Sanctuary. To ensure we do not make this mistake the Torah wrote: “observe My Sabbath days,” i.e. we are not to be afraid of the Sanctuary but of who the Sanctuary belongs to, i.e. G’d. He who commanded us to observe the Sabbath is the One who commands us to relate with a feeling of awe and reverence to the Sanctuary seeing it is His. In the event I might think that this law applies only while the Sanctuary is actually standing, the Torah writes this law in the same breath as that of Sabbath observance. Just as the Sabbath is an eternal institution, so the commandment to relate with awe and reverence to the Sanctuary (i.e. its site) is not dependent on the actual building which serves as the Sanctuary.  A further exegesis mentioned in Torat Kohanim (Sifra Kedoshim chapter 7, 7-8) is: “I could have thought that at a time when the Sanctuary is to be erected this commandment supersedes that of the Sabbath laws, therefore the Torah wrote “you must observe My Sabbath days“ (in the same verse).
      A kabbalistic approach: I have already explained the words את שבתתי תשמרו when they were first written in Exodus 31,13, as well as at the beginning of this paragraph in 19,3. At this point an additional exegesis is called for due to the Torah adding the words ואת מקדשי תיראו, “and revere My Sanctuary.” We have to remember that the first time the Sabbath observance is mentioned it refers to  the “great” Sabbath, i.e. the observance under the heading of זכור, “to remember,” i.e. an active Sabbath observance. The second time it refers to the מקדש, i.e. the passive observance by the כנסת ישראל, the concept of the Jewish people, the “bride” of the Sabbath. When that aspect of Sabbath observance by the כנסת ישראל is described the Torah employs the term שמר, i.e. את שבתתי תשמרו. Seeing that the passive aspect of the Sabbath observance is meant there obviously cannot be a question of the building of the Sanctuary (something active) taking place on the Sabbath.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . מפני שיבה תקום, “in the presence (arrival) of a biologically old person you shall rise.” This regulation applies even to an aged person who is totally uneducated, unaware of Torah laws and consequently often contravenes them. Onkelos translates the word לא תשם in Genesis 47,19 as לא תבור, “let it not become like a בור, “uncouth, uncultured.” In other words, he thinks that all biologically aged people deserve this measure of respect.
      The words והדרת פני זקן, “you shall honour the presence of a sage,” on the other hand, is a sign of much greater respect. Our sages understand the very word זקן as an acronym of the words זה שקנה חכמה, someone who has acquired wisdom. They base this interpretation on Proverbs 8,22: ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, “the Lord has acquired me (endowed me with wisdom) at the beginning of His way.” At any rate at this point the words of Onkelos suggest that he understands both the word שיבה and זקן as people possessed of varying degrees of wisdom due to their age, the former less than the latter. The former may be proficient only in the written Torah, the latter also in the oral Torah.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   לא תעשו עול במשפט, “Do not commit a perversion of justice.” This prohibition has already appeared in almost the identical words in 19,15 in connection with the poor who was not to be given preferential treatment. In that instance the “justice” referred to was in connection with social legislation which had been spelled out by the Torah (legislating nationally). Here the Torah writes a similar warning concerning internationally accepted  norms such as weights and measures. It is reminiscent of Exodus 15,25 “there He gave them statutes and social laws.” That legislation too preceded the giving of the Torah, i.e. laws designed to regulate the people’s life in the desert.
     במדה, “concerning measure.” This applies to division of the land in Eretz Yisrael (Baba Metzia 61). The Talmud there discusses brothers who share in their father’s inheritance and who have measured the tract of land of one brother in the winter using a rope which is wet because of the time of year. When measuring the tract of land for the second brother in the summer, they must not use the same rope as the sun would have shortened the length of that rope to the disadvantage of the second brother.
     במשקל, “concerning weights.” One must not dunk one’s weights in salt causing them to lose actual weight due to corrosion (compare Baba Metzia 61 and Baba Batra 89). Dunking the weights in salt would result in loss to the purchaser. There are variant readings which suggest that the weights become heavier; in that event this warning would be addressed to the purchaser and not to the seller.
     ובמשורה, “or volume measures.”  Our sages in Baba Batra 89 explain that the seller must not heat up the item (liquid) he is selling to give it an inflated measure by volume. As soon as the liquid cools down it will be found deficient in measure. According to Rashbam there  this may apply to the foam which forms on top of a heated liquid filling the measure deceptively. Therefore, the seller has to wait after he has filled the measuring device until the liquid in question has cooled before making sure that he has measured fairly. He needs to make good any shrinkage due to previous overheating.  Another aspect of this law is that the seller must not pour at great speed into the measuring device as this too would create foam depleting the real amount of liquid given to the buyer. Air bubbles are not allowed to be counted as part of the liquid dispensed. According to our sages the measuring tube called משורה is used  to measure small quantities. If even when the loss to the purchaser in objective terms is minimal the Torah is concerned with such a loss, how much more will the Torah frown on someone dispensing in a similar manner into a large measuring container where the total loss to the purchaser is much greater! The reason the Torah mentioned משורה as an example was that one transgresses this law already at the time one heats the product in question even if no sale had been made as yet and one cannot be accused of trying to defraud a specific person, prospective purchaser. Even when the seller has not yet poured into his משורה, the fact that he heated the product he was going to sell makes him guilty of attempted fraud.   Just as the sages said that one is guilty for possessing faulty weights from the time one has manufactured them, even if one has not used them, so one is guilty of tampering with the liquids to be sold even if no buyer is at hand. It recalls what Solomon said in Proverbs 20,9: ”who can say I have made my heart pure, I am free from sin ?” “False weights and false measures are both alike, an abomination to the Lord.” Just as man becomes culpable for evil intentions [if they were subsequently carried out, Ed.] even while he had not yet carried out the felony, so he will be held responsible for making false weights and measures.    Our sages said in connection with idolatry that a person is subject to the curse of G’d already at the time he fashions an idol even though he has not yet worshipped it (compare Avodah Zarah 52 and Deut. 27,15). In the case of idolatry culpability also commences with construction of the idol based on Deut. 9,21 where he Torah writes: ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל, “and your sin that you committed- the calf.”   The Torah therefore wrote משורה, to let us know that if an amount as little as a פרוטה, a tiny coin, is affected by the inaccurate measuring device, the person involved is liable to punishment as soon as he heated the liquid involved. Rabbi Levi said in Baba Batra 88 that penalties applied to people cheating with weights and measures are more severe than those applied to people guilty of sexual offenses, seeing that such people can repent their sins as long as no mamzer, “bastard,” has been born out of such a union [at which time the sin becomes irreversible, Ed.] Seeing that the practice of unfair weights and measures is indiscriminate in its application, the guilty party does not know whom he has cheated and he therefore cannot make restitution. Repentance without restitution is no proper repentance.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אשר יתן מזרעו למולך יומת עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן, “who gives of his seed to the Moloch, shall be executed, the people of the land shall pelt him with stones.” The Talmud Sanhedrin 64 sees in the word מזרעו as opposed to כל זרעו, “of his seed,” instead of “all his seed,” a restrictive clause, i.e. that if a father gives all his children to this god he is not liable to execution at the hands of man. This does not mean that he goes free, on the contrary, if he is executed for giving some of his children to that god his execution is his expiation provided he accepts the judgment and repents. When he has given all his children to that god he is not afforded the opportunity of atonement until after he dies and is consigned to gehinom, purgatory.    A person who has reached the depth of deprivation by consigning all his children to the fire-god Moloch is not entitled to execution as a means of cleansing himself of his sin. Seeing that he does not have available to him such a method of expiating for his sin he will carry his sin to the grave with him and will remain guilty forever.    [Rabbi Moshe ben Rabbi Yaakov Mikutzi, in his Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot on negative commandment 40 writes in a similar vein. The author of that work preceded our author by close to a century. Ed.] The guilt of such a person is so deeply engraved in his soul that it parallels the examples of which the Torah had written הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this soul shall be cut off again and again, it will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31).The reason the Torah writes מות יומת, which sounds like a repetition, is that in the first instance it is up to the court to execute such an individual. Should circumstances be such that the court lacks the power to carry out the death penalty, the common people are encouraged to do this on their own. In the two scenarios just mentioned the situation was judicially clear-cut, i.e. there had been valid witnesses and the culprit had been properly cautioned before committing the deed.   In the event that there were legal snags which made a conviction of such a person impossible, the Torah writes in verse 3 “and I (G’d) will set My face against such a man and will exterminate him from amongst his people.” This refers to such situations as the deed being committed in secret when no witnesses were present at all, or a situation where the deed had been witnessed but the people do not care and do not testify against such a person. This may be due to their fear of revenge by family members of the guilty person or to other considerations. G’d means that He will not only intervene against the actively guilty party who “murdered” his children under the guise of a religious ceremony, but also against the silent onlookers who agreed with this cult. To make this wider application of G’d’s retributive arm clear, the Torah repeats in verse 5 that “I will set My face against such a man and his family and I will exterminate him  and all those who stray after him.”
      Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim section three chapter 37 concerning the practice of the Moloch-cult, writes as follows: the fire-worshippers in those days engaged in all kinds of endeavors to strengthen the hold their religion exerted on its followers by claiming that people who refrained from offering their sons or daughters as potential sacrifices to that god would see their children die. There is no question that the fathers who worshipped that cult were not motivated by cruelty but by the utmost concern for their other children. They hoped to satisfy their god with a token offering so that the remainder of their children would not only not be harmed but would be blessed by that deity. They encouraged the child to run the gauntlet of the fire hoping the child would escape unharmed. The cult was performed with very young children, children under the constant supervision of their mothers. Seeing that women are easily influenced by horror tales, these women were ready victims of all these kinds of threats and warnings if they did not allow at least one of their children to pass between the two fires dedicated to the Moloch. Keeping this in mind, the Torah addressed itself to this particular form of idolatry more than to any others knowing how vulnerable the mothers of children are to tales of horror concerning the retributive powers of that deity. To demonstrate the extreme concern of the Torah with this cult the Torah wrote the additional words למען טמא את מקדשי ולחלל את שם קדשי, “in order to defile My Sanctuary and to desecrate My holy Name” (verse 3). The Torah tells us that he who worships that cult hoping to sacrifice only one of his children will have all his children destroyed by G’d as a result. This is what is meant by verse 5. G’d’s retribution always fits the crime. Thus far Maimonides. I had written on 18,21 that some commentators believed that the “passing through fire” mentioned resulted in the child in question being burned to death as the child would be made to pass between the flames repeatedly. Maimonides did not understand the procedure in that way. He thought that the chances of the child being burned to death during the procedure were remote. If he is correct then the words of Deut. 13,31 which clearly speak of parents burning their children must refer to a different cult.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and I will set My face against that man.”  Nachmanides points out that this is the only time in the entire Torah that the attribute אני for G’d appears in connection with the karet penalty. The reason is that G’d feels that by following this abominable cult the sinner has defiled the great Name and thereby defiled the entire concept of כנסת ישראל, what the Jewish people symbolize.   Our sages in Berachot 35 have compared someone enjoying the fruits of this world without first reciting a benediction giving thanks to G’d for the availability of such fruit as stealing from G’d. They based this on Proverbs 28,24: ”whoever robs his father and mother and says: ‘it is no sin,’ is a companion of a destroyer.” The “father” Solomon speaks of may be understood as our father in heaven. The “mother” Solomon refers to is the כנסת ישראל, the  spiritual concept of the Jewish people. We have seen the prophet Isaiah 50,1 use that simile for the Jewish people when he said: “ובפשעכם שלחה אמכם, “on account of your sins your mother was dismissed.” The words “companion to the destroyer” refer to King Jerobam who caused Israel to become corrupted to their father in heaven. If Jerobam who merely blocked the way to Jerusalem is described in such terms how much more so must a father who offers his children (fruit of his loins) as a sacrifice to the Moloch cause estrangement between G’d and His people! Thus far Maimonides. In the course of his remarks Maimonides explained to us that in most instances when the Torah mentions the name of אני it refers to the attribute of Justice, whereas in this instance it represents the attribute of Mercy because it is written in connection with the word פני, “My face.” We find a similar example of the word אני as the attribute of Mercy in Genesis 6,17 as there too it is written in connection with the word לפני in verse 13; a similar construction occurs in Exodus 6,5 where the name אני evidently refers to the attribute of Mercy. It is clear there from the context that the word אני does not refer to the attribute of Justice. [When G’d said there that He had heard the pleas of the Israelites this is equivalent to saying that their pleas had come לפני, “before Me.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ואיש אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו, “and the man who engages in an adulterous relationship with the wife of his fellow, etc.” our sages see in the word איש an exclusion of the death penalty for a minor between the ages of nine and thirteen who sleeps with the wife of a fellow Jew. In the words אשת רעהו they see an exclusion of the death penalty for someone who sleeps with the wife of a Gentile (compare Sanhedrin 52). The words אשת איש indicate that sleeping with the wife of a minor is also not subject to the death penalty. Our verse proves that a marriage ceremony entered into with a Gentile is not considered a legal marriage.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואת הבהמה תהרגו, “and the beast you shall kill.” Rashi, following our sages, asks the rhetorical question why the animal should be killed seeing it had not committed a crime? The answer given is that seeing the animal was the catalyst leading to the sin by the human being involved in the act the Torah decreed that it be stoned to death. You may apply some logic here. If even an animal which is unable to distinguish between right and wrong is executed, how much more so will execution be the penalty for a human being who does know right from wrong. When a human being is the cause of a fellow human committing a sin, he is certainly culpable for what he did.  We have a verse in Deut. 12,2 where the Torah commands us to destroy all the sites on which idolatry was performed by the Canaanites prior to the Israelites coming to the Holy Land. This provides us with a similar reason of why humans guilty of idolatry will be subject to the death penalty. If even trees, which most certainly were totally passive and had no knowledge of something sinful being performed involving them, are subject to destruction on account of this, how much more so are human beings who were the cause of another human being induced to worship idols through deceiving such a person, subject to execution for their deeds?
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו ..חסד הוא, “if a man takes his sister from his father’s side or from his mother’s side as a wife,.....it is a disgrace (or kindness).” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah here describes sexual intercourse as קיחה i.e. an act of acquisition such as marriage. The reason is that when a man marries a woman he does so with the implied understanding that he will sleep with her. We have found the word יקח used in that sense in verse 14 where clearly the whole concept of someone “marrying” his mother-in-law in addition to his wife is ludicrous. The same applies to the verse which speaks of someone “marrying” the wife of his brother (verse 21), technically an obvious impossibility. Clearly, in each of these verses the word יקח is used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse with the second party mentioned in each of these verses. The reason the Torah describes such an act as חסד, is based on Proverbs 25,10: פן יחסדך שומע, “lest the one who hears it puts you to shame.” Onkelos translates the word here as קלנא, “shame, disgrace.”
      Nachmanides does not want to translate the word חסד as different from most instances when it appears and when it means “an act of loving kindness.” He considers the basic meaning of the word as either an act of kindness beyond the call of duty, or the very reverse, an act of unheard of debauchery.  He feels that the Torah chose this word to emphasise that compared to other forbidden sexual unions this is the worst, the most disgraceful.
      A Midrashic approach (Sifra Kedoshim 11,11) the words חסד הוא refer to the time when one had to marry a sister as no one else was around. Kayin is given credit for marrying his sister (three girls were born at the time Kayin and Hevel were born). The word refers to a true kindness as we know from Psalms 89,3 where Eytan (Avraham) says  כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה, “for I said the universe was constructed on loving kindness.” According to tradition the extra twin was intended for Adam, but he generously waived his claim and allowed Kayin to marry her. Had Adam’s daughter not been assigned a husband the world would not have become populated.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואיש אשר יקח את אשת אחיו נדה היא, “when a man takes his brother’s wife it is loathsome, etc.” The Torah does not mean to use the term נדה here in the sense that such a woman is considered like a menstruous woman to her brother-in-law; the term is used in the same sense as the expression זמה היא, “it is sexual depravity.” The meaning is similar to the meaning of the word חסד in verse 17, i.e. it is despicable. Our sages in Yevamot 54 derive an halachic rule from this expression, i.e. that even partial insertion of just the tip of his member in the vagina without ejaculation is culpable. The reason the sages say this is because the Torah specifically mentioned this form of penetration in connection with a menstruous woman in verse 18.
      A Midrashic approach (Yevamot 54): the words נדה היא, “she is menstruous,” mean that there is a common denominator between marrying a sister-in-law and sleeping with a menstruous woman.  Both categories of women are not absolutely forbidden; the menstruous woman becomes permitted after ritual immersion, and the sister-in law is permitted if her sister who was married to her brother-in-law first has died. All the forbidden sexual unions mentioned in this portion have already been mentioned in the previous portion; in Acharey Mot the penalties for violating these laws were not mentioned at all; this is why here the Torah lists the penalties associated with violation of these laws. The only forbidden union not repeated here is that of someone marrying two sisters while both are alive. The Torah omitted this here out of deference to Yaakov who had married two sisters (before the Torah had been given and not in the land of Israel).  The meaning of the word ערירים ימותו in verse 20 is that if these people had children prior to committing the offense listed these children would die during the lifetime of the father; if the father did not have any children at that point in his life he would remain childless for the rest of his natural life.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ואני אתננה לכם, “and I shall give it to you.” With these three words G’d the Unique promises to give the land which is unique to the people who are unique, to Israel. This is the meaning of the words: “and I shall give it to you as a possession.” G’d means that up until that time the land of Canaan had remained His land just as the Jewish people had been special to G’d. He had never assigned any horoscopic constellation to govern the fate of the Jewish people. Neither had G’d appointed a special agent such as a מלאך or שרף to be in charge of the fortunes of the Jewish people. The reason is that “you are part of My share, not their share, I am your national G’d, not theirs.” To the other nations, says G’d, I am only the supreme G’d, i.e. אלוהי האלוהים. This is how Nachmanides explains the above words; (even though this is not his precise wording, this is what he intended to say).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, “I have separated you from the peoples to be Mine.” The wisdom of the Torah which we have absorbed forces us to be separate and different in our food, our drink, our clothing, etc. Seeing that we are singled out to have been given the commandments of the Torah the nations of the universe are jealous of us; being jealous of us they have come to hate us. This is basically what our sages had in mind in Shabbat 89 when they said: “The mountain of Sinai used to be known as Mount Chorev. Why then is it known nowadays as Mount Sinai? It is because the anti-Semitic hatred of the idolaters originated from that mountain.”
      A Midrashic approach (Sifra Kedoshim 9,11) The words: “I have separated you from the peoples, etc.,” are to be understood as follows ‘if you keep yourselves apart from the other nations then you will be Mine;’ if not, you will become the property of such kings as Nevuchadnezzar and his colleagues.  Rabbi Eliezer son of Azaryah said: ‘how do we know that a person should not say: “I cannot wear a garment composed of a mixture of wool and linen; I cannot commit an incestuous relationship; I cannot eat pig, etc.,” but that a person should admit that he is perfectly capable of participating in those foods, etc.” [He meant a person should not be revolted by such things by nature so that he does not have to make a conscious decision to refrain from them. Ed] A person should feel that the reason he does not try and enjoy any of these otherwise attractive-looking foods and drinks, etc., is because G’d has put it out of bounds to us. This then is the meaning of: “I have separated you from the nations,” i.e. your separation has been divinely decreed. By accepting this decree you will keep away from committing sins and you will accept the yoke of heaven (instead of being slaves to your natural urges). The reason that in this instance the Torah refers to the other nations as העמים instead of as הגויים, [a term which at first glance seems to be complimentary to them, Ed.], is that the word means also חשכים, i.e. כהה, עמיא, “darker,” compare Onkelos on Leviticus 13,6 describing the white of the tzoraat becoming darker. The eyes of the nations have become blinded by being exposed to the brilliance of the light of the Torah. They suffer from the fact that they walk in darkness, having rejected the Torah. Moreover, they are destined for a sojourn in purgatory, a spiritually dark domain. The author quotes a few more verses describing the darkness enveloping the nations of the world.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים, “he who gives the right answer is like giving a kiss on the lips.” (Proverbs 24,26)
   Solomon taught us here about the advantage enjoyed by the wise man whose words are so pleasant to his listeners, everybody being anxious to listen to them. His words provide the answers to all the questions his listeners have either asked or have been meaning to ask. Solomon did not mean that such a wise man deserves to be kissed on his lips; after all what would his listeners learn from kissing him? Besides, if that had been Solomon’s meaning he should have written שפתים יושק, “the lips have been kissed,” or “the lips ought to be kissed.’” The meaning of the words is that the lips of the listeners “listen” to his words and feel as close to him as if they were kissing his lips. The listeners hang on every word such a wise man utters. His words are well received and welcome. This is the plain meaning of the verse we quoted.
      A kabbalistic approach: Solomon referred to the words spoken by the wise as נכוחים, “correct,” the word having a similar meaning to Proverbs 8,9 כלם נכוחים למבין, “they are all straightforward to those that possess knowledge.” Seeing that the word ישק, “will kiss,” describes close and intimate physical contact, Solomon employs this word which is familiar to us to describe close and intimate contact on an intellectual though abstract level. Solomon used similar wording in Song of Songs when he spoke of ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, “may he (G’d) kiss me with the kisses of His mouth,” (Song of Songs 1,2). There too the word is “borrowed,” describing spiritual values couched in language applicable to matters physical. The word שפתים, instead of meaning “lips” is derived from שפת הנהר, “the banks of the river,” meaning “the boundaries of the river.” Keeping this in mind, the meaning of the whole verse quoted above is: “the wise man who is tuned in to the fundamental aspects of wisdom in the celestial domains, a wisdom which is freely available at all times without interruption, can answer all questions and questioners correctly, being always in tune with them.” He can do this as he has reached the outermost limits (שפתים) of this wisdom.    When we wish to understand the specific allure of this level of wisdom we should think of what our sages call מיתת נשיקה, “death by divine kiss,” i.e. mortal man achieving the ultimate cleaving to the divine that it is possible for a creature to achieve with its Creator.    King David referred to this elevated spiritual level of the mutual attraction between G’d and man when he said in Psalms 91,14 (quoting G’d): כי בי חשק ואפלטהו, “because he is devoted to Me I will deliver him.” Any righteous person (צדיק) who has attained the spiritual level David spoke of here will not experience death as a form of destruction of the body or other faculties, but will experience it as a direct spiritual promotion. Three famous people who experienced such a “death” were Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. When the Torah reported their deaths” it always added the words,על פי ה', “a kiss of G’d.” In the case of Miriam the Torah did not use these words as it is not in keeping with accepted rules of decorum to speak of G’d as “kissing” a woman. (Compare Numbers 33,38 — Aaron, Deut. 34,5 — Moses). We have it on the authority of Rabbi Eliezer (Baba Batra 17) that Miriam experienced the same kind of death as did her brothers as there is a גזרה שוה, a textural nuance not justifiable by the rules of syntax or grammar, which links Moses and Miriam. In connection with the deaths of all these three great personalities the Torah writes an extraneous word שם, “there.” Rabbi Eliezer sees in this a hint that they all died in a similar manner, but that the Torah wished to avoid saying this outright in the case of Miriam as we have already pointed out.    We find a similar linkage of the three patriarchs by means of the respective words בכל, מכל, כל describing the blessings each received from G’d. Another individual who experienced this kind of “death” was Rabbi Yehudah haNassi (editor of the Mishnah). We know this as according to tradition the priests took part in his funeral. Had he died at the hands of the angel of death, the priests would not have been allowed to defile themselves by participating actively in his funeral (last rites).    According to Ketuvot 104 when Rabbi Yehudah haNassi was about to die, he raised his ten fingers toward heaven exclaiming: “Lord, You are aware that I have toiled with all my ten fingers and have not even used the smallest one to indulge in the pleasures of this world. May it be Your will that my “rest” (hereafter) will be one of undisturbed tranquility.” Thereupon a heavenly echo was heard saying: יבא שלום ינוח על משכנו, “may he come to peace and rest on his couch” (compare Isaiah 57,2).  We have a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 3,1 according to which when Rabbi Yehudah haNassi died Rabbi Yannai exclaimed “the laws applicable to the priesthood do not apply today.” He referred to the fact that the priests must not defile themselves by touching a corpse or being under the same roof as a dead body. This is because if they did they would disqualify themselves from performing service in the Temple until such time as they had purified themselves. What Rabbi Yannai had in mind was that seeing that Rabbi Yehudah did not die the kind of death other mortals die, i.e. at the hands of the angel of death, the rule about priests not being allowed to touch his body or being in his proximity did not apply to them concerning him. This statement of Rabbi Yannai was to apply only on that day and only to that particular corpse.
  אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן ואמרת אליהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, “speak to the Priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them 'none of them must defile himself through a dead person among his people'”  The verse commences with the words: ”say to the Priests,” and immediately repeats: “and tell them!” Why the repetition? We need to understand the sequence as follows: “say to the Priests whatever was written in the previous paragraph, and now add new information, i.e. laws recorded forthwith and applicable specifically to the priests.” The reason that the Priests had to be instructed in the legislation contained in chapter 20 was that they were the foremost teachers of the Jewish people and therefore had to be conversant with all legislation concerning civil law such as marriages, etc.
      Our sages (Yevamot 114) understand the repetition to mean that the adults were to warn the minors concerning all these laws. One was not to make use of one’s children while they were not yet of age to perform tasks for their parents which the Torah had forbidden to be carried out by adults. This warning includes many of the prohibitions of the Torah whether in the field of ritual impurity, violations of the Sabbath by minors, consumption of forbidden food by minors, etc. On the other hand, if minors choose to carry out such tasks forbidden to their elders without having been urged to do so, the parents are not commanded to stop them. To make sure we do not act in this manner the Torah repeated the exhortation “say to them,” to teach us that we do have to train the young priests already to distance themselves from all that is forbidden to the adult priests.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma 3, Emor): the first word אמור is a directive to the priest to defile himself for the sake of burying a dead who has no one else to bury him. The second word אמר is to forbid the priest to defile himself on other corpses. The reason the Torah had to write the words הכהנים, “the priests,” (seeing that by being sons of Aaron we already know that they are priests), the Torah wanted to exempt people who genetically are priests but are disqualified from carrying out priestly functions for reasons of some kind of illegitimate genealogy (חללים).
     בני אהרן, “sons of Aaron,” etc. Our sages in Sotah 23 understand this as excluding female descendants of priests, i.e. “the sons of Aaron but not the daughters of Aaron.” I have explained the reason why the female offspring of priests is not considered as priests in the full sense of the word in my commentary on Parshat Tzav (Leviticus 6,19) as due to the woman having been the one who brought death into the world. This does not make them fit to act as priests, i.e. people who are concerned with preserving and extending life.   The reason that this paragraph of special laws for the priests has been written immediately after the verse prohibiting the law of how to deal with sorcerers, various kinds of performers of magic, is explained in the Midrash as justified by subsequent Jewish history. King Saul killed an entire city of Priests (Nof), compare Samuel I 22,18 appointing Doeg their accuser to be the executioner. [There had not been the kind of evidence that the priests had committed treason against Saul which would stand up in court. Ed.] Subsequently, when King Saul found himself in a quandary when he did want advice from G’d and was refused it, he turned to a necromancer despite the express prohibition to even allow such people to live in Leviticus 20,27. G’d had foreseen all this and had written these two commandments, i.e. to give precedence to the priests and to abhor necromancers as a warning to Saul and others not to become guilty of the sin described.   Isaiah 8,19 deals with this subject when he writes addressing the common folk who might be asked to practice the art of necromancy by saying: “should the people say to you, ‘inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan, for a people may inquire of its divine beings, of the dead on behalf of the living, for instruction and message;’ by responding: ‘surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn.” Isaiah’s point is that if such a practice is raising its head in Israel the people have to respond that they get any information they are desirous of from their G’d directly, not from charlatans, etc. The prophet Elijah had remonstrated with King Achazyah who had sent inquiries to idols of other nations, and had challenged him saying: “are there then no representatives of the true Lord in Israel that you saw fit to inquire from deities like Baal Zevuv and others?” (Kings II 1,6). In the event that the people feel that they have no legitimate address from which to inquire about their future, the Torah goes on record in Deut. 17,9: “you will come to the priests, the Levites, or to the judge who will officiate in those days; when you inquire they will tell you.”    Rabbi Yehoshua from the village Sakinin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that G’d showed Moses a bird’s eye view of all subsequent generations and their respective leaders. He showed him King Saul, his sons, and his death by the sword of the Jewish people’s enemies. This was part of the panorama G’d showed to Moses. Moses was aghast and exclaimed: “the first King of the Jewish people should have such a tragic end, should be stabbed by a sword?” Thereupon G’d told Moses to write down the paragraph we are now dealing with. Thus far Rabbi Yehoshua (compare Tanchuma Emor 2). I plan to explain the details about the various forms of necromancy, etc., in connection with Parshat Shoftim, (seeing there are different views about this subject). 
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי אם לשארו, “except for his wife.” The sages explain that the word שאר means “wife,” i.e. someone whose relationship is that of shared flesh. The Torah adds the word הקרוב, “which is physically close,” to exclude a wife who has been betrothed to him but has not yet completed the marriage ceremony and moved into her husband’s home (חופה). Similarly, a divorced wife is also no longer considered part of her former husband’s flesh so that her ex-husband if a priest may defile himself in order to actively participate in her funeral (compare Sifra Emor 1,4).   Even though a priest is called “holy,” and the Torah warns us that due to his elevated status he must not defile himself with a corpse, it is a positive commandment that he does defile himself when his wife has died. It is incumbent upon him to actively participate in her funeral. Should he be unwilling to do so, the court may force him to do so against his will. Sifra 1,12 reports of a certain priest by the name of Joseph whose wife died on the eve of Passover and he did not want to defile himself at her funeral and thereby forego the Passover offering. The court forced him to defile himself by participating in his wife’s funeral. The defilement the Torah speaks about is being in the same house, or even standing under the branches of the same tree as the body concerned. Not only direct contact with the corpse is forbidden. Whatever applies to the priest’s participation in his wife’s funeral also applies to his participating in the funeral of his mother and father. However, subsequent to the funeral, this same priest must not again defile himself by visiting the grave of his wife or parents in the cemetery and defying the rules of ritual purity. Even at the time of the funeral the priest is not allowed to roam in the cemetery and thereby contaminate himself through the proximity of other graves he has come too close too. This is what the sages (Shemot Rabbah 5,14) had in mind when they asked the rhetorical question: “who has ever seen a priest in a cemetery?”
     לאמו ולאביו, “for his father or his mother” he may defile himself. In this instance the Torah mentioned the mother first, whereas in verse 11 where the Torah prohibits the High Priest from defiling himself on account of his parents’ death the Torah mentions the father before the mother. Perhaps seeing that the Torah had first mentioned a female relative of the priest when introducing the subject of ritual defilement and using the priest’s wife as an example of whose funeral overrides the legislation, the Torah felt that it wanted to continue with female examples. Had the Torah written: כי אם לשארו לאביו ולאמו, the sequence would not have been consistent as female, male, and female, in that order would have seemed illogical. Alternatively, the Torah mentioned the mother first as there is no doubt about the maternity of a person’s mother, whereas there is always some doubt about the paternity of someone claiming to be the father. The Torah therefore proceeds from that which is obvious, i.e. the duty to defile himself on account of one’s mother’s death, to the less obvious  and to include the father in that legislation although there is no absolute certainty that he was indeed the father. When it comes to prohibiting the High Priest to defile himself on account of the death of his parents, the opposite consideration is in place. Not only must the High Priest not defile himself on account of a father (who may not be a father), but even the death of his mother does not entitle him to defile himself at her funeral.   The reason the Torah limits the sister to one who is still a “virgin,” something that is presumed seeing she has not yet been married, is to exclude an unmarried sister who has been the victim of a rapist. The word הקרובה, “who is close to him,” means that even though his sister may have been betrothed, as long as she was not fully married her status as a close relative of her brother the priest has not been affected. The apparently extraneous word אליו, “to him,” in our verse refers to an unmarried sister who is past the age of puberty. The words אשר לא היתה לאיש, “who has not been wed to a man,” include a girl whose hymen has been ruptured through penetration by some instrument other than a man’s member. She retains her status as a virginal sister. Maimonides (Hilchot Aveilut 2,10) rules that a priest must defile himself on account of such sisters.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “a husband (priest) among his people shall not defile himself to someone who has defiled him through marriage (forbidden union).” According to Rashi what is meant is that if a priest has married someone forbidden to him under Jewish law, he is not allowed to subsequently defile himself at such a woman’s funeral.
      Nachmanides, however, understands the word בעל as not speaking of a husband (or even a bachelor or widower) who is a priest, but of a non-priest who is of prominent social position. He supplies proof for the use of the word בעל in that context from Samuel II 6,2 בעלי יהודה, “the notables of Yehudah.” According to Nachmanides the Torah legislates that a socially highly placed husband must not defile himself on the dead if such participation results in his demeaning himself. The comparison to the priest who is not to defile himself on the dead is based on the social status of the priest which is the highest level of society. Therefore, other men of stature, who similarly occupy prominent positions should be judicious about where and when they defile themselves. Sifra Emor 1,3 claims that the word בעמיו means that a מת מצוה, a stray corpse who appears to have no relatives, is exempt from the legislation in this verse, and even socially highly placed persons must busy themselves forthwith with the burial of such a corpse.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . קדושים יהיו לאלוהיהם, “they are to remain holy to their G’d.” This apparently superfluous comment means that the priests should practice a degree of abstinence, caution of coming close to temptation, over and above what is required of ordinary Israelites. Matters which are permitted to ordinary Israelites, and which therefore are not displeasing in the eyes of the Lord per se, are nevertheless out of bounds for the priests. These include marrying divorcees, women who had been unchaste at one time or another, etc. It is not appropriate for people who derive their food from G’d’s Altar to associate with the categories of people listed in an intimate relationship The word זונה in our verse includes a woman who had sexual relations with someone forbidden to her as a marriage partner. The word חללה refers to someone born of one of the five categories of marriages forbidden to be entered into by priests. On the other hand, priests (other than the High priest) are permitted to marry widows. This is the meaning of the verse in Ezekiel 44,22 והאלמנה אשר תהיה אלמנה מכהן יקחו, “but some priests may marry a widow;” (i.e. a priest who is not  High Priest).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . באש תשרף, “she is to be consumed by fire.”  Had the Torah written the sequence תשרף באש, I would have understood that the meaning is that the daughter mentioned is to be literally burned to death on a pile of wood set afire. The Torah’s method of execution by what is called שרפה is not similar to burning someone on a pyre. The body of the guilty party is most certainly not destroyed by fire. I have found that the sages in Pessachim 75 when discussing how the Passover is to be prepared for eating, discuss the finer points of what is written. The Torah had stipulated that the Passover has to be eaten after it has been צלי אש, “roasted over the fire.” The sages there say that the words באש תשרף “she is to be burned by fire,” include all possible methods of burning as long as the course of the burning is fire. Rav Matnah stated that the way this penalty is applied is through administering molten lead to the party to be executed and pouring it into the larynx so that instant death occurs. He points to the difference in the wording of the Torah in Leviticus 4,12 when the parts of a bull which serves as a sin-offering for the High Priest is burnt outside the camp except for the parts offered on the Altar. The wording there is that ושרף אותו על עצים באש, “he shall burn it on wood in fire.” You will note that the Torah describes the process of burning before mentioning fire, the reverse of what is written in our verse here. It is therefore likely that the penalty of death by burning applicable to the daughter of the priest mentioned in our verse results in injuries similar to those suffered by the sons of Aaron when heavenly fire entered their nostrils. In other words, the life-force, נשמה, is burned whereas the body remains intact. 
  
  Verse 10
  
   והכהן הגדול מאחיו, “and the priest who is exalted above his brethren,” according to the plain meaning of the text seeing that the Torah had already listed special restrictions applicable to ordinary priests who must not marry certain categories of women and who must refrain from defiling themselves other than to the closest relatives, the Torah now adds additional restrictions which apply to the High Priest. This is natural seeing that the High Priest’s duties require him to be even closer to the Shechinah than ordinary priests. The Torah categorized the High Priest’s function as מן המקדש לא יצא, “he must not leave the Sanctuary.” The reason that the High Priest is to marry only a previously unmarried virgin is to ensure that she will be amenable to his outlook and opinions. Such a woman cannot make comparisons between her husband the High Priest and her previous husband.
      A Midrashic approach: (Sifra Emor 2,1) The words והכהן הגדול מאחיו (emphasis on the letter ה in הגדול) mean that the High Priest must be superior to his priestly colleagues in five areas. He has to be more handsome, physically stronger, materially wealthier, wiser, and more dignified. If he does not have sufficient material wealth, the other priests are to chip in from their own wealth to make him independently wealthy. This is alluded to in the word מאחיו, i.e. his wealth may originate with his brethren.    It happened with a priest called Pinchas who was a professional stone mason that he was elected to become High Priest; when his fellow priests came to the quarry from which he made his livelihood, they filled it with gold pieces in order to make him financially independent.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words והכהן הגדול מאחיו; he is the person who is always conscious who his role model is, i.e. the Lord Himself. He is flanked by his deputy on the right and the president of the Supreme Court on his left. This parallels the vision of the seraphim described in Yuma 37, a reference to the encounter between an angel and Yehoshua the High Priest in Zecharyah 3,7 where the angel assured the High Priest that he would be someone making spiritual progress as opposed to the angels flanking him who are spiritually stationary. This was a  hint that the spiritual parameters within which the High Priest was to move consisted of the Sanctuary and what this symbolised. In the verse from Zecharyah mentioned, Yonatan ben Uzziel translated the words בין העומדים האלה as a reference to the angels called seraphim which were flanking him. The Targum based himself on what Isaiah described in his opening vision (Isaiah 6,2) שרפים עומדים ממעל לו, that he had perceived the seraphim as standing in attendance for the Shechinah which he beheld seated on a throne in that vision.
      There is another Baraitha which discusses these phenomena describing three men walking together, the tallest in the middle, flanked by a גדול on his right and a קטן on his left. When the three angels visited Avraham (Genesis 18,3) the angel Michael was in the centre, Gavriel on his right, and Raphael on his left.
   If you are fortunate you will appreciate that our verse tries to teach us something analogous and that is why the wording הכהן הגדול has been selected to describe the High Priest. It is reminiscent of Deut. 11,7 את כל מעשה ה' הגדול אשר עשה, “all the great work of Hashem which He did;” The word גדול has first and foremost a qualitative dimension rather than being a description of physical properties possessed by the High Priest; our sages in Horiot 12 understood the second half of our verse in which the Torah directs that the High Priest must not leave his head unshorn, etc., as a direct corollary of his function of being the people’s representative before the Lord. They understand the restrictions mentioned here as applying also to the two people always flanking the High Priest. There is some disagreement as to whether the words לא יפרום, that the High Priest must not rend his garments (as a sign of mourning for a relative who has died), refer only to the visible outer garments or also to the garments covering his skin. The disagreement of the scholars as to the halachah in that instance reflects 1) the view that only people of a lesser stature than he, i.e. ordinary priests, are allowed to rend their garments in acknowledging their state of mourning. 2) the other opinion which holds that the High Priest must tear an inner garment which is not visible. This would be an allusion that the procedure where it is visible is aimed at people of a spiritually lower level, whereas seeing that the High Priest is in a class by himself, addressing himself only to the highest spiritual level, Hashem, does not display such signs of mourning to his peers but gives vent to the emotion of mourning nonetheless by rending his inner garments. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי עם בתולה מעמיו, “except for a virgin from his people.” Why is this verse necessary, seeing that it has just been written in verse 13 that he must marry a virgin? According to Kidushin 10 the repetition teaches that if the High Priest performed marital intercourse with his wife to be (by mutual consent) relying on this as the act acquiring her as his wife, this is not admissible in his case, [although a legal option to anyone else. Ed.] The reason for this is that halachically speaking, the completion of the act of coitus is when the acquisition becomes effective, i.e. a point in time when the girl in question is technically no longer a virgin. Technically she became a בעולת עצמו, a woman who had already had intercourse with the same man. A High Priest is forbidden to marry a בעולת עצמו no less than he is forbidden to marry someone who had had sexual relations with another male. This prohibition is known in the Talmud as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, “a negative commandment which is the logical result of a positive commandment related to the same subject.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  דבר אל אהרן לאמר איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’”  Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not instruct Moses to speak to Aaron and his sons as it does in all other instances (compare Leviticus 6,18 et al) where Moses is instructed to speak to Aaron, but here only Aaron was to be addressed and told the law that physically blemished priests must not perform service in the Tabernacle. The reason may be that in the other instances such matters as the rules pertaining to the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the gift-offering, etc., were the subject of the instructions, and Aaron’s sons were directly involved.    Had the Torah written in this instance: “speak to Aaron and his sons,” it should have followed this with the words: איש מכם לדורותיכם, “if any one of your descendants has a blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron himself in a verse referring to physical blemishes. By choosing the wording in front of us, i.e. איש מזרעך לדורותם, “a man of your offspring in their respective generations,” the Torah placed a qualitative distance between Aaron and his future offspring.    Our sages enumerated a multitude of physical defects each of which disqualifies a priest from performing sacrificial service. The Torah here begins the list by mentioning missing or inoperative organs, such as the blind, the lame, followed by relatively minor defects such as a nose without a bridge, or limbs of uneven length. This is followed by priests suffering from broken limbs on their arms or legs. Even priests whose external appearance is aesthetically displeasing are included in the list. Blemishes which are not normally invisible, such as crushed testicles, are also a cause for disqualifying the priest from performing most priestly functions.    When the Torah repeats the words אשר בו מום, “who suffers from a blemish,” this means that regardless of whether the priest has suffered from the blemish from birth or whether the blemish occurred during his lifetime, he is unfit to perform service in the Temple. The Torah continues  (chapter 22, 22-24) by listing physical blemishes which disqualify an animal from serving as an acceptable sacrificial offering on the Altar. Included in these animals which do not qualify as sacrifices are the ones which have genetic defects such as uneven limbs or a hoof which is not split. Defects which develop during the lifetime of the animal certainly disqualify it as an offering on the Altar. Defects to the eye are serious even if the sight is not affected but the eye looks diseased.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ובארצכם לא תעשו, “and in your land you shall not do so.” Seeing the Torah had mentioned such defects as damage to the reproductive organs earlier in our verse, the Torah adds that it is forbidden to castrate animals in the land of Israel even if such animals were not intended as offerings. Even animals which are not fit for consumption by Jews must not be castrated. Contrary to the first impression that the word בארצכם, “in your land,” suggests that only in the land of Israel is it forbidden to castrate animals, this is misleading, and castrating G’d’s creatures is forbidden everywhere. The only reason the Torah wrote that word was to emphasize that even in our land where many of these animals cannot serve the general population as food seeing the animals in question are ritually impure, we must still not castrate such animals as a means of keeping down their numbers.     It is also possible that the use by the Torah of the word תעשו here points out that castrating an animal is equivalent to “undoing it;” G’d made it, we undo it but allow it to live at the same time preventing it from procreating. We find a similar use of the word לעשות in Kohelet 4,17 where Solomon speaks about כי אינם יודעים לעשות רע, “for they do not know that they are to destroy the evil and remove it.” At first glance we would have translated the verse as “they do not know how to do evil,” something that clearly does not fit the context of the verse.“ [Rashi does not have trouble with the ordinary meaning of the word לעשות in that verse. Ed.] Another verse in which the word עשה does not have the meaning which it usually has is Genesis 9,24 where the Torah speaks about אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, normally translated as “which his younger son had done to him,” (Noach who had been naked in his tent). On the face of it, the son (Cham) had done nothing except tell his brothers that their father had uncovered himself while drunk. Nonetheless, our sages in Sanhedrin 70 use the word to mean that he had castrated his father. So we see that the word עשה, though normally meaning “did” in a constructive sense such as when G’d created the universe, may appear in exactly the opposite sense such as when depriving the animal of its regenerative potential by castrating it. This may also be the meaning of the word יעשנה in Proverbs 6,32, where Solomon writes משחית נפשו יעשנה, which at first glance looks as if he says that “he who destroys his life is really creating it.” Instead, the meaning is “if he wants to destroy himself let him do such a thing (commit adultery).” When someone destroys his soul, his life, he most certainly deprives (יעשנה) it of the opportunity to achieve its lofty aims..”
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, “when an ox, a lamb, or a goat is born, etc.” Sifra at the beginning of Parshat Shemini comments on the sequence of these words “let the ox come and atone for the image of the ox (golden calf),” as David said in Psalms 106,20: “they traded their honour for the image of an ox.” We find a similar exegesis in connection with the gifts to be given for the building of the Tabernacle when Exodus 25,3 speaks first of gifts of “gold, silver, and copper.” According to the Midrash, the gold was to atone for the contributions of gold made by the Israelites which enabled the golden calf to be made. Tanchuma Terumah 8 says that this gold was to atone for the gold contributed at that time. The Midrash Tanchuma Emor 11 quotes Hoseah 7,3 ברעתם ישמחו מלך, “with the thing which represented their wickedness they make a king happy,” i.e. the very instrument of the sin  became the instrument of their expiation. Rabbi Levi asked: “What caused the Torah to make the ox the principal animal amongst the sacrificial offerings?” He explains this by means of a parable. A prominent lady at the king’s court had been slandered by other courtiers claiming she had committed adultery with the prime minister. The king had these accusations examined and could not find any substantiation for them. What did the king do then? He gave a dinner party and seated the prime minister who had been the victim of these rumours in the seat of honour in order to show one and all that his investigation had proved the accusations as unfounded. Similarly, G’d examined Satan’s accusation that the Jewish people had made the golden calf; He concluded that they had not, that the golden calf had been the work of the proselytes who had joined the Jewish people at the Exodus. They had been the ones who had said: “these are your gods O Israel” This is why the ox (the subject of the slander) became the chief animal amongst the sacrificial animals. Rabbi Levi spoke of a “society lady,” meaning the Jewish people.
      Personally, I would like to add  that according to tradition the “prime minister” in that parable is one of the senior ministers at G’d’s court. In order to make plain that the natural born Jews had not been the ones who had initiated the sin of the golden calf, He determined that henceforth the ox would be the primary animal to feature in sacrificial offerings.    You will find that similarly the fruit of the עץ הדר, “the tree whose fruit Chavah had eaten in Gan Eden,” became the favourite fruit amongst the four species of plants with which we praise the Lord on the festival of Tabernacles. The fact that the Torah mentions the etrog before the palm frond, a much larger plant, is to indicate that whereas Chavah sinned because she was a victim of deception by the serpent, her husband Adam sinned both in thought and in deed when he ate of that fruit also. We find that history repeats itself in that Adam atoned for his sin by offering an ox as a sacrifice; similarly his descendants, especially highly placed ones, have to offer an ox as their sin-offering when such an offering is called for. This is the deeper meaning of the verse in Hoseah we quoted, that with the very item which their sin consisted of they subsequently pleased the Lord. According to Chulin 60 Adam offered a single-horned bull as his sin-offering.     We find a verse which combines both the word שור and the word הדר, thereby alluding to the two examples of the instrument of the sin becoming the instrument of pleasing the Lord. The verse in question is in Deut. 33,17: בכור שורו הדר לו, which we may translate allegorically as: “just as we praise Him with the fruit of the tree הדר, so we atone for our sins by means of the ox, the symbol of original forgiveness.”    In a verse preceding the verse from Hoseah we quoted, the prophet said (Hoseah 6,7) והמה כאדם עברו ברית, “they violated the covenant like just like Adam,” an allusion to the comparison of the sin of the golden calf by the Israelites and that of Adam in Gan Eden. On the one hand, the animal which had helped Adam atone for his sin had become the one atoning for the sins of the Israelites. On the other hand, looked at from a philosophical point of view, the Israelites thought that this animal had proven to be the salvation of mankind, i.e. Adam, once, hence it might again become the symbol of their future, seeing Moses had not come back. In fact, Adam had been the original cause of the sin the Israelites participated in. [— My own phraseology in trying to convey this line of reasoning. Ed.]   The reason that the Torah permitted just three categories of ritually pure beasts as potential sacrifices for the altar is in deference to the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The ox symbolises Avraham, of whom the Torah wrote that he ran to the cattle in order to serve a meal to the three angels who visited him as reported in Genesis 18,1-15. The sheep is in deference to Yitzchak, when it was offered as a burnt-offering in his stead in Genesis 22,14. The goat was selected in deference to Yaakov who took the two goats at the behest of his mother in order to secure the blessing from his father (Genesis 27,9) (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). These goats were described in the Torah as טובים, “good,” meaning they were to be good both for him personally as well as for his descendants, seeing that by means of two male goats the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants, would secure atonement for their sins on the Day of Atonement. When the Torah therefore wrote: “an ox, a sheep, or a goat which will be born, etc.”, it referred to known functions of these animals on behalf of the Jewish people.    This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Kohelet 3,15: “What has been already exists, and what is still to come has already been, and G’d always seeks out the pursued.” What Solomon meant was that if someone were to say to you: “if Adam had not sinned at the time when he ate from the tree of knowledge would he still be alive and well nowadays?” You may answer him that the prophet Elijah did not sin and he did indeed not die but is alive to this day. As to the words אשר להיות, “what is still to come,” if someone believes that the idea of G’d resurrecting the dead is something which occurs only in the future [i.e. we have no proof of something like that being possible, Ed.], tell him that it has already occurred, i.e. that both the prophet Elijah, the prophet Elisha, as well as the prophet Ezekiel are on record as having revived the dead (Tanchuma Emor 9). Finally, the words והאלוהים יבקש את הנרדף in the verse from Kohelet which we quoted, means that whereas the righteous pursue (imitate and try to emulate) the other righteous people who preceded them this is normal and appropriate. The wicked persecute both other wicked people as well as righteous people; this is their nature; however, G’d seeks out the persecuted (righteous ones to save them). If you look for proof, read history. Hevel had been persecuted by his brother Kayin; in response G’d turned to Hevel’s offering while rejecting the gift of Kayin (Genesis 4,4-5). Noach had been ridiculed and persecuted by the people of his generation. G’d responded to Noach positively as stated in Genesis 6,8: “Noach found favour in the eyes of G’d.” Shortly afterwards we are told that all the remainder of mankind was wiped out (Genesis 7,23). Avraham was persecuted by Nimrod; he was saved as we know from Nechemyah 9,7 where it is written: “You are the Lord G’d who have chosen Avraham and removed (rescued) him from the fire of the Chaldaens.” Yitzchak was persecuted by the Philistines; in the end Avimelech (King of the Philistines) acknowledged his rigtheousness, G’d’s power and asked to make a treaty with him (Genesis 26,28). Yaakov was persecuted by Esau; nonetheless we have been told in Psalms 135,4: “for G’d chose for Himself Yaakov, Israel, etc.” Joseph was persecuted by his brothers only to become a most successful individual, i.e. “the Lord was with Joseph and he became a successful man” (Genesis 39,2). Moses was persecuted by Pharaoh, but G’d thwarted Pharaoh’s efforts to kill him. The Jewish people were persecuted by the pagans; this is why G’d chose them as His people, as we know from Deut. 14,2: “and the Lord chose you to be His special people.” In our situation we find something parallel. The animals mentioned here are normally the innocent victims of predatory animals. The ox is hunted by the lion, the sheep by the wolf, the goat by the leopard. G’d chose the animals as suitable for sacrificial offerings because they were the persecuted ones, saying: “do not offer Me animals which are pursuers, predators, but certain categories of their victims, the persecuted.”
     והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו, “it shall remain under the care of its mother for seven days.” This may best be understood by means of a parable (Tanchuma Emor 12). A king who visited a country issued a decree that no one would be allowed an audience with him until after they had paid their respects to a certain lady of high society. Similarly, G’d said to the people of Israel: “you may not offer Me a sacrificial offering until after that animal has paid its respects to My daughter, (society lady in the parable) i.e. to the Sabbath.  Just as there is no week one day of which is not a Sabbath, so there cannot be a circumcision until the baby in question has experienced at least one Sabbath. (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). The “society lady” in the parable should be the first thought in the mind of the party offering the animal.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ושור או שה, אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, “and an ox and its (son) young, you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Seeing that the Torah has already mentioned that there is a special commandment regarding sacrificial animals and their offspring, i.e. that the young must not be separated from the mother for at least seven days before it may be offered up as a sacrifice, the Torah immediately lists another related commandment, namely not to offer both the mother animal and the young on one and the same day. First of all, contrary to the impression gained from the grammar in the verse, the ruling applies to female animals, i.e. mother and young, not father and young. It is perfectly in order to slaughter the calf’s father  with the calf on the same day (Chulin 79). This also corresponds to the way Onkelos translates the words, i.e. ותורתא או שיתא לה וברה, “and a cow and a sheep, her and her “son.” In other words, the law applies to mother animals. According to this halachah, the difficulty is that the Torah should have written ופרה ובנה, instead of ושור ובנה. Or, at least, if the Torah considered the word שור as the generic term for the category of cattle, it should have continued  with the words אותה ואת בנה, instead of the misleading אותו ואת בנו. However, seeing that the Torah already spoke about a female animal and her son when mentioning the law not to offer the young animal during the first seven days, by continuing with this legislation immediately the Torah hinted that here too we are speaking about a law applying to the mother animal and its young. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides. 
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 13 draws a parallel between Proverbs 12,10; “the righteous man knows the soul (needs) of his beast; but the compassion of the wicked is cruelty.” The “righteous one” in that verse is a reference to the Almighty who has said that mother animal and its young are not to be slaughtered on the same day; by contrast the compassion of the wicked cited by Solomon refers to someone like Haman who decreed that all Jews of all generations be killed on the same day (Esther 3,13). Another example of the righteous (G’d) knowing the needs of his beast is reflected in the legislation in Deut. 22,6 that the mother bird is to be sent off before its nest is to be robbed of its chicks or eggs. By contrast, the “compassion for the wicked which is cruelty” was demonstrated by Sancheriv the wicked of whom it is written (Hoseah 10,14) “when mothers and babes were dashed to death together.” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “You shall not desecrate My holy Name, rather I should be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” Desecration of the Lord’s name is the most serious sin. We find that on occasion G’d ignored the sin of idolatry while not ignoring the sin of desecrating His name. This is what Ezekiel referred to when he said: (Ezekiel 20,39) “As for you, O house of Israel, thus said the Lord G’d: “go, every one of you and worship his fetishes and continue, if you will not obey Me; but do not profane My holy Name anymore.” Our sages in Yuma 86 state that the sin of desecrating the holy Name of G’d is not one for which the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness. Even repentance does not suspend the punishment due for this sin for a period of time. Even the suffering of afflictions does not wipe out this sin. If one is guilty of the sin of desecrating the name of G’d such a sin is at best “suspended” and  the death of the sinner may eventually assist in wiping out this sin.
      There is, however, one way of counteracting the sin of desecrating the holy Name of the Lord. This is the sanctification of the Lord’s Name in public by the person who was guilty of desecrating it. The Torah alludes to this when writing: ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “I want to be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” We have another verse in Proverbs 16,6: “sin will be expiated through kindness and truth;” this means that the sin of desecrating the holy Name of the Lord through speaking lies and committing other sins may be counterbalanced by the subsequent performance of deeds of kindness and truth, thus reversing the damage one had become guilty of. It is somewhat similar to the person afflicted with a disease who can only be cured by imbibing the very opposite ingredients which had caused his sickness. Our sages said: “if a person sinned with his tongue let him engage in Torah study. If he sinned by improper use of his eyes, let him shed many tears;” this is what David alluded to when he said (Psalms119,136) “my eyes shed streams of tears because they did not obey Your teaching.” Note that David did not say: “I did not obey Your commandments;” but he shed the tears because “they did not obey.” The “they” he referred to were his eyes. Concerning this same subject, i.e. how to reverse the negative effect of the sins one has committed, the sages in Vayikra Rabbah 21,4 say that if one has committed a whole package of sins, one should endeavour to offset them with a similar package of commandments performed carefully. If one’s feet had been eager to rush towards an opportunity to commit a sin, they should now be at least as eager to run towards an opportunity to perform good deeds. If one’s hands had been in the habit of spilling the blood of the innocent, the same hands should become preoccupied with the laying of phylacteries accompanied by the liberal distribution of money to the poor.
      The following Midrash spells out the advice to counter the sin of desecrating the holy Name of G’d by performing public acts of sanctifying that Name (Sifra Emor 9,4-5). The author understands the directive: “I want to be sanctified among the Children of Israel” as a call for someone to risk his life for the sanctification of the Lord’s name. I might have thought that one could have fulfilled this directive by risking his life on behalf of G’d in private; the Torah adds the words “among the Children of Israel,” to teach that this directive is aimed at performing such an act in public. When doing so one must not hope that G’d would save one but must really be prepared to die for the cause. Anyone who publicly risks his life on behalf of G’d’s name hoping thereby to become the beneficiary of a miracle by G’d will not experience such a miracle. If, however, such a person is clearly resigned to the fact that G‘d will not rescue him, a miracle is liable to be performed for him as occurred in the incident of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, all of whom were defying the threats of Nevuchadnezzar and who chose to become martyrs explaining that they did not do so in order to demonstrate G’d’s power to save them (compare Daniel 3,18). [The author had elaborated on this drawing on a Midrash in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7,13 describing these martyrs’ previous discussion with the prophet Ezekiel. Ed.] Furthermore, our sages use this verse as proof that matters involving sanctification of G’d’s Name [not necessarily risking one’s life, but prayers such as the Kedushah, Ed.] have to have an audience of at least ten male adults. They draw a comparison between the death of the ten spies in  a group described by the Torah as עדה, a “community,” i.e. the minimum number of adult males to which this term can be applied. (Compare Berachot 21). Rabbeinu Yaakov (Tosaphist) already comments on that statement in the Talmud that it is not admissible to derive such halachic rules from an example of the ten spies, i.e. “an ungodly” congregation rather than a “holy congregation.”   The principal message of that discussion in the Talmud is the word בתוך, “amongst.” Clearly, when the word is used here it means “a holy congregation.” When the word appears in connection with Joseph’s ten brothers entering Egypt (Genesis 42,5) it is the Torah’s way of hinting that these brothers at that time were also a holy congregation. [There are many Midrashim proving that the brothers were bent on rescuing Joseph during their trip, certainly a holy task, and one that involved danger to themselves as evident in the story with Benjamin during their second trip. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . אלה הם מועדי, “these are My festivals.” The Sabbath is included here in the list of festivals seeing it is a fixed day in the calendar. The Torah describes the Sabbath here as שבת היא לה' בכל מושבותיכם, instead of the more customary חקת עולם לדורותיכם, “an eternal statute for your generations in all your dwellings,” as that wording would have implied that the work-prohibition on the Sabbath would apply universally in every location for all times. Under the circumstances, the wording suggests that the work-prohibition applies only in “your dwellings, not in the Temple, i.e. G’d’s dwelling.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אלה מועדי ה' מקראי קודש אשר תקראו אותם, “These are the appointed times of the Lord, holy convocations, which you are to proclaim, etc.” The Torah describes all the festivals as related to the attribute Hashem. The reason the word אלה is used to introduce them is that that word symbolises something permanent, enduring. The message is that these festivals will not become redundant through historic developments in the future. As long as this physical universe will continue to exist the Jewish people will continue to observe these festivals. This is also what is meant when the Torah wrote the words לנו ולבנינו עד עולם, “for us and our children forever” (Deut. 29,28), i.e. the laws of the Torah apply for all foreseeable future times.    Tanchuma Pinchas 17 relates that a Gentile once asked Rabbi Akiva why the Jews were still celebrating the festivals  when the prophet (Isaiah 1,14) had told the people that “G’d hated your new moons and your festivals, etc.” Rabbi Akiva answered that if Isaiah had spoken of “My new moons, My festivals,” instead of: “your new moons and your festivals,” he would have a point. What G’d  hated were the festivals introduced by King Jerobam which were meant to supplant the festivals described in the Torah here. We have been told in Kings I 12,32 that King Jerobam introduced a festival in the eighth month (to supplant Sukkot in the seventh month), a month he had chosen of his own will (verse 34).   Furthermore, it is written in verse 38 of our chapter “apart from the Sabbaths days of the Lord,, etc.” The repetition of the word אלה, “ these,” in verse 37 of our chapter plus the word מלבד in verse 38 are the Torah’s way of saying that no other festivals are to be considered as “G’d’s” festivals. The ones listed in our portion will never be abolished; this is why they are called “G’d’s festivals.” Concerning these festivals the psalmist said in Psalms 111,8: “they are well-founded for all eternity, wrought of truth and equity.”
   	אשר תקראו אותם, “which you will proclaim.” The word  meaning “them” is spelled without the letter ו, so that it may be understood as אתם, “you,” i.e. you will determine when to proclaim the proper time for these festivals. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 25 use this textual nuance to derive the authority of the Sanhedrin to rearrange the calendar in such a way that the festivals occur in the seasons determined by the Torah although if we were to follow the strictly lunar calendar this would prove utterly impossible. The authority of the Supreme Court in these matters is so great that even if they hand down an astronomically incorrect decision the decision is not revoked (Rosh Hashanah 25). The sages found an additional verse in Exodus 12,2 where the Torah wrote: “this month is for you,” as proof  that G’d granted authority לכם, “to you,” i.e. to your leaders to determine the precise time when a new moon is to be declared.
  So too do we find in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer (Chapter 8): “The universe [i.e. sun and the moon in their orbits to make the concept of time and a calendar meaningful, Ed.] was created starting with the 28th day in Elul. G’d was forced to make an adjustment to the commencement of the New Year [seeing that the 28th of Ellul was simultaneously the fourth day of creation so that Adam was created on the thirtieth of that month. Ed.] at which time He handed over the calendar manipulations to Adam. This is the meaning of the words זה ספר תולדות אדם, “this is the book of the descendants of Adam” (authority derived by man from the Lord) in Genesis 5,1. Adam passed on this authority to Chanoch as we know from Genesis 5,24 that “Chanoch walked with G’d.” Chanoch in turn passed on this authority to Shem, son of Noach. (According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer, Chanoch passed it on to Noach and Noach passed it on to Shem). Shem passed on this authority to tamper with the calendar to Avraham who in turn passed it on to Yitzchak who in turn passed it on to Yaakov where it remained until the latter left the land of Israel and descended to Egypt. While the Israelites were in Egypt they did not have the authority to tamper with the calendar. This is why Exodus 12,1 introduced a new chapter in Jewish history; this is also why the Torah stressed that the directives given there were given בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt,” something that we would have known as the Israelites were in Egypt at the time.    The word לאמור In Exodus 12,1 meant that G’d said to Moses that up until that time (since the descent to Egypt) He had kept the secret of how to make these calculations to Himself, whereas at that point in time He was releasing this information. As long as the Jewish people lived in the land of Israel they exercised this authority adding an extra month from time to time to bring the seasons into harmony with the lunar calendar, and to compensate for the fact that the moon’s orbit was 29 days and a fraction of the thirtieth day so that the month had to have either 29 or thirty days.   When most of the Jewish people were exiled to Babylon or went to Egypt, the calendar manipulation was taken care of the by the few Jews remaining in the Holy Land. When the prophet Ezekiel requested permission from G‘d to perform this task in Babylon, G’d told him that no one was permitted to perform this task except within the Holy Land. This prompted the sages to establish the rule that whereas the wise men and righteous people in the diaspora do not have the authority to tamper with the calendar, even herdsmen in the land of Israel do have such authority. Even prophets outside the land of Israel lack this authority whereas laymen inside of the land of Israel do have the authority to adjust the calendar. Only when no Jew remained in the land of Israel did they begin to adjust the calendar in Babylon. As soon as Ezra moved to the land of Israel they began to adjust the calendar there, and when Ezekiel asked permission to do this in Babylon G’d told him (Ezekiel 36,17) that it was the exclusive prerogative of the people living in Israel, i.e. בית ישראל יושבים על אדמתם. [I have quoted more from Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer than the author, though not all. One of the most interesting things there is that it dates the move of Ezra to the land of Israel as far earlier than other traditional sources. Ed.]   Something about the details of the procedure of adding an extra month to the year (still from Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer): They would bring a Torah scroll, form a (semi)-circle where the elders would be seated in order of their seniority. They would then face with their faces to the ground, rise and remain standing, extend the palms of their hands toward heaven. The most senior member of the assembly would pronounce the Ineffable Name (as part of the appropriate benediction to be recited) and a heavenly echo would be heard and confirm the authority of those assembled to proceed by reciting the verse in Exodus 12,1. If the respective generation were lacking in merits no heavenly echo would be heard.    People who were present at the time the heavenly echo was heard were extremely fortunate as we know from Psalms 89,16 “hail to the nation who understand the meaning of the blast of the teruah, they walk in the light of Your presence O Lord.” This was an allusion to the people (performing this ceremony) enjoying G’d’s approval. Thus far (more or less) Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. 
  This is proof of the preference G’d accorded to the soil of the land of Israel and how dear it is to the Lord. We also have a quotation from the Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1,2 where the words from Jeremiah 29,1 אל יתר זקני הגולה ordinarily translated as “to the remainder of the elders in the diaspora,” are understood to mean that “the prophet spoke to the most distinguished people of the diaspora (יתר=יותר); He said that a small band of Jews in the land of Israel is dearer to Me (G’d) than the elders of the Supreme Court (and their accumulated wisdom) in the diaspora, wherever that may be.” When the elders of the Sanhedrin used to assemble (in anticipation of the new moon) in the office near the Sanctuary called לשכת הגזית they used to intone the formula מקודש, “it has been sanctified” three times after the testimony of witnesses claiming they had seen the new moon had been accepted. This day then was accepted in the celestial regions as the new moon. G’d would sit in judgment of people on New Year (which was also new moon) in accordance with the determination made on earth. Concerning this acceptance by the heavenly court of calendar decisions made by the Sanhedrin on earth, Psalms 57,3 writes אקרא לאלוקים עליון לאל גומר עלי, “I call to G’d Most High, to G’d Who is good to me.” David acknowledged that G’d agreed with him.
   In Midrash Tehillim chapter 4 the verse selected to reflect the same idea is Deut. 4,7 כה' אלוקינו בכל קראנו אליו, “like the Lord our G’d whenever we call upon Him.” Rabbi Oshiyah said that there is no other nation which sets rules for its G’d as does the Jewish nation. As an example consider the matter of calendar manipulation. When the elders of the people sit down to determine that the beginning of the new year has to be deferred by a month G’d agrees with their decision and says that whatever Israel has decided is in order. Concerning this matter David said: “I call on the Supreme G’d and He agrees with me.” When is this matter effective? On New Year’s. When the Sanhedrin sit down to proclaim a certain day as the beginning of the new year G’d adapts Himself to this decision calling together His Supreme Court consisting of the requisite number of angels, saying to them: “go and check what the Sanhedrin on earth has decided.” When the angels report that the Sanhedrin on earth has decided that New Year’s day is to be on a certain day. G’d assembles His court on that day to sit in judgment of mankind. This is the meaning of Psalms 47,6 “G’d ascends amid the sound of the teruah.” Immediately after that the angels make all the appropriate arrangements for the celestial court to begin its deliberations. This is the meaning of Daniel 7,9: “I watched till thrones were set up and the Ancient of days (G’d) sat down. His garment white as snow, etc. etc.” Some of the angels acted as defenders of the Jewish people whereas others acted as accusers. All of this was initiated by the decision of the Sanhedrin as confirmed by the psalmist  in Psalms 81,5 that “it is a law made by Israel, a ruling of the G’d of Yaakov.” The meaning of this line is that Israel decrees a law concerning Rosh Hashanah and G’d abides by Israel’s decision. Another proof that this is so can be derived from Numbers 29,1 יום תרועה יהיה לכם, “it will be your Day of Teruah,” i.e. you decide on the exact date. Whereas on other festivals the Torah describes these days as לה', “for the Lord,” in this instance the Torah describes the day as לכם, “for you, yours.” We also have the verse in our chapter (verse 4) “these are the festivals of the Lord which you will proclaim.” It is as if G’d said: “I have no festivals unless you have fixed the one which is yours.” All the other festivals are the Lord’s, whereas Rosh Hashanah is yours seeing you set the date. The word קראנו in Deut. 4,7 which we mentioned earlier is a reference to “what we proclaimed,” i.e the date the Sanhedrin decided. Thus far the Midrash Tehillim. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ממחרת השבת יניפנו הכהן, “from the day following the rest day the Priest shall wave it.” The word שבת In this verse does not refer to the שבת בראשית, the fixed Sabbath, the one which recurs every week, but to the first day of the Passover festival on which the performance of work is prohibited. This is also the way Onkelos understands the word when he writes: מבתר יומא טובא, “the day after the festival,” i.e. the day following the 15th of Nissan. The Torah prohibited eating from the new barley harvest until the 16th day of Nissan. This is the meaning of the line: “you shall not eat bread or roasted kernels or plump kernels until this very day, an eternal statute applicable to all your dwellings” (verse 14). This means that the prohibition to eat from the new barley harvest applies as a Biblical prohibition even outside the boundaries of the land of Israel throughout the ages (Compare Kidushin 37). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish states that there are three commandments which though primarily linked with our living in the Holy Land, also apply in the Diaspora. They are חדש-כלאים- ערלה, the prohibition listed here, the prohibition of cross breeding, and the prohibition of eating of the fruit of a tree during the first three years of its existence. The prohibition listed here is Biblical, whereas ערלה is known as decreed by Moses at Sinai, i.e. not derived through exegesis but through tradition, a decree of the sages effective since the time the Torah was given. The prohibition of cross breeding in its application outside the boundaries of the land of Israel is of later origin, a Rabbinical decree. (Compare Sifra Emor 10,11).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וספרתם לכם, “count for yourselves, etc.” The construction of וספרתם לכם is similar to that of ולקחתם לכם, “take for yourselves” in verse 40. It means that each individual is to count, i.e. buy the four species of plants for Tabernacles. Counting has to be by mouth, not merely in one’s mind (Menachot 68). This is a different manner of counting from that which the Torah mentioned in connection with a woman who has to count seven days before ritual immersion (Leviticus 15,13 and similar). In that instance the Torah means that one must not forget to keep track of time. It would be adequate to note the dates on the calendar, etc., without mouthing the days each morning or evening. Not only that, in those instances if a woman decides not to immerse herself in a ritual bath and remain ritually impure she is at liberty to do so (with all the restrictions which this would impose upon her). 
  The most important aspect of the commandment to count in our verse is that one must begin the count on the 16th of the month of Nissan. This is the first day of the reaping of the barley harvest. The first cut barley (of good grade) is offered as a communal offering as a gift to the Lord as described in verses 12-13. The number 50 (of counting) comes to an end with the harvesting of the first wheat from which again an offering is brought in the form of two loaves of bread which are baked as leavened loaves (as spelled out in verses 18-20). The principal part of the whole commandment is the ritual of the offering of these two loaves. The accompanying animal sacrifices were precisely that, they did not constitute the principal part of the combined offerings. If, for some reason, no new wheat was available on that date the accompanying animal sacrifices mentioned here would not be offered.    The word חדשה, ”new,” which the Torah writes describing this gift-offering of two loaves of bread from the new wheat harvest which is to be brought on the fiftieth day of the count, constitutes the festival of Shavuot. When giving further details of this counting etc., the Torah adds that it is to be an “eternal statute in all your dwellings” (verse 14). Seeing that the performance of the Omer sacrifice is dependent on the subsequent offering of the two loaves on the Shavuot festival, it would have been easy to imagine that in the absence of a Temple where the latter could be offered, the former, i.e. the “count-down” would also become redundant; therefore the Torah had to write that this applies throughout the generations in all our dwellings, as distinct from “in your dwellings” (verse 17) which is the Torah’s wording for the applicability of the offering of the two loaves. Not only the counting but also the accompanying prohibition of eating from the new barley prior to the beginning of the count-down is applicable nowadays also. The commandment not to perform work on the Shavuot festival is also in effect just as it was when the Temple was standing, although the only commandment which dis- tinguishes that festival cannot be performed in our time. The common denominator of all the festivals listed in the Torah is that they apply both in the land of Israel and in the Diaspora and both when the Temple is standing and when it is not. If the Torah saw fit to emphasise that the Day of Atonement remains in effect throughout the earth and regardless of whether the Temple is standing, this  may be due to the fact that our atonement is linked to the sacrifices offered on that day. Seeing we are not able to offer these sacrifices while we are in exile, we might have assumed that the day has lost its sanctity. The Torah therefore makes clear that the sacrifices are not the condition for the effectiveness of the Day of Atonement. In our portion the words “an eternal statute in all your dwellings” are not mentioned in connection with Passover, seeing this has already been mentioned in Exodus 12,14,17, where the Torah speaks of the consumption of unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Seeing that these parts of the ritual can be performed without the Temple, the Torah there had to spell this out. This is the commentary of Nachmanides on the Torah omitting the words “an eternal statute in all your dwellings” in connection with Passover in this portion.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . עד ממחרת השבת השביעית תספרו, “until the day after the seventh week you shall count.”  You are aware already that the count extends only for 49 days. Therefore, the tone-sign under the word תספרו does not link the word to חמישים, “fifty” which follows it, but the word חמישים belongs to the word והקרבתם, “you shall offer a sacrifice,” which follows it. Forty-nine days are spent counting whereas the fiftieth day is spent offering the gift-offering of the two loaves of the new wheat and the animal offerings accompanying them. The Torah did not mention the Shavuot festival independently as it did with all the other festivals. We could have expected the Torah to write: בחודש השלישי בששי לחודש חג השבועות, “in the third month on the sixth of the month is the Shavuot festival,” just as it did with the other festivals. Seeing that the Torah did not refer to the festival Shavuot in that manner makes it plain that it is considered as a festival which is linked to the Passover, i.e. it completes what commenced on Passover and now that we have counted forty-nine days from the second day of Passover the time has come to celebrate the Shavuot festival. Looking at it from a spiritual point of view, the days between the last day of the Passover festival and the festival of Shavuot may be considered as somewhat like חול המועד, the intermediate days of the Passover and Sukkot festivals respectively.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . אשה ריח ניחוח לה', “a fire-offering, of sweet-smelling fragrance to the Lord.” The Torah adds that a male goat is to be offered as a sin-offering (verse 19). We need to understand  why in addition to the animals described as אשה ריח ניחוח there was also a need for a sin-offering. This is especially important as in Numbers 28,26 where the offerings of all the festivals are listed there is no mention made of this male goat as a sin-offering in connection with the offerings listed as being brought on Shavuot. The sacrifice mentioned in Parshat Pinchas was addressed directly to the highest attribute of G’d, to Hashem, whereas the sacrifices mentioned here were addressed in the first instance to the Shechinah, (and to Hashem as the ultimate address). You will find that in Pinchas the word לה' is mentioned prior to the details of the offering being given, whereas here the Torah uses the reverse procedure, mentioning the word only after most of the animals have been mentioned. Here the Torah wished to include an allusion to an historical event which occurred on the first Shavuot, i.e. the revelation at Mount Sinai. At that time the Israelites experienced this revelation as a manifestation of the mountain burning, etc., i.e. as “fire.” Hence the emphasis here on the words אשה לריח ניחוח לה' as a reminder of that fiery experience. Also, in connection with the inauguration of the Tabernacle the Israelites experienced a vision of the כבוד ה', (Exodus 40, 34-35 where this is mentioned twice) similar to an experience they had seen at the revelation. We find that the prophet Isaiah refers to a manifestation of such glory, תפארת, in (Isaiah 64,10) in connection with the Temple. He calls it תפארת. Whenever the word עצרת occurs it refers to the manifestation of the Shechinah. The Temple was a permanent manifestation of this attribute. This concept is anchored in the Torah’s instruction that three times a year יראה כל זכורך, “all of your males shall be seen in the presence of the Lord, etc.” (Exodus 23,17), an allusion to the fact that there is an attribute of the Lord, i.e. the כבוד, also known as Shechinah, before whom these males are to appear. On the other hand, on the occasion of the day we know as שמיני העצרת, the day following the Sukkot festival, no mention is made of this אשה, fire-offering; the reason is that on that occasion no pilgrimage occurred, i.e. the Israelites did not separately fulfill the commandment of appearing before the Lord at the Temple. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ובקצרכם, “when you harvest, etc.” The reason the word קצר occurs twice in this verse is to teach that failure to observe the statute laid down here makes one guilty of two separate violations. Rabbi Avdimi son of Rabbi Yossi, asked: “why did the Torah see fit to mention this legislation of leaving the corner of one’s field for the poor in the middle of the paragraphs detailing the festivals so that Passover and Shavuot are before this legislation and Rosh Hashanah, Yom Hakippurim and Sukkot after it?” It is to teach that anyone who observed this legislation properly is considered as if he personally had built the Temple and offered sacrificial offerings in it. This is why the paragraph concludes with the words אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G’d” (and can be depended upon to reward you for your performance of these commandments). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   זכרון תרועה, “a remembrance with the blast of the Teruah.” On that day we are to recite verses which mention the blowing of the shofar and verses in which G’d is mentioned as remembering Israel. We are to remind the Lord of Yitzchak who was prepared to give his life for Him and in whose place the ram which had got entangled by his horns was offered up instead (Genesis 22,13).   The Torah here does not mention whether this remembrance is to occur by means of the blast of the Teruah sound with the trumpet or with the shofar; besides we do not understand the significance of that sound in this connection. Moreover, the Torah does not reveal at this point that the date mentioned, i.e. the first day of the seventh month, is the Day of Judgment. All the Torah reveals here is that there is a work-prohibition similar to that of the Sabbath on that day, that it is a holy convocation. Clearly, the details of this legislation have been revealed only orally, Moses telling our sages. They have a tradition that the Teruah´s sound which the Torah speaks of is to be emitted by a shofar. The linkage to the written Torah is established via the Teruah sound blown by a shofar which is mentioned in connection with the Jubilee year (compare Rosh Hashanah 34).The fact that this is the date of the Day of Judgment is alluded to by the word זכרון, i.e. the day when G’d remembers all of man’s deeds of the previous year. The word זכרון occurs in connection with judgment also elsewhere. One such example is Numbers 5,15 מזכרת עון, “a remembrance of guilt. Another example is found in Ezekiel 21,28: והוא מזכיר עון להתפש, “and it shall serve to recall their guilt.” The word פקד also means “to remember,” and occurs in connection with sin being remembered such as in Exodus 20,5 פוקד עון אבות, “who recalls the guilt of the parents, etc.;” our sages in Rosh Hashanah 32 state explicitly that פקדונות הרי הן כזכרונות, the former word means the same as the latter word זכרונות. In other words, there are adequate hints in our verse that the day mentioned is the Day of Judgment. On that day it is appropriate for us to listen to the sound of the teruah blown on the shofar as stipulated by our sages.
      The reason that the wording of this paragraph is more enigmatic than any other paragraph dealing with the festivals is that it deals with fundamental aspects of our religion. You will find that the more mystical the subject matter the Torah deals with the more enigmatic does the written Torah verbalise this. Take as an example the commandment to put on phylacteries. The only few words that we find about this in the written Torah is the verse in Exodus 13,16 והיו לאות על ידיך ולטוטפות בין עיניך “they (the phylacteries) shall be as a sign on your hand and as a symbol on your forehead.” Were it not for our oral tradition we would not have the faintest idea what these phylacteries should be made of, what they should contain, what colour they should be, etc., etc.  We would not even be sure what parts of the body exactly these phylacteries should be worn on. We have a similar problem with the commandment of ציצית, the fringes to be worn at the corners of four-cornered  garments. The written Torah is very sparse with its information although our sages describe the commandment as equal in weight to all the other commandments combined (Menachot 43). Without the oral tradition we would not have known that each fringe is to consist of eight twisted threads, and that there were to be five knots on each of the eight threads.   So here too, the first of the ten days which is to conclude with the Day of Atonement on the tenth of that month. There are numerous hidden aspects which have not been spelled out in the written text. One of the mystical aspects of the legislation is that nowhere does the Torah spell out matters relevant directly to the soul. The very fact that such a world of souls exists is only hinted at, never mentioned explicitly. The reason is simple. The written Torah was given to the multitude of the people, women and children alike. It was to be the property of all of them equally. It certainly would not have been appropriate for G’d to write in it matters which many people could not understand. The people as a whole do not have a clear understanding of the world of abstract beings such as souls. Even many individuals who have engaged in the study of the Torah experience great difficulty in understanding such concepts. We may compare this to the inability of a fish whose habitat is water to have an appreciation of the conditions of life prevailing on dry land. A fish familiar only with water, the element it is at home in, has no understanding of the element of fire, the very opposite of the element which it knows. Similarly, the world of the souls, the world in which there are only disembodied creatures are not within the range of what people who live in a physical universe can understand. As long as man is composed both of matter and an abstract soul which is attached  to his body, he cannot have a clear understanding of the goings on in that other world. This is why the written Torah had to explain objectives to be attained by human beings so that they could be perceived with the physical eye in order to prepare man for an intellectual transition to a world he had not experienced with his five senses, a world which nevertheless represents the target, i.e. ultimate home for which man is destined.
      A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah 29,7 understands the verse in terms of the patriarchs, suggesting that G’d is telling us that if we want to be found deserving when examined by G’d, our relationship to our patriarchs is the key. The words באחד לחודש is reminiscent of Avraham who was one of a kind as we know from Ezekiel 33,24 אחד היה אברהם, “Avraham was only one man.” The words זכרון תרועה are a reference to Yitzchak, whereas the words מקרא קודש, “a holy convocation,” are a reference to Yaakov. What the Midrash means is that the shofar blasts of Rosh Hashanah, i.e. the blasts of the teruah, are an allusion to certain attributes. Just as the attribute of fear pervading the celestial regions is surrounded by the attribute of Mercy, so our teruah sounds which are fear-inspiring are preceded and followed by the sounds known as tekiah,  to parallel what occurs in heaven. Were this not so the earth would collapse completely as soon as G’d would commence sitting in judgment of mankind. If we would only blow the תרועה sounds this would be heresy of the first order, [i.e. as if we denied the presence of the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] Keeping this in mind we can understand that what is written here means that the Day of Judgment is the Day of the Teruah which is surrounded by the attribute of Mercy, called here זכרון. Having understood this it follows that the meaning of the words זכרון תרועה is equivalent to שופר תרועה and יום תרועה. (Compare 25,9 and Numbers 29,1 respectively).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . אך בעשור לחודש  הזה, “However, on the tenth of this month, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text G’d says that whereas on the first day of the month, the Day of Judgment each one of you passes in front of Me like a flock of sheep, the tenth day of this month is the Day of Atonement, the day on which the decree penciled in on the Day of Judgment will be signed and sealed.
      A Midrashic approach based on Sifra Emor 14,12: whenever the Torah writes the words אך or רק, these words are meant to exclude something otherwise included. In this instance the meaning is that the ability of the Day of Atonement to forgive our sins is dependent on our sincere repentance. People who do not repent their sins do not have them forgiven in spite of having lived to this date and beyond it. The first of the month which is a Day of Judgment is applicable both to repentant sinners and those who do not repent. However, i.e. אך, the Day of Atonement and its benefits apply only to those who have repented.
  
  Verse 28
  
  . וכל מלאכה לא תעשו בעצם היום הזה כי יום כפורים הוא, “and you must not perform any work on this day for it is a Day of Atonement.”  The reason the Torah speaks of atonement and of עצם היום “the essence of this day,” is that without these words we could have thought that when no Temple is standing and the sacrifices appropriate for that day cannot be offered that we also forfeit its benefits, i.e. forgiveness. Therefore the Torah added these words to reassure us.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  . אך בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השביעי באספכם, “however, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month when you gather in, etc.” We are entitled to ask at this point that seeing the Torah told us already earlier in verse 34 that the Sukkot festival commences on that date, why repeat the date? However, it is the style of the written Torah when lengthy matters are discussed to re-insert the date after an interruption so that we should not forget that we still speak of the same date mentioned earlier in the same paragraph. I would add here that earlier in the paragraph the date seemed to relate to the offering of certain sacrifices, i.e. a procedure directed at G’d, stressing the element of “a holy convocation,” whereas what is discussed here are procedures aimed at our terrestrial universe and our gratitude for the harvest. Seeing that the taking of the palm frond is also an act of rehabilitation on behalf of our ancestor Adam who had sinned by abusing a plant G’d had had planted in Gan Eden, by reiterating the date mentioned in connection with the sacrifices offered on this festival being the same as that on which we take the palm frond, this shows that the taking of the lulav has a two-tiered significance. Apart from symbolising gratitude for the harvest being gathered in it also has an independent spiritual significance. This is further reinforced  (verse 40) by the formula ולקחתם לכם, “take for you (spiritual rehabilitation).”
  
  Verse 40
  
   ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר כפת תמרים וענף עץ עבות וערבי נחל, “take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of the tree hadar, branches of a date-palm, twigs of a tree surrounded by leaves and willow branches.” According to the plain meaning of the text all of these four plants grow near water and require to be irrigated by water more than other fruit or plants. This is why at this time when we offer special water libations on the Altar we take representatives of these plants to invoke G’d’s special blessing for their growth. This festival is the one when the annual rainfall for the land of Israel is determined (Rosh Hashanah 16). Presentation of these four plants will ensure that G’d looks upon us with favor at that time. Our sages in Sukkah 34 have a tradition that we are to take one etrog (citron), one palm frond, 3 myrtle branches, and two willow branches.
      It is possible to see these numbers reflected in the text of our verse. The fact that only one etrog is to be taken is reflected in the word פרי of the sequence פרי עץ הדר being in the singular. This reflects what the Talmud said that we are to take “one fruit, not two.” Similarly, the wording כפת עץ תמרים, where the word כפת is spelled without the letter ו which is the way we read it, i.e. as if it were in the plural. Strictly speaking, the Torah should have written כף תמר instead of כפת מרים if only one single palm frond was meant. However, the Torah had to use this wording so that we would not think that a single leaf of the palm would have been sufficient. Therefore, by writing the word in the plural while spelling it as if it were in the singular the Torah gets its point across that we are to take a palm branch consisting of numerous leaves. The reason that the word תמרים is in the plural instead of תמר, seeing we take only the branch of one palm tree, is that palm trees are male and female and cannot produce fruit unless the female palm has received pollen from the male palm. In other words, one single palm is by definition only half a palm at best from the point of view of it bearing fruit. You cannot plant an orchard of male palms only or female palms only unless the opposite gender is nearby. According to the author all plants require both male and female strains in order to reproduce and even certain gemstones are subject  to similar conditions.    The reason that we find the number 3 for the myrtle branches alluded to in the text is the wording וענף עץ עבות. The word ענף refers to one, the word עבות in the plural means a minimum of two; as a result there have to be no less than three such branches. This allusion is not referred to in the Talmud, only in commentators such as Rashi on Sukkah 34. The word ענף in this instance means that the stalk is surrounded, covered, with leaves of that plant. If the stalk were not surrounded by leaves it would have to be referred to as עץ, ”tree,” instead of as ענף, “branch.” Seeing the Torah speaks of ענף עץ וגו', clearly ענף and עץ are quite different from one another. The term עץ can be applied to branches not covered by leaves even if, as in the case of the myrtle branch, the required minimum height is only about 40 centimeters (שלשה טפחים). The word עבות in our verse refers back to the number of leaves that are to grow at each level of that branch, i.e. the preferred quality of the plant is a variety where three leaves surround the branch at each level, the top of the leaves reaching the bottom of the next layer of leaves. This requirement is not mandatory but is suggested to people who want to fulfill the commandment of the four species of plants in the best possible fashion. As far as the Biblical requirement is concerned, as long as there are three moist leaves on the stalk the myrtle branch may be used (Sukkah 33). The minimum requirement is for each of the three stalks to have one good leaf at the top. At any rate we have shown that the wording of the verse alludes to the requirement of there being three such stalks of the myrtle tree. Furthermore, the origin of the halachic requirement that these three leaves should grow out of the same root is due to the spelling of the word עבת which, seeing it is in the plural, should really have been written with the letter ו following the letter ב, i.e. עבות. [The latter interpretation is that of Rashi, strenuously opposed by Tosaphot as too stringent a requirement, see Sukkah 32 and Rabbi Chavell’s comment]   There are to be two branches of the willow tree; this is clear from the plural wording ערבי נחל. The minimum number possible to comply with the description ערבות, “willows” is two.
      A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah (30,10): the words פרי עץ הדר are a reference to Avraham. The words כפת תמרים are a reference to Yitzchak, whereas the words ענף עץ עבות are a reference to Yaakov. The words ערבי נחל are a reference to Joseph. We need to understand this Midrash along the following lines: The Torah mentioned the word פרי, i.e. fruit in the singular thereby hinting that it was Avraham who paved the way for recognition of G’d as the “One” and only Creator. He spread the idea, i.e. his words bore fruit. The Torah cites proof of  this at the beginning of Parshat Lech Lecha (Genesis 12, 5) crediting both Avram and Sarai with having “made” נפש souls, i.e. converting people to monotheism already while they were in Charan and before they moved to the land of Canaan. Furthermore, as we already mentioned, Avraham is referred to in Ezekiel 33,24 as אחד היה אברהם, “unique was Avraham, singular.”  The word עץ, tree, in our verse of פרי עץ הדר refers to a unique feature about Avraham. Just as a tree stops giving fruit when there was no supply of water for its roots but is able to revive itself when provided with water, so Avraham, who had despaired of producing biological offspring and had “dried out,” was rejuvenated and sired a son at one hundred years of age. This is part of what the sages (Baba Metzia 86) had in mind that until the advent of Avraham the concept of old age was unknown. People had not been able to distinguish father and son from their exterior appearance as they looked as if both were of the same age. Avraham was granted the appearance of “old age,” so that henceforth one could distinguish (and honour) the aged on the basis of their appearance even if one did not know the individual in question personally. This is what the Torah (Genesis 24,1) had in mind when it wrote: ואברהם זקן בא בימים, “Avraham had become aged, advanced in years.” We have another verse in Proverbs 20,29 where Solomon elaborates on what the Torah wrote about Avraham. He says: והדר זקנים שיבה, “the majesty of old men is their gray hair.”     The words כפות תמרים refer to Yitzchak seeing he had been bound, כפות, (on the altar). The word תמרים is related to תימרות עשן, “columns of smoke,” mentioned in Song of Songs 3,6 i.e. an allusion to the smoke rising from the remains of the sacrificial animal. He has always been compared to an “unblemished burnt-offering” in our history.    The words ענף עץ עבות are a reference to Yaakov; just as the stem of the myrtle is surrounded by leaves, so Yaakov was surrounded by his sons, the twelve tribes.   The words ערבי נחל refer to Joseph. Just as a willow, after a period of being full of juices shrivels and dries out, so Joseph after a brilliant youth as second in command to Pharaoh the mightiest King of his time, experienced the loss of his legendary father, losing the source of his inspiration. He “dried out,” i.e. he died earlier than his brothers who were senior to him in years. The point that the Midrash wants to make is that when we perform the commandment of taking the four species of plants and waving them in all directions we should remind G’d of the merit of these patriarchs so that their merit will assist us in securing the beneficial rainfall required for the year which has just commenced. Even Moses used to preface his prayers by asking G’d to remember the merits of the patriarchs, such as in Exodus 32,13.
      Another exegesis about the four species based on a similar line of approach sees in the four species symbols of four organs of our bodies which between them account for most of man’s activities. They are: the eyes and the heart, as we know form our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 1,8 “the heart and the eyes are the two principal agents of sin,” as the Torah already warned us in Numbers 15,39: “do not follow the dictates of your heart and your eyes!” The third organ are the lips which also account for the performance of many of the commandments as well as for the commission of many sins. The fourth part of the body accounting for a great many of our activities is the spine, a central part of our bodies. The activities performed by means of the spine originate in the brain whence directions are issued which are carried out by the spine. Concerning all this the sages in Vayikra Rabbah 30,14 said that the etrog symbolises man’s heart, the lulav symbolises his spine; the myrtle symbolises his eyes, and the willow symbolises man’s lips. What the Midrash means is that when man gets involved in sins which were committed with one of the four organs listed he needs to atone for them by means of the respective one of the four species we wave on the Sukkot festival. The Midrash bases this on the principle we discussed in connection with desecrating the holy Name of the Lord (page 1784) that sins may be neutralised by the performance of commandments corresponding in some measure to the sin one has committed. We have a statement in Baba Batra 4 that when King Herod who had murdered tens of thousands of Jews asked Shimon ben Shetach if there was some way in which he could expiate for this, he was told that there was a way he could do this if he were to build (renovate) the Temple. The underlying consideration was that he who extinguished the light of the earth through murdering many people (including all the members of the Sanhedrin, the elite of the Jewish people), would have to provide light for the world in order to compensate for the darkness which he had caused previously. It is most reassuring to know that there are ways to compensate for wrongs we have committed and offsetting them by the performance of certain commandments with the express intention of expiating for corresponding sins    Concerning the commandment involving the lulav which represents man’s spine, David said in Psalms 35,10: “all my bones shall say; ‘Lord who is like You?’”
   Yet another Midrash found in Vayikra Rabbah 30,12 comments on the words פרי עץ הדר by saying that the reason the etrog  tree is called הדר, is that it is the epitome of beauty in that it dispenses fruit, good taste, and a pleasant fragrance. The species listed next to it in the Torah, i.e. the lulav, the palm frond, while not providing us with its fragrance does yield fruit. The third species listed in the Torah, the myrtle, while giving off a pleasant fragrance does not provide us with any fruit. Finally, the willow is a plant which does not offer us either fruit or fragrance. The etrog is taken to represent the righteous person who is both a scholar and performs deeds of loving kindness and observes the commandments. The lulav represents the Torah scholars (fruit) who do not however, excel in the performance of good deeds. The third plant, the myrtle is symbolic of people who do perform good deeds (fragrance) but who have not acquired a proficiency in Torah. Finally, the last plant, the willow, represents the Jews who have neither Torah knowledge nor good deeds to their credit. G’d said here: ‘let them all come and form one bunch in My presence and I will pardon them for all their sins.”    We find a similar approach expressed by our sages when they examined the eleven spices which made up the incense offered in the Temple both mornings and evenings. The function of the incense was, of course, to provide a pleasant fragrance and for this purpose the Torah listed 11 different ingredients as well as the proportion in which these were to be mixed. Nonetheless, one of these ingredients is evil-smelling, not adding but detracting from the overall fragrance. The ingredient is known as חלבנה, galbanum. We have it on the authority of Keritot 6 that by itself this galbanum was exuding a bad smell. According to our sages there the reason that G’d wanted this ingredient to be part of the incense was to symbolise the fact that when sinners are part of a group of righteous people and surrounded by them, the fragrance of the good deeds performed by the righteous will neutralise the evil smell exuded by the sinner. When this is the case, G’d will accept the repentance from both the righteous and the sinners, each for the sins they are guilty of.    Another exegesis by our sages in connection with these four species of plants: they are an allusion to the four kingdoms which host the Jewish people in exile. The author of that Midrash says that the four species waved by the Jewish people on Sukkot atone for the sins which resulted in the four exiles which we have been subjected to, and performance of that commandment redeems us from the respective exiles. The etrog represents the Babylonian Empire. Just as the etrog is the colour of gold, so the Babylonians set much stock by gold. Daniel 2,38 describes King Nevuchadnezzar by addressing him as “the head of gold.” The second species, the palm frond of the date palm, is symbolic of the kingdom of the Medes (exile under Achashverosh). The lulav is a long branch of the tree; Haman was hung on a gallows (tree) fifty cubits high. The third species, the myrtle branches, are symbolic of the exile under the Greeks. Just as the myrtle branch gives the appearance of consisting of a variety of plaits, so the Greek Empire was composed of a variety of fabrics. (i.e. each province was allowed its own king). The fourth species, the willow branches represent the Roman Empire, our present exile. Just as the colour of the willow branch (stem) is red, the Roman Empire is perceived of as “red,” i.e. the kingdom descended from the “red one,” Esau.     Tanchuma Emor 20 in interpreting the somewhat enigmatic verse in Proverbs 30,18 that “four are amongst the things I do not know,” explains that Solomon speaks of the four species. [He meant that the significance of precisely the selection of these four plants as the ones with which we perform the commandment escaped him. Ed.] In Proverbs 30,24 Solomon adds the words: “four are the smallest of the world yet they are the wisest of the wise.” The Midrash understands these enigmatic comments to mean that although these four plants are seemingly some of the most insignificant phenomena on earth they are at the same time the most sophisticated, as by means of them the merits or demerits of people are deeply affected. They influence the decision made by the Creator regarding His creatures’ future lives.   Still another comment based on this type of approach: etrog and lulav respectively are an allusion to the reward we can expect for performance of G’d’s commandments both here on earth and in the world to come, respectively. The myrtle and the willow branch are symbols of different ways of repentance, submitting to painful affliction and humbling oneself. The fruit of the tree called hadar points to the reward received for the commandments performed in this world as the tree grows from year to year, (compare Sukkah 35, that the fruit does not fall off the tree if not harvested). The words כפות תמרים are an allusion to the reward for merits accumulated in this life in the world after death, seeing that the lulav is so much bigger than the etrog and we have been assured that the reward in this life equals only dividends as compared to the capital payable in the life in the future. The leaves of the lulav grow in an ever upwardly direction, reminiscent of the greater value of the rewards it represents being so much greater in the hereafter. Moreover, the date palm does not yield fruit till after seventy years, a clear indication that it symbolises man’s reaping the “fruits” of a meritorious life in the hereafter. The average life span of man is seventy years as we know from Psalms 90,10.    The myrtle branches (leaves) contain some bitter ingredient although its fragrance is very sweet;  this is an allusion to the path of repentance containing painful episodes. Man is to afflict himself by means of fasting and self-flagellation. He who employs these means to assist in his path of repentance will ensure that his “fragrance” will waft heavenward. The willow branch  is an allusion to humility and self-deprecation; to symbolise this we do not find the willow growing in mountainous parts of the earth; it grows only near water, low-lying areas. This is to remind the repentant sinner to humble himself as a result of which he will achieve atonement and will be forgiven. In accordance with this whole approach it is appropriate that one holds the three species lulav, myrtle, and willow in the right hand in order to point at the great reward in store for us in the hereafter, the eternal life; by the same token, the etrog which symbolises reward for our good deeds in this world is to be held in our left hand. Traditionally, the “left” describes the terrestrial world, whereas the “right” symbolises the celestial regions in which our souls will dwell after they leave our bodies. This is the way the Talmud Shabbat 63 interprets Proverbs 3,16: “Length of days is in the right hand, in her left hand riches and honour.” The way our sages arrive at this interpretation is by saying that those people who do the “right” things deserve to enjoy eternal life; the ones who concentrate on subordinate values, i.e. “leftists,” will be rewarded only with material rewards such as riches and honour in this world.
      A rationalistic approach to the commandment of waving the four species on the Sukkot festival: The moisture of a fruit is its life; this is why we have been commanded that all these four plants should be הדר, in a prime state, fresh, full of their original moisture. By means of four such different categories of plants we are to perform a ritual symbolising life and remaining alive. This is why the common denominator of all of these four plants is that they are evergreens, i.e. do not “die” at the end of a season. They excel in this respect when compared to other plants. The Torah which we have been given at Mount Sinai is called ארח חיים, a path to  life. We, the recipients of the Torah are called “life,” as we know from Deut. 4,4: “and you who cleave to the Lord your G’d are all alive this day.” It is appropriate for us then at this time of year to take plants which represent life and acknowledge the fact that we have been inscribed for a year of life on the Day of Atonement just past. G’d Himself is also described as אלוקים חיים, the living G’d. What better way to exalt Him than with plants which symbolise the concept of life! If these plants had been dry they would not contain an allusion to life; it is their moisture which epitomises their life just as the blood in our veins proves that we are alive. No wonder then that we have been told in the Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 3,1 that a dried out lulav is not suitable for use as one of the four species of plants as David has already said in Psalms 115,17: “it is not the dead who praise the Lord.” Dryness symbolises death; hence dried out plants cannot be used for this ritual.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words פרי עץ הדר refer to a fruit which is similar in characteristics to the attribute כבוד of the Lord, an attribute which comprises 32 paths. [The word לב, heart, as well as the word כבוד, “majesty” have a numerical value of 32. Ed.].The reason the tree is called הדר, beauiful, is because it is הדר מכל הדר, “the most beautiful of all the beautiful trees.” This is comparable to Song of Songs 6,10: ”Who is this that gazes down from atop the Temple Mount, brightening like the dawn, beautiful as the moon, brilliant as the sun?”   The words כפות תמרים are a reference to the emanation called סוף הבנין, popularly known as יסוד, the head of the domain of all that pertains to the terrestrial world [immediately above the emanation מלכות, i.e. the domain in which we live, the world of עשיה. Ed.] The lulav symbolises the spine seeing it is straight and upright, an essential critical part of the body similar to the קו האמצעי in the diagram representing the emanations. The reason the Torah speaks of תמרים in the plural although only one palm frond is used is to avoid confusion with the meaning of the word תמר in the normal sense, i.e. the plant, such as in several verses referring to this comparison, for instance: זאת קומתך דמתה לתמר, “such is your stature, comparable to palm tree,” (Song of Songs 7,8), or צדיק כתמר יפרח, “the righteous flourishes just like a palm tree” (Psalms 92,13). So much for the meaning of תמרים. The word כפת spelled with the letter ו is to alert us to the fact that the word תמרים is only written in the plural to avoid confusion with the examples of the word mentioned, but that actually only one palm frond is meant. Etrog is symbolic of heart, the palm frond is equivalent to the heart of that tree.    According to the Sefer Habahir (176), the words ענף עץ עבות refer to the three emanations גדולה-גבורה-תפארת. This is an allusion to man whose two arms are used to protect his head. Between his head and his arms he has three protective organs. [I suppose the head is an organ with which man can protect himself intellectually, whereas the arms are organs with which he protects himself physically. Ed.] The word ענף refers to the left arm, the word עבות to the right arm, so that the עץ, tree, is in the middle. The reason it is called עץ is because it represents the root of the tree.   The הדס is similar to man’s eyes, whereas the ערבי נחל allude to the emanations נצח and הוד which are described as למודי ה'. The shape of the leaf of the willow branch is similar to the shape of lips. The prophets receive their prophetic inspiration from these emanations but not from anything higher than the seven emanations which we have listed as paralleling the four species. The very word ערבה is also the name of the seventh (highest) of the seven heaves known to us as ערבות from Psalms 68,5: סולו לרוכב בערבות, “extol Him Who rides the clouds.”   In defining the meaning of ערבי נחל the author of the Sefer Habahir (Rabbi Nechunyah Hakanah) item 177 writes  that these 2 willow branches represent man’s thighs; the word נחל describes the place where all the seven plants forming the four species originate, [or which they represent allegorically. In a commentary on the Sefer Habahir I have found the word נחל as an abbreviation of the term נחלי אל, i.e. a description fitting all the seven emanations we have mentioned. If I understand it correctly the emanations are viewed as rivers of spiritual input originating with G’d, hence the term נחלי אל. Ed.] According to the author what he has written so far under this heading corresponds to the view of Nachmanides.
      An alternate kabbalistic interpretation considers that the ערבי נחל allude to the emanations גדולה וגבורה rather than to the emanations נצח והוד. Regardless of which set of allusions we accept the common denominator is that the four species which comprise seven plants allude between them to the seven lower emanations. The ערבה is the seventh in any event regardless of whether the emanation count commences with the highest or the lowest of the emanations. According to the combined views of the kabbalists the lulav and the other plants surrounding it form a total of seven units. Seeing that in the Talmud (Sukkah 45) the lulav symbolises the צדיק, the righteous person who grows straight like a palm and does not deviate to the right or to the left of the proper path, the sages have been more stringent in their requirements as to what constitutes a lulav fit for use and what does not. For instance, if the top of the lulav is lopped off it is unfit for use (Sukkah 29). On the other hand, if even three leaves of the myrtle branch are missing this does not disqualify the myrtle branch from performing its part in the four species halachically (Sukkah 34). The קטימה, lopping off of the top, is reminiscent of the word קציצה, “deliberate cutting off.” Seeing that the myrtle represents the emanations גדולה וגבורה, i.e. two emanations, if something is cut off from a plant which does not represent the concept of unity as does the lulav, this is reflected in the halachah that missing leaves or cut off leaves at the top do not disqualify it from use...
   [I have decided to curtail translation of the remainder of these details; the important thing is that our author uses existing halachah as reflecting the mystical concepts embodied in the entire legislation involving these four species. The reader is reminded that in most prayer books there is a paragraph to be recited before we utter the benediction prior to waving the lulav, etc., in which the reference to all the mystical aspects of this ritual is emphasized. Ed.]
  ... When considering all this we can understand the statement of our sages in Sukkah 45 that anyone who performs the commandments of the four species and binding them together as prescribed is considered as if he personally had erected the Altar and offered a sacrifice upon it. They base this on Psalms 118,27: אסרו חג בעבותים עד קרנות המזבח, “bind the festive offering to the horns of the altar with strong cords.”    Seeing that the etrog and lulav are symbols of the concepts of זכור and שמור respectively, one should hold the lulav in the right hand and the performance of the commandment is applicable only by day. The etrog is to be held in the left hand. The manner of waving these plants is as follows: we wave in the four directions of the wind, horizontally, followed by waving it upward and downward. Each “waving” is performed three times successively. This amounts to a total of 18 such wavings. This alludes to the three letters י-ה-ו in the tetragram which represent G’d’s seal on the universe, i.e. one seal in each of the six directions. Even though we do not find the number of these wavings spelled out in the Talmud Sukkah 37 where the only thing we are told is that one is to wave the species forward, backward, down and up, the details have been derived from other rituals involving such “waving.” When the Torah writes אשר הונף ואשר הורם in Exodus 29,27 the words אשר הונף refer to horizontal forward and backward motion whereas the words אשר הורם refer to raising and lowering (seeing you cannot raise unless you have previously lowered). This is a symbolic way of presenting these plants to the One who owns all these horizontal directions (or winds) of the globe. The raising and lowering is an acknowledgement that both heaven and earth belong to G’d. By doing all this we affirm our belief in the unity of G’d, that He never had any partner. Seeing that Adam, the first human being had become guilty of heresy by eating of the etrog (alone, without any other plant), we add the other species so that the etrog is treated as part of the fruits (plants) with which we acknowledge G’d, His uniqueness, His being the source of all blessings, etc. In this way we hope to put G’d in a frame of mind where He grants us grace. 
  We have already referred to Tanchuma Emor 20 in connection with Proverbs 30,24 and shown how the Midrash views the mystique in the “four” items which Solomon did not understand as the fact that the four species really represent the number seven, and how that number seven symbolises the wisdom which we derive from the seven emanations below that of חכמה. Performing the ritual reinforces the spiritual power of these attributes (emanations).    The Talmud Sukkah 38 quotes Rava as saying that just as it is generally important to fulfill the commandments in all its details so also the performance of the commandment of the lulav (and other species) in all its details has direct beneficial results. [He meant that if one waves the lulav only twice in each direction instead of three times one does not shortchange G’d, but oneself, as we do not know precisely which benefit is the result of which waving. Ed.] 
      Commenting on the precise nature of these “wavings,” Rabbeinu Chananel writes in his commentary on Sukkah 37: “how did this waving take place? He extends the lulav three times outward, brings it back, and extends it upwards followed by extending it downward. This is also the way Rabbeinu Hai Gaon described the procedure. We have adopted the principle of this procedure from the Jerusalem Talmud where we are told that the wavings consists of repeating this procedure three times in each direction. Rabbi Zeira queried whether waving forwards and backwards is not considered two wavings instead of merely one? The question remained unanswered. Seeing the question was not answered we adopt the more stringent possibility, i.e. that one waving consists of a motion which brings the species back to where the motion started.” Thus far the intelligible part of the author’s quotation of Rabbeinu Chananel.   The reason that the sages insisted that the materials used to bind the species into one bunch (except for the etrog) must be of their kind, [not materials which could become contaminated or golden threads, etc., Ed.] is to emphasize that the whole 4 species represent only the seven emanations, etc.; any additional material used would negate the concept we are trying to convey.   The reason that we loosen (at least) one of the loops woven around the lulav on the seventh day is a allusion to the קו האמצעי, which is the central line through the diagram of the emanations perceived as uniting what is on the right and what is on the left. We want to show that both the celestial forces (as represented by the highest three emanations) and the lower terrestrial forces are inseparably linked. Just as the leaves on the lulav cleave and adhere to the centre shaft of it, the שדרה, so everything in this whole universe is dependent on and must remain attached to the שדרה, of the diagram of the emanations. Seeing this is an important concept involving the significance of the seven emanations and the seven heavens, the seventh day of the festival is the one on which we draw attention to this symbolically, [as if to say that after having reached the seventh day these leaves remain attached without outside help. My words, Ed.]    I have tried to derive some more messages by studying this commandment in detail and have come to the conclusion that there are both revealed as well as mystical dimensions to these species, just as there are revealed as well as mystical dimensions in the letters of the holy Name י-ה-ו-ה. The two revealed aspects of the legislation appear in their very names, i.e. כפות תמרים and ערבי נחל (their meaning is clear to the average reader). The two names which represent the mystical elements of the species are the words פרי עץ הדר and ענף עץ. These words contain so much mystery that without the help of our sages we would not have known that the plants referred to are the citron and the myrtle respectively. Similarly, when we contemplate the letters in the tetragrammaton there are mystical and revealed aspects. The three letters י-ה-ו have both hidden and obvious meanings. Each of these letters though when written as a single letter has only half the numerical value it has when it is spelled as a word, such as the letter י has a numerical value of 10, whereas the same letter spelled as a word, i.e. יוד, has a numerical value of 20. The same ratio is true of the letter ה. When simply spelled as a letter its numerical value is 5, whereas when we spell the letter as a word i.e. הה, its numerical value doubles. The same is true of the third letter in the tetragrammaton, the letter ו. This suggests that when it comes to the Unity of the Lord, as expressed in His holy Name the revealed and the mystical are not at odds with one another. Each letter is in a fixed ratio to the other both in its revealed form and in its hidden form. This same concept, that there are obvious as well as mystical dimensions in the commandment of the four species, is reflected in the enigmatic way the Torah writes about the two species the etrog and the myrtle. May the good Lord open our eyes and enable us to understand the mysteries hinted at in the written text of the holy Torah. 
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   כי בסכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, “for I have let the Children of Israel dwell in huts, etc.” Some of our sages understand the word סכות literally, i.e. booths, huts, whereas others understand it allegorically, meaning that the protective clouds of G’d acted for them as if they were dwelling in secure huts. According to the view of those who understand the word literally we have to assume that the people constructed the huts for themselves (as they certainly did not take prefabricated huts with them out of Egypt). As a remembrance of the Israelites having dwelled in real huts the Torah would command us to re-enact history and build these huts for ourselves on the Sukkot festival. The message of the commandment would be to bring home to us the devotion of the Israelites to G’d seeing they had to travel for 40 years in the desert with their wives and children, erecting and dismantling their huts each time they journeyed, etc. This would also be what the prophet Yoel 2,20 had in mind when he described the condition of the desert as “a parched and desolate land;” the Torah (Numbers 20,5) speaks of the desert as “not a place fit for planting seed where either fig trees or grapevines could grow.” The prophet Jeremiah 2,31, quoting G’d asks the rhetorical question: “have I been like a desert to Israel or a land of deep gloom?” What the prophet meant was that G’d used the barrenness of the desert to remind the Israelites of how He had not allowed them to feel deprived by the fact that they were traversing such unfriendly territory. He had provided for them all the comforts of life which their natural habitat could not provide for them. If one accepts the view of the people who believe that the Israelites had dwelled in actual huts one must suppose that they had had regular commercial contact with traders from far off who had brought to them the various necessities of life including plants, etc.   If one accepts the view of the second group of sages that the Israelites’ “huts” consisted of these protective clouds of the Lord known as ענני הכבוד in our literature, the reason may be that the Israelites were described on occasion as traveling at night under the light and protection of the pillar of fire. According to Deut. 16,14 we must imagine the camps as surrounded on all sides by miraculous manifestations of the attribute of כבוד. It is most likely the correct meaning of our verse that the manifestations of G’d’s clouds and pillars are referred to here as “huts,” and that the word ‘huts’ is employed by the Torah to describe protective cover. The words: “when I took the Jewish people out of Egypt,” i.e. immediately, lends weight to the opinion that the word is used in an allegorical sense. This would be compatible with the words of Isaiah 4,5: “the Lord will create over the whole shrine and meeting place of Mount Zion a cloud by day and smoke with a glow of flaming fire by night. Indeed over all the glory shall be hung a canopy which will serve as a hut for shade by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain.” The “hut” the prophet speaks of is clearly reminiscent of the ענני כבוד and the kind of illumination for the righteous in the future. Concerning this development in the future David said in Psalms 27,5: “He will shelter me in His hut (סכה) on an evil day, etc.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   על המנורה הטהורה, “On the pure Menorah, etc.”  Nachmanides points out that in Exodus 27,21 where the subject of preparing the oil for the Menorah is first dealt with there is no mention of the Menorah being “pure.” He explains the reason for this as being that that paragraph was not the primary paragraph dealing with the laws concerning the Menorah. When Moses was told in Exodus 27,20: “and you are to command the Children of Israel,” this referred to the details about the oil etc., being revealed to the Israelites eventually. However, here we are dealing with the principal paragraph dealing with the rules governing the use of the Menorah and how it was to be serviced. This is why the words “on the pure Menorah” were added here to tell the Priests that unless the Menorah was in a state of ritual purity the whole procedure could not be performed. This became important when the Hasmoneans recaptured Jerusalem and the Holy Temple from the Greeks and as a result they introduced the festival of Chanukah; and it is important nowadays when we have no Temple, no red heifer, etc. Had the Torah only written the paragraph in Exodus chapter 27 we would have thought that the procedure of preparing oil, etc. was to be performed even in the absence of a Menorah or when the Menorah was temporarily broken.   Sifra Emor 13,12 explains that the words על המנורה הטהורה may also be understood as על טהרה של מנורה, “directly on the Menorah,” i.e. there is not to be any insulating material or other matter between the lights (the containers of the oil and wick) and the golden Menorah. Moreover, the words also imply that the lights are to be prepared and kindled inside the Tabernacle, על המנורה, on the Menorah; lit matches, lit wicks, etc., are not to be brought into the Tabernacle and then be placed on the Menorah, but the whole procedure is to be performed inside the Sanctuary. The word תמיד at the end of the verse means that this procedure overrides the Sabbath and is to be performed seven days a week and even when ritually impure.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה, “You shall put on (each) stack frankincense, etc.” The twelve loaves of bread mentioned here and the frankincense were both mandatory so that the absence of either invalidated the whole procedure (compare Menachot 27). They related to each other just like the etrog and the lulav, or the blue wool thread and the white threads on the tzitzit. (according to an opinion expressed in Menachot 38 that when תכלת, the blue colour needed for that thread is available, a garment which has only white tzitiyot is not fit to be worn).   The reason that the מנחה offering of a Sotah (woman suspected of marital infidelity) or the מנחה offering of any sinner was unaccompanied by such frankincense as is mentioned here as mandatory is that the Torah expressly forbade it (Leviticus 5,11 and Numbers 5,15)  in order to express G’d’s disapproval of the persons having to bring these offerings, i.e. that at that time and until atonement has been obtained the attribute of Justice is poised to strike such a woman. 
       והיתה ללחם לאזכרה, “it will serve as a remembrance for the bread.” Seeing that normally some parts of a sacrifice always wind up on the Altar and in the case of the show-breads this is not the case, the frankincense is the only reminder to G’d that a sacrifice has been offered. Once the frankincense has been offered up this triggers remembrance of the show-breads which had been presented on the Table. Following this, the blessing of our sources of food which is the objective of this procedure can be applied by G’d. This is also the significance of there being twelve such show-breads, i.e. that all the twelve angels surrounding the celestial throne receive Divine input in the form of such blessing. These twelve angels are also known as the four camps of the Shechinah. The encampments of the Jewish people in the desert around the Tabernacle were patterned after what is known about similar procedures in the celestial regions. The four “camps” in the celestial regions serve as the point of departure for directing G’d’s blessing to the four directions on earth, i.e. North, East, South, and West. Three of these angels face each direction. The whole concept is like the significance of the four flags of the four camps of the Israelites in the desert. This concept was later on illustrated in the throne of King Solomon which featured 12 lions (Kings I 10,20). The total amount of flour comprised by the twelve show-breads was “24 tenths” (of the epha). This was an allusion to the twelve tribes of Israelites on earth and the twelve angels in the celestial regions.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of a Jewish woman came forward, etc.” The meaning of the word ויצא here is that he came forth from his house, or from wherever he had made his quarters.
     בתוך בני ישראל, “among the Children of Israel, etc.” He came from his private place to the midst of the people.  וינצו במחנה, “they  fought in the camp.” It is possible that seeing that the word ויצא did not specify from where the son of the Jewish woman came it has a similar meaning to the word ויצא  in Kings I 22,21 ויצא הרוח, where it is a reference to the spirit of Navot who had been the victim of a judicial murder and whose soul sought revenge. Both the term יצא and באה are used allegorically in a spiritual sense. Another example is Kohelet 8,10: ובכן ראיתי רשעים קבורים ובאו, “and likewise I saw the wicked who had been buried and ‘came.’” How could a buried person “come?” Clearly, the meaning of the word is not to be understood in its usual sense. This is also the meaning of Job 1,21 when he said ערום יצאתי מבטן אמי וערום אשוב שמה, “I came out of my mother’s womb naked and I will return to earth naked.” The words יצא and בא appear as figures of speech.
   I believe that this is what our sages alluded to in Tanchuma Emor 23 when Rabbi Levi is quoted on these words as saying that the blasphemer of whom the Torah spoke here יצא, “left עולמו,” “his world,” and that this is the reason the word ויצא here was preceded by the word עולם, “world” in the last word of the previous paragraph. Man is perceived of as being עולם קטן, “a small world, a microcosm.” We find a reference to the word יצא meaning leaving one’s country such as in Ezekiel 36,20 or as meaning “emerging,” originating, such as in Ezekiel 15,7 מהאש יצאו, “they emerged from fire,” meaning that these people had been born as a result of burning sexual passion of a man and a woman when they embraced in a sexual embrace.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 23-24: the meaning of the words ויצא בן אשה ישראלית is that the blasphemer excluded himself from the legislation of the previous paragraph dealing with the show-breads. He made sarcastic remarks about this legislation, ridiculing it by drawing attention to the fact that these loaves were replaced only once a week on the Sabbath. He questioned how one could present G’d with stale bread, saying that it is customary for kings to eat fresh bread every single day. How could one dare present G’d with bread which might be up to nine days old    A Baraitha understands the word ויצא to mean that the blasphemer emerged from the court of Moses where he had been found guilty. He had previously erected his tent in the camp of Dan (the tribe his mother belonged to). The Danites did not want him there (as his father was not of their tribe). When the matter was brought before Moses, Moses ruled in favour of the members of that tribe against this man. He was upset about this ruling and cursed the Lord to give vent to his frustration.
     והוא בן איש מצרי, “and he was a son of an Egyptian man.” According to Tanchuma Emor 24 he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses had slain when he had killed an Israelite (the husband of the blasphemer’s mother).  בתוך בני ישראל, “among the Children of Israel.” These words teach that the man in question had converted to Judaism (Sifra Emor 14,1). 
     וינצו במחנה, “they quarreled in the camp.” This prompts us to ask that if the two people quarreled about something why would one of them use this as a pretext to curse G’d? He should have been angry at Moses, or he could have attacked Moses physically if he felt wronged. Why did he curse the name of the Lord? Perhaps what happened was that the blasphemer told Moses during the trial that his father had been killed and he mentioned to Moses how he had been killed, i.e. that Moses had uttered the holy name of G’d and cursed his father who died as a result. This is why now, when he was found guilty by Moses, he in turn cursed the name of the Lord who had been the cause of his own father’s untimely death. He used the name which he had heard for the first time when he stood at Sinai and listened to the Ten Commandments. The fact that this paragraph is followed immediately by the portion commencing with mention of Mount Sinai is an allusion to the relevance of Mount Sinai to what occurred here.  Seeing that the blasphemer had not been willing to come to the Tent of Meeting, the Torah reports hat the people brought him to Moses. This may be the reason why here — contrary to Numbers 15,33 where the Torah reports the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath as being brought before Moses and the whole congregation — the words ואל כל העדה, “and to the whole congregation,” are missing.
      I wonder why the Torah bothered in this instance to tell us that while the Israelites were in the desert that one of them cursed the name of the Lord thus causing disrespect for G’d? Surely if all the Torah wanted was to teach us the penalty for such a blasphemer, all it had to write was a verse informing us (as it did anyway in verse 15) that anyone who curses the Lord employing His holy Name the tetragrammaton when doing so is guilty of being stoned to death? Even the Gentiles had been warned not to curse the Lord (compare Sanhedrin 56) seeing it is one of the seven commandments which is applicable to all of mankind. There certainly was no need to teach Israelites that this is a cardinal sin!   I suppose we must answer that the Torah hoped to achieve two objectives when not only spelling out this legislation here but  illustrating it with a personal example so that we would remember this better. 1) The fact that this individual who was guilty of this sin is named is a compliment to the Jewish people, seeing that only one single person had been guilty of that sin during the forty years in the desert and even that person had been the son of an Egyptian father. 2)  the story teaches the important principle that the only way to become guilty of this ultimate crime is to first pronounce the holy Name and then utter a curse upon it. This we derive from the wording of the Torah: ויקב בן האשה הישראלית את ה' ויקלל, “the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the name of the Lord and cursed it” (verse 11). The sequence in which the blasphemer acted made him liable to the death penalty. When someone means to bless the name of the Lord he has to do so in the reverse manner, i.e. first to concentrate on the individual letters of the tetragram and on their meaning and subsequently to pronounce the name (in the permissible formula). When done in such a manner one qualifies for the reward due to people who bless the Lord. There is an allusion to this sequence in Psalms 145,1, a psalm we recite several times a day, where David wrote  ארוממך אלוקי המלך ואברכה שמך לעולם ועד, “I will extol You my G’d my King, and bless Your name forever and ever.” The reward for following this procedure perfectly is long or infinite life. David preceded the sages in Berachot 8 who directed that a person should make a point of not beginning to pray until he has walked a distance of the width of two entrances to the Synagogue. (He should take time to concentrate before commencing to say the words).
     בן הישראלית, “the son of the Israelite woman.” These words (the repetition of the information) teach that the child of a sexual union between a pagan and a Jewish woman is not Jewish (by birth). Although, according to the Talmud (Yevamot 45), such a child is Jewish regardless of whether the mother was married or single at the time of that union, the fact remains that we consider the child as genetically tainted, not permitted to marry a priest if a daughter. It would certainly not be permitted to share in the distribution of the land of Israel or make his home amongst the camps with the flags, as such membership was limited to לשמות מטות אבותם, “for the names of the tribes of their fathers” (Numbers 26,55). This is the opinion of Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ושם אמו, “and the name of his mother, etc.”  Whenever someone displays signs of effrontery and disdain towards the Jewish religion and G’d it is time to examine his maternal genealogy as it is certain that the droplet of sperm which such an individual grew out of reflected a negative deed or thought at the time when marital relations which produced that baby took place. Unless the Torah wanted to teach us something beyond the meaning of the mere information contained in the text it should have simply written: ויצא בן אשה ישראלית ושמה שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, “the son of an Israelite woman by the name of Shlomit bat Divri from the tribe of Dan went out.” The reason the Torah followed a circuitous route before revealing the name of the blasphemer’s mother was that it wanted to keep it secret until after telling us what her son became guilty of. This is why we were first told that he cursed the name of the Lord (Verse 11). By mentioning her name last, the Torah suggested that the original cause of such a terrible sin being committed was the mother of the sinner who had been guilty of a trespass.    The baby grows out of the mother’s blood, is nurtured for the length of the pregnancy by the mother’s blood and even after the mother has given birth she nurses the child thus transmitting milk which originally was her blood. As a result of all this it is no more than reasonable that the child absorbs greater genetic input from his mother than from his father. This will eventually be reflected in his deeds which will reflect the mother’s character more than that of the father. This is the reason why we find that the prophets who wrote the Books of the prophets, particularly the Books of Kings always made a point of mentioning the name (and sometimes origin) of the king’s mother. An interesting example is Kings I 22,42 where the mother of King Yehoshaphat, Azuvah daughter of Shilhi, is mentioned. In Kings I 15,2 we are told that the mother of King Aviyam of Yehudah was Maachah daughter of Avishalom. The reason the prophet Jeremiah saw fit to include this information was to give us a little more psychological insight into any character weakness displayed by the sons of such women. (Or, vice versa, if the mothers were outstandingly good women). If a person is an outstandingly righteous individual this reflects credit on his mother who transmitted to him so many of her positive genetic qualities.   A good branch is always testimony that the root is healthy. This is reflected in the Torah writing in Exodus 6,29: “Amram took Yocheved his aunt as a wife.” The Torah mentions that a righteous person married a righteous woman and that the children were two outstandingly righteous sons, Aaron and Moses, and one outstandingly righteous woman, Miriam. The Torah reports something similar when reporting the marriage of Eleazar, son of Aaron to one of the daughters of Putiel, i.e. a descendant of the righteous Joseph (Exodus 6,25), and the son born to this union was Pinchas. We are told in Psalms that David described himself as: “I am Your servant, son of your servant maid” (Psalms 116,16). According to Kimchi, what David meant was that he had the good fortune of having been born to a father and a mother both of whom excelled in virtues.   Seeing that the Torah chose to reveal the name of the blasphemer’s mother we may deduce that this was a unique occurrence during the whole forty years the Israelites wandered in the desert and that amongst the other six hundred thousand families no genealogical flaw of this kind could be found. Moreover, you must not wonder how it could be that the blasphemer’s mother was an adulterous woman. She had been quite inactive in the matter. When the Egyptian climbed into her bed at night she had presumed that it was her husband joining her. The Torah applies the term זונה, (whore), to any woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her under Biblical law, regardless of whether such a union occurred voluntarily or not (Compare our comments on Leviticus 21,6).
     שלומית, she would inquire after everybody’s well being, prattling and saying: “hello to you (female), hello to you (male)!”   בת דברי למטה דן, “daughter of Divri of the tribe of Dan.” Mention of the name of the tribe shows that the deeds of a wicked person reflect discredit not only on his father and mother but also on the tribe he or she belongs to. The reverse is true of the righteous. When Oholiov was appointed as Betzalel’s assistant (Exodus 38,23) the Torah does not only tell us the name of his father Achisamach, but also the name of his tribe, i.e. the tribe of Dan.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . בנקבו שם יומת, “when he curses the holy Name he shall be executed.” The Torah immediately continues to write that any man committing murder shall be executed. This prompted our sages in Sanhedrin 58 to teach that anyone striking the cheek of his fellow is considered as if he had struck G’d’s “cheek” (in an allegorical manner of speaking).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת, “if someone strikes an animal he shall pay for it, whereas if someone strikes (dead) a human being he shall be executed.” The reason the Torah continues immediately with the words: “there shall be one law for you, etc.,” is that the investigation of crimes involving financial damage or bodily harm resulting in death should be subject to equally thorough investigation as to who is responsible. The word אחד in verse 22 refers to The “One and only G’d;” Torah legislation is based on G’d and not on the considerations applicable in Gentile jurisprudence.
  
  Verse 22
  
   כגר כאזרח יהיה, “the proselyte and the native shall be alike (before the law).” The Gentile who came from a foreign land and separated himself from his homeland is called גר by the Torah as he resembles a גרגיר, a berry falling of a tree which is separated from its source. If someone’s parents came from the same town he is called an אזרח, a “native.” The word appears in that sense in Psalms 37,35 ומתערה כאזרח רענן, “and well-rooted like a robust native tree.” The Torah wanted to make the point that in spite of these differences in origin of certain people, the law is to be applied to them equally.
     כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I am the Lord your G’d.” The Torah means that “if you practice these principles then I will indeed be the Lord your G’d. From this positive statement you can also deduce that failure to apply the law equally to natives and people who have converted to Judaism means that G’d will not consider Himself as our exclusive G’d with all the beneficial consequences of that elevated status. Put differently: if you discriminate against newly converted Jews, then G’d will discriminate against you. Additionally, if you submit your legal problems to arbitration by courts which do not recognise the אחד, the One and only G’d as the sole lawgiver, then you are (in the words of Rashi at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim) as if desecrating the name of the Lord and at the same time lending stature to the pagan religions. Not only this, anyone who wields enough influence to dissuade a Jew from bringing his disputes before a gentile tribunal and does not use his powers of persuasion on Jews about to do this commits an act of desecrating the name of the Lord. Not only does one thereby lend greater stature to the religion practiced by the members of such courts, but one contributes to their depriving the Jews of money which is rightfully theirs. The concept of meting out fair justice is a Torah exclusive as we know from Psalms 147, 19-20) “He issued His commands to Yaakov, His statutes and rules to Israel; He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     צדיק יהגה לענות ופי רשעים יביע רעות, “The heart of the righteous plans his answers carefully; the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil.” (Prov. 15,28)
   Solomon contrasts the opposite natures of the righteous and the wicked. He reveals to us that the wicked are proud and arrogant by nature, whereas the righteous is modest and self-effacing. He does so in order to encourage us to practice the positive virtues of the righteous and to avoid practicing the negative virtues of the wicked. The word לענות used by Solomon when describing the righteous is the same word applied by Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 10,3 when he asked Pharaoh how long he would still refuse to humble himself, לענות, before the Lord? Moses challenged Pharaoh saying that since he had not yet humbled himself before the Lord his answer to the requests made of him by G’d through Moses would reflect his arrogance. Man’s speech is a mirror of how or what he thinks. The חכמי המוסר (Chovot HaLevavot section HaBechinah chapter 5) describe language as the writing quill of the heart. Seeing the righteous person has a clean conscience the words he speaks truly reflect what he thinks and what is in his heart. The reverse is true of the wicked person. It is not enough that he has arrogant thoughts in his heart, but he has enough effrontery to verbalize his arrogance, showing one and all that he is a foolish person.    It is a well known fact that self-effacement is one of the finest positive virtues as our sages have taught us (Chulin 89) the universe endures only due the people who perceive themselves as if they were of no consequence; this is what is meant by Deut. 33,27: ומתחת זרועות עולם, “and he who perceives of himself as beneath (everybody else) is what results in the world being planted successfully.” Examples of how the righteous down- graded their own selves are found in Genesis 18,27 when Avraham described himself as עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes.” Moses and Aaron when challenged by the people in Exodus 16,8 exclaimed ונחנו מה “who are we?” They meant that since they themselves derived all their spiritual input only from G’d why would the people complain against them! We find that in Psalms 22,7 David describes himself as “a worm, not a man.” Furthermore, we have a tradition that the presence of G’d manifests itself only to the humble, the self-effacing (compare Mechilta on Exodus 12, item 9). This is also what is meant in Isaiah 57,15: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and the lowly in spirit - reviving the spirits of the lowly.” Similarly, Torah knowledge becomes the permanent property only of the lowly in spirit (compare Derech Eretz Zuta 8). Our sages in Taanit 7 ask: “why is the Torah compared to water so that the prophet Isaiah 55,1 when inviting people to learn Torah, called out: “come all you who are thirsty for water and get water!” Just as waters leave the elevated place they originate in and flow downwards, so the Torah cannot be at home for long in someone whose heart feels proud and superior to others. In the Aggadah of Eiruvin 55 we also have a statement that the words of Moses in Deut. 30,12  that the Torah is not found in heaven refers to arrogant people and that Torah does no make its home in the brain of such people. People who raise their own importance as if it reached heaven, are not liable to retain their Torah knowledge. True Torah knowledge is attained by those who “kill” themselves (i.e. kill their ego) in order to attain it. The Torah speaks of אדם כי ימות באוהל “when someone dies in the tent” (of Torah), compare Numbers 19,14. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,7) have formulated the principle that עיקר שכינה בתחתונים, that the principal manifestation of G’d’s attribute of כבוד is found among the terrestrial beings, as we know from Genesis 3,8 “they heard the voice of G’d walking by Himself in the garden following the prevailing wind of the day.” David alluded to the mystical element in all this in Psalms 104,17 when he said: “the stork has her home in the junipers.” [The word חסידה here translated as “stork,” was also the name of a daughter of Avraham who excelled in deeds of loving kindness for mankind which is why her name became known as חסידה, (as opposed to חסיד, masculine). Compare Zohar Pinchas 217. Rabbi Chavell. Ed.] Seeing that Adam sinned, the Shechinah began its gradual retreat from the terrestrial universe, a retreat which was reversed only with the advent of Avraham and which was reversed totally with the inauguration of the Tabernacle. The Torah was revealed on Sinai, a low mountain instead of on a high mountain such as Mount Hermon. This was intended to further make the point that what appears to dwarf all else physically is not necessarily what Torah and its message is all about. In Psalms 68,17 David refers to the hostility of the mountains of Bashan toward the mountain on which the Torah was given, Mount Sinai. Those mountains thought that they had a far better claim to serve as G’d’s residence on earth. [I have translated the author’s words according to the text in my and other editions, although, personally, I feel that the jealousy of the mountains in Bashan described in the verse quoted was directed against Mount Zion, the site of the Temple, much lower than the mountains of Bashan. After all, the psalm speaks about לשבתו “serving as His residence.” Mount Sinai never served as the site of G’d’s residence on earth. Ed.]
   וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני לאמור, “The Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, to say:” Most of the ancient commentators were perplexed why the Torah suddenly inserted a reminder of Mount Sinai into this verse when other similar verses introducing different kinds of legislation simply begin with the words: וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור. The insertion of the words בהר סיני prompted Sifra Behar 1,1 to comment that the Torah wanted to inform us that just as in the case of the Shemittah legislation the Torah revealed all the minute details of that legislation already at Mount Sinai, so the details of all the other commandments (what we know as the oral Torah) was revealed at the time G’d gave the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai.
      Nachmanides adds that the words כללותיהן ופרטותיהן ודקדוקיהן, mentioned in Sifra, i.e. their general rules, their specific rules and their minutiae, were well chosen. The “general rules” referred to are mentioned already in Exodus 23,11 where the Torah writes: והשביעית תשמטנה ונטשתה “and in the seventh year you shall let it alone and abandon it (the field).” This is followed by the words: “and the destitute of your people shall eat of it, and the wildlife shall eat what is left.” In other words, we already knew that the general rules of the Shemittah legislation had been told the people at Mount Sinai. In our portion the Torah adds further detail to those general rules. Seeing the legislation is not all written in one part of the Torah, the words “at Mount Sinai” remind us that what is written here was not added at a later stage though the people may have been told it somewhat later. Nachmanides concludes by describing this explanation as כפתור ופרח, “excellent.”  According to the opinion of Nachmanides the details we are told here were revealed after Moses had received the second set of Tablets, seeing that the principle of the legislation had been revealed at the time of the first covenant. After the second covenant the details and the respective penalties for non-observance were revealed.
      It is possible to argue that seeing the people had heard the Sabbath legislation at Mount Sinai during the recital of the Ten Commandments, and seeing that the Shemittah and Yovel legislation appears to reflect similar motivations to the Sabbath legislation, the Torah reminded the people of that conceptual linkage of the two sets of commandments by introducing the details here with the words “at Mount Sinai.” According to the wording in the Torat Kohanim the words בהר סיני in our verse may be read as part of what follows and as  part of what preceded this verse. Just as the legislation of what to do with a blasphemer is Sinaitic in origin so is what follows, i.e. the laws of how to observe the legislation regulating use of the land in Eretz Yisrael.
  
  Verse 2
  
  'ושבתה הארץ לה, “and the land will observe a rest for the Lord.” G’d sanctified both the seventh day, (Sabbath), the seventh year, (Shemittah) and the seven times seventh year (Yovel). Each of these periods is referred to as “Sabbath” at one time or another. In our verse the Shemittah year is called a “Sabbath.” Sanctifying the conclusion of the seventh Shemittah year in a 50 year cycle, the Yovel is also called “holy,” as we know from verse 12 in our chapter.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this “sanctity” is that the land lie fallow, untouched by human hands for the entire seventh year. Man should not plough it, sow it, reap it, etc. This is the meaning of verses 3-4: “you shall sow the land for six years, and for six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop; but the seventh year shall be a complete rest for the land, a Sabbath for the Lord. Your field you shall not sow and your vineyard you shall not prune.” You are not even to harvest (in the regular way) what grows by itself during that year. This is the meaning of verse 5: “the aftergrowth (that which grows without ploughing and sowing) of your harvest you shall not reap and the untrimmed grapes of your vineyard you shall not pick.” The word ספיח in verse 5 is similar to the word ונספחו in Isaiah 14,1 “and they will join the house of Yaakov” (the proselytes). Similarly, the vineyard which has not been worked or hoed and not pruned is called נזיר, (like the Nazirite who does not  trim his hair) as one abstains from working it a if it did not belong to you. The general principle governing the rules of conduct during the Shemittah year is that all the activities which suggest ownership of the field or vineyard in question have to be avoided. Any fruit of produce which grows on the field or vineyard during that year is ownerless, available on a “first come first served” basis. The legislation is meant to remind us that even during the years when we treat the land as ours, protected by all kinds of laws against infringement by people who do not own it, the land is really only on loan to us from G’d.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words 'ושבתה הארץ שבת לה' do not refer to individual parcels of land belonging to individual farmers but refer to the earth as a whole and are an allusion to the seventh millennium following the six thousand years when our terrestrial universe functions normally. They are a reference to the 1000-year transitional period when the earth will be desolate, unfit as a habitat for living creatures (compare Rosh Hashanah 31). That millennium is one described as “eternal rest” (Tamid 7,4), a reference to the world to come after physical resurrection has occurred. According to this concept the Shemittah discussed in our verse would be a  cessation of agricultural activity which is not voluntary but imposed by the conditions prevailing in the universe at that time. [This does not replace the normal meaning of the verses 3-8 which speak about what happens every seven years. It only explains the halachically unnecessary words that “the land shall observe rest for Hashem” (verse 2) — Ed.] The observance of a bird’s eye view of what will be in the future, i.e. what we may term a “miniature” shemittah is intended for us to focus on the eventual meaning of the concept. All the severe penalties connected with failure to observe the legislation of Shemittah and Yovel, especially the fact that non-observance is the cause of our losing our homeland and going into exile, is all due to the fact that this legislation is to give us an inkling of a much grander concept G’d has in mind for the existence of the physical universe and the message that an imperfect terrestrial universe is eventually to metamorphose into a perfect terrestrial universe. (Compare 26,34 on the collective penalties for non-observance and Avot 5,9 spelling out the worldwide ramifications of failure to observe the laws of sanctifying the seventh year.)
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   שבע שנים שבע פעמים והיו לך ימי שבע שבתות השנים, “seven years seven times; and the seven Sabbaths shall be for you, etc.” Why did the Torah have to add the words והיו לך, “they shall be for you?” Did we not know without these words that seven times seven years equal 49 years? It is possible to explain that the mystical dimension of what is written here is to give us a glimpse into the present as well as into the future. The first number, i.e. 7 times 7 plus the fact that the fiftieth year is holy refers to the commandment of observing the Yovel year. Seeing it is something which we have to perform the Torah asked us to count the years preceding the conclusion of that cycle. The word ספירה implies that something is not constant, not enduring. The word Yovel, on the other hand, implies something complete, permanent, enduring. The number 49 both in terms of the 49 gates of understanding granted to Moses, and wherever the number 49 appears, is an allusion to a domain beyond the merely physical, speaks of something permanent as Solomon said in Kohelet 1,4 והארץ לעולם עומדת, “earth will endure forever” (in spite of the recycling that we observe in nature).    The mystical dimension is this: We are told in Rosh Hashanah 21 that the world was created with 50 gates (levels) of insight, בינה; Moses was granted 49 of them as David said in Psalms 8,6 ותחסרהו אחד מאלוהים, “You have made him a little less than divine.” The meaning of these words is [I am using my own words here to make the author’s words intelligible, Ed.] that ordinarily every 1000 years is equal to one “level of insight,” so that at the conclusion of 50 periods of 1000 years perfection of the universe is attained. G’d telescoped the 49,000 years to come and taught Moses one level of insight corresponding to each unit of 1000 years. The word לך in the verse וספרת לך “count for yourself,” equals 50 in numerical value, implying that every 50 years, i.e. every Yovel year, a new insight may be attained. The words והיו לך at the end of that period of counting imply that the period of progressing toward perfection then comes to an end and something permanent in terms of levels of insight will have been reached. The reason the Torah speaks of ימי, i.e. “days” or “years of,”  is that that word has a numerical value of 50 just as the word לך. The Torah hints that the total number of years designated for the existence of the terrestrial universe is 50 (000). This is what David alluded to in Psalms 145,13  מלכותך מלכות כל עולמים, “Your Kingdom will span the duration of all “worlds.” We have clear evidence of the fact that G’d considers 1000 years as the duration of an עולם from  Psalms 105,8 where  the psalmist speaks of דבר צוה לאלף דור, “He commanded a “word,” i.e. a directive, to be valid for 1000 generations.” According to this concept the universe has a life span of 50,000 years. The word כל in the verse in Psalms 145 that מלכותך מלכות כל עלמיםn hints at the number 50.000 years seeing that the numerical value of the word כל is 50.   [In order to avoid a contradiction between the common conception that the world will continue for 6000 years and the seventh millennium will be the time required to make the world over into a perfect place, we would have to consider each 1000 year period after each cycle of 6000 years as a transition to a better world to come until a final conclusion after 49,000 years with the last Yovel. This concept in turn could incorporate the concept discussed at length in the דרוש אור החיים by the author of the famous commentary on the Mishnah Tiferet Yisrael by Rabbi Yisrael Lifshitz of Danzig in which the author is at pains to prove that our universe is not the first of these seven cycles but is already the fifth such cycle, previous cycles having contained lower forms of life only, including pre-historic man. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וקראתם דרור בארץ לכל יושביה, “you will proclaim freedom throughout the land for all its inhabitants.” According to Rashi from the date on which the shofar will be blown to announce this freedom, it will be called Yovel. Rashi bases this on the words במשוך בקרן היובל, “when a long blast will be blown on the Jubilee horn” (Joshua 6,5). This is also the view of other commentators such as Kimchi. 
  However, Nachmanides refutes this, writing that the קרן היובל as well as the שופרות היובל are expressions applicable only to a ram’s horn, and that the use of such a horn is mandatory only on New Year’s Day in order to remind G’d of the readiness of Yitzchak to die as a martyr for His great Name. Such a restriction does not apply on Yom Kippur, the date this horn is being blown when it is preferable to blow the horn of a יעל, a mountain goat, as indicated in Rosh Hashanah 26. This is why he interprets the word יובל as not referring to the blast blown on the instrument but as referring to the “freedom.” He claims that if it had been referring to the sound of the blast blown on the horn the Torah should have written והעברת שופר תרועה בחדש השביעי בעשור לחודש יובל היא; however, instead the Torah wrote: וקראתם דרור בארץ לכל יושביה, meaning that “you will proclaim freedom  to dwell wherever you feel free to live.”    The words יובל היא mean that during that year each person will be brought back to the ancestral tract of land which some member of his family might have had to sell during the preceding 49 years. He will be able to rejoin his family. This is the reason why the word יבול is also used to describe both grain and orchard harvests. Low lying areas in which water collects are also known as פלגי יבלי מים, “brooks and watercourses” (Isaiah 30,25). Thus far Nachmanides.   The meaning of the commandment called יובל, according to the plain meaning of the text is that fields return to their original owners, (seeing only a number of harvests had been sold, verse 15). Even those Jewish servants who had volunteered to stay with their masters beyond the original six years and who had their ear pierced, have to leave their employer during that year. The word Yovel implies that everything and everybody has to return to their original state, i.e. ownership and family.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words יובל היא: The word יובל is derived from the expression ועל יבל ישלח שרשיו, “sending forth its roots by a stream” (Jeremiah 17,8), a hint that all the succeeding generations are traced back to their original roots, to the prime cause which determined their development. This is the reason why the Yovel is called דרור, “freedom,” a reminder of when man was free from sin. All of mankind originated with the pool of souls at G’d’s disposal and eventually this is where the souls will return to.   Each one of the seven times  periods of a cycle of 7000 years will perform the tasks assigned to the respective day of creation making a total of 49,000 years. When they have completed these 49,000 years  the universe will revert to the Tohu Vavohu which preceded the words בראשית ברא (Genesis 1,1). The meaning of the words בשנת היובל הזאת תשובו איש אל אחוזתו, then is literal, i.e. that each person will return to his origin in the year described as Yovel.   Philosophers have understood the paragraph as meaning that just as all phenomena in the universe date back to a single original cause, they will again revert to that original cause. If you are fortunate enough to understand the mystical dimension of the legislation of the Shemittah and the Yovel concepts you will not fail to notice the significance of such words in the text as שדך כרמך, ספיח קצירך, ענבי נזירך all of which are in direct speech, i.e. ‘your field, your vineyard, etc.” Prior to the occurrence of the year called שבת לה', “the Sabbath of the Lord,” the Torah had mentioned the suffix “your” only as an afterthought, i.e. תזרע שדך, whereas after that Sabbath the Torah emphasises the fact that it is your field, etc. by writing: שדך לא תזרע, as if to emphasise that you have acquired an inalienable right to that field through the observance of that Sabbath. The Torah emphasises that just as these fields, etc., were yours prior to the “Sabbath,” they are even more so yours after you have observed this “Sabbath.”   In Psalm 92,1 the hymn dedicated to the Sabbath, the psalmist reiterates that after the Sabbath has been observed the righteous will flourish like the palm tree (verse 13). In another Psalm (72,7) the author describes the righteous as “flourishing in his time, at which time there will be an abundance of peace until there is no more moon.” Such a vision is already forecast in the opening paragraph of the second chapter of Genesis where the Torah writes that G’d blessed the seventh day (verse 3). The verse which we understood as the conclusion of the act of G’d’s creative activity, concludes (quite unexpectedly) with the word לעשות, “to do, or to keep on doing;” In other words, G’d’s active role in shaping the universe did not conclude at the end of the sixth day of creation. With this verse G’d gave notice that He is planning what is going to happen to the various generations even at that stage. You will therefore observe that whereas for the periods prior to this “great” Yovel at the end of 49,000 years no more mention is made of any parts of the terrestrial earth being “yours,” i.e. man’s, up until that time it is described as “man’s” in varying degrees. In connection with what happens after the Yovel the Torah speaks of ספיחיה, נזריה, “its aftergrowth”, “its set aside residual grapes.” This is a clear hint that due to the arrival of the Yovel (the great and ultimate Yovel) everything had reverted to the original cause, i.e. to G’d. I have already drawn attention to this in my commentary on Parshat Mishpatim on Exodus 21,6 in connection with the words ועבדו לעולם. This may be the reason why the Torah writes in Leviticus 27,24 לאשר לו אחזת הארץ, “to the one who had possession of the land,” instead of writing: “who had inherited the land, i.e. נחלת הארץ. The term נחלה is applicable only if the property in question came into one’s possession from someone who owned it previously, whereas the word אחוזה refers to the “original” owner. Solomon alluded to this when he wrote in Kohelet 5,7 כי גבוה מעל גבוה שומר, וגבוהים עליהם, “for high above the high ones is someone who keeps watch, and above them are those who tower above them.” [The thrust of Solomon’s words which are addressed to the oppressors who feel all-powerful, as well as the thrust of the hidden message in our text, is that there are forces at work beyond those that meet the eye when we merely look at the text of the written Torah superficially. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וכי תמכרו ממכר ...אל תונו, “If you will sell property to your neighbor...do not wrong one another.” According to Rashi the verse speaks about monetary wrongdoing, i.e. not to overcharge; when you sell land you are aware how many years there are left until the Yovel year when the land reverts to its original owner. You must make the price of the land commensurate with the number of years the purchaser will be able to  enjoy the use of the land he is purchasing. אונאה, “wrongdoing,” in this instance can occur in both directions. Either the price is too high which makes the seller guilty, or the buyer exploited the seller’s need and paid for less than the number of harvests he can expect until the Yovel year in which case the buyer is guilty of wrongdoing.   Our sages in Sifra Behar 6,1 understand the wording in our verse, i.e. the Torah’s adding that the sale or purchase is to or from a Jew, (לעמיתך or מיד עמיתך) to mean that land deals should be concluded only between Jews and not between Jews and Gentiles so as not to enable Gentiles to own land in Eretz Yisrael.
  The reason that this subject of selling land is written adjacent to the legislation dealing with the laws of Shemittah and Yovel is to warn us that he who fails to observe the former because he begrudges the loss of income during the Shemittah year will find that instead of losing only one year’s income he will become impoverished and have to sell his land so that it will not provide him with any income at all (compare Tanchuma Behar 1). The sages go as far as to say that failure to observe the Shemittah and Yovel laws will eventually reduce the guilty party to having to dispose even of his chattels. They base this on the extraneous words מיד עמיתך, “from the hand of your fellow Jew” (verse 14). Chattels are sold from hand to hand. They view our verses as describing a certain sequence of events. 1) You observe the Shemittah legislation. 2) If you do not, you may have to sell your real estate, i.e. ממכר; 3) if you did not get the message that your economic decline was due to your not observing the Shemittah legislation, you will eventually be in a position where fellow Jews have to buy your chattels so that you will have what to live on. Similar commentaries are offered in connection with the need to sell one’s house. In verse 25 the Torah paints a scenario of someone selling part of his inherited land due to having become impoverished; in verse 29 the Torah already speaks about this someone having to sell his home; if he learned his lesson through having been forced to go begging all well and good. If he did not he may be so reduced (verse 39) that he has to sell his service (take a job he is not free to leave for a given number of years.) If this did not teach him why he is in such reduced circumstances, he may find that a Gentile buys him (his body) compare verse 47-to the end of the portion). Thus far the scenarios painted by the Midrash.    Unfortunately, a review of Jewish history shows that what is described here as a warning actually became the fate of large sections of the Jewish people prior to the destruction of the first Temple. Jeremiah 34,11 is quite explicit on the matter when he chided his countrymen for making a mockery of the temporary freeing of their Jewish slaves, indirectly forcing them into slavery again as they did not help them to establish themselves. Subsequent to that travesty, he told them in the name of the Lord that their punishment would include loss of their land, marching into captivity by those who had not been killed by the Babylonians first, etc. (Compare Chronicles II 36, 17-18).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ולא תונו איש את עמיתו ויראת מאלוקיך, “Do not wrong one another, but fear your G’d, etc.” The אונאה referred to in this verse is called אונאת דברים, hurting people with words. Examples are: not to offer deliberately poor advice; irritating one’s fellow and provoking him to become angry (Rashi). We have a statement in Baba Metzia 59 that “all the gates are closed (subject to being closed from time to time) except the gate of אונאה, i.e. the supervision by the watchful eye of G’d if someone is guilty of that sin. The sages based this on  Amos 7,7 הנה ה' נצב על חומת אנך וידו אנך, “here the Lord was standing on a wall checked with a plumb line, and in His hand a plumb line.” [The word אנך in that verse is related to אונאה, and the prophet describes the constant alertness of G’d for deviations from the ‘straight and narrow’ symbolized by the plumb line. Ed.] The reason for this is that the victim of such provocations is ever upset and prays to G’d to deliver him from such verbal persecution. This results in G’d’s being involved in matters such as these around the clock. In the event the guilty party who employed language subject to different interpretations consoles himself by saying that his intention to cause his victim anguish could not be proven, the Torah reminds him: “and fear your G’d,” i.e. He knows.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ועשיתם את חוקותי, “You shall perform My decrees, etc.” The Shemittah and Yovel legislation belongs to the commandments categorized as “decrees.” The words ואת משפטי תשמרו, “and My social laws you shall observe,” which follow immediately refer to the rules about reversing the sales into service, or the sale of property due to duress which when the party making the sale became more affluent can be reversed, as well as to all the laws involving wrongdoing under the heading of אונאה. Both categories of laws are mentioned in our paragraph.   וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “you will dwell securely in the land.” This assurance is important as through non-observance of the Shemittah legislation the Jewish people were exiled from the land in fulfillment of the warning by the Torah in 27,34 that the land would recoup the years of Shemittah which the people did not allow it when the people would be in exile. The seventy years of the Babylonian exile were in direct retaliation for the neglect of that commandment (70 times) as we know from Rashi on that verse in 27,34.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  . מה נאכל בשנה השביעית, “what are we to eat in the seventh year?” The question seems unfounded as the people would naturally eat the harvest of the sixth year of the cycle in the following year, i.e. the seventh year! We must therefore understand the words בשנה השביעית as linked to the words “here we have not sown and we will not gather in,” at the end of our verse. The question is voiced in the seventh year and refers to the eighth year.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  . עד בא תבואתה, “until its harvest will arrive.” The suffix ה at the end of the word תבואת-ה, refers to the eighth year, not the ninth year mentioned in our verse. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows: “you will sow in the eighth year and you will eat from the old harvest until its harvest (the one which you planted) comes in; this will be sufficient for you until the ninth year.” When the Torah adds the words לשלוש השנים, “for these three years,” the reference is not to three whole calendar years but the words: ‘the sixth year’ in verse 21 refer to the second half of that year, the year which G’d blessed with a bumper harvest; the entire seventh year when you did not plough, seed, etc., you will eat of that harvest, plus the first half of the eighth year until the harvest of that year’s planting comes in. This is the commentary by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra.
  
  Verse 23
  
   והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות, “and the land shall not be sold in perpetuity.” this teaches that if the purchaser of the field fails to hand it back to the seller or his heirs at the appropriate time, it will automatically revert to ownership of the original owner in the Yovel  year. The expression צמיתות means something absolute, final. This is why Onkelos translates it as לחלוטין.
     כי לי הארץ, “for the earth belongs to Me.” The message is addressed to the person who has to give back the land he has purchased. He is reminded that seeing the whole universe belongs to G’d he has no reason to feel aggrieved. G’d is at liberty to make dispositions over what is His (compare Sifra Behar 4,8).
      A kabbalistic approach: the words “for the earth belongs to Me,” are a reminder that in the “great” Yovel which we have discussed earlier the entire earth will revert directly to G’d. This is what David had in mind when he said in Psalms 24,1: “the earth  and all that is thereon belongs to the Lord, the world and its inhabitants.” Do not ignore the letter ל the largest of the letters in the aleph bet at the beginning of that hymn, i.e. ל-י-ה-ו-ה. The experts of the Kabbalah have called this letter ל “a tower sprouting forth into space” (compare Sanhedrin 106). This is an allusion to all that we wrote earlier about the terrestrial earth reverting to Tohu Vavohu at the end of seven Yovel cycles each of seven thousand years.   Another way of approaching the subject mentioned by David in that Psalm [I suppose that the author’s difficulty is another hymn (Psalms 115,16) in which the earth is described as man’s whereas heaven is described as G’d’s. We need to reconcile the different versions. Ed.] The words לי הארץ, “the earth is Mine,” refers to the “earth’s” equivalent in the celestial spheres, a phenomenon which is inactive in the terrestrial spheres during the seventh year, the Shemittah year. This cessation of celestial “earth’s” input into terrestrial earth during that year is as if G’d had renounced ownership of it during that period. Seeing that it is no longer G’d’s, how could it be man’s i.e. “yours,” seeing that all you have you have received from Me. 
  This may also be the meaning of the words of the Midrash (Sifra Behar 4,5) “for strangers and settlers are you to Me.” G’d is warning the Israelites not to consider themselves as the centre of the earth, its most important phenomenon. The words אתם עמדי, “you are with Me,” in that Midrash mean that a servant should never aspire to be more than his master. It is enough if he attains parity with his master. Translated into our situation it is as if G’d said to the Jewish people: “as long as the earth is Mine, i.e. when I treat it as Mine, it is also yours. When I do not relate to it as Mine, it is not yours either.” G’d said that during the Shemittah year He considers earth as if it were not His. The meaning of our verse then is simply this: “when the earth is Mine, as evident by celestial input from Me in the years other than the Shemittah year, it is also yours. When it is not Mine, seeing that I do not provide any celestial input into it, i.e. in the Shemittah year, it is also not yours. The reason that it cannot be yours during such a time is that you could not possibly have a greater claim to it than I have.”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   כי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחוזתו, “When your brother becomes impoverished and sells you a part of his inherited land, etc.” The introduction to this legislation teaches that one does not have the right to sell the land one has inherited in Eretz Yisrael from one’s forefathers except when in economic distress. In addition the Torah teaches that even if one is forced to sell, one should retain at least part of one’s holding.
     ובא גואלו הקרוב אליו וגאל את ממכר אחיו, “and his redeemer who is closest to his brother shall come and redeem his sale;” this law which the Torah promulgates here is based on the compassion one is to display for the person, in particular a relative, who was forced to sell part or all of his ancestral property. The Torah sets aside a certain period of time during which such land is subject to “buy-back.” He can either buy it back himself or the redeemer can buy it back for him. Failing an improvement in the seller’s circumstances or in the absence of a redeemer willing or able to buy it back, it reverts to the seller in the Yovel year.    The minimum time period the new owner is allowed to retain what he has purchased regardless of a redeemer offering the “buy-back” is two years. This is the reverse of the rules pertaining to the sale of a house we shall read about presently. When selling a field the right to “buy-back” does not begin until after two years, whereas the right to buy back a house in a walled city which was sold due to economic distress expires at the end of a year. Houses in open areas are considered like fields, i.e. they revert in the Yovel or are bought back after a minimum of two years in the new owner’s possession.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma). The choice of the word וכי ימוך suggest that the economic eclipse suffered by the person mentioned in our verse is due to his being “soft” מכין in his מצוה-performance. The words “and he sells part of his possessions,” imply that they are sold to Gentiles who may have demanded payment of debts. The redeemer mentioned refers to G’d who is described in Jeremiah 50,34 as “their Redeemer is mighty, His name is the Lord of Hosts.” The words הקרוב אליו also refer to G’d seeing that in Psalms 145,18 G’d is described as “near” all those who “call upon Him.” The words אלך אשובה אל מקומי, in Hoseah 5,15 meaning: “I will go and return to My abode,” instead of אלך ואשובה, are the difference between something final and something temporary. The wording without the letter ו in front of the word אשובה means that G’d’s turning away from Israel is not final and absolute but that due to the troubles which will afflict the people once G’d turns His back on them they will repent and G’d will once again embrace them as is written in Deut. 4,30: בצר לך ומצאוך, “when you are in trouble and they have found you (the afflictions) you will return to the Lord your G’d.” When that happens, says G’d through the prophet, “I too will restore My Presence, Shechinah.” 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  . ואיש כי ימכור בית מושב עיר חומה, “and a man who will sell a house which is his residence in a walled city, etc.” After the Torah had earlier described someone who, through having fallen on hard times, was forced to sell part of his ancestral land-holdings and had legislated that he will get his land back no later than the Yovel year, that legislation was in recognition of the crucial importance of such a field for a person’s economic independence. He needs it to earn his living. Now the Torah speaks about someone who had to sell his residence, a source of profound embarrassment to him. In order for such an embarrassment and related social fallout to be minimised, the Torah allows such a person to buy back his house immediately, within a year of the sale. The purchaser cannot object.
      A Midrashic insight into this legislation (compare Tanchuma Behar 1): The word איש here is a simile for G’d. G’d’s “house,” i.e. the Temple, was sold to the Chaldaens (Babylonians). The term בית מושב here is appropriate seeing that the Temple has been described by Psalms 132,13 as כי בחר ה' בציון אוה למושב לו, “for the Lord chose Zion, He desired it as a residence for Himself.” What happened to this residence? Look at Kings II 25,9 where we are told that “Nebuzaradan burned the House of the Lord, the king’s palace and all the houses in Jerusalem as well as every great house he burned by fire.” The expression עיר חומה, is also reflected in that verse in the Book of Kings where the prophet reported about the wall around Jerusalem being put ablaze and burned by the combined army of the Chaldaens (Kings II 25,10).
     ימים תהיה גאולתו, “the period during which it may be redeemed extends for one year.” The wording means that the 12 month period during which this house may be redeemed may be combined between so many months in one calendar year and the balance in the next calendar year. This is also what the sages meant when they described the age of the Messiah’s coming as extending over 2000 years, i.e. part in one millennium and part in another (Avodah Zarah 9). 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  . אני ה' אלוקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם, “I am the Lord your G’d Who has taken you out, etc.” According to Baba Metzia 61 in this verse G’d refers to how He distinguished between each drop of sperm in order to know which firstborn was an Egyptian and which was not, as a result of which the former were killed and the latter were redeemed. Similarly, G’d warns that when the time comes He will apply similar careful distinction between who has lent money to a fellow Jew charging interest and who has not. The former will be punished, and it will not help them to claim that they thought the recipient was a Gentile to whom it is permissible to charge interest. This is behind our verse (36) “do not accept from him or charge him interest, but fear your G’d.” The Torah invokes the fear of G’d also in connection with the warning not to impose undignified labour on a Jewish servant (verse 43). Telling such a servant to heat the cup of his master when there is no need for this to be done is considered as demeaning the servant. Whenever there are no objective yardsticks for determining if certain chores are necessary or if the master merely demands them as a form of caprice, the Torah reminds the person demanding such chores to be performed: “fear your G’d,” i.e. He knows what is in your heart even if the servant does not.
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  לעקר משפחת גר, “or to an offshoot of an alien’s family.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah speaks about an alien who never converted but who is descended from a family which converted (i.e. he was alive at the time his parents converted). The verse wants to inform us that regardless of whether the Israelite in question was sold or had sold himself to the convert or to a descendent of this convert who had himself remained a Gentile, such an Israelite is entitled to the rules of redemption, i.e. fellow Jews are obligated to buy his freedom. Onkelos also translates the word as ארמאי, i.e. as “a Gentile.” At any rate, although such a Jew had no right to sell himself to a Gentile, the Torah writes: גאולה תהיה , “he is subject to the normal rules of redemption” (by his fellow Jews). This is spelled out in greater detail by the words: “one of his brethren shall redeem him” in verse 48. If he has relatives able to redeem him, the relatives’ obligation precedes that of other Jews, and if he is able to redeem himself, having come into some money, obviously he is to use the money to buy his freedom. The Torah spells out these various scenarios in verse 49.
      A Midrashic approach to the word לעקר: The word is an alternative for “Roman.” The reason the Torah uses the term עקר for a Roman is that in the future G’d will uproot (עקר) all the Romans. There is a scriptural allusion to this in Daniel 7,11: והובד גשמה ויהבית ליקדת אשא, “its body destroyed and consigned to fire for burning.” This is also what is meant in another Midrash (Tanchuma Behar 1) i.e. that the words in our verse that “if a stranger attains sufficient clout so that the poor amongst you are sold to him,” refer to Nevuchadnezzar King of Babylon. The word תושב, resident, in that verse is taken to refer to the king of the Medes (Ahasverus) whereas the words ונמכר לגר are understood to refer to the kings of the Greeks, whereas the last alternative או לעקר משפחת גר are a reference to the Romans. According to that Midrash our verse alludes to the four exiles the Jewish people will have to endure at one time or another in their history. I believe the sages of the Midrash looked for this allusion as they understood previous parts of our portion already as dealing (allegorically, not halachically) with allusions to both the four exiles and the redemptions to follow. I believe there is also a hint that redemption depends on repentance, although even if repentance is not forthcoming G’d’s timetable for the final redemption will not be delayed on account of this. (compare what the author wrote on Genesis 2,2). The difference between the words אחרי and אחר respectively is that the former refers to something in the distant future whereas the latter refers to something in the immediate future. Seeing that in connection with the עקר משפחת גר the Torah speaks of redemption occurring אחרי, there is every reason to believe that when the Torah uses this paragraph as a metaphor it refers to the ultimate redemption i.e. the one following the Jewish people’s having been sold into exile to the Romans.
   We may be entitled to extrapolate as a continuation of that thought that the words: “one of his brethren will redeem him,” is a reference to the Messiah, descendant of David, from the tribe of Yehudah. The use of the word אחד in that verse is justified seeing that the tribe of Yehudah is unique, ‘one of a kind.’ Another meaning of the words אחד מאחיו “one of his brethren,” is that the redeemer will be of flesh and blood, a real relative born of a father and mother just as Moses had been a redeemer born of a father and a mother. This may be a polemic by the Midrash against the Christian concept of Jesus not being the son of a biological father and the Romans having adopted the Christian religion as their official religion in the fourth century. The view of the sages in the Midrash is that the wording of our paragraph clearly undermines the theological theories of the Christians    The words in verse 49 speaking of the Jew who has sold himself to a Gentile, “or he attains sufficient means,” refer to his having come into some money, [not that he overpowered his master by physical force. Ed.] The word בכסף in the Midrash does not refer to actual money but to repentance, seeing repentance is described as כסף, silver being a metaphor for something white and pure. Repentance has the same effect on the soul, purifying it, removing its stains. [I believe that the author found it difficult to believe that the Jew in question who was now a physical property of the Gentile who had bought him would be able to legally buy his freedom with any money he had inherited or otherwise come by as all his money (under Jewish law) belongs automatically to his master, and he has no property of his own. Ed.]    The words וחשב עם קונהו, “he must make a reckoning with the one who purchased him” (verse 50), refer to G’d the true קונה, “Owner,” of heaven and earth who prepares for a reckoning with the people who have enslaved His people. The words משנת המכרו לו, “from the year he has been sold to him,” mean from the beginning of the original exile until that of his final redemption. The final redemption is called here by the Torah שנת היובל, “the year of the Yovel,” as that word symbolizes freedom as we know from verse 10: “you shall proclaim freedom for all the inhabitants on  earth.” The word יובל is also used in Psalms 76,12 יובילו שי למורא, “”they bring a tribute to the Awesome One.” We also find a verse in Isaiah 66,20 telling us that at that time of the final redemption the nations will all offer gifts to the Lord, just as the Israelites used to do.”    When the Torah speaks of אם עוד רבות בשנים, or ואם מעט נשאר בשנים (verses 51 and 52 respectively), the meaning is that if at the time the slave (Jew in exile) is to be redeemed there are “still many years left before the Yovel year,” or “there are only a few years left until the Yovel year,“ the Torah uses the euphemistic expression to describe the relative degree of repentance by the Jews in exile. Inadequate repentance is described as “many years until the Yovel year,” whereas intensive repentance is described as “only a few years until the Yovel year,” i.e. redemption from exile.   When the Torah continues in verse 55: ואם לא יגאל באלה, this means “if the redemption cannot occur due to the (inadequate) repentance,” then when the Yovel  year arrives, i.e. the final date in G’d’s timetable for the redemption, ויצא בשנת היבל הוא ובניו עמו “then he together with his sons will go out (into redemption) in the Yovel year.” in other words, the final date G’d has foreseen already at the beginning of creation will not be adjusted due to absence of sufficient merits accumulated by the Jewish people in the interval. All of the foregoing corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua in Sanhedrin 93 who said that the meaning of the words in Isaiah 60,22 בעתו אחישנה, “at its time I will hasten it,” mean that if there is repentance the final redemption will occur prior to the original date set for it by G’d, whereas if there is no repentance the original date for the redemption will stand. The words הוא ובניו עמו in verse 54 mean that there will be two groups of people who will be redeemed; they are the ones who were outcast and the ones who were scattered amongst the nations (born in exile) with them [or a reference to initial exile to one country from which the children of the original exiles scattered throughout the globe. Ed.] The words “for the Children of Israel are My slaves, the ones I have taken out of Egypt,” [words which cannot apply literally to returning exiles after thousands of years, Ed] are understood by the Midrash as G’d saying that just as the Exodus from Egypt at the time was a redemption which occurred suddenly, comprehensively, not in stages, so the redemption in the future will parallel those aspects of the Exodus from Egypt. The concluding words of the paragraph אני ה' אלוקיכם, are the promise of the redemption in the future.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
   וחשב עם קונהו, “he will make a reckoning with the one who purchased him.” The verse warns that one must make a  meticulous accounting and not try and trick the Gentile in one’s calculations. The reason is that stealing from pagans is prohibited as a form of desecrating the holy name of the Lord. The Torah demands such careful accounting when the Gentile in question is under Jewish authority. I might have thought that seeing the Torah permits charging interest to Gentiles, something which the Torah elsewhere appears to view as a form of unethical conduct, that stealing, at least indirectly, from a pagan is permitted; therefore the Torah makes a point of telling us that this is not so. We know already from Joseph’s brothers whose money had been returned to them by the Egyptians (at least they thought so) that they took it back to Egypt with them (Genesis 43,13) in response to their father Yaakov’s instructions. If Yaakov thought (as he said) that even if the pagans had made an error we must not take advantage of it to their detriment, how much more so must we not disadvantage them deliberately. All of this occurred before the Torah was given, when we did not have these limitations imposed upon us. How much more meticulous must one deal with a Gentile now that the laws of the Torah apply to us! The prohibition is derived from Deut.7,16 that “during the time G’d gives us the land of the seven Canaanite tribes we are commanded to destroy them.” The words אשר אני נותן לכם, “which I am about to give to you,” make this commandment an exception. Only the pagan nations G’d gives to us may be treated in such a fashion as described in that verse. We are to relate to other Gentile nations in accordance with the moral and ethical imperatives which are part of the Jewish code of ethics.   Another law derived from the words in this verse that one is to make a careful calculation is that the redeemer must calculate the number of years remaining in the contract of the Jewish slave to the Gentile before the Yovel year, and he must pay him for the years of service that the Jew will not serve him. The basis of the law is to prevent the desecration of the Lord’s name, i.e. not to give the pagan an opportunity to claim that our G’d deals unfairly with him who had paid good money for the services of this slave. To allow such a thought to take hold in the mind of a Gentile is a more serious crime than doing the same thing to a Jew.    The Tosephta Baba Kama 113 states expressly that if one has robbed a pagan one must return the stolen goods. It adds that such robbery is a graver crime than robbing a Jew because the crime includes the sin of desecrating the Lord’s name. When one robs a fellow Jew the victim does not use this as an excuse to question the rules of the Torah and the fairness of G’d.  You will find an interesting illustration of this principle in the inaugural prayer of Solomon when the Temple was dedicated. Solomon prayed that when a Gentile comes all the way from across the ocean or from countries closer by in order to offer his prayers to the Jewish G’d in the Temple, that G’d should respond positively to such prayer. Regarding similar prayers offered up by Jews, Solomon asked that if the Jews in question were worthy then G’d should respond positively to such prayers. Clearly, the reason that Solomon asked for a blanket acceptance of prayers offered by the Gentiles was in order not to give them an opportunity to denigrate the Jewish G’d which would have been a form of desecrating the Lord’s name (compare Kings I 8,39-43 respectively). Solomon was not afraid that if a Jew’s prayer would not be answered positively, that such a Jew would question the existence or fairness of the Lord as a result.
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   ואם לא יגאל באלה, “And if he will not be redeemed by means of these methods, etc.” Our sages in Kidushin 15 explain the words או דודו in verse 49 (normally translated as “his uncle,”) as including all kinds of relatives. The words או השיגה ידו they interpret as referring to the slave succeeding in redeeming himself by his own efforts. The word ונגאל at the end of that verse, they explain as redemption by people not related to the slave. This is why the Torah writes here that if the slave לא יגאל had not been redeemed by other Jews not related to him he will leave in the Yovel year, i.e. against the will of his master the Gentile, seeing that the Torah speaks of a Gentile who lives in the land of Israel under a Jewish government.    The Talmud in Kidushin 16 already points out that if the Jew of whom the Torah speaks here had been bought by a Gentile in the Gentile’s domain it would be futile for the Torah to write such a sentence as: “he will go free in the Yovel year,” as there is no one to enforce such legislation.    As to the meaning of the word גאולה, the Talmud in Kidushin 16 already points out that just as redeeming himself (גאולה) makes sense only if the one-time slave now becomes free, so being “redeemed” by either his relatives or other Jews makes sense only if as a result he becomes totally free, not if he changes status from being owned by a Gentile to being owned by a Jew. The word גאל means a transition to absolute independence. [The author cites the conclusion in the Talmud of an argument whether if a non-relative buys the contract from the Gentile, the Jew has to serve out his time as a servant of the Jew who bought him from the Gentile.].
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . לא תעשו לכם אלילים, “Do not make idols for yourselves.” Here the Torah refers to the various forces named earlier whom people worship as אלילים from the root אילות, “strength, power,” calling such idols אלילים  rather than אילים [which would mean something powerful, Ed.] in order to remind us of the impotence of such idols. Even though such idols may sometimes appear as very imposing and therefore powerful, the fact that their power is derived from outside influences makes them essentially weak, impotent. Having already mentioned אלילים, idols which are natural phenomena such as the sun and the moon, etc., the Torah goes on to mention man-made symbols such as statutes and pillars which were constructed in order to be recipients of the power presumed to reside within the aforementioned idols. All this leaves us with the question of why idolatry has been inserted into this paragraph altogether. Our sages in Sifra at the end of our portion answer that the Torah wants to contrast the situation of a Jew who has been sold to an idolater with the danger that being in such an environment he might fall victim to such religious tenets as are believed by his master. He might say to himself that seeing his (successful) master worships such forces it might be well for him to do the same. From this it is only a small step to argue that seeing the sexual mores of his master are quite permissive, he himself would also adopt such mores. Furthermore, seeing that his master does not observe the laws of the Sabbath, he, the servant and property of the Gentile would do the same. The Torah therefore warns that even though one is the employee or slave of such a Gentile this must not lead one to adopt his master’s religious practices.
     ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחות עליה, “and you must not place a flooring stone made to show an image and bow down to it.” You are not even to use such an image to prostrate yourself to G’d in heaven (Maimonides Hilchot Avodah Zarah 6,6). The same rule applies to the planting of trees next to the Altar in the courtyard of the Temple (Halachah 9 in above-mentioned chapter by Maimonides). The reason for all this is that these were heathen practices at the time. Sifra Behar 9,5 sees in the word בארצכם, “in your land,” a limiting factor for this prohibition; “only in your land,” i.e. outside the Temple, must you not prostrate yourselves to the Lord G’d; inside the holy precincts of the courtyard of the Temple you are allowed to do so on the stones which cover the floor of that building.
  
  Verse 2
  
   את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו, “You are to observe My Sabbaths and you are to revere My Sanctuary.” According to Sifra Behar 9,6 this verse is a comprehensive warning to observe all the commandments. According to Nachmanides the Sifra means that by warning about the pitfalls of selling a Jew to a Gentile and what might happen to his religious observances while he is in the household of such a Gentile, the Torah effectively issues a warning concerning the observance of all the commandments. Once he is in the house of an idolater he is liable to stop all Jewish observances. Alternatively, we may see in the warning concerning the Sabbath and the Sanctuary a warning which embraces all the commandments, as between them they represent the whole Torah.
     'אני ה, “I am the Lord.” These words are a reminder that G’d’s stature as the Lord means that He either rewards or punishes those that observe or transgress the laws of the Torah. Wherever the words אני ה' appear they mean that the commandment they refer to is a very important commandment and that G’d is the one Who rewards or punishes people who observe it or ignore it. This is the reason that this portion concludes with these two important commandments. It is natural that a king commands his subjects to respect and honour him. He does not need to explain why he demands such obeisance. It is enough for him to remind his subjects that he is the king.    Tanchuma (Bereshit 12) in commenting on Genesis 41,44 draws a comparison for us from when Pharaoh said to Joseph: “I am Pharaoh but without you no one shall lift a hand or foot in the whole land of Egypt.” Pharaoh had already given Joseph his ring of office empowering him to exercise his authority. If the use of the word אני when spoken by a ruler who was only flesh and blood  such as Pharaoh carried so much weight, imagine how much weight the word אני when spoken by G’d the ruler of the whole universe must carry. Solomon made a similar point in Kohelet 8,2 where he wrote: אני פי מלך שמור ועל דברת שבועת אלוהים, “whenever the word אני appears, I warn you to observe it carefully; it is an oath of G’d.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
     עטרת חכמים עשרם אולת כסילים אולת, ”The crown of the wise is their riches; the foolishness of fools is folly” (Proverbs 14,10). 
  Solomon informed us here that wealth is an attribute possessed by the wise who benefit by it whereas for the sinners it is an attribute that causes them to stumble. When material wealth is in the hands of the wise person it is a crown and honor for him. The reason is simply that all the time the wise man lacks wealth his wisdom is held in low esteem and his words are not heeded as the general public equates wealth with competence of the person who possesses it. Not only this, but wealth is accompanied by authority to lend power to truth and to effectively denigrate lies, etc. Also, the wealthy wise man is able to spend his wealth in a manner where it does a great deal of good, which in turn will reflect credit upon him and enhance his reputation.  The reverse is true when fools are wealthy as they boast about their wealth and they employ their wealth to strengthen other like-minded individuals, in the process increasing the amount of sin committed. The financial success of the sinner is always a danger as it serves the fools to maintain their sinful lifestyle, and encourages them to continue in their mistaken ways.
      Wealth is somewhat like the sun which performs contradictory actions. On the one hand, the sun’s rays bleach garments restoring their original whiteness, on the other hand, it blackens the skin of those who expose their skin to the sun on a regular basis. It is up to the recipient to either benefit or suffer from the rays of the sun. Similarly, it is up to the recipient to make proper or improper use of material wealth. For the former such wealth turns into a crown, for the latter it becomes a mark of his folly.   The reason Solomon used the word אולת, “folly,” twice in this verse is to tell us that wealth for the foolish causes foolishness in the soul of the owners. The following rule governs the matter: wealth first corrupts the body of the foolish (sinful) owners, eventually further corrupting and destroying their souls. The wise, by contrast are on guard against the dangers inherent in owning wealth. As a result of their caution wealth becomes them, enhances their reputation so that they derive both physical and spiritual benefit from it as they are fully aware that wealth and success in this life are only preparatory steps for the needs of the soul so that it will acquire wisdom and perfect itself.
      Another lesson by Solomon concerning phenomena which appear at first glance as definitely desirable is found in Proverbs 15,21: “folly is joy for someone devoid of reason; a man of discernment walks a straight path.” Joy, abundant peace, i.e. unconcern about problems in the word, are a folly as they bespeak lack of sensitivity; only people practicing foolish pursuits enjoy such feelings. A discerning individual, instead of sitting back and enjoying his lack of immediate problems learns from this that he should use the opportunity to improve his character traits. This is why the Torah always holds out the promise of success in this world both for one’s body and for one’s soul when one performs the commandments written in the Torah. Such people are aware that the so-called serenity in this world is not an end itself seeing they are matters of interest only to the body, i.e. to the material parts of this universe. However, the purpose of the body, the material parts of this world, is to help us attain spiritual goals, i.e. to attain more knowledge about G’d. In this way we will ultimately attain the joy of receiving the radiations of light from His face. This is our real objective. The Torah therefore assures us that the path to achieving our true aim is via performance of the commandments which in due course will result in our acquiring the merit to enjoy eternal life, something we failed to achieve even with the help of the first and the second Temple.
  אם בחקותי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אותם, “if you will walk in My statutes and observe My commandments and carry them out;” the statutes referred to here are the laws about Shemittah and Yovel which were mentioned in the previous portion. Now the Torah adds that if we observe this legislation G’d will provide rain at the appropriate time and will bless our harvests and all the growth of the earth in order to provide us with abundance of physical and material blessings.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . ונתתי שלום בארץ, “and I will provide peace on earth.” After G’d listed a whole string of blessings which He would provide, the Torah concludes with the ultimate blessing, peace. Our sages in Sifra Bechukotai 1,8 say that the blessing of peace is a reminder that regardless of how much food and drink a person has, if he is not blessed with peace and security the other blessings are of little value. To live in peace and security in Eretz Yisrael is as important as all the other blessings combined.
      A kabbalistic approach to the words: “I will grant peace in your land, etc.” This was a promise that the foundation of the universe (עולם) (known as the emanation יסוד) will remain connected to the ארץ of which the Torah spoke in Genesis 1,1 when mention of earth first occurs. That verse alluded to the mystical dimension of the ten emanations. It is this kind of “peace” with which the Jewish people residing in the land of Israel will be blessed as a consequence of keeping the laws of the Torah. This is the meaning of Solomon in Kohelet 3,11 גם את העולם נתן בלבם, “He also put the world into their heart.” The heart is another word for the earth in the universe, i.e. it is like a wheel within a wheel (Ezekiel 1,16) and the emanation known as כל suffuses everything, i.e. is בכל. Seeing that the abundance (of G’d’s blessings) emanates from the emanations נצח והוד to earth via the emanation יסוד, and the two emanations נצח והוד symbolise the למודי ה', the learned people who have intimate knowledge of the Lord, the sages (Berachot 64) stated that these Torah scholars help increase the peace which is found on earth. They proved this from a verse in Isaiah 54,13: וכל בניך למודי ה' ורב שלום בניך, “when all your children are imbued with knowledge of the Lord, there will be abundant peace among your children.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה, “and five of you will take up the pursuit of one hundred (of the enemy).” The verse goes on: “and one hundred of you (in units of five) will pursue ten thousand of the enemy.” When you understand the verse in this manner you will have no difficulty with the apparently inflated ratio of Israelites pursuing the enemy. The ratio of one Israelite to 20 of the enemy is the same in both parts of the verse.  The sages (Sifra Bechukotai 2,4) were not fazed by the apparently lopsided ratio and explained that the power of a few people keeping the Torah is increased out of all proportion when the groups of Torah-observant people increase in number. This is why when there are large numbers of observant Jews they may even put one hundred times their number to flight. 
  
  Verse 9
  
   ופניתי אליכם, “I will turn (My attention) to you, etc.” I will cause that My grace will remain attached to you. It is a well known fact that this state of affairs is the objective of the intelligence with which man has ben equipped. What is known as 'רצון ה', “G’d’s grace (goodwill),” is what עולם הבא, the world of the future, is all about. We have an allusion to this in Psalms 30,6 that רגע באפו חיים ברצונו, (normally translated as) “a moment of His anger is like a lifetime of His goodwill.” Here the meaning is understood to be the combined amount of time G’d is angry at the creatures in the terrestrial universe. Or, “G’d needs to vent His anger for a moment at the creatures in the terrestrial world in order for them to ultimately merit enjoying His goodwill in the world to come.” It is as a moment compared to the infinitely long time, “a lifetime.” He displays goodwill in the hereafter.    When G’d speaks of והתהלכתי בתוככם, “I will walk among you,” in verse 12, we must not understand this in the purely physical sense, but according to Sifra Bechukotai 3,3 it means that in the future, in the hereafter we have described, the Lord will go for a walk among the righteous who have taken their places in that world. The word may be compared to when G’d used to “walk about” in Gan Eden, in Genesis 3,5. It is a metaphor for G’d’s attribute כבוד feeling at home among people. The written Torah, ever at pains to express concepts which do not exist on earth in language we understand, describes such concepts in words we can understand. The word בתוככם, “among you,” may be understood as related to something round, without beginning or end, a circle in which every spot is equidistant from the centre. People who dance in a circle are happy, seeing all of them are equidistant from the point which is the centre, i.e. in this instance the point where G’d is perceived to be.    Having said that G’d will relate to the Jewish people like the point, centre inside a circle, the Torah goes on to describe the Lord as being G’d for the Jewish people (verse 13). This is an illustration of Isaiah 25,9 who speaks of the Jewish people saying (something sounding almost blasphemous) “here is this One who is our G’d.” This verse is describing graphically the closeness in terms of knowledge and intellectual appreciation of the Lord which will exist in that idyllic period. Just as certain people have intimate psychological knowledge and understanding of certain ones of their friends, so the righteous at that time will have insights into the way G’d operates. Naturally, the word “this” in the verse in Isaiah is not to be understood literally anymore than the mixed multitude speaking of the absent Moses in Exodus 32,1 when they said: “for this man Moses, etc.” meant by the word זה, “this,” that they could see Moses at that time. Seeing that Moses had been well known to the people, it was in order to refer to him as “this man,” even though he was not physically present and visible at that time. In other words, our paragraph is an illustration of the fact that there is reward in the hereafter for good deeds performed in this life. The Torah garbed this information in language we can understand, relying on our intellectual astuteness to understand what is meant. It is an unusual thing for the Torah to do this as the Torah does not generally spell out matters relating to the world of disembodied spirits. Even our prophets did not have a clear understanding of what goes on in that world, so that our sages in Berachot 34 went on record saying that all the prophecies of the prophets related only to matters on earth, no one having become privy to anything which goes on in that other world except G’d Himself.” Further proof that this paragraph does refer to matters transpiring in the afterlife is the indisputable fact that the promises recorded here have never come true in history, in life on earth.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ונתתי משכני בתוככם ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם, “I will place My Sanctuary among you and My spirit will not reject you.” The word געילה, is an expression of פליטה, “retching, vomiting.” We find the word in that sense in Samuel II 1,21 כי שם נגעל מגן גבורים, “for there (Gilboa) the shield of warriors lay rejected.” David (the author) meant that the shield of the Jewish warriors had rejected the oil of anointing applied to them. In a similar vein we can understand verse 44 in our chapter לא מאסתים ולא געלתים, {even when I punished them by exiling them) “I did not despise them or reject them.” G’d is saying that He did not drive the Jewish people away from Him. Onkelos translates the words ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם similarly, saying ולא ירחק מימרי יתכון. 
      A kabbalistic approach: the word נפשי when applied to G’d is a reference to the Shechinah, an attribute of the Lord. We have another example of the use of this word in that sense in Psalms 24,4 אשר לא נשא לשוא נפשו, “who did not utter a false oath using His attribute of נפש.” The formula swearing an oath had first been used in the Ten Commandments where G’d forbade mentioning His name in vain with the words לא תשא את שם ה' אלוקיך לשוא, “do not utter the name of the Lord your G’d in vain” (Exodus 207). At that point Onkelos translated the same words i.e. לשום את שמו in Deut. 12,5 as לאשראה שכינתה, “to verify the Shechinah.” [The author quotes a number of scriptural texts all of which are supposed to prove that the attribute referred to here as נפש is the attribute of Justice. Seeing that the Torah had already mentioned that G’d had established His Sanctuary among us, i.e. that His presence was amongst the Jewish people, it would be a repetition to understand the word נפשי in our verse as a reference to the same attribute. It is far more likely then to refer to the attribute of Justice, and the Torah promises that even that attribute will not reject the Jewish people. One example where the word נפשי is obviously a reference to that attribute is Jeremiah 5,9 ואם בגוי אשר כזה לא תתנקם נפשי, “shall I not bring retribution to a nation such as this?” I have paraphrased and condensed this somewhat. Ed.]
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואולך אתכם קוממיות, ”I made you walk erect.” [The author clearly understands this paragraph as  promises for the future rather than as a record of the past. Ed.]. I (author speaking) have already mentioned previously that the promises made in this paragraph have never been fulfilled during the period when the two Temples were standing. They will, however, be fulfilled in the future. Our sages have used this verse to prove the height of average man will be 200 cubits, twice the height of Adam prior to his sin (Sanhedrin 100). We find a similar statement in Baba Batra 75, i.e. that the meaning of the word קוממיות in our verse is two heights of man according to the view of Rabbi Meir, or two hundred cubits as this is twice the height of  the Temple of Herod (after restoration of the second Temple built in the days of Zerubabel).   The Talmud in Sanhedrin 100 elaborates on the subject of phenomenal developments in the future by stating that G’d would bring to Jerusalem gemstones of gigantic proportions embedding them in the gates of Jerusalem, etc. In their discussion, the sages quote from Isaiah 54,12 that the gates of Jerusalem will be made of precious stones, etc.  [I am condensing this as the reader can read up that section and more in the (translated) Talmud. The important thing is that the sages of the Talmud did not engage in metaphors here seeing that a student who had first ridiculed some of these predictions until he had been quoted the relevant verses from Scripture was fixed by an angry stare of his teacher as a result of which he died and his limbs turned into a heap of ashes. The fact that he did not believe his teacher until given proof was considered heresy, and the terrible punishment would not have been applied to matters which are merely metaphors. Ed.]
      The reason that this chapter containing the blessings begins with the letter א and ends with the last letter of the aleph bet, the letter ת, is to teach that all these blessings are not likely to become manifest in stages, in installments, but that when the Israelites will observe the Torah from א-ת, from the first letter of the aleph bet to the last letter, only then will all the blessings promised here become due.   The paragraph dealing with a variety of curses in the event the Israelites would fail to observe the Torah’s commandments begins with the letter א in verse 14 and concludes with he letter ה at the end of verse 46. In other words, all these curses represent only half of the letters in the tetragramaton, the last half. This is what the psalmist referred to in Psalm 91,15 when he said עמו אנכי בצרה, “I remain with him (the Jewish people) when it is in distress.” 
   If you will count the number of verses the Torah devoted to the list of blessings and the list of curses respectively, you will find that the Torah used more verses to describe the curses. This phenomenon is repeated in the Book of Deuteronomy where Moses composed both the blessings and the curses (with the approval of G’d). The psychology behind this phenomenon is to warn people of how much harm they will do to themselves if they do not follow the instructions and advice of the Torah to observe the commandments.   We find a similar phenomenon already at the revelation at Mount Sinai when the attribute of Justice appeared as the awe-inspiring manifestation of thunder-lightning-smoke and trembling of the ground, whereas the attribute of Mercy was wrapped inside of this, not drawing attention to itself. This is in line with the statement of the sons of Korach in Psalms 45,14 that כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, “that all the honour and glory of the King’s daughter is within,” i.e. that the attribute of כבוד is found not in the fancy garments described in that very verse but beyond it, inside it, where it is not visually imposing. [Elijah’s experience at Mount Chorev in Kings I 19,8 where after the powerful manifestations of other attributes, G’d, i.e. Hashem, finally appears to him as a mere whisper, was of the same kind. Ed.]
      A Midrash, aware of the tendency of people to read something negative into the relatively short list of blessings, warns us not to say that G’d did not offer many verses containing blessings but instead devoted so many verses to the list of curses and that this reflects on the preponderance of the attribute of Justice. We should note instead that the list of blessings commences with the letter א, i.e. אם בחקותי תלכו and concludes with the letter ת, i.e. the blessings cover all the letters of the aleph bet, whereas by contrast the curses begin with the letter ו and conclude with the letter ה, as if to show that they go in reverse order and do not even cover one single whole letter of the aleph bet. It is not the number of verses which reflects the relative strength of the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice but the order in which these letters are arranged, i.e. the attribute of Mercy is far greater. 
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואם לא תשמעו לי, “and if you do not listen to Me, etc.” The Torah refers to the people not heeding the instruction to study Torah; it goes on to list a succession of seven different sins, each progressively more serious than the preceding one. The words ולא תעשון, “and you will not perform,” are a direct result of your failing to study Torah. The next sin which results from the previous one is that you will “despise My statutes.” The reason for this is that you do not know he reasons behind this legislation. Having reached the stage of rejecting part of My laws you will also find fault with My משפטים, social legislation, feeling revolted by them. Your negative attitude will include both such legislation involving stealing and robbery as well as regulations governing with whom you may have sexual intercourse. You, in common with the Gentiles, will find such legislation burdensome, often running counter to your natural instincts, especially when people whom you believe you love are forbidden to you as marriage partners. The Torah is aware of the impact of this legislation and this is why in verse 43, at the end of the paragraph, it repeats once more that your failure to observe these commandments is the principal cause of all the disasters predicted in this chapter.     When the Torah speaks about לבלתי עשות את כל מצותי, “not to perform all My commandments” (verse 15), this is not a repetition but means that not only will you not observe My commandments but you will try to prevent others from performing them, i.e. the words mean: ”so that they will not be performed.” The words: “all My commandments,” mean that you have reached the stage when you deny the validity of any of My laws. This accounts for the sixth of the seven sins we said are listed in the introduction to the warning of retributive action by G’d. Finally, the seventh sin is described as להפרכם את בריתי, “to breach My covenant,” i.e. you deny the essential tenets of Judaism. The verses 14-15 are a model lesson of the Talmudic axiom that “one sin brings another sin in its wake.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אף אני אעשה זאת לכם, “also I will do this to you.” According to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that G’d’s mode of operation in our universe is based on the principle of reciprocity, מדה כנגד מדה, G’d says: “I will bring to bear upon you seven different kinds of retributions, each in response to one of your sins.”
     את השחפת ואת הקדחת, “swelling lesions and burning fever;” these are two separate punishments; in order that these phenomena not be considered as not life-threating, the Torah adds the words מחלות עינים ומדיבות נפש, “which cause the eyes to pine and the souls to languish;” [Our author would translate these words as “ruining the eyes and the soul, Ed.] When this (result) occurs this is the third of the seven retributions to be visited on the Israelites.
     וזרעתם לריק זרעכם ואכלוהו אויביכם, “you will sow your seed in vain as your enemies will consume them” (the harvest).  The fifth is ונתתי פני בכם ונגפתם, “I will set My face against you and you will be routed by your enemies.” The  sixth punishment is: “your foes will dominate you.” Finally, the seventh and last punishment is: “you shall flee though none pursues.” This then is the meaning of the words in verse 18 שבע על חטאתכם, “seven in response to your (seven) sins.”     There is a second set of 7 different disasters beginning with verse 19  the first of which is: “I will break your proud glory;” the glory referred to is the Holy Temple. The Temple has been referred to as גאון עזכם, ”the pride of your power,” in Ezekiel 24,21. The second disaster is described as “your skies will turn to iron;” the third that “your earth will be like copper.” The fourth in this series are the words “so that your strength will be spent to no purpose.” The fifth is described as: “your land shall not yield its produce.” The sixth and seventh are the failure of the tree to yield (either its timber) or its fruit,“ The curse on the trees is divided into two parts, a) the tree will not yield; b) fruit. The words לא יתן, “it will not yield,” are used both for the tree and its fruit as separate contributions made by trees to man’s comfort.    The Torah continues to list yet another seven kinds of disasters as follows: 1) “I will loose wild beasts against you;” this is actually a reference to three different forms of disasters as it includes free roaming beasts, domesticated four-legged animals, and all kinds of creeping creatures; 4) “they shall bereave you of your children;” 5)  “they will kill your cattle;” 6) “they shall decimate you;” 7) they will make your roads desolate.”   A fourth group of seven retributions begins with verse 23; it is introduced by the words: “if after all the foregoing you still have not been chastised to return to Me:” G’d now speaks about striking back at the Jewish people seven times for their sins. This group of plagues commences with 1) the avenging sword which avenges the breach of the covenant with G’d (verse 25); 2) “you will be delivered to your cities (do not venture outside);” 3) “I will send pestilence against you.” 4) “I will deliver you into he hands of your enemy.” 5) “I will break the staff of your bread” (by famine); 5) “ten women will bake bread having only one oven between them;” 6) “they will bring back your bread by weight” (sharing out merely crumbs) (verse 26). 7) “you will eat without becoming sated.”    A fifth string of seven acts of retributions is in store for you if all the ones that have hit you thus far have failed to be effective. This string commences with verse 29: 1) eating your own children; 2) destruction of lofty buildings and decimating sun-gods. Casting your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols; 4) “My spirit will reject you.”  5) Destruction of the cities. 6) Ruin of your temples by foreign troops. 7) refusal of G’d to accept your sacrificial offerings.   In verse 32 the Torah speaks of: “I will make the land desolate.” This is not part of the disasters visited upon the Jewish people but it means that the conquerors will not feel at home in Eretz Yisrael after they have conquered it.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word אני, “I”, in the sequence אף אני אעשה זאת לכם in verse 16 is a reference to the attribute of Justice. In fact wherever this expression does occur when G’d is speaking it refers to that attribute of Justice. This consideration is what prompted Nachmanides to comment on verse 18  that the attribute אני is equivalent to the word זאת in that verse. The last letter ה in the tetragram alludes to this attribute, i.e. it is employed by G’d to discipline man at the time G’d is angry. This is the reason why the Torah writes in verse 18 ויספתי ליסרה אתכם, “I will continue to afflict and discipline you,” [this would be strange seeing that the Torah had not previously spoken about G’d “disciplining” the people. However, if אני and זאת are the same attribute the verse makes perfect sense. Ed.] The extra letter ה at the end of the word ליסרה instead of merely the word ליסר which we would have expected, refers to that last letter ה in the tetragrammaton which is the allusion to the attribute of Justice in that name Hashem. It is a reduced form of the attribute of Justice. The very word ויספתי implies something additional, not part of the essence. G’d Himself used this word when He said after the deluge (Genesis 8,21) לא אוסיף לקלל עוד את האדמה, “I will not add additional curses against the earth, etc.” This was a promise not to employ the attribute of Justice in a stronger form. [G’d’s “feelings” about man’s failures have been discussed at greater length on Genesis 6,6 both in the homiletical and kabbalistic sections of our author’s commentary. Ed.] When David says in Psalms 27,3 אם תקום עלי מלחמה בזאת אני בוטח, the proper way to understand this verse is that: “if war breaks out against me then I rely on the limiting factor of the attribute אני which is expressed by the use of the word זאת, i.e. a reduced form of the attribute of Justice.” We find another allusion to this meaning of the added letter ה at the end of a word where we would not expect it in Maleachi 3,7: שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם, “return to Me and I shall return to you.” The word should have been אשוב. The letterה  at the end is an allusion to the reduced form of the attribute of Justice as represented by the last letter ה in the tetragram. We may therefore understand verse 18 to mean that “although I am the attribute of Justice, I do not relate to you with the full impact of Justice but restrain that attribute as is inherent in the word אני,” a reference to the reduced impact of the attribute of Justice when it is part of the tetragram, i.e. Hashem.    As to the expression שבע על חטאתכם, normally translated as: “seven times on account of your sins,” the kabbalistic meaning is that these words were spoken by the attribute זאת, the one which had said ויסרתי, “I shall discipline,” and והכתי, “I shall strike;” this attribute is also known as שבע or בת שבע, the mother of Solomon. This is why the prophet Isaiah 50,1 said: ובפשעכם שלחה אמכם, “on account of your sins your mother was dismissed.” [Seeing that Bat Sheva, Solomon’s mother was in a state of incomplete divorce when she first encountered David, a divorce whose effectiveness depended on her husband’s not returning from war, the prophet compares her rejection, i.e. a conditional rejection, to the rejection of the Jewish people by G’d without a decree of divorce. This is presumably why Kabbalists describe the ”weaker” state of the attribute of Justice by calling that attribute שבע or בת שבע, Ed.]
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואם תלכו עמי קרי, “and if you behave casually with me, etc. This is the way a Torah-oriented Jew relates to his experiences: if he is successful in his endeavours he does not credit his astuteness with his success but sees in it an act of loving kindness by Hashem; he certainly does not think that he was so deserving an individual that G’d rewarded him for his righteousness by granting him this success. This is the Torah’s warning in Deut. 9,5: “not because of your righteousness and the uprightness of your heart are you coming to possess their land, etc.” However, if bad fortune strikes a Torah-observant Jew (or what he perceives as bad fortune), the first thing he must do is to confess his personal inadequacies and assume that the reason for his afflictions are sins which he committed; on no account is he to attribute his misfortune to “bad luck,” i.e.  to coincidence. If he were to make the mistake of doing so he will find that G’d adds more such “bad luck” as a punishment for his mistaken attitude. In other words, the mistaken notion that his fate was due to coincidence, מקרה, causes G’d to add more such מקרים"“. This is what is meant when G’d said in verse 24: “also I will behave toward you with casualness.” The Torah repeats the same sentiment in verse 28 in an accentuated form. In that instance the קרי will be an expression of G’d’s anger, חמה. It will appear as if G’d is “unloading” a measure of such coincidences on the Jew who refuses to heed the warnings expressed here.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ואפו עשר נשים, “and ten women will bake (in one oven).” This number is not to be understood literally, but is an example of an unusually large number, not appropriate for the subject under discussion. We find an example of this in Job 19,3 where he said: “you humiliate me ten times.” It means that Job complained about being humiliated time and again. The reason the number “ten” is used to illustrate such concepts of something occurring frequently is because this number is the conclusion of a number of digits which are all included in it. The number “seven” has similar properties as it includes all the days of the week, a recurring phenomenon. When Solomon writes in Proverbs 24,16 that a righteous person can fall seven times and recover, this does not mean that he cannot recover an eighth time, but that he can recover after having fallen many times. The Torah describes Yaakov as prostrating himself before his brother Esau “seven times” in Genesis 33,3. The number “seven” need not be understood literally but is a metaphor for “many times.” The reason that that number has become the symbol of “many times” may be that the only sequential combination of letters in the aleph bet which  produces the number seven are the letters ג and ד,  a combination of these two numbers as letters yields the word דג, fish, a species whose rate of multiplying is described as ישרצו, in Genesis 1,20 as “the waters shall teem with fish.” Yaakov applied this to human beings also when he blessed Joseph’s children wishing וידגו לרב בקרב הארץ, “may they increase abundantly as fish,” in Genesis 48,16. We may therefore view both the number seven and the number ten as metaphors for large numbers of something.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   והשמותי את מקדשיכם, “I will make your Sanctuaries desolate.” The fact that the Torah still refers to these buildings as “sanctuaries,” is to teach us that even when they have been destroyed their sites retain their original sanctity (compare Megillah 28). We read in Midrash Tehillim (11,4) “Rabbi Pedot said that regardless of the Sanctuary being operative or destroyed, the Shechinah did not depart from that site as it is written in Psalms 11,4: ה' בהיכל קדשו ה' בשמים ה' בשמים כסאו, ‘the Lord is in His holy palace, the Lord- His throne is in heaven.’” The psalmist says that although G’d is in His Sanctuary in heaven on His throne, His Shechinah is in the Sanctuary on earth. The fact that this Sanctuary retains its sanctity is derived from Kings I 9,3: “My eyes and My heart will remain there forever.” Another verse in Scripture stating the same is found in Psalms 3,5: ”He answers me from His holy mountain selah,” (forever). Even though it is now only a mountain (as opposed to a Sanctuary) it retains its sanctity, selah. Another verse having a bearing on this subject is found in Micah 4,10: “for now you must leave the city and dwell (ושכנת) in the field;” the fact that the prophet says of G’d (Shechinah) that it will continue to “dwell,” means it will be at home. [According to the author’s version of Micah, the word we have as ושכנת was spelled as ושכנתי, “I will dwell”. Ed.] This means that although the area has become as desolate as a field, the Shechinah will continue to dwell there. Rabbi Acha said that the Shechinah has never departed from the Western Wall as it is written in Song of Songs 2,9: “there He stands behind our wall.”
  
  Verse 32
  
  . ושממו עליה אויביכם, “your foes who dwell upon it will be desolate.” The desolation will be experienced by your enemies who will never feel comfortable in your land. This verse is good news for the Jewish people. G’d promises this in order that Jews in exile should never have to lament that seeing that they have been exiled from the Holy Land, others will now experience the pleasures to be experienced in that land. Thus far Sifra Bechukotai 6,8 on our verse. As a result the peoples who will dwell there will not engage in civilising the country which they took over as desolate; they will not wall their cities. Any nation attempting to rebuild this country will find themselves lacking in strength to do so. This is a tremendous source of encouragement for exiled Jews that the land awaits their eventual return to it before it will begin to bloom again.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  . בשבתכם עליה, “when you used to dwell on it.”  From the words אז תרצה, “then it will be appeased,” in verse 34, up until the words בשבתכם עליה here, you will find ten references to Shemittah, in one form or another. The message is that the 70 years of exile in Babylon represented ten shemittah cycles. Seeing that the entire Torah is a string of allusions to the past and the future there is nothing surprising in this. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   וכשלו איש באחיו, “they will stumble over one another, etc.” According to Sanhedrin 27 the Torah means that they will stumble each over the sins committed by the other, i.e. their reciprocal responsibility which they disregarded became their undoing. This is also what Moses had in mind in Deut. 29,9  when he described each Israelite as “standing upright” at that time, (i.e. not stumbling over his fellow’s sins). The example for this reciprocal responsibility was illustrated most powerfully when because of failure to admonish Achan who had taken money from the loot of Jericho declared sacred for the Temple, this sin became the cause of Israel losing its first campaign after the capture of Jericho. (compare Joshua chapter seven with special emphasis on verse 11) [Contrary to Moses who had asked G’d in connection with Korach why the sin of one man should cause G’d’s anger against a whole nation, in Achan’s case G’d spelled out that it did. Ed.] G’d tells Joshua that “Israel has sinned;” He did not tell him that “an Israelite had sinned.” The whole nation was held responsible for the sin of an individual. An accessory after the fact, i.e. someone who does not admonish the sinner has made himself his partner. Seeing that what Achan had done could not have been concealed completely, there had already been many accessories. This incident prompted the sages in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 6,16 to comment that the use of the word "nut” in אל גנת האגוז ירדתי, “I went down to the nut-grove” (Song of Songs 6,11), describes that just as it is impossible to pluck one walnut without making the whole tree shake, so it is impossible for an individual to commit a sin without ripples of what he did affecting the entire Jewish people. This is what had bothered Moses in Numbers 16,22: “one man sinned and You are angry at the whole congregation!”
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  . ואז ירצו את עונם, “and then they shall atone for their iniquity.”  This verse served the sages in Mechilta Bachodesh 10 as proof that afflictions suffered achieve atonement for the victim just as sacrifices offered achieve atonement; the word ירצו here and the same root used in connection with the sacrificial offerings, i.e. נרצה, is proof that the purpose and effect of such offerings is the same (Leviticus 1,4). Here the Torah speaks about afflictions suffered by the body, in Leviticus 1,4 the “physical affliction’s” equivalent is the financial expense involved in buying the animal which is killed.
  
  Verse 42
  
   וזכרתי את בריתי יעקב, “I shall remember My covenant with Yaakov, etc.” Here the Torah lists the names of the patriarchs in the reverse order of their historical roles. The reason for this, according to the plain meaning of the text, is that Yaakov was mentioned first so that if the (unexpired) merit of Yaakov sufficed to activate G’d’s attribute of Mercy the merits of the other patriarchs, i.e. our spiritual capital, would not have to be invoked. If the sins to be offset by the merits of the patriarchs were greater than the combined unused merits of Yaakov, G’d promises to also invoke the merits of Yitzchak, and failing this the merits of Avraham. The expression “I will remember,” is used only in connection with Yaakov and Avraham; G’d does not need to “remember” the merits of Yitzchak as the heap of ashes of the ram burned in his stead is constantly present in G’d’s eye (Compare Rashi).
      A Midrashic approach (found in Vayikra Rabbah 36,4): when mentioning the memory of Avraham and Yitzchak the Torah adds the word אף to signify that both these patriarchs had also sired and raised an Ishmael and Esau respectively, thus causing G’d to become angry; in connection with Yaaov that word is missing seeing all his children remained true to their father’s teaching, to Torah-values.    The Torah has listed the merits of the patriarchs. How do we know that G’d will also invoke the merits of the four matriarchs? These are alluded to by the extra word את before mention of the word בריתי, “My covenant.” The word את describing the matriarchs is not unique in our verse. We find this word as referring to three of the matriarchs when Yaakov tells his sons that these three matriarchs had been buried either by him or his forefather in the cave of Machpelah (compare Genesis 47,31). This is also confirmed by Sifra Bechukotai 8,8. 
      Personally, I believe that the word אף used in connection with G’d remembering Yitzchak and Avraham respectively is an allusion to the attribute of Justice such as in Genesis 18,23 האף תספה צדיק עם רשע. Both Avraham and Yitzchak had an equal part in the binding of Yitzchak, each one of them suppressing their natural instincts; Avraham suppressed the father’s instinct by demonstrating obedience to G’d and being prepared to slaughter his son, whereas Yitzchak suppressed the natural survival instinct by not challenging his father who made him the victim of G’d’s commandment and by submitting to being slaughtered. When the Torah wrote on that occasion (Genesis 22,6) “they both walked together,” the point of that statement is to show that both father and son shared equally in that merit, they both had the same thing in mind, namely to submit to the attribute of Justice.    In our verse the name Yaakov is spelled with the extra letter ו, something quite unusual which we find only on five occasions in the entire Bible. This corresponds to five other places in the Bible where the name Elijah, normally spelled as אליהו is spelled with the letter ו at the end of his name missing, i.e. as אליה. According to Rashi what all this means is that Yaakov took a letter from Elijah’s name as a guarantee, as collateral, that the prophet would make an appearance on earth announcing the advent of the redemption of the Jewish people.
      Another Midrashic comment (Vayikra Rabbah 36,4) relates to why the Torah mentions the merit of the earth, i.e. the soil of the Holy Land, as a factor in evoking the attribute of Mercy. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains this by means of a parable. A king had three daughters who were being raised by one female governess. Whenever he inquired after the welfare of his daughters, he added that they should also concern themselves with how that governess was faring. Thus far the Midrash. In other words, the Holy land is our governess and contributes much to the welfare of the Jewish people.    Looked at with a little more sophistication, the three בנות, daughters, in that parable are metaphors for the attributes and merits of the patriarchs.
      A kabbalistic approach: The reason that the Torah mentions Yaakov first in the list of the patriarchs is because he represented the attribute זכור which is an alternate name for the attribute of Mercy. The Torah wanted to arrange the attributes (or emanations) in ascending order. There are a total of seven such attributes of which Yaakov represents four, i.e. he is always perceived as accompanied by two עמודי שמים, heavenly pillars, plus the קו האמצעי, the centre “line” of the diagram of emanations (which we mentioned many times). This “centre line” which also reconciles the left and right side of the emanations, is represented here by the additional letter ו in Yaakov’s name. Then there are the attributes represented by Avraham and Yitzchak (one each) plus the earth (Eretz Yisrael) which completes the seventh attribute. Each one of the patriarchs is described by the Torah as “My covenant”, [a reference to the patriarchs in their functions as the celestial counterparts of the physical patriarchs we are familiar with. Ed. ]. The land of Israel which formed part of the covenant G’d concluded with each of the patriarchs is an integral part of that “covenant” and this is why it is mentioned here.  We find this order of the attributes alluded to more clearly in Deuteronomy 4,37 where Moses said: ויוציאך בפניו בכחו הגדול ממצרים, normally translated simply as: “He took you out before Him with His great strength from Egypt.” [According to the Kabbalists these adjectives have more profound meaning, hence the author explains. Ed.] The word בפניו is a reference to Yaakov as we know from Psalms 24,6 מבקשי פניך יעקב סלה, “those who seek Your Presence, Yaakov, forever.” The word בכחו in that verse in Deut. refers to Yitzchak, [traditionally a symbol of גבורה, strength. Ed.] whereas the word הגדול refers to Avraham .
      Another reason why Yaakov has been mentioned first in the list of the patriarchs is in order for the attribute כבוד to look first at the image engraved in the chayot of the מרכבה, and thereby evoke feelings of mercy toward the Jewish people. [I suppose the reference is to the often mentioned tradition that Yaakov’s features are engraved on the throne of G’d in the celestial regions. Ed.] The reason that Yaakov’s name here is spelled with the extra letter ו is a reference to the fact that he represents the sixth of the emanations, תפארת, harmony. This letter is also one found in the tetragrammaton...
  ...[At this point the author refers to details of the vision of Ezekiel in chapter one of his book, in speculations about the four chayot mentioned having four faces each, etc. I have omitted this as it is of interest only to advanced students of Kabbalah. Ed.] 
  In order to avoid any misunderstanding, (author ‘s words), the Midrash which referred to the patriarchs as “daughters being raised by a governess” does not understand the reference to the patriarchs as to their celestial counterparts but as being to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov as we know them as the ancestors of the Jewish nation. 
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   ואף גם זאת, “But in spite of all this, etc.” according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah assures us that even when the Jewish people will be in exile G’d will not despise them there but will keep His covenant with them. 
      A Midrashic approach based on Sifra quoted presently: the word זאת refers to the Torah in which it is written וזאת התורה, “this” is the Torah (Deut. 4,44). The verse is a hint that the Torah will not depart from the Jewish people when they are in exile. This promise is parallel to a similar promise by Moses in Deut. 31,21 כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו, “she will not be forgotten from the mouth of its offspring.” Our sages in Sifra Bechukotai 8,10 used this verse to say that the only thing which the Jewish people will retain of all their former glory and which will ensure that they are not totally despised is the Torah. If this had been taken from them also they would be entitled to claim that G’d had totally despised them and been revolted by them.
     לא מאסתים, “I do not despise them.” This is a reference to exile under Emperor Vespasianus.  ולא געלתים, “and I do not reject them,” during the days of the Greek dominance of the land of Israel. לכלותם להפר בריתי אתם, “to annul My covenant with them.” This is a reference to the time of Haman. כי אני ה' אלוהיהם, “for I am the Lord their G’d.” This refers to the period known as Gog and Magog. This is a period when no creature will be able to dominate or rule over the Israelites. 
  When you review this whole paragraph starting with the words ואם לא תשמעו in verse 14 until the conclusion of verse 43, you will find that it contains 390 words. This is the total number of years that the tribes sinned in the land of Israel prior to heir being exiled. The period commenced with the declaration in Samuel II 20,1: “we do not have a share in David nor a common inheritance with the son of Yishai.” [This was Sheva ben Bichri’s call to rebellion against the Kingdom of David and occurred during the last years of David’s reign. Ed.] You will find that in Chronicles I 16,16 the word יצחק in the reference to ושבועתו ליצחק, is spelled with the letter ש instead of the letter צ, thus hinting at 390 years after which that oath that the land of Canaan would belong to the descendants of Yitzchak might expire. [The commonly accepted text of the Bible does not show that letter ש, though I have found that in Cassel’s version of comparative spellings in the Bible it is given as an alternate spelling. Ed.] It is assumed that G’d had sworn to Yitzchak that if his descendants would not sin for more than 390 years He would not decree exile for them. This is also alluded to in Ezekiel 4,5-6: “and I will impose upon you 390 days (years), corresponding to the days of their guilt; and so you shall bear the guilt for the House of Israel. When you have completed these, you shall lie another forty years on your right side, and bear the guilt of the House of Yehudah. One day for each year I impose upon you.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The words ואף גם זאת are meant to include the כנסת ישראל the spiritual concept of the people of Israel. [The word אף then is understood as “also.” Ed.] The כנסת ישראל is known as זאת, as we know from Psalms 118,23 מאת ה' היתה זאת, “the כנסת ישראל emanated from the Lord,” (as well as from Genesis 49,28), and the verse would contain a promise  that wherever the physical people of Israel would be exiled to an element of the Shechinah would remain with them. This is the deeper meaning of the words in verse 44: “I will not despise them and reject them to the point of totally destroying them.” This idea is also reflected in the hymn composed by Assaph (Psalms 80,15) “look down from heaven and see; take note of this (זאת) vine.” The words “look down from heaven and see,” are similar to Kings I 8, 32 ואתה תשמע השמים, “and You will listen (to the prayer) from heaven.” The words ופקד גפן זאת, “and take note of this vine,” should be understood as “and take not of the vine of זאת,” i.e. of the כנסת ישראל  known as זאת.    Among his other words Assaph also explained here that this vine known as זאת is well known through the wickedness referred to in verse 14 of the same Psalm as חזיר מיער, where the letter ע is suspended. The suspension of that letter is supposed to allude to the religion of the Romans. I have already mentioned this in connection with Genesis 36,31 about the kings of the Kingdom of Edom who preceded the first Jewish king. (See verse 39 there commencing with the words: “A Midrashic approach”. Ed.).
      Remember that according to the Kabbalists there is a considerable difference between the meaning of the word גם and the word אף although both are used as forms of “also.” The word אף always refers to the addition of the attribute of Justice, whereas the word גם refers to the addition of the attribute of Mercy. The word גם is perceived as an abbreviation of the word גמילות חסדים, “performance of deeds of loving kindness.” One such example would be found in Genesis 30 6 וגם שמע בקולי, “and He also listened to my voice (in prayer, Rachel speaking).” According to this we may understand the words ואף גם זאת as a combination of the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy as represented by the attribute זאת.
  
  Verse 45
  
   וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים, “I will remember for their benefit the covenant with the ancients, etc.” After the Torah had mentioned the word וזכרתי in verse 42 referring to the three elder patriarchs who are already in the celestial regions, the Torah now applies the same wording to the covenants concluded with the people at Mount Sinai both in connection with the first and the second set of Tablets; it assures the Jewish people that the promises inherent in those covenants will also not be nullified by G’d entirely. The latter covenants are the ones concluded with the יוצאי מצרים, the participants in the Exodus from Egypt as opposed to the “earlier” ones referred to as ראשונים. This is why the Torah added here:  'אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים לעיני הגוים להיות להם לאלוהים אני ה', “whom I took out of the land of Egypt in full view of all the nations, in order to be and remain their G’d, I am the Lord.”  it is as if the Torah had added: “and in order to say to them at Mount Sinai: “I am the Lord your G’d who has taken you out of Egypt from the house of bondage, etc.” (Exodus 20,2).
      A kabbalistic approach: the words ברית ראשונים, refer to the covenant with the first three emanations, the “first” ones compared to the following seven emanations. Grammatically, this is a construction similar to the one in Job 15,7 הראשון אדם תולד, “are you the first human being ever born?” [The point is that the word ראשון does not have to mean the objectively first, but is a word used relative to other, even identical phenomena which become manifest later in time. Ed.] Seeing that the Torah had mentioned the three “elder” patriarchs not in their genealogical order (compare verse 42) and I had explained that though three patriarchs are mentioned by name that the verse spoke of seven different attributes (emanations), now that the Torah again uses the term וזכרתי, “I will remember,” it refers to the fact that there had been a previous “remembrance” of the patriarchs in order to complete the בנין, the structure [of the six emanations חסד, גבורה, תפארת, נצח ,הוד ,יסוד, which had been not yet been accounted for in the first וזכרתי].   Furthermore, the attribute of Mercy which was alluded to in the extra letter ו in the spelling of the name יעקוב, which is part of the seven attributes alluded to in that verse, is an aspect of the attribute of Mercy which also contains part of the attribute of Justice. In order to reassure the people in exile, G’d promises here that He will particularly remember the first set of “remembrance” in which the attribute of Mercy was portrayed as “self-sufficient,” not diluted through incorporating part of the attribute of Justice. Such an assurance was deemed necessary at this point seeing that the attribute which took the people out of Egypt was the attribute אני, a form of the attribute of Justice, and the declared objective was “to be their אלוהים, G’d,” as the attribute of Justice.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   איש כי יפליא נדר, “a man who articulates a vow, etc.”  The Torah deliberately did not write כי ידר נדר “who vows a vow,” but כי יפליא. That word is an allusion to the attribute (emanation) חכמה; it is generally understood that though נדר is a derivative of the emanation חכמה, it ranks below “mature” חכמה of a fully adult person. Our sages who have ranked certain people in order of their outstanding attributes and claim to greatness (Horiot 13) have listed the attribute of wisdom as greater than the authority wielded by a king of Israel, so that when there is not enough money to buy the freedom from captivity of both, the sage has to be redeemed with the first available funds. The נדר, “vow,” ranks higher than the oath, as the former overrides other commandments (in certain circumstances, or at least needs to be annulled seeing it is theoretically effective) whereas the oath not to observe a Torah commandment has no legal meaning at all. The expression יפליא in connection with נדר as opposed to שבועה oath, is alluded to by the word יפליא.
     בערכך נפשות, “regarding valuation of living human beings.” Rashi writes that the word ערכך is to be understood as similar to ערך, “valuation.” The reason that there is another letter ך added Rashi does not know how to explain.
      According to the plain meaning this legislation dealing with valuations is a further aspect of the legislation concerning the Yovel  year. In fact the word יובל is specifically mentioned in verse 23 in connection with the return of ancestral land which had been “donated” under the heading of “sanctifying it” for the Temple Treasury.    Basically speaking, the term ערך describes a valuation in monetary terms. When somebody, for instance, promises to give to the Temple Treasury, the equivalent of a certain vital part of his body, such as the head or the heart, he has to pay to the Temple Treasury the amount fixed by the Torah for his entire body (depending on his age-group and sex) seeing that he would not be able to continue living if he lacked the part of his body he had “donated,” or “sanctified” for the Temple Treasury.    When setting the amounts for such valuations, the Torah does not distinguish between rich and poor, socially prominent or socially insignificant individuals, but assesses everyone strictly on the basis of age and sex.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Bechukotai 6: the term בערכך נפשות , “according to the valuation of living beings,” the Torah portrays G’d as saying that “if you donate to Me the monetary equivalent of your person I will account it for you as if you had ‘donated’ to Me your lives, your souls.”    G’d is reported as saying to the Jewish people: “through the merit acquired by donating your valuations, I will save you from the corresponding evaluation to be judged in Gehinom.” This concept is based on Isaiah 30,33 כי ערוך מאתמול תפתה, “the Topheth (=Gehinom) has been made ready for him since ‘yesterday (long ago).’” [I believe the author means that seeing that purgatory lies in wait for man and the word used is ערך, it is appropriate to counterbalance it with a positive ערך prior to one’s death. Ed.] Moreover, G’d says that instead of readying for us a place in purgatory He readies for us a place at the table described by David in Psalms 23,5 ”You spread a table for me in full view of my enemies,” another verse where the verb ערך is used to describe the ‘making ready’ of the table. Thus far Tanchuma.   As to the word בערכך instead of as בערך, it is part of the rules of grammar that the letter כ is frequently added at the beginning or in the middle of a word. It is not surprising to find this letter at the end of a word. As an example of what has just been said look at the words אני and אנכי respectively. Both words mean “I.” At the beginning of a word the letter כ is generally added to describe a comparison such as in Genesis 3,5 והייתם כאלוהים, “and you will be just like G’d.”  Or, Exodus 4,7 והנה שבה כבשרו, “and here it had reverted to look like his (ordinary) flesh.” At the end of a word we find the letter כ added in such expressions as כערכך הכהן in verse 12 of our chapter.
      A kabbalistic approach: I believe that the addition of the letter ך is an allusion to the כסא הכבוד, G’d’s throne of the attribute of כבוד which is perceived as shaped somewhat similar to the letter ך a letter which strives in an upward direction as if asking G’d to take His seat upon it. Concerning these appearances of the letters of the aleph bet, Rabbi Akiva said that the letter ך stood in front of the Lord and said: “I wish that You will employ me when creating the universe, seeing they call me ‘Your throne, Your crown, Your pseudonyms.’” In response to this request the word כסא was based on the letter כ.    Seeing that the chayot described in Ezekiel chapter 1 and 10 as well as in Isaiah chapter 6 are depicted as upholding this throne of G’d you will understand the mystical dimension of Psalms 139,5 אחור וקדם צרתני ותשת עלי כפכה, “You have given me the same shape in the back and in the front; You lay Your hand (palm) upon me.” The word כפכה in that verse may be understood as if it had been spelled כף שלך. It is well known [to Kabbalists, Ed.] that the root of the spiritual soul originates in (at) the throne of G’d, and when the Torah writes here בערכך נפשות לה', this is an allusion to the “value” of the throne of G’d, as if the Torah had written that the person donating his value had in mind “the value of his soul as evaluated by G’d’s throne” (the attribute כבוד). Picture the word spelled as two words, i.e. בערך ך. In other words, the souls are perceived as supporting the throne, as part of the concept called מרכבה. Perhaps this helps us understand a statement of a Midrash in Shir Hashirim zutta 1,16 that “three entered, one more deeply than the next one; Moses, for it is written of him that ‘Moses approached the deep cloud’ (Exodus 20,18). Beyond Moses, righteousness and justice penetrated closer to the throne of G’d as we know from Psalms 89,15 צדק ומשפט מכון כסאך, ‘righteousness and justice are the base of Your throne;’ beyond even these attributes the souls of the righteous penetrated to an even closer position around G’d’s throne as we know from Job 12,10 אשר בידו נפש כל חי, ‘in His hand is every living soul.’” Another verse expressing a similar sentiment is found in Samuel I 25,29, (Abigail speaking) “the life of my lord will be bound up in the bundle of life in the care of the Lord your G’d.”   In our verse you find that he word for “souls in the plural” i.e. בערכך נפשות is spelled without the letter ו which should be there. This is a clear indication that not all the souls “belong to,” i.e. “will return to” the Lord after their life on earth. This is also what Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai referred to when he said in Sukkah 45 “I have seen the souls which are scheduled for elevation and they are very few in number.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  . מבן עשרים שנה ועד בן ששים שנה, “from twenty years and up until sixty years of age, etc.” Actually, the order in which the ages are listed here should have read: “from one month to five years old; from five years old to twenty years; from twenty years old to sixty years; from sixty years old and older, in the case of a male, followed by the parallel rules about the ages of females donating their “valuation” to G’d.” However, seeing that the whole paragraph began with the word איש, i.e. an adult male, the Torah listed the ages in a different order. After all, it would hardly do to describe a month old baby, or even a five year old boy as איש. Furthermore, these minors would hardly put a valuation on themselves, “donating” themselves to G’d, or to the “Temple Treasury.” The only way such minors will be involved in this legislation at all is when an adult declares that the valuation of a boy (or girl) between 30 days and five years of age, or a boy between the ages of 5 years and 20 years  will be the amount he (the adult) will give to the Temple Treasury. Seeing the Torah had commenced this paragraph by using the valuation of a twenty year old male as an example, it had to list the other age groups  in the order it did (compare Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואם מך הוא מערכך, “If he is too poor for the valuation, etc.;” on this verse our sages in Erchin 24 say that though the property of the person who vowed to pay this valuation is subject to seizure for the purpose of payment, the bailiff must allow him to retain sufficient chattels and tools, etc., to be able to sustain himself and earn his livelihood. By being deprived of the excess he is deemed to have discharged his vow. He does not have to make payments in the future to settle the part of his debt to the Temple Treasury  he has not paid yet. This ruling applies even if in the interval he has become wealthy (Maimonides Hilchot Erchin 3,7).     The procedure here is similar to an ordinary debtor who claims that he is unable to pay his debts. A person deputised for this by the court enters the debtor’s home and assesses what there is that is sale-able leaving him the aforementioned items as his minimum subsistence level. According to the Talmud Baba Metzia 114 this is based on an allusion in the Torah i.e. that the word מך appears in connection with ordinary debts as well as here. Seeing that an ordinary debtor is allowed to retain the necessities of life if he cannot repay the whole debt, the same applies here. (compare Leviticus 25,35 where the Torah commands that we must assist the impoverished Jew). [The type of comparison is called a גזרה שוה, similar language in dissimilar subject matter so that there is not really a conceptual linkage. Ed.] The Talmudic expression for allowing the debtor to retain part of his belongings is known as מסדרין.   There is a difference between the ordinary debtor and the person whose economic circumstances are being assessed by a priest in our paragraph. When personal belongings of the ordinary debtor have been taken as collateral by the bailiff they have to be returned when the owner needs them, such as his pyamas at night. Such a consideration does not apply to the person whose ability to discharge his vow is being assessed by the priest in our paragraph. The reason for this difference is mentioned on the folio of Baba Metzia we quoted. In connection with the legislation concerning collateral the Torah writes that in recognition of returning his nightgown to him the impoverished debtor will bless the lender (Deut. 24,13 and Exodus 22,25). According to the Talmud, the legislation that the pawn must be returned for use by the debtor applies only to creditors in need of blessings. Seeing that the Temple Treasury is not in need of such blessings nothing is to be gained by the pawn going back and forth every night. In connection with this kind of reasoning the question is raised in the Talmud: “does not the Torah write explicitly that when we have eaten and been sated that we must “bless the Lord your G’d” (who has provided us with all this) (Deut. 8,10). Since when does G’d need our blessing? Surely this proves that even the Temple Treasury could use our blessing! The Talmud answers that it is not the blessing mentioned in that verse that determines this but the end of the verse which concludes by saying that the matter will be accounted as an act of righteousness for the party returning the pawn. This is certainly not the case with the Temple Treasury. People who are in need of the merit of having performed acts of righteousness are the subject of the legislation to return a pawn at the time the owner needs it; the Temple Treasury which has no such need does not return collateral for the use of the debtor. G’d the owner of the Temple Treasury dispenses righteousness as He has all that He needs. He does not need to acquire title to it.
      27,8-23: והעמידו לפני הכהן, והעריך אותו הכהן, יעריכנו הכהן. (יב) והעריך הכהן. כערכך הכהן. (יד) והעריכו הכהן, כאשר יערוך אותו הכהן. (יח) וחשב לו הכהן. (כא) לכהן תהיה אחוזתו. (כג) וחשב לו הכהן. The word הכהן, “the Priest,” occurs a total of ten times in the course of these verses.  Our sages in Megillah 23 say that actually that just as when you redeem land you need a quorum of ten people to be present at that occasion, one of whom is a Priest, in order to make the valuation of that piece of land legally valid, so the same applies to the valuation of people (when they had donated the equivalent of their monetary value to the Temple Treasury, as opposed to ערכין where the Torah stipulated the same valuation for people of a certain age group). The Talmud arrives at that ruling by saying that out of the ten times the word הכהן appears here, the first time it is needed to establish the principle that a Priest has an indispensable function here. The other times are all meant to exclude something. We have a principle that if there is more than one exclusion, i.e. if the word which serves as an exclusion occurs more times than necessary this exclusion turns into an inclusion. This is why the Talmud concludes that the nine extra times the word הכהן appears here includes up to nine ordinary Israelites as admissible in that quorum of ten Jews one of whom must be a Priest. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב, “he shall not exchange it or substitute it, good for bad or bad for good.” According to Maimonides Hilchot Temurah 4,13 the reason for this legislation is that the Torah explored the psyche of the donor down to its ultimate depth. At the core of a human being, even the finest, there may still be lying in wait for him the evil urge. Even though the person in question made these vows entirely voluntarily, not in response to any pressure, he may yet at some time or other rue having made such a vow. His first attempt at getting out of his obligation would be to exchange the animal designated for the altar with an inferior one. Seeing that the animal he sanctified was suitable as an offering, the sanctity becomes part of its body and it cannot be exchanged. This is why the Torah stated flat out that such an animal as described in our verse לא יחליפנו, cannot be traded at all. If the Torah were to permit the donor to upgrade the animal in question, it would not be long before people would abuse such a rule and they would start downgrading it for an inferior beast. If the donor violated this legislation by substituting, not only would he not gain thereby but he is punished by the Torah which states that the substitute will also become sanctified thus depriving the donor of both animals.   והיה הוא ותמורתו קדש, “and both it (the original) and its substitute will remain sacred.” Keeping in mind the reason Maimonides advanced for this legislation, we can now understand why the Torah demanded that if someone who had sanctified his house for the Temple Treasury [a lesser degree of sanctity as the house could not be offered as an offering on the altar, Ed.] and he wants to redeem it from the Temple treasurer offering to pay for it, must add 25% as a premium to its value. The Torah’s reading of our minds allows for the fact that we may change our minds. In order to remind us that such a change of mind is not appreciated, the Torah imposes a price on that privilege of a person to change his mind (compare Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . אך בכור אשר יבכר לה' בבהמה לא יקדיש איש אותו, “However, a firstborn that will become a firstling for Hashem among livestock, a man shall not sanctify it.” This verse teaches that one must not change the status of animals which have become designated as a specific offering for the altar. For instance, if an animal had been designated to be offered as a burnt-offering, one must not change its status and offer it as a peace-offering. Neither must one (upgrade) an animal designated as a peace-offering to be offered as a sin-offering. This rule applies across the board. Sifra Bechukotai 8,3 adds that from our text I have proof for this rule only if the animal in question had been a frstling, i.e. consecrated from birth. How do we know that this rule also applies to animals which had not been consecrated by birth? We derive this from the extra words לא יקדיש אותו, בבהמה which the Torah wrote in our verse. The word בבהמה in that sequence is not needed and serves as the lesson that no beast which had once been sanctified for the altar may be reclassified. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה, מות יומת, “Any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed; he shall be executed.” According to Rashi if someone vows the valuation of a person on the way to execution to the Temple Treasury, this vow is meaningless in legal terms. He is as if he had not said anything at all. He does not have to pay as a person under sentence of death does not have the value described in the early part of our chapter. Seeing this is so, he could not be subject to redemption. He has neither objective nor subjective monetary value.
      Nachmanides disagrees saying that the plain meaning of our verse is that anyone who declares something which belongs to him as חרם, segregated property (compare verse 28), such property remains consecrated to the Lord, regardless of the object of that declaration being man, beast, or field, even his ancestral field. In practice, such property is transferred to the priests and is not subject to redemption. However, if the person in question consecrated somebody who does not belong to him, such as a prisoner of war, it is clear that he did not intend to make this property over to the priests. An example illustrating this would be Numbers 21,2 where the Israelites vowed to Hashem: “if He will deliver this people into my hand, I will consecrate their cities.” Clearly, what was behind this vow was not to give these cities to the priests but that the Israelites vowed not to make secular use of any of the loot to be found there. It implies that everything conquered is out of bounds for use and that all the prisoners, livestock, etc., have to be killed, for instance. Our verse serves as the halachic basis for the ruling that if the king or the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, which is legally entitled to declare חרמים declares a city as subject to such a ban, violating such a decree is punishable by death. This is the reason that the men of Yavesh Gilead who had ignored the oath of the entire Jewish people by not appearing at Mitzpah (Judges 21,10) made themselves guilty of the death penalty. This was also the reason why Yonathan, son of King Shaul who had ignored the order by his father not to taste anything prior to victory (Samuel I 14,44) was technically guilty of death when he tasted some honey, although he had been unaware of the prohibition by his father the King.    When the Book of Samuel tells us that the people redeemed Yonathan (saved his life from execution) on that day, the only reason this was possible was because he had been unaware of transgressing such an order by the Commander-in-Chief (compare verse 45 in Samuel I  chapter 14). Targum Yonathan makes this clear when he translates that “it was clear to G’d that Yonathan had not been aware of committing an infraction.”
      Having established all this we can appreciate what a grave error Yiftach committed when he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt-offering in fulfillment of his vow that if he would return from war victorious he would offer the first creature that came out of his house as a sacrifice to the Lord (Judges 11,31). Legally, his daughter had not even become consecrated as to her monetary value. Yiftach thought that seeing he had the authority of a King, any חרם he declared was irrevocable as indicated by our verse. His conduct in the matter only revealed that he was very ignorant as our sages mentioned in Bereshit Rabbah 60,5 that he was too proud to go to Pinchas to have his vow annulled. 
   We must not be misled by Ibn Ezra who claims that the words of his vow: “I will offer it as a burnt-offering to the Lord,” was intended as a condition, i.e. if the animal in question is suitable as an offering, whereas that if the creature would be a human being that he would isolate him or her for the rest of their natural lives. According to Ibn Ezra this is what Yiftach did, i.e. he built her a house away from civilization where she had to live as a hermit. According to that interpretation the words 'והיה לה', and the words עולה are to be understood as alternatives, so that Yiftach had covered himself against either eventuality. Our author quotes Nachmanides  who rejects this interpretation attributed to Ibn Ezra [which is not found in Judges which has no commentary of his, Ed.]. According to Torah law no man has the right to decree on another, including his daughter, that if the creature he has vowed as sacrifice is not suitable that such a creature has to live out its life in seclusion instead. Moreover, even Channah, who offered the as yet unconceived Samuel as “belonging” to G’d, did not mean anything beyond that he should spend his life as a servant of the Lord (Samuel I 1,11). Moreover, we would not be able to explain the four days a year that Yiftach’s daughter supposedly entertained her friends lamenting her fate for not having a normal life with a husband (Judges 11,40). It is far more likely that the true meaning of what happened is that Yiftach did sacrifice his daughter after having given her two months to get used to the idea. This is the opinion of Nachmanides.
      A Midrashic approach  based on Tanchuma Bechukotai 5. The words of Solomon in Proverbs 11,30: “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, a wise man captivates people,” are based on Proverbs 3,18 that Torah is “a tree of life to those who grasp her.” In other words, even, if a man is righteous this is meaningless unless he uses the Torah as his guiding light. You find that Yiftach only lost his daughter because he did not study Torah. Torah study enables a person to know how to preserve other people’s lives, i.e. to “captivate people.” The author reviews the story in the Book of Judges, explaining that Yiftach felt it beneath his dignity to go see the High Priest to seek annulment of his vow, while Pinchas felt it would be a slight to the Priestly honor for him to initiate a visit to Yiftach. As a result, Yiftach's daughter was unjustly sacrificed and both Yiftach and Pinchas were punished for their misplaced pride. Pinchas the High Priest was punished by losing his holy spirit, while Yiftach was punished by having his bones shed from his body over a period of time, as the Book of Judges describes him as being buried in the cities of Gilead (not in a single city).
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   תחת השבט, “beneath the rod.” The legislation to tithe the tenth animal born in one’s flock applies only to animals which were not purchased by the owner of the flock but were born of his flock. The legislation does not apply to flocks owned in partnership either (Bechorot 56). The same halachah applies to the requirement to give the firstborn male animals in one’s flock to the priest. At least this is the opinion of Rabbi Ilai who says that if the mother animal is owned jointly there is no need to give the firstborn male animal to the priest. These opinions are based on the expressions בקרך, “your cattle,” (sing.) and בצאנך, “your flock,” (sing) in Deut. 15,19. If someone had purchased sheep in the market he is not obligatd to either tithe them or give the firstlings to the priest. Our sages in Sotah 27, commenting on Leviticus 22,27, use the various examples named in that verse as the basis for ruling that animals born of animals which crossbred such as a billy-goat with a sheep, or which were not born but came into this world through cesarean section are not subject to this legislation. Such expressions as שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, “ox or sheep or goat which are born,” are all dissected to yield these halachot. Expressions such as “it has to remain with its mother for seven days,” (ibid.) are interpreted to mean that animals orphaned at birth are not subject to the legislation discussed here, all because both here and in chapter 22 the decisive consideration is the animal’s being suitable as a sacrifice at that time. Seeing that an animal whose mother died at birth can never fulfill the condition of spending seven days on earth during the lifetime of its mother and can therefore not qualify as a potential sacrifice, its owner is also not subject to the legislation described by the Torah in our paragraph.
     'העשירי יהיה קדש לה', “the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.” In this instance the word “holy” means that it’s blood and the usual fat parts are offered as a sacrifice on the altar. The meat may be eaten by the owners, it is not given to the priests. The reason is that the animal tithes are not part of the 24 categories of gifts for the priests listed in Numbers 18,9-19. It is forbidden for the owner of such animals to sell them if they are unblemished, i.e. suitable as offerings, seeing that the Torah wrote in verse 33  לא יגאל, “it must not be redeemed.” Although this implies that the proceeds would be used for some sacred purpose, the prophets have taught us that selling in the normal way is also forbidden (Maimonides Hilchot Bechorot 6,5). The fistborn male animal not mentioned here is also subject to the same rulse as the tithes. Even though the firstling, as distinct from the animal tithes, is part of the 24 categories of gifts set aside for the priests so that it automatically may not be sold, the priest is not allowed to sell that animal after he has been given it, seeing it was scheduled as an offering on the altar. He offers it as a sacrifice, sprinkles the blood on the altar and burns the requisite parts and eats the meat. 
  Maimonides states explicitly that both the firstling and the animal tithe undergo the same procedures (Maaseh Hakorbanot 5,17). Both types of animals come under the heading קדשים קלים, animals of a lesser degree of sanctity.    A kabbalistic approach: the words העשירי יהיה קדש לה' ראשית are to be read together as a single sequence to convey the point made often that the number ten is something “sacred” almost by definition. By adding the word ראשית, a reference to the firstling, the Torah informs us of what Maimonides codified, i.e. that the concept of the firstling and that of the animal tithe, i.e. the tenth animal are inextricably related to one another.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה אל בני ישראל בהר סיני, “These are the commandments  which the Lord commanded Moses for the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai.” In the Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 13,3 Rabbi Ilah comments on the words אלה המצות in our verse that if the Israelites will perform these commandments in accordance with the rules applying to them, i.e. “as commandments,” then they are מצות, if not they are not accounted as מצות.   Our sages in Sifra Bechukotai 13,7 use these words as the basis for the principle that no prophet is allowed to add (permanently) another commandment to the Torah over and above the ones that have been recorded. They understand the words אשר צוה ה' את משה as a hint that G’d did not need any messenger beyond Moses to communicate His laws to the people. [In other words seeing that no prophet will attain the stature of Moses no other prophet would be entrusted with new and additional legislation. I suspect these are interpretations aimed at the Christians who see Jesus as superseding Moses and updating the Torah. Ed.] The words אל בני ישראל are understood as “as an opportunity for the Israelites to acquire merits by performing the commandments.” The words בהר סיני, are a reminder that all of these commandments were promulgated at Mount Sinai. Thus far Sifra. The point of that Midrash is that the headline אלה המצות was intended by the Torah to tell us that these commandments are of a permanent nature, effective throughout the generations. The word אלה has a connotation of pointing at something enduring indefinitely. One such example is the verse (Genesis 2,4) אלה תולדות השמים הארץ, “these are the developments of heaven and earth,” both phenomena which endure indefinitely. We find the word אלה applied also to the Jewish people in Numbers 2,32, indicating that they, just as heaven and earth, will endure indefinitely.   Basically, our verse tells us who commanded all these laws and who was the man who conveyed them to the Jewish people, to whom he conveyed them and where G’d had spoken to Moses “face to face.” First the Torah speaks about the commandments themselves to indicate that they rank highest in the matters discussed here, a reminder that the people had had a visual and aural revelation of an attribute of the Lord while they were at Mount Sinai. They saw manifestations which resulted from G’d’s descending on the mountain, the fire, the smoke, etc., and they heard G’d’s voice out of the fire. The purpose of these manifestations was primarily to make G’d’s messenger, Moses, believable beyond question when he related all these commandments. G’d did not want to rely only on the various miracles which Moses had performed and would still perform but He wanted the people to be eye witnesses to the source of all this legislation. The Torah added the words את משה to testify that the people had accepted the Torah, a Book which had preceded the existence of the universe, i.e. as Bereshit Rabbah 1,5 phrased it: “before any of the mountains had been born.” Both the concept of Torah and the concept of the Jewish people had preceded the creation of the universe. The words בהר סיני are a reminder of all the overpowering experiences the people had been privy to as mentioned again in Deut. 33,2 and Psalms 68,18.
  
  Bamidbar
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  פלס ומאזני משפט לה' מעשהו כל אבני כיס, “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s; all the weights in the bag (pocket) are His work” (Proverbs 16,11). 
  Solomon wanted to tell us in this verse that all of man’s deeds are carefully weighed and that all the weights (by which they are evaluated) belong to G’d.     The single most heavy weight is called פלס; also, a much smaller weight of which there are two are called מאזנים. The word is derived from אזן, i.e. when there are two weights each called אזן, the scale is called מאזנים to indicate that equal weights are on opposite sides. There are many words in Scripture which appear in the plural, especially when in order to make full use of what these words represent one requires two of them. Examples are נעלים, shoes, רחים, millstones, etc. G’d is described as “weighing” each of our actions using small weights known as “pocket weights, weights small enough to be carried in one’s pocket. The largest weight known in the Torah is called ככר, whereas the smaller weights known as אונקיה are usually divided into אונקיה, and half or quarter “ounces.” [This is not the “ounce” we are familiar with but a weight of about 4 regular shekalim or about 29 grams]. Solomon only wanted to illustrate that when “weighing” our sins in the scales of merits and demerits respectively, even the smallest sin (or merit) is taken into account. Reward and punishment is meted out according to G’d’s yardsticks as to the relative “weight” of such deeds we have performed. If you need proof that after G’d has first weighed the “heavy” sins He proceeds to also weigh the “light” sins look at Jeremiah 16,16 where the prophet says: הנני שולח לדיגים רבים נאום ה' ודיגום ואחרי כן אשלח לרבים צידים וצדום, “Lo, I am sending for many fishermen--declares the Lord--and they shall haul them out; and after that I shall send the hunters and they shall hunt them.” The prophet employed the verb צידה, hunt, after the expression “fishing.” It is similar to a person who moves out of a house and first removes the larger pieces of furniture, returning to pick up the smaller items he has left behind. The meaning of the whole verse quoted above is: the large weight stone called peles, the smaller ones, i.e. moznayim, as well as weights carried in one’s pocket; all of them are at the disposal of the Lord and He makes use of them.” In other words, the justice dispensed by the Lord will be true justice having taken into account all factors relevant to arriving at a verdict. The reason Solomon refers to small weights as אבני כיס is because people are in the habit of carrying them in a pocket, a small bag. This is in order to keep them clean and not exposed to erosion.
      It is possible that an additional dimension contained in the expression אבני כיס is an allusion to the fact that G’d’s verdict remains hidden from us similar to these little weights a person carries in his pocket being concealed from others. Man’s intelligence and knowledge is very limited and it is impossible for us to have access to all the factors which combine to make G’d arrive at a fair verdict concerning man’s deeds. This is why, when describing G’d’s superior way of judging, David says in Psalms 36,7: “Your beneficence is like high mountains; Your justice like the great deep;” David means that G’d’s righteousness and His deeds of loving kindness are so far above us as are high mountains and the bottom of the deep sea; both are inaccessible to us. However, there is a difference between the high mountains and the depth of the ocean. High mountains can be seen though they may be inaccessible, where the bottom of the deep is something we cannot even see. Similarly, G’d’s righteousness is well known throughout the world though we may not be able to explore it; the justice of G’d, however, is totally beyond our ability to assess.    Let me illustrate what I mean. Jerusalem was destroyed on the ninth day of the month of Av. When Ezekiel was told of this G’d is described as having sent a messenger who arrived on the tenth day of the fifth month. (Ezekiel 33,21 describes the arrival of an escaped citizen of Jerusalem as having occurred on the fifth of the tenth month). Examination of the verse in Ezekiel both in chapter 33 and chapter 24 poses obvious contradictions. We are forced to conclude that G’d wanted to conceal the true dates and that therefore incomplete information is recorded in the Book of Ezekiel. You may contrast this with extremely precise information given by the Torah in the opening chapter of the Book of Bamidbar, (when the subject was not destruction, i.e. meting out of justice). Here the Torah gives a) the day of the month; b) the name of the month; 3) the year in which this occurred; 4) in relation to which previous event, i.e. the Exodus from Egypt.
  וידבר ה' אל משה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחודש השני בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים, לאמור, “The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, saying:” The wilderness of Sinai (so called for in it) Mount Sinai is located. 
  Bamidbar Rabbah 1,6 comments that the reference to the “wilderness of Sinai” is to remind us that the giving of the Torah comprised three elements: 1) fire; 2) water;   3) the desert. We know that fire was a factor in the giving of the Torah from Exodus 19,18: “the whole Mountain of Sinai was smoking on account of the Lord having descended upon it in fire.” We know that water was also a crucial factor from Judges 5,4 (Devorah’s song) “O Lord when You came forth from Seir, advanced from the country of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens dripped, yea, the clouds of water, the mountains quaked before the Lord, Him of Sinai, before the Lord G’d of Israel.” Finally, we know that the desert was a factor in the giving of the Torah  from the reference to the desert of Sinai in our verse.”    Why were these three elements an integral part of the giving of the Torah? To tell you that just as three basic phenomena on earth are available for free to everyone, so Torah is to be taught without charge. Isaiah 55,1 spelled this out clearly when he proclaimed: “Ho, all who are thirsty, come for water!”  Why was it important to give the Torah in the desert? To teach that one cannot truly acquire Torah except after one has made oneself הפקר, “ownerless like the desert.” [One must not allow oneself to be dominated by other philosophies or the evil urge if one wants to absorb Torah in its undiluted form. Ed.]
     באהל מועד, “in the Tent of Meeting, etc.;” this is the Tabernacle. Once G’d called Moses from the Tabernacle, i.e. from Leviticus 1,1 on where the words “He called to Moses from the Tent of Meeting” occurred for the first time, G’d always spoke to Moses out of the Tent of Meeting seeing that the attribute כבוד which had addressed Moses at the Mountain had moved to the Tabernacle as soon as it had been inaugurated. This is why at this time the instructions had to be issued to the Levites whose camp was around the Tabernacle not to trespass and enter the Sanctuary as any non-priest who entered the Sanctuary was bound to die (verse 51). The warning not to enter the Sanctuary was of the same type as the warning before the revelation not to step beyond the fenced off section of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,13). The warning is spelled out in detail in Numbers 18,5 after the rebellion of Korach and parts of the senior members of the tribe of Levite. At that time even the priests were included in the warning (Exodus 19,24), and in Numbers 4,20 the Torah warns the Kehatites, the senior group of Levites, not to “look” when the “holy” is inserted or they would die. Even though they carried these “holy” items such as the Ark, they were not to look at it until the Ark had been covered.   Furthermore, the Torah does command that the 22,000 Levites encamp around the Tabernacle (compare Numbers 3,43) seeing that their numbers corresponded to that of the angels who had accompanied G’d when He took up residence in the Tabernacle. We have this information from Psalms 68,18 where the psalmist speaks about רכב אלוהים רבותים, “G’d’s entourage amounting to 22.000.” The Israelites’ camp was composed of four flags, corresponding to their having observed at Mount Sinai that the angels grouped themselves into four camps with a flag each. [Some say each angel had a flag of his own, compare Rabbi Avdimi in Pesikta Rabbati on Asseret Hadibrot. Ed.] 
      Another Midrashic comment in Tanchuma 3 remarks on the words באהל מועד, that previously G’d had spoken to Moses at the burning bush, as we know from Exodus 3,4. Later He spoke to him in Midian (Exodus 4,19). Subsequently, He had spoken to him in Egypt (compare Exodus 12,1). Still later He spoke to him at Sinai (Leviticus 25,1). As soon as the Tabernacle had been erected G’d changed the venue, preferring the privacy of the Tabernacle to any of the other locations from which He had addressed Moses previously. This concept is reflected in the words of Micah 6,8 that the Lord desires that we relate to Him “by walking modestly with your G’d.” As of now, G’d began to converse with Moses in the Tent of Meeting. When David said in Psalms 45,14 that “the honour and glory of a king’s daughter is observed only within the home,” he merely used a metaphor to describe that matters between the Lord and man are to be conducted in private. The fancy garments worn by the princess are not meant for show. In that verse the בת מלך is a reference to Moses as we know from Isaiah 19,4: “I will place the Egyptians at the mercy of a harsh master.” This was a reference to the Ten Plagues they were to endure. Isaiah continues: “and a ruthless king shall rule them.” This refers to Moses who represented the Kingdom of Torah known as עוז, the same word used by Isaiah in that verse. We know that Torah is called עוז, from ה' עוז לעמו יתן “the Lord gives עוז to His people” (Psalms 29,11). It is also written in Proverbs 8,15: “Kings reign through Me.” He who realizes that all mortal authority is dependent on G’d’s approval will be modest. Our sages (Tanchuma Bamidbar 3) say that any woman who practices modesty  is entitled to marry a High Priest even if she is not of priestly or Levitic descent; she is fit to bear children who in turn will become High Priests. They base this on the end of the verse in Psalms 45,14 where the psalmist says: “her dress is embroidered with golden mountings.” The words “golden mountings” are also used in the garments of the High Priest (compare Exodus 28,11). It is the mark of the modest woman not to display her fancy garments outside her home. When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak to G’d he would hear the heavenly voice (Numbers 7,89).    Rabbi Joshua son of Levi said: “if the Gentiles would realise how much benefit they derive from the existence of the Temple (ours) they would place armed guards around it in order to protect it. In fact it is of greater benefit to them than it is to the Jewish people. Even Solomon included the importance to the Gentiles of his Temple when he prayed to G’d to respond favourably to the prayers offered by them in the Jewish Temple (Kings I 8, 41-42). He asked for outright acceptance of the prayers of the Gentiles whereas he asked only for qualified acceptance of prayers offered by Jews, i.e. deserving Jews only. As a result of this it is clear that seeing a Jew is aware of G’d and His power, he will search his heart for sins he may have committed when he finds that G’d did not respond to his prayer. A Gentile, who does not know G’d, would react angrily if he finds his prayer rejected. He would point to the fact that after having taken all the trouble to cross the seas in order to pray at such a world-famous shrine, he had wasted his time and money. As a result he would cause G’d’s image to become tarnished among other human beings. Not only is the Temple (of the Jews) more beneficial to them than to the Jews, but even the Jewish people’s existence is of great importance to them. Were it not for the Jewish people they would not be the beneficiaries of rain and dew at the appropriate times of the year. Even the sun dispenses its light and warmth only for the sake of the Jewish people as we know from Jeremiah 33,25: “Were it not for My covenant day and night, I would not have set the statutes of heaven and earth”. The message is that destruction of the Jewish people would make the continued existence of mankind pointless. In the future the Gentiles will see that the Lord G’d speaks to the Jewish people and as a result of this they will come and flock to establish close ties with Israel. This is what Zecharyah 8,23 spoke about when he said (the Gentiles speaking) “let us go with you for we have heard that G’d is with you.”
     באחד לחודש השני, “on the first of the second month.” The subject matter of G’d’s conversation with Moses at that time was the details of the encampment, the positioning of the flags,  in which order the people should break camp and in which order they should make camp. (this needs elaboration as a) our portion does not contain any of the 613 commandments, b) the Jewish people did not start journeying until the twenty-second of that month). The reason why this portion follows the chapter dealing with the laws about exchanging the objects of vows made (Leviticus 27), is to remind us that G’d is One, is Unique, and there are no substitutes for Him. Just as there are no substitutes for G’d, so there is no substitute for the unique Jewish people and He will never exchange us for any other nation. We have this on the authority of  Song of Songs 2,16 דודי לי ואני לו, “My beloved belongs to me and I to Him.” We also have a verse spelling out the other half of this relationship when we read in Samuel I 2,3 (Chanah speaking) אין קדוש כה' ואין בלתך, “there is none as holy as G’d and there is none beside You.” Furthermore, we find that the Jewish people are referred to as G’d’s “flock” in Ezekiel 34,31. Just as we learned in the last chapter of Leviticus that no member of the flock once it has been sanctified must be exchanged, so we may rest assured that G’d will never exchange His flock, i.e. the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 2
  
   שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, “take a census of the entire assembly of the Jewish people, etc.” The Jewish people do not experience an ascent of a spiritual kind unless they perform the laws of the Torah. When the counting of the Jewish people is described here by the word שאו instead of say, פקדו, this indicates that being counted at the command of G’d is a spiritual ascent. The word שאו combines within it two meanings, one the direct opposite of the other. It may mean that one’s head is being elevated in the sense of someone being promoted; on the other hand, the same word is also employed as depicting that someone is being beheaded, such as in the case of the chief baker of Pharaoh’s court whose execution Joseph foretold in Genesis 40,19.    We find a similar approach in Tanchuma Bamidbar 8 where the author paraphrases our verse as G’d saying: “I have not been as fond of any nation as I am of you, therefore I have elevated you to be the head just as I am the ‘head’ of all phenomena in this world.” We know the latter from Chronicles I 19,11: “Yours, Lord, are greatness, might, splendour, triumph, and majesty-yes all that is in heaven and earth; to You, Lord, belong kingship and preeminence over all.” G’d says that because of your relationship to Me, I have made you vis-a-vis the nations something similar to My position vis-a-vis all the creatures in the universe.” This is what the psalmist spoke about in Psalms 148,15: וירם קרן לעמו, “He has exalted the horn of His people.” When Moses speaks of G’d making the Jewish people supreme over all the nations of the earth, he has the same thought in mind.   When the meaning of the word שאו is “to decapitate,” this is what we read in Genesis 40,19. The Torah deliberately uses a word which may have either of these two meanings in order to warn the people that if they deserve it the census will be beneficial for them; if not, it may have fatal consequences. 
  The reason that the Torah adds the words למשפחותם לבית אבותם, “according to their families, their father’s households,” is to tell us that the relatives of the mother are not called “family.”
     במספר שמות, “according to the number of names, etc.;” the Torah did not write: “according to their names,” as it did in 3,40 in connection with the count of the firstborn. Perhaps we may explain this in terms of the angels who had come to earth at the time of the revelation. At that time the number of the camps, flags, etc., corresponded to the number of those angels; possibly by not referring to the individual names of the people to be counted, the Torah wanted to allude to the comparison with the angels at Mount Sinai [who have no fixed names but receive names in accordance with the missions they are asked to perform. Ed.]. During the revelation each individual Israelite was on a spiritual par with the angels except that he was like an angel equipped with a body. This may be the reason why at that time the Torah wrote: תפקדו אותם לצבאותם, “count them according to their hosts” (verse 3). The “hosts” referred to are the angels who were at Mount Sinai. They are the ones commonly known as מלאכי השרת, “the ministering angels.” G’d Himself had referred to the Jewish people as “My hosts” in Exodus 7,4 when He told Moses that Pharaoh would refuse His request to take His hosts (the Jewish people) out of Egypt.
      We need to analyze the wording of the Torah in Exodus 12,41 that יצאו כל צבאות ה' מארץ מצרים, that “all the hosts of the Lord departed from the land of Egypt.” We would have expected the Torah to write that “all the hosts of Israel departed from Egypt.” The reason the Torah wrote that verse as it did was to tell us that when the Israelites left their exile so did the angels, the divine representatives assigned to them. Whenever Israel is in exile or is experiencing pain, a similar experience is shared in the celestial regions. Seeing that this is so, mention has to be made of the hosts of the heaven when the Israelites are redeemed from physical exile on terrestrial earth. Further proof of this whole concept may be derived from the words in verse 46: “all the numbered ones amounted to, etc.” The Torah refers to the corresponding heavenly hosts which matched the number of Israelites who were counted. This is the reason that we do not find the word ישראל mentioned in verse 46. 
  If you will take a closer look at chapter 2,32 you will suddenly find the name Israel mentioned. This strongly suggests that seeing the total number is identical to the number in chapter 1,46 where the name Israel is not mentioned, that the former refers to the number of angels corresponding to the number of Israelites who had been counted and whose number is reported in chapter 2,32.
  
  Verse 3
  
   מבן עשרים שנה ולמעלה, “from twenty years old and up.” The reason that the under twenty-year olds were not included in the census was because they were not yet strong enough physically to be recruited for army duty. This is reflected in the statement by our sages in Avot, 5 (near end) that at twenty one is strong enough to engage in  pursuit (of an enemy).
     כל יוצא צבא, “all those able to bear arms.” 
  The Torah adds the word בישראל, “among the Israelites,” to exclude members of the recent converts to Judaism, the mixed multitude (Ibn Ezra).
       תפקדו אותם, “you are to count them.” The reason that the Torah did not use the word תספרו for counting here is that this was not a head count. The term פקידה implies (divine) supervision. The Israelites were commanded to find out how many of them there were, but they did not arrive at the number through counting heads but through counting the half-shekel each one of these men had to contribute. 
     לצבאותם, “according to their hosts.” There were many different hosts (armies). Every single tribe had a substantial army.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Bamidbar 19: the words “count them according to their hosts,” are reminiscent of Isaiah 43,4: “because you are precious to Me, and honoured, and I love you, I have given men in exchange for you and peoples in your stead.” G’d said to Yaakov: “you are so precious in My eyes that I have engraved your facial features on My throne, and the angels praise Me by employing your name, saying: ‘blessed be the name of the G’d of Israel  from one end of time to the ultimate end of time.’” The Midrash breaks down these compliments into its constituent parts. “You are precious to Me,” because although I did not bother to count any of the other nations I counted you, giving you an importance expressed in numbers.“ This can be better understood in terms of a parable. A king had many barns most of which were filled with straw and other relatively worthless matters. He did not bother to count the precise contents of each of these barns. He had one barn, however, which was filled with wheat. He told his manager: “count for me how many measures of wheat are stored in that barn.” The king in the parable is a metaphor for G’d; the wheat is a metaphor for the Jewish people. We have a verse in Isaiah 21,10 comparing the Jewish people to grain when the prophet exclaims: “My threshing, the product of My threshing floor.” The harvest the prophet speaks about are the Jewish people as Jeremiah 2,3 described the Jewish people as “Israel is sacred to G’d, it is the first of His harvest.” The “manager” mentioned in the parable is a metaphor for Moses, of whom G’d Himself said in Numbers 17,7 that in “My entire house he is trusted.” Similarly, the barns filled with straw in the parable are metaphors for the Gentile nations concerning whom we have been told in Job 21,18: (Job speaking about the wicked) “Let them become like straw in the wind, like chaff carried off by a storm.” we also have a verse in Ovadiah 18 expressing similar sentiments, i.e. “and the house of Esau shall be straw; they shall burn it and devour it.” The Jewish people by way of contrast are compared to wheat, are described as righteous as per Isaiah 60,21: “and Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for all time; “ this is why G’d was so concerned with each one of them that He ordered each one to be counted.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . לבני יוסף לאפרים, “For the children of Joseph,- for Ephrayim;” after the Torah had first enumerated all the sons of Leah it now turns to the sons of Rachel, mentioning Ephrayim ahead of Menashe the older seeing Yaakov had blessed Ephrayim first on is deathbed (compare Genesis 48,20). Afterwards the Torah mentioned the descendants of Binyamin. Although born last, the Torah honoured the memory of Rachel by mentioning him ahead of the sons of the maidservants. When listing the four sons of the maidservants, the Torah begins with Dan who was the senior of those four sons, whereas the Torah lists Asher next seeing that he was encamped next to Dan (compare 2,27). Next the Torah lists Gad who was the older of the sons of Zilpah. Next to him was Naftali.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ואת כל העדה הקהילו באחד לחדש השני, “They gathered together the entire assembly on the first of the second month;” On the very day G’d spoke to Moses, Moses and Aaron assembled the entire people and began to organise and count them; however, the count was not completed in a single day. This is why the Torah had to write: “he numbered them in the desert of Sinai“ (verse 19). He completed the count in the same spot though not on the same date. This is the view of Nachmanides.
     ויתילדו על משפחותם, “they proved their genealogy according to their families.” They had to ask their parents when exactly they had been born in order to know if they had reached the age of twenty. Alternatively, the Torah means that each one recorded their genealogy in writing proving which tribe he belonged to. This is the view of Ibn Ezra.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויהיו בני ראובן בכור ישראל, “The members of the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn were, etc.” The Torah gave the number of members of the tribe of Reuven first, although in the list of encampments it listed Yehudah first, (2,3) seeing that Reuven was the biological firstborn. Shimon was listed next, in accordance with seniority of birth. Gad was listed next as he was the firstborn of Leah’s maidservant. Next the Torah lists the tribes which were grouped around the flag of Yehudah. Issachar and Zevulun who formed part of the army group are listed in that order as part of the camp of Yehudah. Subsequently the Torah lists Ephrayim followed by the tribes who were part of his camp, i.e. Menashe and Binyamin. Finally, the Torah lists Dan followed by Asher and Naftali who were part of his camp and flag. The tribes’ camps (Dan, Asher, Naftali last) are listed in the same order as here when the offerings on the occasion of the inauguration of the Altar in the Tabernacle are recorded in Numbers chapter 7.    The number of tribes listed and counted here are 12, seeing Levi is not included and two separate tribes are counted as Joseph. They were encamped facing the four directions East, South, West, North. Each army group comprised three tribes. Among the twelve tribes the tribe of Yehudah and Dan were the ones best known for their bravery; this is why they traveled at the head and at the rear of the Israelites respectively. Both of these tribes have been described at different times as גור אריה, “lion cub” (Genesis 49,9 and Deut. 33,22).     The word לגלגלותם, “according to their heads,” an expression used by the Torah only in connection with the tribes of Reuven and Shimon (verse 20 and 22), is one that applied to all the tribes. The reason that it was spelled out only with these two tribes may be that both of these tribes required atonement for sins committed by their respective founding fathers against Yaakov, and this is why the word פקודיו, “its numbered ones,” is also repeated in Shimon’s case, indicating that by now they were on a par with all the other tribes. Perhaps in the case of Shimon that word may not mean “numbered,” but may be a reference to the use of the word in the Ten Commandments, where G’d speaks about “remembering the sins of the fathers to the later generations” (Exodus 20,5). Verse 22 then ought to be translated as follows: “The matters remembered for the tribe of Shimon and his offspring according to their families and their fathers’ houses were, etc.” The words במספר שמות, “according to the number of names,” belong to what follows, to the word פקודיהם. The Torah wished to convey that actually the descendants of Shimon carried the burden of the sin of their founding-father and his part in the sale of Joseph (instigator) and by rights they should have paid for that unatoned for crime. Proof that Shimon had been the instigator of the violence committed against Joseph at the time is the fact that he was the only one detained by Joseph in Egypt after he permitted the other brothers to return and to bring Binyamin to Egypt on their next trip. (Compare Genesis 37,24, 42,24, Bereshit Rabbah 84,16). 
  The number of males counted in the tribe of Shimon, i.e. 59,300 was in itself an allusion to the fact that Satan had some control over their number and that at the time when their leader Zimri committed his famous indiscretion with Kosbi bat Tzur, the princess of Midian, publicly cohabiting with her, (Numbers 25,14) the decree which had long been held in suspense was finalized and their number was reduced to 22,200 as we find at the next count (Numbers 26,14).   The reason why in the case of Naftali the Torah writes בני נפתלי instead of לבני נפתלי as it did in the case of all the other tribes may be due to the fact that Naftali was different from all the other tribes having more daughters than sons. This was already hinted at in Yaakov’s blessing who phrased his blessing in the feminine gender, i.e. אילה שלוחה instead of איל שלוח (compare Genesis 49,21). By writing בני נפתלי, the Torah singles out the males among a preponderance of females.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   ויהיו כל פקודי בני ישראל לבית אבותם מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, “All the people of the Children of Israel who were numbered according to their fathers’ households and who were  over twenty years old, amounted to, etc.”  Some people use this verse to prove that the twenty-year olds were not included in the census and that only people over twenty were included in the census (Ibn Ezra). 
  Why did the Torah repeat the words 'ויהיו כל הפקודים וגו' once more in verse 46 before proceeding to inform us of the total number? It is possible that the first time the word ויהיו occurs it refers to the number, whereas the second time the word refers to the קיום of these people, i.e. that they all remained alive (did not die except at the command of G’d). There was a need for this blessing as the evil eye exerts its influence on all matters which have undergone counting. This is also why, during the Torah’s report of the six days of creation, the word ויהי is used again and again to act as a counterweight to the power of the evil eye. The word ויהי in connection with what G’d created during those days means that He decreed that it should endure and not become extinct. When you look at Jeremiah 31,34-35 you will find that the prophet uses the word מהיות, to indicate the eternal existence of the Jewish people as comparable to the eternal existence of the universe G’d had created during those six days.
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
   ואתה הפקד את הלוים על משכן העדות, “and you are to appoint the Levites as in charge of the Tabernacle of Testimony, etc.” This whole verse is the explanation of verse 49 in which Moses had been told not to include the Levites in the census for the army. G’d now explains that the reason why the Levites were not to be counted with the other twelve tribes was not their ineligibility but on the contrary, it was their superior position which required them to be counted separately. Seeing it was going to be their function to perform all manner of service connected with the Tabernacle, they would be counted separately and would form a separate camp.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bamidbar Rabbah 1,12: The words ואתה הפקד את הלוים teach that anyone who demonstrates a certain degree of readiness to sacrifice his personal interests in favor of Divine interests, thereby coming closer to G’d, will be rewarded by being brought a great deal closer at His initiative. At the time when Moses had asked for volunteers to carry out the death sentence on the people who had actively engaged in worship of the golden calf, the members of the tribe of Levi had responded to his call, endangering their own lives in the process (Exodus 32,26-28). In appreciation of the Levites’ loyalty and dedication during the episode of the golden calf G’d now rewards them by assigning to them sacred duties. The reason the Torah uses the term משכן העדות, “Tabernacle of Testimony,” here is because the tasks of the Levites included transporting the Holy Ark which contained the two Tablets of Testimony, together with all the other furnishings of the Tabernacle as well as its components.
  
  Verse 51
  
  . ובנסוע המשכן יורידו אותו הלוים ובחנות המשכן יקימו אותו הלוים והזר הקרב יומת, “When the Tabernacle journeys, the Levites shall dismantle it ; when the Tabernacle comes to rest the Levites shall erect it; any alien who approaches shall die.”  I have already told you [Genesis 11,9] that whenever the four-lettered name of G’d, י-ה-ו-ה, appears with the letters in reverse order, this is an allusion to the attribute of Justice being at work. For instance, when Haman said וכל זה איננו שוה לי, in Esther 5,13 the spelling is an indication that at that point [the zenith of his power, after Esther had wined and dined him with the King, Ed.] the attribute of Justice reversed his rise to power and set in motion his downfall.    Here in our paragraph, dealing with the tasks of the Levites, the Torah first refers to the concealed name of G’d whereas afterwards it uses the  revealed name of G’d twice in a row with the letters in reversed order to show that the element of the attribute of Justice was very much involved. Levites became the victim of that attribute, such as Uzzah in Samuel II 6,7 who trespassed against the rules for transporting the Holy Ark. 
  In each instance the allusion to the name of the Lord commences with the letter ה in the word הלוים. We know that the characteristic of the tribe of Levi is the attribute of Justice (they acted as the executioners not only against the idolaters of the golden calf, but the founding father acted as executioner against the people of Shechem).  The meaning of the words יורידו אותו is “they shall dismantle it by removing the staves holding together the pillars serving as the walls.” When it came time to make camp, the Levites were to erect the structure again. The words והזר הקרב, “any stranger that approaches,” mean that a stranger who wants to perform the service not assigned to him is guilty of death at the hands of the Lord (compare Sanhedrin 84).
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  על עדת  ”on the assembly of the Children of Israel;” against each one individually (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 54
  
   כן עשו, “so they did.” They were warned never to touch the Tabernacle. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   איש על דגלו באותות, “each man by his flag according to the insignia.” The word אותות is used here in the same sense as in Jeremiah 10,2 where it is a reference to changes in the constellations in the skies. Each flag had different symbols, such as the flag of the camp of Reuven depicting דודאים, which looked like miniature human beings. The flag of Yehudah depicted a lion cub seeing his father had compared him to that animal (in fearlessness). The flag of Ephrayim bore the picture of an ox, seeing that Yaakov had likened Joseph to an ox in Genesis 49,9. The flag of Dan bore the image of an eagle. When you combine the four images depicted on these flags they were the same as that of the chayot which were part of the vision of Ezekiel who described these creatures or angels with such heads, as supporting the throne of G’d (Ezekiel chapter 1). (These are the views of both Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides).
      It is equally possible (our author speaking) to understand the word אותות as related to the word אות as in אות נפשו, “the desire of his soul,” or as like בכל אות נפשך, “in accordance with all you desire” (Deut. 12,20). This would reflect what we have learned in the Midrash that when the Israelites had observed that the angels who had descended on earth at the time G’d descended on Mount Sinai had all had flags with them and that the Israelites ever since had felt an urgent desire to have flags also (Compare Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,13 on the words ודגלו אהבה). There are numerous other verses interpreted in similar fashion (compare Song of Songs 2,4; Tanchuma Bamidbar 14).
      A kabbalistic approach: the Israelites wished for flags similar to those of the angels. The division of the Israelites’ camp into four sections comprising three tribes each facing each direction on earth reflected a similar phenomenon in the celestial regions. The four celestial camps are known as the camps of the Shechinah  (Midrash Maasseh Merkavah chapter 6). The tribes of the Israelites in addition had twelve maps, each one differently coloured and easily identifiable one from the other. This too reflected what they had observed when the angels had come to earth when these “maps” were in the form of fiery flames each differently coloured. Yehudah’s map was blue like the sky, featuring the picture of a lion; Issachar’s map was similar to the blue eye shadow used by women, featuring images of the sun and the moon; this reflected the fact that this tribe was famous for its knowledge of astronomy, calendar calculation, etc. Zevulun’s map was white in colour, symbolising silver, wealth; it also had a picture of a ship on it seeing that tribe had many mariners. Reuven’s map was red, featuring pictures of דודאים, mandrakes or jasmine, reminding the tribe of how their ancestor had traded these to Rachel. Shimon’s map was green, with a picture of the town of Shechem. Gad’s map was a mixture of white and black, featuring a troop of soldiers. Ephrayim and Menashe both had maps of the colour of onyx; the map of Ephrayim featured the picture of an ox, whereas that of Menashe featured the picture the animal known as ראם, single-horned buffalo? Binyamin’s map was coloured like a rainbow showing the picture of a wolf. Dan’s map was like a sapphire in colour displaying the picture of a snake; Asher’s map was similar to the light emitted from an olive-oil burning lamp and displaying  the picture of an olive. Naftali’s map was of the colour of clear (red) wine, displaying a hind.
     דגל מחנה יהודה, “the banner of the camp of Yehudah, etc.” This camp traveled first and was situated in the east of the Tabernacle. It was accompanied by the soldiers from the tribes of Issachar and Zevulun. The Torah describes these three tribes as ראשונה יסעו, “being the first ones to start journeying.” The word ראשונה is an allusion to the fact that these three tribes were all endowed with more than an average amount of חכמה, wisdom, i.e. the first of the emanations. Scriptural verses supporting this claim are found in Psalms 60,9: “Yehudah My law giver.” The 200 men attending David’s crowning as king over the nation have been described as “people who understood the needs of the times,” (Chronicles I 1,32). The men of Zevulun have been described in Judges 5,14 as “holding the marshal’s staff.” In view of these tribes having wisdom as a common characteristic they were suitable partners traveling together as one single camp. The entire camp was known as the camp of Yehudah, being a counterpart of the camp comprising the angels Gavriel, Ezriel, and Shemiel in the celestial spheres which is known as the camp of Gavriel.
     דגל מחנה ראובן, “the banner of the camp of Reuven, etc.,” this camp was situated at the South of the Tabernacle.  Reuven was a repentant sinner. The acceptance of repentance by G‘d is an outstanding act of love and kindness on G’d’s part vis-a-vis His creatures. Seeing that Reuven was the first person to demonstrate repentance he opened the gate for other repentant sinners. The Torah credited Reuven with having intended to save Joseph and even attributed Joseph’s life being saved to his suggestion to throw him into a pit instead of killing him (Genesis 37,21). His camp was accompanied by that of Shimon who was born right after him by his mother Leah. He was joined by the soldiers of the tribe of Gad, the firstborn of Leah’s maidservant Zilpah. The Torah writes that this camp was second in the procession of the Israelites traveling. The expression ושניים יסעו, “they are to travel in second position,” is a hint at the emanation בינה which is second to the emanation חכמה, which had been represented by the camp of Yehudah. The camp of Reuven may be perceived as a counterpart to the celestial camp headed by the archangel Michael whose camp also included the angels Kuchbiel and Pediel who are positioned to the right of the Shechinah. All three are known as the camp of Michael, seeing he represents the attribute of Love and Mercy. It was this camp which Moses alluded to when he said in the song after crossing the sea of reeds מי כמוך, and he concluded the Torah with the verse commencing אין כאל ישורון. When you combine the word מי in the Shirah, with the word כאל  in Deut. 33,26 you get the word מיכאל, a reference to that angel who represents the attribute of Mercy.    Following this we encounter the camp of the Levites as traveling בתוך המחנות, “amidst the other camp.” You are aware already that the camp of the Levites consisted of 22.000 men from the age of one month and up (3,39). This number corresponded to the number of angels who had accompanied the Shechinah at the revelation at Mount Sinai. This has been alluded to in Psalms 68,18 as we pointed out before. These 22.000 angels were the ones that are normally the angels closest to the Shechinah.
   In a comparable manner the camp of the Levites surrounded the Tabernacle which housed the Shechinah on earth. There is little doubt that at the time of the revelation many more than the 22.000 angels mentioned in that Psalm descended as an entourage of the Lord. However, these 22.000 have been mentioned because of their superior rank in the celestial hierarchy. All the men of the twelve tribes who had been part of the census were some distance away from the Holy Ark seeing that the Torah employs the word מנגד in describing their relative position in 2,2. The word מנגד always describes distance as we know already from when Hagar put distance between herself and her crying son Ishmael in Genesis 21,16.
      You should also realize that the fact that four camps of the Israelites with their four flags surrounded the camp of the Levites in each direction of the globe is expressed by the Torah by the word that that camp traveled בתוך המחנות, “within the camps.” On the other hand, the several divisions of the Levites in their turn also surrounded the Tabernacle from all four directions. Moses, Aaron, and his sons were situated to the East of the Tabernacle; the sons of Gershon in the West; the sons of Kehat in the South, and the sons of Merari in the North. The Tabernacle was within this inner group of camps. When the Torah describes the camp of the Levites as journeying “within or amidst the other camps,” the meaning is that the Tabernacle journeyed in the centre of the camps of the Levites, whereas the camps of the Levites journeyed in the centre of the camps of the Israelites. In this manner the entire encampment was patterned after the tradition we have about how the celestial entourage of G’d was arranged. This is the meaning of Midrash Maasseh Mercavah chapter 6 that ושכינת אל באמצע והוא על כסא רם ונשא וכסאו גבוה למעלה, “the Shechinah was in the centre seated on a throne and the throne was elevated.”
     דגל מחנה אפרים לצבאותם ימה, “the flag of the camp of Ephrayim, according to its hosts, to the West.” You are aware that Jerobam both sinned himself and caused the whole people to sin. He was of the tribe of Ephrayim. There was therefore a need to heal the “fracture” or “rift” which this man created among the Jewish people, i.e. their camps. The tribe of Ephrayim was encamped together with the tribe of Menashe and the tribe of Binyamin. This is the meaning of Psalms 80,3: “at the head of Ephrayim, Binyamin, and Menashe! Rouse Your might and come to our help!” They were camped on the West side of the Tabernacle; our sages have stated (Baba Batra 25,) that the Shechinah resided in the Western part of the Temple. Concerning the camp headed by Ephrayim the Torah writes that the members  of that camp traveled in third position (verse 24).   It was appropriate that after the camp of Yehudah which represented Torah, followed by the camp of Reuven which represented repentance, there should follow the camp of Ephrayim which represented the attribute גבורה. This camp corresponded to the celestial camp headed by the archangel Raphael supported by the angels Zavdiel and Achziel which was situated immediately behind the Shechinah. This was the camp that Moses alluded to when he prayed that Miriam be healed from her tzoraat by saying אל נא רפא נאלה, “please G’d heal her,” (Numbers 12,13). He appealed to the attribute represented by Raphael.
     דגל מחנה דן צפונה, “the flag of the camp of Dan, to the North.” It is a well known fact that two golden calves were erected by Jerobam in the territory of Dan [an historical inaccuracy as it hosted only one of these golden calves based on Shir Hashirim 2,4]. Jerobam erected one of these golden calves in Bet El (Kings I 12,29), whereas he placed the second one in the territory of Dan. It was quite appropriate to be in the North as material wealth is perceived as originating from the North and Dan caused the whole world to become darkened by the sin of idolatry. We have a Scriptural verse alluding to this in Isaiah 29,15 “Who do their work in the dark and say: ‘who sees us,’ etc.” Although the sun rises in the East, it is at its brightest when it is in the South at midday. The sun, by traveling westwards before it sets, also illuminates the West with its light. The only direction which the sun does not illuminate directly is the North. This is why the North is associated with the concept of darkness. The expression צפון השמש, “hidden from the sun,” is a double entendre as the word צפון also means “North.” In light of historical developments it was therefore quite appropriate that the camp of Dan should be situated to the North of the Tabernacle. In view of the problems the tribe of Dan would create for the Jewish people as a whole, this camp was in need of atonement, i.e. that G’d’s light should shine upon it notwithstanding the shortcomings mentioned which darkened the halo of that camp. This is why we find that Micah 7, 8  exclaims: “though I have fallen, I rise again; though I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light.” The tribe of Dan was joined by the tribes of Asher and Naftali who helped to brighten the darkness as we know from Deut. 33,24 and 23 describing Asher having plentiful oil, oil being the raw material from which man-made light is derived. The Torah also  describes Naftali as blessed by the Lord and well satisfied (same passage), indicating that it did not suffer from spiritual darkness. This camp journeyed last. The Torah here used the expression לאחרונה where we would have expected it to write simply ואחרונה יסעו, without the introductory preposition ל. The letter ל points at the letter ה at the end of that word which itself is a reminder of the last letter ה in the tetragram, the symbol of the aspect of the attribute of Justice even in the name Hashem. The three tribes Dan, Asher, Naftali, are all understood as part of the term “the camp of Dan.” It parallels the camp of Uriel in the celestial spheres, the latter being flanked by the angels Daniel and Tamael on the left side of the Shechinah. In the celestial spheres that camp is known as the camp of Uriel, a camp which David hinted at in connection with the atonement achieved by the sacrificial offerings. When he said in Psalm 118,27: ‘The Lord is G’d, He has given us light, bind the festival offerings to the horns of the altar, etc.,” he addressed that attribute represented by Uriel.
      You ought to appreciate that just as the four flags in the desert were copies of the four camps of the Shechinah, the same concept is represented by the four chayot in the vision of the Divine entourage of Ezekiel. They appear in the same order as the camps of the Israelites are listed here. The chayah with the face of a lion representing the camp of Gavriel corresponded to the flag of the camp of Yehudah in the East; the chayah named ox corresponded to the camp of Raphael and the flag of the camp of Ephrayim in the West; the chayah named Adam, represented the camp of Michael and the terrestrial counterpart of the flag of Reuven situated in the South; finally, the chayah known as eagle and representing the camp of Uriel had its parallel on earth in the flag and camp of Dan situated in the North. 
  The author proceeds to demonstrate that many of the names of the tribal princes whose names end with the letter אל correspond to the names of the angels in the celestial camps which we listed. We find that the name of the prince belonging to the camp facing East was called נתנאל, whereas the name of the prince heading he camp of Reuven facing South was שלומיאל; a prince whose camp faced West, of the camp of Ephrayim was called גמליאל, whereas the name of a prince of the camp of Dan facing North was called פגעיאל. None of the other princes in these camps had names concluding with the letter אל, thus providing some linkage to the celestial camps in which each of the twelve angels bears a name ending with these two letters. When you peruse chapter 7 where the inaugural offerings of the twelve princes are listed you will again find that these offerings were brought in the sequence in which the camps are listed here. If you add the total of the respective days on which the princes whose names ended with the letters אל brought their respective offerings, i.e. the second, + the fifth, + the eighth, + the eleventh, you will get the number 26, the numerical equivalent of the tetragrammaton. You will find a parallel allusion to the name of G’d in Ezekiel 1,1 when you combine the dates provided by the prophet, i.e. the 30th year, the 4th month, the 5th of the month. This amounts to a total of 39 or the tetragram spelled as י-ה-ו-ה אחד,”Hashem is One.”
      A Midrashic approach found in Tanchuma Bamidbar 12: the reason the Torah speaks of איש על דגלו באותות, is that Yaakov had already told each of his sons what would be inscribed on their respective banners. He had commanded them that when he died none of the Egyptians and none of his grandchildren should touch his bier, seeing that among the latter there was someone of Canaanitic descent. This is the meaning of Genesis 50,12-13: “his sons did just as he had commanded them; his sons carried him all the way up to the land of Canaan.” The reason that the Torah twice wrote the line “his sons, etc.,” is to inform us that only his sons and no one else participated in carrying the casket in which Yaakov was being transported. He had instructed them that Yehudah, Issachar, and Zevulun were to support the eastern side of the casket, that Reuven, Shimon, and Gad were to support the southern side of the casket. Ephrayim, Menashe, and Binyamin were to carry the western side of the casket, whereas Dan, Asher, and Naftali were to carry the northern end of it. Joseph was not to carry any part of it seeing he was a king. Levi was not to carry any part of it seeing he was slated to carry the Holy Ark. It would not be appropriate that someone who would carry the Holy Ark should defile himself by carrying a casket. [Ephrayim and Menashe, though technically grandchildren, had been described by their grandfather as “like Reuven and Shimon,” i.e. as children (compare Genesis 48,5). Ed.] Yaakov had said that “if you will carry my casket in accordance with my instructions, then G’d will provide you each with flags in the desert. Now Moses made certain that the arrangement of who was going to encamp in which order around the Tabernacle would correspond to the order in which the tribes had carried Yaakov’s bier so that there would be no disagreements. G’d had told him that he would not have to figure out whom to place where as the matter had been arranged already by their patriarch Yaakov.
     יחנו בני ישראל מנגד, “the Children of Israel shall encamp  at a distance, etc.;” according to Tanchuma Bamidbar 14 this was one mile distant from the Tabernacle. This corresponded to the instructions given by Joshua (Joshua 3,4) to the people to keep a distance of 2,000 cubits between themselves and the Holy Ark which crossed the river Jordan ahead of the main body of the Israelites. The reason the Tabernacle was not to be more distant from the camp was to enable the people to walk to it on the Sabbath to conduct their prayers. The flags were equidistant from one another in each direction, whereas Moses and Aaron and his sons were close to the Ark. We know this as the Torah writes that the ones who were making their camp immediately east of the Tent of Meeting were Moses and Aaron and his sons (Numbers 3,38). G’d had said that He wanted it that way so that in case He had occasion to become angry at the Israelites, Moses and Aaron would be at hand to re-establish harmony between G’d and the people. This is the deeper meaning of Psalms 20,6 נרננה בישועתיך, “we will jubilate when Your Shechinah will be present.” The תשועה the psalmist refers to is the saving of the Jewish people from the Egyptians at the sea, whereas the words following in that same verse, i.e. ובשם אלו-הינו נדגל, “and in the name of our G’d we will display flags,” refer to the flags in the desert; finally, the last words of that verse ימלא ה' כל משאלותיך, “may the Lord grant all your requests,” refer to the additional stature attained by the Israelites at that time giving individual status to each of the tribes as a group beloved by G’d by means of the flags they displayed. (Tanchuma Bamidbar 10). The Midrash further sees in Song of Songs 2,4 an allusion to the same idea. Solomon writes there: “He brought me to the banquet room and His banner of love was over me.” We may understand what is written there as a parable. A wealthy man had a treasure chamber full of wine. When he entered to examine the wine he found that it had all turned to vinegar. As he turned around to leave that treasure chamber he came across a single barrel of good wine. Thereupon he said that this single barrel was dearer to him than the entire amount in the rest of that storage chamber. The Lord has 70 nations at His disposal; however, upon examination the only nation from which He derives any pleasure are the Jewish people. The word יין, “wine,” has a numerical value of 70, an allusion to the nations of the world. Concerning all of the barrels of wine G’d said that only the one (nation) which flies a flag has merited His love so that Israel can say: “it is displayed over me.”   Solomon also says (Song of Songs 6,8) “there are 60 queens and 80 concubines, and damsels without number, whereas unique is she My dove,” a reference to the Jewish people. The former are an allusion to the alufim of the sons of Seir mentioned in Genesis 36. The eighty concubines are a reference to the descendants of Noach which have ben named. The damsels without number refer to the descendants of Ishmael, whereas “the unique one,” which did not intermarry with any of the others are the Jewish people.   Rabbi Yehudah in Tanchuma Bamidbar 10 said that the verse “He brought me to the house of wine” (Song of Songs 2,4), is a reference to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The Torah may be interpreted to yield either 49 aspects of purity or 49 aspects of impurity (depending on who does the studying). He points out that the numerical value of the word ודגלו, “and His flag,” is 49. The next paragraph in Tanchuma (Bamidbar 11) sees in the words איש על דגלו באותות in our portion an allusion to Solomon saying in Song of Songs 6,10: מי זאת הנשקפה כמו שחר יפה כלבנה ברה כחמה איומה  כדגלות, “Who is she that shines like the dawn, beautiful as the moon, radiant as the sun, awesome as bannered hosts?” The nations of the world are portrayed as trying to seduce the Jewish people by inviting the beautiful looking Jewish people to become one of them, culturally speaking. They hold out the promise of appointing the converts to important positions in their midst. Israel replies sarcastically, מה תחזו בשולמית, “what can you possibly  bestow upon us (7,1) seeing that we have already been granted positions more elevated than any of you can ever attain!” . והחונים קדמה מזרחה, “and the ones encamped forward, to the east.” The three tribes Yehudah, Issachar, and Zevulun who were stationed right next to Moses and Aaron benefited thereby in that these tribes are described at various times in the Bible as very competent in Torah-law. (compare Judges 5,14 re Zevulun, Chronicles I 12,32 re Issachar and Genesis 49,10 regarding Yehudah). This is what the Talmud Sukkah 56 had in mind when it said that the good experienced by the righteous also devolves upon his neighbour. On the other hand, the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Gad were encamped close to the area where Korach and his family had their tents. Concerning them we apply the saying: “woe to the wicked and to those who keep company with him.”   There were a total of seven clouds of glory surrounding these various camps. Four clouds were positioned one in each direction, i.e. east, west, south, and north. One cloud would move a distance of three days’ march in front of the people; the cloud indicating the presence of the Shechinah would be positioned on top of the people’s camp including the Tabernacle. The seventh cloud would form a curtain between the people and the Shechinah. Numbers 10,14 describes the cloud which rested above the camp by day and by night. The cloud which traveled a three-days’ march ahead of the people would cause all snakes and other harmful creatures in the path of the Israelites to die; it would also smooth out valleys and rises in the terrain to enable the people to walk on an even surface. The cloud which acted as a sort of curtain above the entire camp would protect the people against climate changes such as excessive heat or cold. Concerning the experiences of this entire generation Solomon wrote in Song of Songs 6,4: יפה את רעיתי כתרצה, “You are beautiful my beloved when your deeds are pleasing.” In other words, when the Jewish people were pleasing to G’d in their deeds and desires, He in turn made all obstacles in their way disappear (Tanchuma Bamidbar 12). Moses referred to this state of affairs in Deut. 32,10 when he said: ”He discovered them in a desert land....He encircled them and granted them discernment, etc.” This meant that G’d instructed them in the ways of the Torah. The entire verse in Deuteronomy there is a graphic description in poetic form of the uplifting experiences the Jewish people enjoyed in the desert, largely thanks to the flags, i.e. again in the words of Solomon in Song of Songs 5,10 דגול מרבבה, “they were elevated by being surrounded by myriads of angels.” Thus far the Midrash.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ראשונה יסעו, “they are to be the first ones to journey.” Our sages in Tanchuma Bamidbar 14 mention that wherever you look throughout the Scriptures you will always find the tribe of Yehudah mentioned first, being in the forefront. This is true in connection with the journeys, the encampments, the offering of the inaugural sacrifices, the battles against the Canaanites remaining after Joshua’s death (Judges 1,1-2). The same will hold true in the future when the message of the impending redemption will arrive; Yehudah will be the first one to proclaim it  as we know from Isaiah 52,7: ”how welcome on the mountain are the footsteps of the herald announcing happiness, heralding good fortune; announcing victory, telling Zion, “Your G’d is King!” Similarly, in Nachum 2,1: “Behold on the hills the footsteps of a herald announcing good fortune! Celebrate your festivals O Yehudah.” [In both verses quoted it is Yehudah who is addressed. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ונשיא לבני גד אליסף בן רעואל, “and the prince of the sons of Gad, Elyassaph son of Re-uel.” In this instance Elyassaph’s father’s name begins with the letter ר instead of the letter ד as we have read it elsewhere. According to the Massoretes there is only one other person whose name רעואל appears with the alternate spelling דעואל. He is Moses’ father-in-law‘s father mentioned in Numbers 10,29. At any rate the switch in letters indicates that the persons concerned were anxious to obtain nearness to G’d, understanding of Him and intimacy with Him. [When spelled רעו-אל, the first three letters allude to רועה, shepherd, someone extremely caring; when spelled דעו-אל the first three letters refer to דעה intimate knowledge, intimacy. Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . אלה פקודי בני ישראל ...שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים חמש מאות וחמישים, “These are the countings of the Children of Israel, ....603,550.” This same number has already been reported in 1,46. The reason the Torah repeats this number is only to draw our attention to the miracle that from the day the census took place until the day the people commenced their journeys on the 22nd day of the month not a single one of these people had died.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה, “and these are the descendants of Aaron and Moses: The reason the Torah mentions the name of Moses here although it does not tell us anything about his sons is that the person who teaches someone else Torah is considered as if he had fathered him. Seeing that Moses taught the sons of Aaron Torah he was included in the people considered as their progenitors. This is also why our verse mentions Mount Sinai, as the Torah had been given at Mount Sinai.   ביום דבר ה' את משה בהר סיני, “on the day the Lord had spoken to Moses at Mount Sinai.” Seeing that the Talmud Sanhedrin 19 makes the point we just made that anyone who teaches the son of his friend Torah is considered as if he had fathered him, the Torah here repeats: “these are the sons of Aaron,” to make sure we understand that biologically speaking the sons now enumerated were fathered only by Aaron. This is also why all four of them are mentioned by name. Later on (verse 3) they are mentioned once more as the ones who had been anointed with sacred oil.
      According to the plain meaning of the text we can explain this apparent duplication of information already supplied by the Torah as proof that G’d is very meticulous when dealing with even the slightest error committed by socially and spiritually eminent people such as the sons of Aaron (and of course Aaron himself as well as Moses). We have a verse to this effect in Psalms 50,3: ”those around Him are judged fiercely.” By adding the words: “the priests who had been anointed,” the Torah explains in advance why even highly esteemed people like Nadav and Avihu do not have their mistakes overlooked; not only is G’d not indulgent with people of such stature, but, on the contrary, He is more demanding of them in light of their representing not only themselves but G’d and His image. When the Torah describes the enemies of Israel who will invade the country as part of G’d’s retribution for Israel’s private and collective sins, it mentions a people who will show no respect for the elderly (Deut. 28,50). The reason this is mentioned is because normally one indulges the elderly, crediting them with wisdom, etc. G’d had to make plain that in His system of justice the more rarefied the spiritual atmosphere in which a person moves the more is he prone to retributive action by G’d if he fails to live up to G’d’s and the people’s expectations. We find the same point being made in Job 34,19 when Elihu tells his friend Job that “he is not partial to princes; the noble are not preferred to the wretched, for all are the work of His hands.”  
      Another approach: There is a mystical element here when the Torah writes of the four sons of Aaron, two of whom had already died and who certainly were not part of this census anymore. The Torah had described Nadav and Avihu as having died “before the Lord” (verse 4). It is reasonable then to understand the words “these are the sons of Aaron” as referring only to Nadav and Avihu whose death is being repeated in verse 4. Seeing that all four of Aaron’s sons had been anointed with sacred oil, we would have to understand the word לכהן at the end of verse 3, normally translated as: “to function as priest,” as meaning לכוהן, “to be priests,” a reference to someone who would function as priest after his father had died, i.e. Pinchas son of Eleazar. This would also account for Exodus 6,25: “she bore for him Pinchas the heads of the Levites according to their families.” This is also why again at the beginning of Parshat Pinchas (Numbers 26,60-61) the birth and death of Nadav and Avihu is once again mentioned. This is also why in Numbers 25,11 the Torah troubled itself to again trace Pinchas’ genealogy back to his grandfather Aaron. Seeing that the entire Torah is full of hints with profound meanings the Torah here saw fit to refer to these sons of Aaron three times. The first mention covers the intellectual relationship of these sons to their uncle Moses. The second time their existence is mentioned is a reference to their physical existence. The third time they are mentioned was to reveal to us something about the nature of G’d’s system of Justice, how instead of indulging the great it does the reverse and measures each one of their actions minutely. Seeing that two of these insights into G’d’s mind were revealed at the same time, the Torah used the conjunctive letter ו in introducing chapter three with the word ואלה. Seeing that the sons of Aaron had to be mentioned, the Torah also had to repeat what happened to them and why.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . מבן חדש ומעלה תפקדם, “you shall number them from one month up.” Our sages in Tanchuma Bamidbar 15 refer to Psalms 92,13 where the righteous is described as blooming like a date palm, saying that the reason that David chose this metaphor was that the shade of a palm tree can reach very far from its trunk. In other words, most of the time, sitting immediately under that tree you do not get much shade. They compare this to the reward the righteous receives for his righteousness. It is not immediate but delayed just like the full effect of the shade cast by the palm tree. Another similarity between the date palm and the people of Israel is that just as the date palm produces both dates (edible) and unripe or underdeveloped useless offshoots, so the Jewish people produce both righteous people, Torah scholars as well as ignorant people not worth preserving in G’d’s storage chambers. Some Israelites were deemed worthy to enter G’d’s treasure chamber, i.e. the land of Israel, others were not. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . ובא אהרן ובניו, “Aaron and his sons shall come, etc.” The sequence of covering up the furnishings of the Tabernacle was as follows: they would spread the dividing curtain over the Ark of Testimony; over this would be spread the tachash-skins which had been part of the roof; this in turn would be covered with a cloth made of techelet, blue wool. Next they would wrap the Table with a woolen cloth made of techelet. The appurtenances of the Table would also be wrapped in that cloth. These in turn would have an outer wrapping of tolaat-shani, scarlet-coloured wool. This in turn would be enclosed in the tachash-skins. The Menorah, candlestick, would be covered in an inner covering of techelet-coloured  wool, and an outer covering of tachash-skins. They would cover the golden Altar with a techelet-coloured woolen cloth, and wrap it in tachash-skins. The copper Altar would be covered with a purple-covered woolen cloth. This in turn they would wrap in the tachash-skin. You will note that all the furnishings whether they were wrapped in techelet-coloured woolen cloth or different red cloths had an outer covering of tachash-skin around them. This was the same skin which formed the outer cover of the four layers of the ceiling of the Tabernacle and its appearance was familiar to everybody. The only furnishing the Torah did not want to enclose in that tachash-skin was the Holy Ark, preferring to have it wrapped in techelet-blue wool to remind the onlooker of the colour of heaven.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ופקודת אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן שמן המאור וקטורת הסמים, “and the task Eleazar son of Aaron the priest was charged with was the oil for lighting the Menorah and the Incense.” Nachmanides, commenting on the unusual expression ופקודת instead of ומשא describing the word “task,” writes that this indicates that as opposed to the Levites, especially the Kehatites who literally carried the Holy Ark on their shoulders, Eleazar did not actually carry these items mentioned here. He was in charge in a supervisory capacity, not physically carrying these items.  However, from the Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 10,3 we get the impression that Eleazar personally carried the oil and the Incense. This was certainly a heavy load seeing that during some parts of the year the Incense consisted of 365 daily portions. The oil for the Menorah amounted to 183 login (at the time it had been prepared and mixed, slightly over 50 liters). It would have required super-human strength to carry these amounts [if indeed the full amounts of both ingredients were prepared at the same time. They were prepared only once a year, so that the stock decreased progressively. Ed.] Thus far the comment of Nachmanides.
  According to my edition of the Jerusalem Talmud, Eleazar carried the oil in his right hand and the incense in his left hand. The daily quantity of the gift-offering he had hanging from his arm, whereas he had a small bottle of anointing oil suspended from his belt.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
    אל תכריתו את שבט משפחות הקהתי, “do not let the tribe of the Kehatites be cut off from the family of the Levites!” G’d commanded Aaron and his sons to warn the Levites, especially the sons of ‎Kehat, not to become guilty of the karet penalty. G’d  thereby displayed especial concern for the Levites who had risked their lives for the holy name of G’d at the time of the golden calf episode. At that time they had executed all the errant Israelites who had actively worshipped the golden calf (Exodus 32,27).
  A Midrashic approach based on the Mishnah in Makkot 23: The sages concluded from the wording in our verse that if someone is guilty of the karet penalty but has had 39 lashes inflicted upon him instead, he has thereby saved himself from the karet penalty. The Talmud bases this on Deut. 25,2 והפילו השופט, “the judge shall cast him down;” the Torah goes on to say: “he shall administer 40 lashes.” The Torah also writes (verse 3 ibid) ונקלה אחיך לעיניך, “and your brother will be degraded in your eyes.” The sages therefore derive from this that once a guilty Israelite has been degraded he is again considered “your brother,”  Why did the Torah set the number of 40 lashes as the number of lashes to be administered [for violations of ordinary negative commandments for which the karet penalty does not apply. Ed.]? The reason is that a human being after 40 days in the womb of his mother is considered as “formed.” He subsequently violated a Torah law, i.e. the Torah which it took 40 days to teach Moses on Mount Sinai. It is appropriate therefore that when such a human being violates the Torah he should be punished by forty lashes. Having received such demeaning punishment he is considered as having discharged his guilt.    You will find that something similar occurred with Adam. When Adam had transgressed G’d’s command not to eat from the tree of knowledge the world was subjected to forty punishments. This was divided into ten punishments for Adam, ten for Chavah, ten for the serpent, and ten for the earth itself. Ever since, when man transgresses G’d’s laws he is subject to forty lashes as punishment. The number 40 was therefore also applied to the generation of the Israelites in the desert when they sinned by accepting the report of the ten spies. G’d decreed that the punishment would extend over forty years.
     משפחות הקהתי, “the families of the Kehatites.” The Torah deliberately did not write “the family (sing) of Kehat,” being aware that many of them would be members of the rebellion of Korach against Moses and Aaron. In spite of this foreknowledge, G’d said that every care must be taken not to cause the Kehatites to become guilty of serious sins. By writing the word אל תכריתו in this form the Torah added two letters (יו) of the name of G’d in order to append them to the name קהת. You may understand the idea behind this by means of a parable. A king had a son who kept bad company and eventually was arrested with the thieves he had joined. The king’s response was that at this time he would deal leniently with the thieves themselves seeing that his own son was also part of that group. However, he warned that there would not be a second time when such leniency would be practiced. This is also the meaning of Isaiah 48,9: “for the sake of My name I control My wrath; to My own glory I am patient with you and will not destroy you.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ולא יבואו לראות כבלע את הקדש ומתו, “but they shall not come and look as the holy is dismantled, lest they die.” The meaning of the word כבלע is that something is being removed and canceled. (Ibn Ezra). We find the word used in a similar sense in Isaiah 3,12  ודרך אורחותיך בלעו, “they destroy the course of Your paths.”
      According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of the words ולא יבואו לראות וגו' is that when the dismantling of the Tabernacle is in progress prior to the Israelites breaking camp and beginning their journeys, there should not be nosy onlookers bent on feasting their eyes on beholding the holy vessels normally not visible as they are kept inside the Tabernacle.
      A kabbalistic approach:  the words ולא יבואו לראות כבלע mean that when the attribute of כבוד disappears and returns to its original domain in the celestial regions (at the time when its abode is being dismantled) one must not endanger oneself by trying to get a glimpse of it.
  It is well known that throughout the year this attribute כבוד was detached from the cloud and resided in the Holy of Holies immediately above the lid of the Holy Ark, the כפורת. This is the meaning of the word “for in the cloud I will be ‘visible’ above the kapporet” (Leviticus 16,2). The Torah did not write כי אראה בענן, but כי בענן אראה. Had the Torah written the former I would have understood that G’d’s majesty would be visible within the cloud. The wording that the Torah chose however, suggests that on the way to earth the attribute of majesty is within the cloud only to detach itself from the cloud above the Tabernacle and to descend to the kapporet within the Holy of Holies. I have mentioned this already at the appropriate place. This was the reason why the High Priest was not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies except on the Day of Atonement. Even on that day he was not allowed to enter that part of the Tabernacle except equipped with the incense, the smoke of which made it impossible for him to see something he was not meant to see. This was also the reason he was not to enter with ready-made incense but he had to ensure that the smoke would be initiated inside the Sanctuary so as to fill the airspace within the Holy of Holies enveloping the kapporet, the site of the attribute of כבוד in the process. The Torah spells this out in Leviticus 16,13 “and the cloud of incense is to cover (envelop) kapporet which is above the Testimony.” This then is the reason why the Levites were warned here not to become guilty of beholding things which would cause their deaths, things which even the High Priest was never permitted to behold with his eyes. The matter is paraphrased by Chabakuk 3,4 ונוגה כאור תהיה קרנים מידו לו ושם חביון עזו, “it is a brilliant light which gives off rays on every side- and therein His glory is enveloped.”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
     שמחה לצדיק עשות משפט ומחתה לפעלי און, “It is a joy for the righteous to do justice; ruin will come to evildoers “ (Proverbs 21,15).
   In this verse King Solomon informed us that the system of justice by means of which the universe continues to exist is a source of ruin and trepidation for the wicked and a source of joy for the righteous.   The expression שמחה describes a greater degree of joy and happiness than expressions such as גילה, רינה, משוש, all of which also describe joy of varying degrees. The expressions just cited appear also in connection with the righteous in such verses as Proverbs 23,24: “the father of the righteous will rejoice greatly (גיל יגיל), he who fathers a wise child will be happy (ישמח) with him.” You will observe that Solomon described the joy of the righteous as גיל, whereas he used the expression שמחה in connection with the חכם, the wise. The reason is simply that the wise enjoys both the virtue of being righteous plus the attribute of wisdom. It is quite inconceivable that Solomon would sing the praises of a חכם who is wicked. In Psalms 32,11 David mentions three different kinds of joy in one verse writing שמחו בה' וגילו צדיקים, והרנינו כל ישרי לב, “Rejoice in the Lord; and exult O you righteous; shout for joy all upright men.” You will note that David reserved the term שמחה for association with Hashem; seeing G’d is so superior in virtuous attributes the highest form of joy is associated with His Being. After all, David did not write שמחו וגילו צדיקים בה', which would have meant that the righteous are to display both forms of joy in relation to Hashem. The meaning of the verse we quoted at the beginning is: the righteous has reason to be happy (שמחה) when justice and righteousness is being observed in the city and there is an absence of violence and robbery; if, however, there is oppression of the poor and robbery then the righteous will worry about it and will be upset about this as it is the nature of the righteous to care. The second half of the verse which speaks about the ruin means that the performance of justice will frighten the wicked of becoming ruined when the righteous admonish the wicked about their conduct pointing out that retribution is in store for them. They will be punished for the hatred they display against the practice of justice. In other words, the new dimension of insight revealed here by Solomon is that the very performance, i.e. prevalence of justice and righteousness spells doom for the evildoers. When the righteous observes this reaction of the evildoers he has cause to rejoice.
      Solomon, by implication, exhorts us to be joyful when performing G’d’s commandments and when seeing others perform them. This is why he speaks about עשות משפט, “the dispensing of justice,” in the infinitive. He does not speak about particular people dispensing justice but refers to the phenomenon which when observed inspires great joy.    Naturally, the joy which accompanies the performance of a commandment by an individual Jew is in a class by itself. Seeing that performance of the commandments is called עבודת ה', “serving the Lord,” we can understand what is written in Deut. 28,16 תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוקיך בשמחה, “on account of the fact that you did not perform the commandments of the Lord your G’d with joy, etc.” When David writes in Psalms 100,2 עבדו את ה' בשמחה, “serve the Lord with joy,” he does not refer to the offering of sacrificial animals but to the performance of each and every commandment which it is our duty to perform. Joy is the ingredient which makes service of the Lord something perfect. This concept helps us understand the unusual phrase in Numbers 4,46 לעבוד עבודת עבודה. Concerning this expression our sages in Erchin 11 ask what kind of service this is that the Torah speaks of there. The answer given in the Talmud is that the Torah speaks of offering songs and hymns. The Levites are commanded to offer songs and encourage expressions of joy to accompany the sacrificial offerings. All of this was to ensure that joy is the prevailing sentiment accompanying service of the Lord.    It is well known that the age of thirty is the age at which man is at the zenith of his physical power (Avot end of chapter 5). Beginning with the age of fifty our physical strength begins to decline. This is the reason that the years during which the Levites perform active service are between the ages of 30-50. How would he be able to offer song to G’d at a time when he feels that his physical strength is already beginning to ebb? This is also why we have been taught in Chulin 24 that although Levites who are afflicted with certain physical blemishes are not disqualified from performing their service, they are disqualified as soon as they are over fifty years of age. This is why the Torah writes in 8,25: “from fifty years of age he shall withdraw from the legion of work and no longer work.” This is also why the census of the Levites included the ones between the ages of 30-50 only. 
   נשא את ראש בני גרשון גם הם לבית אבותם למשפחותהם, מבן שלשים שנה ומעלה עד בן חמישים שנה, “take a census of the sons of Gershon, as well, according to their fathers’ household, according to their families.” The words גם הם mean that the same procedure which was observed concerning the census of the Kehatites was followed here. Although Gershon was the oldest of the sons of Levi, the Kehatites were counted first as they were entrusted with transporting the Holy Ark as well as other holy vessels. I have already mentioned earlier that just as the encampments of the twelve tribes were four, three tribes in each direction, so the Levites also were divided into four groups, the three sons of Levi (descendants) Kehat, Gershon, and Merari who were encamped around the Tabernacle in three directions, and Moses, Aaron, and his sons who had their tents to the east of the Tabernacle.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . ומכסה התחש אשר עליו, “and the covering of tachash-hide which was above it.” The reason the Torah does not mention here the second type of skin-coverings of the Tabernacle, the ones of red-dyed ram skins, is because they were attached to the tachash-skins. Alternatively, the reason is that the Torah omitted same in the interest of brevity. 
  The task assigned to the Gershonides was relatively easy in terms of what they had to carry, as they had to carry woven materials, not heavy materials such as the Kehatites carried, or the heavy beams which the Merarites had to load unto the wagons. Ittamar was assigned the duty of supervising both the tasks to be performed by the Gershonides and those of the Merarites.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   לעבוד עבודת עבודה, “to perform the work of service.” This is a reference to the song which in itself was a service to support another “service,” namely the sacrificial offerings (Erchin 11). This reflects what David said in Psalms 100,5: “serve the Lord in joy.” We have a clear verse that the offerings were accompanied by song in Chronicles Ii 35,15: “the Asaphite singers were at their stations, by command of David and Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun, the seer of the king; they did not have to leave their tasks.” The “song” referred to was accompanied by music played with harps and percussion instruments. They used to sing the praises of the Lord at the times the daily public sacrifices were being offered on the Altar.    Our sages (Erchin 13) discuss the details of the musical instruments such as the number of strings on the harp (lyre) being seven. They base this on Psalms 16,11 שובע שמחות את פניך, “In Your presence is perfect joy.” They suggest that instead of reading the word for “perfect” as sovea, it should be read as sheva, “seven,” [same spelling as letters without vowels. Ed.] According to tradition, when the Messiah will come the music played at the sacrificial offerings will be on an instrument with eight instead of seven strings. This is alluded to in Psalm 12,1 which commences with the words: “on the eight-stringed instrument.” In a still more distant period we envision a harp featuring ten strings as alluded to in Psalms 33,2 as well as 92,4. All of these details are discussed at the end of the second chapter of Erchin.    [The relevance of these somewhat peripheral-sounding discussions is that our present universe is perceived as being based on the seven fixed stars, planets of pre-Copernicus astronomical principles, Ed.]. It is presumed that the general supervision exercised by G’d over all of mankind once the messianic age arrives will be increased to eight such planets. At a still later period, the period perceived as “the world to come” (in terms of resurrection of the dead), the world will enjoy supervision by G’d based on ten planets assigned that task.   You should be aware that the entire subject of song being offered during the offering of the public sacrifices has not been spelled out anywhere until the time of David. 
  The number of Levites (of whom Scripture tells specifically as singing hymns) is eight. They were: אסף, הימן, ידותן ,איתן האזרחי,; this makes four. Add Levi, who is referred to here as בן “son;” this makes five; then there is the one called על הגיתית, a reference to the family of Gattit a song offered by that family who hosted the Holy Ark. (compare Chronicles I 13,13). This gives us six.  Add the sons of Korach; this makes seven. Finally, there are the “sons” of Moses giving us a grand total of eight such “singers,” or better: “composers of songs and hymns” who were all Levites. These eight people between them used eight musical instruments. The instruments are known as: 1) נגינות (Psalms. 4,1). 2) מחלת, (Psalms. 53,1). 3) עלמות שיר (Psalms. 46,1). 4) משאת (Chronicles I 15,22). 5) נחילות (Psalms .5,1). 6) שושנים, (Psalms. 45,1).7) גתית, (Psalms. 8,1). 8) שמינית, (Psalms 6,1).
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  . על פי ה' פקד אותם ביד משה, “He counted them at the command of G’d to Moses.” When you compare the census of the Israelites with that of the Levites you will note that the expression: “at the command of G’d” does not occur in connection with the former. The reason this expression was introduced here was to draw attention to the attribute of Justice, an attribute closely associated with the tribe of Levi and its activities. This tribe was appointed to perform tasks which involved making sounds, raising their voices. The letter ש as in שיר, song, is by definition an allusion to שריקה, whistling, whereas the letter מ is by definition a letter which conveys the image of silence, דומם, or וידום אהרון, “Aaron remained silent” (Leviticus 10,3). We find a statement to this effect in the Sefer Yetzirah 6,1 where the significance of the three letters א-מ-ש is discussed.     In addition to being assigned the function of singing and playing musical accompaniments during the offering of the daily communal sacrifices, the Levites were also charged with presiding over judicial matters and with mounting the security guard around the Tabernacle. The Levites were also permitted to slaughter the sacrificial animals seeing that the priests did not do this. There was a rule that the Levites and the Priests must not perform each other’s tasks, and moreover, according to the Zohar, it was conceptually not acceptable for the Priests whose function it is to prolong and preserve life to kill the animals by slaughtering them. The sages derive from the words ושחט אותה לפני,ו “he shall slaughter it in his presence” (Numbers 19,3), the rule that a non-priest slaughter the red heifer whereas the High Priest Eleazar was only to supervise the procedure. (Compare commentary by Recanati on Nasso, item 124,1) The apparent contradiction to other verses is resolved by suggesting that animals intended as private offerings were slaughtered by the owners whereas animals intended as communal offerings were slaughtered by the Priests. [Compare notes by Rabbi Chavell.]  At any rate, in view of the various tasks performed by the Levites you will usually find the expression על פי ה', “at the command of the Lord,” in connection with such instructions. 
  I, (author speaking) am fairly convinced that the reason the count of the Levites included babies from the age of one month old is anchored in a mystical dimension of the word חדש, month. The mystical mystical dimension of “month” i.e. “moon” is that it governs by night. The function of the Levites which was a derivative of the attribute of Justice, an attribute predominately active at night, was to demonstrate the virtue of אמונה, “faith, loyalty.” We find this concept alluded to in Psalms 92,3 ואמונתך בלילה, “Your loyalty and dependability is best demonstrated at night.” [Moses contrasts חסד, loving kindness which is manifest by day, with the אמונה, “faithfulness,” which is manifest at night. Ed.] 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . וישלחו מן המחנה, “they shall expel from the camp, etc.” The reference is to the מחנה שכינה, “the camp of the Shechinah” i.e. the sacred domain of the Tabernacle and its courtyard. There were three categories of ritual impurity each of which required a minimum of seven days before it could be purified. They were the צרוע, the זב, and the טמא מת, “the person afflicted with the skin disorder known as tzoraat, the person suffering from semen-related emissions, and the person who contracted impurity through contact with a corpse. The first-named category is expelled from all three camps; the Torah spells this out in Leviticus 13,46 when it says: ”he shall dwell apart, his dwelling shall be outside the camp.” There the word “camp” means the camp of the Israelites. The person suffering from seminal emission needs to keep out of the inner two camps, the camp of the Levites, and, of course, the camp of the Shechinah. This is based on an interpretation by the Talmud Pessachim 68. Concerning someone who had nocturnal emissions (including deliberate marital intercourse) but whose emissions are not beyond his control, i.e. a disease, the relevant verse is found in Deut. 23,11: ”if anyone among you is rendered unclean by nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp, and he must not reenter the camp. Toward evening he shall immerse himself in a ritual bath and at sundown he may reenter the camp.” The camp such a person must leave is the camp of the Levites. Lastly, if someone has become ritually impure through contact with a dead person he must leave the camp of the Shechinah but may move freely in either of the other two camps.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ולקח הכהן מים קדושים בכלי חרש ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, “the Priest is to take sacred water in an earthenware vessel, and he shall take from the earth that is at the floor of the Tabernacle, etc.” Why does he have to take water? Because water symbolises the Heaven (the “upper waters”) and from the floor of the Tabernacle, as this symbolises dust, Earth. We have been taught in Sotah 17 that Rava, commenting on the requirement of dust in connection with the procedure involving the Sotah, the woman suspected of marital infidelity, claims that in the event the woman is found innocent (as she claims) she will bear a son similar to Avraham who said of himself: “I am dust and ashes” (Genesis 18,27). If the woman in question was guilty, however, her fate, i.e. death, will be that she returns to “dust.” Thus far the Talmud.
     בכלי חרש, “in an earthenware vessel.” Rabbi Meir said in Sotah 8 that a person is “measured” (rewarded or receives retribution) by G’d applying similar yardsticks to him as the ones he had employed himself. He bases this on Isaiah 27,8: בסאסאה בשלחה תריבנה, “He will strive with her using her own סאה, “ (grain) measure.” We also have a statement by Rabbi Chiyah that although since the Temple was destroyed the judicial power of the Sanhedrin to administer death penalties was canceled, this does not mean that someone who is guilty of such a penalty will go free. G’d will arrange that a person guilty of the penalty of being stoned to death, for instance, will instead fall off a roof, or something similar. If someone would have been guilty of execution by burning he will instead become the victim of a fire, etc., etc. The same applies to the legislation concerning a Sotah, something that cannot be enacted in the absence of the Temple. At the time the Temple was standing the peripheral procedures of this legislation also reflected the principle of “measure for measure.” The guilty woman presumably enticed her lover by serving him fancy wine in a costly goblet, etc. This is why the Torah demands that the water be “served” her in an earthenware jug, and that the water itself contain dust (compare Sotah 9). She presumably waited for her lover at some secluded place; the Torah displays her and her shame at the entrance to the Temple, for all to see her embarrassment. She no doubt dressed up in her finery and wore a fancy coiffure when having an assignation with her lover; the Torah demands that she be disheveled and dressed in coarse-looking garments.
      If you take a close look at the words בכלי חרש you will find in them a hint that the woman if found guilty will not qualify for afterlife at the time of the resurrection but will remain like a חרש הנשבר, a broken shard of an earthenware vessel. (According to halachah such vessels cannot be repaired so that they will be purified. Source: Pessikta Zutrata). This too is part of the punishment being modeled after her sin. She loses her life both in this world and in the world to come as retribution for the fact that until found out she had served two masters, i.e. her husband and her lover. This is the reason the Torah insists on an earthenware jug rather than a glass jug, the latter being capable of purification after it was broken by being heated and blown up again. If a glass vessel which was created by man and destroyed by man is subject to “resurrection,” how much more so is man who was created by G’d and who died at the hands of G’d subject to resurrection! The reason that the woman is to respond with the word אמן twice (verse 22), is to confirm that she is innocent both in respect of her husband and in respect of the man with whom she is supposed to have sinned. If she was guilty, the words are her confirmation that neither man would be part of her assigned בן זוג, “soul-mate,” either in this world or in the world to come (compare Sotah 18).
  
  Verse 18
  
   מנחת קנאות ה'יא ו'ביד ה'כהן י'היו, “it is a meal-offering of jealousies, and in the hand of the Priest they shall be.” I have already explained on a number of occasions (Genesis 11,9 et al) that whenever the letters of the name of G’d appear in the reverse order this is an allusion to the attribute of Justice. It means that the subject matter under discussion by the Torah at that point is one in which the attribute of Justice is poised to strike against the guilty party concerned. I have also mentioned that there were a total of 54 words written on the parchment which is placed in the jug with the מים המאררים, “the potentially curse-laden waters,” mentioned in verse 22. (Maimonides Hilchot Sotah 3,7). The number 54 represents the middle two letters of the name א-ד-נ-י, the name of G’d with those letters in reverse order. In other words, the number 54 is the allusion to the attribute of Justice poised to take action against the woman drinking these waters.
     מי המרים המאררים, “the bitter waters carrying a curse.” They are already called “bitter;” this will be the effect if the party drinking them was guilty (compare Rashi). This is not the only time in the Bible that an adjective is applied to something which is only potentially so. Another example is Job 22,6 ובגדי ערומים תפשיט, “and strip the clothes off the naked.” Clearly, one cannot strip clothes off people who are already naked. The point is that the people are described as “naked” seeing that after they have been stripped of their clothing they will remain naked. Another example of the same kind of phraseology is found in Isaiah 47,2: קחי רחים וטחני קמח, “take the mill and grind meal!” Clearly, only the product of grinding grain is meal; the prophet calls the product “meal” even before it has been ground seeing that this is the purpose of the mill.    The reason the Torah uses the term מאררים to describe this water is due to the words of curses which have been placed into this water on the parchment containing our passage. These words effectively put a curse on the water.
   The brilliant Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra mentioned a mystical aspect of the matter when he wrote that the word מי (as opposed to מים) is a genitive, a construct form; it has been placed by the Torah next to the word המרים, “the bitter ones.” This word is an adjective describing the noun, as if the Torah had written “the water of the bitter matters.” The mystical dimension of all this is well known. Thus far Ibn Ezra. I would add (author speaking) that he is quite correct. that the word המרים is not a noun but an adjective.
   Let me now explain the mystical element referred to by Ibn Ezra. Our verse refers to the celestial forces (which activate the effect of this water) as מרים. We know already from Job 3,5 that he called the day on which he had been born מרירי יום ואוררי יום, “a bitter day and a cursed day.” [Actually what Job said was that “if the day had been cursed he would not have been born; as it is was his misfortune that the day had not been cursed. Ed.] According to our author the letter כ in the words יבעתוהו כמרירי יום, (Job 3,5) is not to be understood as part of the root but as a prefix just as in Hoseah 5,10 כ-מסיגי גבול, “just as people who illegally move boundaries.” Job also said in verse 8 of that chapter יקבהו אוררי יום העתידים ערר לויתן, “may those who cast spells on the day damn it, those prepared to disable Leviathan.” Our sages (Baba Batra 75) have also predicted that the archangel Gavriel will instigate a hunt for Leviathan and were it not for G’d’s personal assistance to the archangel he would not be able to subdue this monster. They base this on Job 40,19: “He is the first of G’d’s works; only His Maker can draw the sword against him.”
      I would like you to appreciate the true meaning  of the words מי המים המאררים. The meaning is that the (bitter) contents of that water are what put the curse upon it. When the Priest made the woman take the oath in the name of Hashem while he is holding the water in his hand, he had in mind two attributes of G’d, the attribute of Day and the attribute of Night; (representing the attributes of Mercy and the attribute of Justice respectively). He indicated that both attributes are in agreement that if the woman were guilty she was to suffer the full punishment. Alternatively, if the accusation would be proved unfounded she would become pregnant with child and be cleared of all suspicion for all to see. The intelligent reader will understand that these two attributes are contained in the word מרים. (the מר refers to the attribute “Day” from מר דרור, whereas the ים part of the word refers to the attribute “Night”, based on the verse in Kohelet כל הנחלים הולכים אל הים, that all the rivers stream towards the ים, (based on תורת חיים). These two attributes between them radiate major influence on what goes on in our terrestrial universe, hence Job referred to the “day” as he did. All of these considerations prompted Ibn Ezra to describe the word מרים as an adjective instead of as a noun. In brief: “the waters of the attributes which curse it.” If, in apparent contradiction to this view, the Torah writes in verse 24 ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים, these words mean that “the waters which contain the curses in them will enter her seeing that they have been afflicted by these attributes.” The word מרים refers to the power or attribute which orchestrated the effect of these waters.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ונקה האיש מעון, “if the man is free from guilt.” Our sages in Sotah 47 interpret this phrase to mean that the divinely-assisted proof of the woman’s guilt will be effective only if her husband’s conduct in matters relating to marital fidelity had been blameless. The specific “innocence” of the husband is that ever since he suspected her of infidelity he had ceased having marital relations with her. 
  Others hold that if the husband ever in his life had indulged in illicit sex, he is in no position to call upon heavenly intervention to prove his wife’s guilt, and the whole procedure will become ineffective. Even if the husband had only slept with his wife after she was betrothed to him but still lived in her father’s house, (a Rabbinic prohibition only) he would have forfeited the right to rely on the procedure of Sotah for the rest of his life. The sages holding this view base it on the wording in our verse where they read the following words as forming a single sequence and meaning that “only when the husband is free from guilt concerning his own wife will the wife have to bear her guilt.” Therefore, if aware of this, the woman had indulged in questionable conduct giving rise to her husband seriously suspecting her of infidelity, she is not asked to drink these waters but is divorced without receiving the כתובה, the financial settlement a woman who has not been proven at fault in a divorce is entitled to.     There is, however, also an historical development to the enactment of the legislation discussed in our chapter. We are told in Sotah 47 that due to the increased number of instances of marital infidelity the effectiveness of the מי המאררים declined. We have a verse in Hoseah 4,14 drawing attention to the deterioration of the morals in Jewish society. The prophet writes: “I will not punish their daughters [by making them drink these waters Ed.] for fornicating nor their daughters-in-law for committing adultery; for they themselves consort with whores (the husbands) and sacrifice with prostitutes, and a people that is without sense (of honour) must stumble (be afflicted).” What the prophet is saying is simply that there was no longer a justification for G’d involving Himself in restoring domestic peace between husband and wife when both parties had already deliberately destroyed that relationship which should be built on mutual trust. As long as by and large, the Israelites conducted themselves as true to their destiny of being a holy nation, G’d did His part in healing the occasional breach of trust which occurred. Once lack of fidelity had become a way of life there was no point in that. When G’d used to perform the miracle of the מי המאררים, the legal objective was to avoid the birth of bastards or children perceived to be bastards and the negative social fallout of such phenomena. Seeing a time had come when the parents did not seem to mind begetting bastards, why would G’d interfere by peforming miracles to preserve individual families’ cohesion? Sexual intercourse had ceased to be an instrument for producing children and had become a tool for satisfying the respective lust of the participants. The wording of the last words we quoted from Hoseah mean that “a nation which is unwilling to understand what is good for its development will suffer the consequences of its own foolishness.” The word ילבט occurs in that context also in Proverbs 10,8 where Solomon says  ואויל שפתים ילבט, “the one whose lips speak foolishly will be afflicted.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   איש או אשה כי יפליא לנדור נדר נזיר, “a man or  a woman who deliberately makes a vow involving abstinence, etc.” The reason that the Torah saw fit to append this paragraph to the previous one involving marital infidelity is to teach us that excess consumption of wine and resulting drunkenness may have led to the phenomenon of sexually frivolous conduct described in that paragraph. He who sees how the woman who had become guilty of such unrestrained behavior has been dealt with will take the lesson to heart, and may even decide to abstain from alcoholic drink altogether in order to avoid temptation (compare Sotah 2). The prophet Hoseah appeared to share this view when he said (Hoseah 4,11) “lechery, wine, and (even?) new wine destroy the mind of Your people.”
      The plain meaning of the text is that a Nazirite is warned not to consume wine seeing that anyone who allows his desire for wine and alcoholic drink to determine his actions will give in to other temptations involving matters which are forbidden even in moderate quantities, to lead him astray. The reason the Nazir has been commanded to grow his hair long is that long hair causes people to worry, and the Torah wants the Nazir to worry about not breaking the constraints of his vow. When he looks dishevelled due to his unruly hair he will also abstain from other activities which reflect dishonor upon man. Hair is perceived as the remnant and excess of “smoldering“ physical forces that the body emits. [I believe that the fact that both nails and hair have to be trimmed, (and are phenomena which continue to grow even after death for some time) are viewed as reflecting the preponderance of physical forces within us. It is interesting that we find in the Talmud Sanhedrin 21 that Jewish women were generally devoid of pubic hair and under-arm hair which was taken as a sign of their moral superiority in matters of chastity. See my article on hair in “The Just lives by his faith.” Ed.]    The expression יפליא in our verse refers to the Nazirite doing something פלא, wonderfully different. Whereas all the world indulge their senses, the Nazirite has decided to not only repress his evil urge but to fortify his resolution by making a vow to abstain from wine, the prime cause of stimulating such temptations.    The expression נזיר occurs first in connection with the Priests being commanded not to touch the holies of the Children of Israel when in a state of ritual impurity (Leviticus 22,2). In that instance the word means: “to separate, to withdraw.” 
  Another instance where we have encountered this expression is Exodus 29,6 in connection with Aaron’s headgear. It is described as נזר הקדש — a sort of crown which set Aaron apart from the other Priests. Crowns are worn by Royalty, i.e. people in authority. A Nazir is so called because he is like a king in that he rules over his desires, unlike the majority of mankind who are slaves to temptation.
     'להזיר לה', ”to abstain for the sake of the Lord.” The vow of abstinence is dedicated to the Lord whom one cannot serve to the full if one’s brain is befuddled by strong drink.
  
  Verse 3
  
   מיין ושכר יזיר, “he must abstain from wine and alcoholic drink.”  In this verse the word יין refers to wine which has aged appropriately, whereas the word שכר refers to new wine which has not yet fermented. According to Onkelos the meaning is exactly the reverse, and it would preclude the need to desist from alcoholic drink which does not originate from grapes.   The Nazirite is forbidden the use of five grape-products: 1) wine; 2) grapes; 3) raisins; 4) the kernel; 5) the skin. Consumption of either of these five items is considered as a separate violation of the commandment legislated here. Unripe grapes are included under the heading “grapes,” whereas vinegar is considered part of the prohibition “wine,” seeing it had been wine before it turned into vinegar. The element causing it to be prohibited is not perceived as having departed from the liquid which deteriorated into vinegar. The Talmud Nazir 38 rules that if a Nazir ate fresh grapes together with dry grapes and kernels and skins and he squeezed out a cluster of grapes, he has violated 5 commandments and is liable for them separately. (to receive 5 times 39 lashes).
      A kabbalistic approach: in connection with the words איש כי יפליא, I have already explained on Leviticus 21,10 what the High Priest represented. Here the Torah teaches that the Nazir is on a spiritually even higher level than the High Priest. The High Priest’s dominating attribute (emanation) is that of חסד, whereas the predominant attribute of the Nazir is בינה, which is ranked higher than חסד in the list of emanations. Seeing he is “crowned” with this attribute the Torah calls such a person נזיר, a reference to the נזר, crown, which is worn by the High Priest. This is the meaning of the words “the crown of his G’d is on his head,” (verse 7). Because of all this “a razor shall not cross his head” (verse 5), “the growth of his hair on his head shall continue growing” (verse 5), ”his head shall be sanctified” (verse 11). All of this is subsumed under the heading כי יפליא, “a display of superior wisdom.” Converting such wisdom into something concrete requires the attribute בינה and this is described in the Torah by the words לנדר נדר. The part of the brain in which vows originate is the part where the attribute בינה is located.    The Nazir is warned concerning three separate matters: 1) consumption of wine; 2) shearing the hair on his head; 3) becoming ritually impure through contact with a corpse directly or indirectly. The Torah divides these prohibitions into three separate ones by writing the words כל ימי נזרו, “all the days his vow is effective,” between each of them. The first time this expression occurs is in verse 4 in connection with the grapes. The second time it occurs in verse 5 in connection with the prohibition to shave or trim his beard. The third time it occurs in verse 6 in connection with observing mourning rites.   The reason the Nazir must not drink wine or become ritually impure is to keep his distance from forces which are beholden to the “left side” of the emanations, the part  which is perceived of as representing spiritually negative influences. On the other hand, he is warned not to shave as hair represents strength as we know from Samson. The moment Samson agreed to have his hair cut his “spiritual” strength disappeared and he was no better than any other ordinary mortal. He regained his prowess only after his hair had grown back (Judges 16,17 as well as Judges 16,22). As I have mentioned previously, hair grows incessantly and continues to grow even after death if the corpse is in a moist environment. Each single hair is a symbol of the far-flung activities of the Lord, activities which deal with minute details, just as every single hair seems by itself insignificant. Hairs represent continuous develop- ment in all directions of the globe. As a reminder of this concept of G’d the “All-Present,” the Nazir is commanded to give the hair full and unrestrained opportunity to keep growing This is the mystical dimension of the words גדל פרע שער ראשו. The Nazir is cautioned not to destroy any part of his hair by means of a razor seeing that ”it is the crown of G’d on his head” (verse 7). Were he to cut this hair this would be equivalent to heresy practiced by an ordinary Israelite, something which the sages called קצץ הנטיעות “destroying saplings planted by G’d through cutting them (spiritually).” It is similar to separating the holy name of the Lord from His “branches.” 
  When Samson allowed his hair to be cut his physical strength departed from him immediately and the prophet Samuel (himself a Nazir and author of the Book of Judges) describes what happened to him in these words: ותאלצהו, “she nagged him constantly.” The word has a connotation of the attribute of Justice, i.e. the sages suggest that when reading these words we should reverse the letters ל-צ to read the word as ותאצלהו, as if it meant that Delilah had succeeded in denying Samson the spiritual input which had been the source of his physical prowess.    Once the time arrives for the Nazir to cut his hair at the end of the term of his abstinence, the Torah commanded that he should place his shorn hair “on the fire which is below his peace-offering” (verse 18), seeing that this hair had become sanctified and is a symbol of something holy. Regarding the rule of not being allowed to become ritually defiled, the Torah applied a more stringent ruling to the Nazir than to the High Priest. Though the High Priest must also not participate actively in the funeral of his father or mother, the Torah does not say anything about his hair being burned after it is trimmed, (which occurs frequently). This makes it plain to the people that the Nazir is a model of sanctity.   Our sages (in Sotah 10) say that there are 5 types of people who, though they were created in the Divine image, were nevertheless punished. They were: Avshalom who was punished by being hung and subseqently speared by his hair. King Shaul who was killed by his neck (through the sword). Shimshon was punished by losing his physical prowess. King Assa of Yehudah was punished by being paralyzed in his legs. King Tzidkiyahu was punished by having his eyes gouged out by the Babylonians. Concerning the procedure prescribed for the Nazir, Solomon (Song of Songs 5,11) said קוצותיו תלתלים “his locks are curled.” Also Daniel 7,9 speaks about this hair when he said: “the hair of his head is like clean wool.”
      The meaning of the word שכר in our verse refers to any agent capable of causing man to become intoxicated. The word חרצנים is unique in the Bible just as is the word זגין. The former refers to the seeds inside the grapes, the latter to the skin on the outside. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra thinks that it is the other way around.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   בפתע פתאם, “suddenly, unexpectedly;” the word means the same as אדמת עפר in Daniel 12,2. where he describes sudden resurrection of the dead. The Nazir, as opposed to most other instances when a sin-offering has to be brought, brings such an offering regardless of whether he defiled himself knowingly or unwittingly. This is what our sages said in Keritut 9: four people have to bring an offering both if they committed an intentional wrong and if they committed the same wrong unintentionally. They are: 1) the Nazir, 2) the person who swore an untrue oath concerning what happened to an item entrusted to his care. 3) Swearing a false oath through testifying to an event which did not take place as described. 4) A person who engaged in sex with a partially freed slave-woman. He receives 39 lashes and brings an offering.    Concerning the impurity contracted by that Nazir the Torah wrote both the word פתע and the word פתאם. The reason is that the word פתע speaks of an inadvertently contracted impurity. The word פתאם speaks of an intentional defilement by the Nazir, something our sages derive from Proverbs 22,3 where Solomon writes ופתיים עברו ונענשו, “the fools kept going and were punished.” This indicates that both the willful and the merely foolish have to endure the punishment. As far as the other candidates for such offerings are concerned, the Torah added the words ונעלם ממנו, “it (the commission of a sin) was concealed from him,” in each example. The only exception to this rule is Leviticus 5,24. This proves that in the situation described in that passage it makes no difference if the error was committed knowingly or not. In both situations the guilty party has to restore the object, add 25% as punitive damages, and offer a guilt offering to expiate for what he had done. The laws pertaining to the other three examples we mentioned are all based on the law applying to the person who swore an oath denying he had trespassed against an article entrusted to him. The method used to do this is called gezeirah shavah, similar sounding words being used by the Torah in subjects which are not conceptually related to one another. It is presumed that the relevant expression was not needed to give us the plain meaning of the verse in question. The word in question is תחטא. In connection with the man who had sexual intercourse with the semi-free slave, the Torah adds the words ונסלח לו, “he will be pardoned,” again making the deed subject to an offering regardless of the awareness of the sinner at the time. Seeing that it is the function of the guilt-offering to obtain forgiveness for the sinner, it seems reasonable to see in the unnecessary mention of this result a reference to the fact that even a deliberate perjury can be wiped out through this offering.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ביום מלאת  ימי נזרו, “on the day the days of his vow of abstinence are complete.” The Torah did not reveal a reason why the Nazir has to bring this offering on the day he completes his vow of abstinence. There is no other instance when the Torah legislated a sin-offering to be brought by a person unless he had first committed an error. In this instance the Torah speaks about  these offerings in anticipation of the day when the vow is complete. Why would a person who had undertaken to abstain from the pleasures of this world be required to bring an offering in order to expiate? Behold this matter is wondrous and novel. Likewise our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Nazir, "It is a novelty that the Torah created about the nazirite."
      Nachmanides offers an interpretation in line with the plain meaning of the text. He views the very conclusion of the period of abstinence as a decline in the spiritual standard which the Nazir had imposed upon himself at the time he undertook the vow. It would have been appropriate for the Nazir to maintain the spiritual “high” he had achieved indefinitely, for the rest of his life. Seeing that the Nazir limited the time period during which he would try to be so “frum,” he has to bring this offering. He needs atonement. Even when we accept the reasoning of Nachmanides the uniqueness of this legislation remains unaffected by it. Unless we resort to a kabbalistic interpretation we will not truly understand this legislation.
      I have already pointed out that the very concept of the Nazir’s abstention reflects that he sought to attach himself to the celestial counterpart of the attribute רחמים. Now the same person desires to descend from this level of sanctity. The Torah, while demanding these sacrifices from the Nazir, does not mention that he is in need of forgiveness. There is no mention of the word atonement either. The idea of the sacrifice is to marshal celestial forces and to do this in preparation of returning to “normal” life and the permissible indulgences which are part of such a life. The very fact that the three offerings brought by the Nazir consist of burnt-offering, peace-offering, and sin-offering shows that we are not dealing with a sin. If there were a need to confirm this the fact that the Torah calls that person a Nazir even after he has completed the procedure and drunk wine again (verses 21-22) shows that the Torah does not view him as having been guilty of a spiritual come-down.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   כה תברכו את בני ישראל, “thus you shall bless the Children of Israel.”  According to the plain meaning of the text the words mean: “in this style you are to pronounce blessing.” We have the same expression כה being used in Numbers 8,7 where the Torah describes the procedure of purifying the Levites.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Nasso 9: The words כה תברכו mean that G’d gave those words to the priests as a gift so that they would have the power to bless the Israelites. Seeing that in addition to this gift G’d would assign to the priests another 24 gifts from the Israelites themselves, with this gift they would dispose of 25 gifts corresponding to the numerical value in the letters of the word כה. In Sotah 38 we are taught additionally that the word כה contains a number of restrictions within it. 1) The language in which the priests are to bestow the blessing must be Hebrew. 2) It requires further that the blessing be administered while the priests are standing. 3) The priests are to raise their hands while performing the rite of blessing the congregation. They are to face the recipients of the blessing face to face. The blessing has to be pronounced loudly and the priests (in the Temple) were to pronounce the Ineffable Name while intoning the blessing. Some of these rules are based on Leviticus 9,22: “Aaron raised his hands and blessed the people.” The words ושמו את שמי, “they are to place My Name,” is the source of the Ineffable Name being invoked. The use of the expression את שמי in our verse and the same expression in Deut 12,5 לשום את שמו, serve as the basis for this halachah. Just as in Deut. the Ineffable Name was to be invoked in the Temple, the subject matter of the verse, so here too the priestly blessing with the Ineffable Name is used only in the Temple.
      A kabbalistic approach: The word כה in the sequence כה תברכו את בני ישראל, represents the tenth attribute (emanation), the one always employed by the prophets when they convey messages they have received from G’d to deliver to the Jewish people. [The normal wording we would have expected is כתברכו, “when you bless.”] The extra letter ה is reminiscent of the last letter ה in the tetragram, a letter we have several times described as the attribute of Justice in its tempered form. In Psalms 148 David began with the words הללויה, i.e. half the Ineffable Name, and then he continued with הללוהו במרומים, “praise Him in the celestial regions”; here he supplied the other two letters of the tetragram seeing that on earth at that time (and in our time) only half of G’d’s name is effectively king. The priests are asked to emulate Avraham in a sense. When G’d said to Avraham כה יהיה זרעך, “thus will be your descendants,” and Avraham realised that he did not have a claim to such a promise but that the comprehensive nature of this promise must be an act of חסד on the part of G’d, he responded: ויחשביה לו צדקה, “he (Avraham) considered this a charitable act by G’d.” The priests when blessing the people and directing G’d’s largesse in their direction are also to have in mind the last letter ה in the tetragram which is used to guide the fates of the Jewish people containing an element of the attribute of חסד  within it.
     אמור להם, “saying to them:” The word אמור, though an infinitive, is spelled here with the letter ו, something quite unusual. The extra letter ו which stretches the word, makes it longer, is to suggest to the priests that they must not relate to the duty to bless the people as a burden imposed upon them by G’d, something they want do be done with as soon as possible, in a hurry. On the contrary, they should bless the people with all the concentration they are capable of.    Another reason for the letter ו in the word אמור here is that the numerical value of the word including the digit 1 for the word itself is 248. The blessing is absorbed by all 248 limbs/organs of a person. If only one organ were left out this could be the heart upon which all other organs are so vitally dependent.     The mystical element in the number is that it corresponds to the Shechinah which rests on the palms of the priests hidden there as if it were the heart of the heavens reciting the blessing. Both celestial and terrestrial forces receive their blessings from the לב השמים, the heart of the heaven.   Another concept alluded to not only in the spelling of the word אמור but in the choice of that word instead of תאמרו, or something similar, is that the Torah insists by using this word in the spelling we have as an impersonal word, an infinitive. This is a hint that the spelling out audibly of G’d’s Ineffable Name may be at the discretion of the priests when too many people in the audience are scoffers, non-believers, non-observant and the like. At such times and places it is better for the priests to “swallow” these words so that they are not heard by the audience evoking the reverse of the “peace” which is the purpose of the blessing. In fact we read in Kidushin 31 that as of the time when the פריצים, deniers of the faith, became numerous, the priests made it a practice to swallow the name of G’d inaudibly. The priests based themselves on the dual command here. On the one hand, the Torah writes כה תברכו, “(only) thus shall you bless,” and on the other hand, the Torah deliberately leaves aspects of the blessing indeterminate by adding the words אמור להם, “saying to them.” The meaning is that the people deserving of the blessing would find it effective, the others would not. Had the Torah written the word in an imperative such as תאמרו, the inescapable conclusion would have been that even non-deserving people would be bound to become beneficiaries of that blessing. [When Yitzchak took a great chance of mortally offending his father in order to prevent the indiscriminate power to bless or to curse to be given to Esau these were precisely the thoughts that motivated him. Ed.]   I have already mentioned in my commentary on Exodus 17,12 that when the priest extends his ten fingers heavenward he signals to G’d that he desires to sanctify himself with all the sanctities embodied in the ten emanations, asking for the abundance of G’d’s goodness to be channeled toward his creatures on earth by means of the conduits G’d has available for that purpose, including all the disembodied spirits. The word את in the sequence כה תברכו את בני ישראל includes the angels in this directive. The words אמור להם is sort of a repetition to make certain all these disembodied angels both above and below certain layers of the heavens are included.    Another lesson to be derived from the extra letter ו in the word אמור is that the chazzan is to call upon the priests to intone the blessing by pronouncing the word כהנים and to pronounce each word separately before the priests repeat it in chorus. The fact that the word אמור is singular followed by the plural להם suggests that a single individual is to call upon the priests (pl.) to proceed in such a fashion. This is also why when there is only one priest in the congregation the call כהנים is omitted and is not substituted for by the word כהן in the singular.    The very fact that halachah deems it necessary to “brief” the priests word for word reflects that this is the practice in the celestial regions where the angels who act as priests in the celestial Sanctuary are following the same routine. This is the mystical dimension of Sotah 38 that כל כהן המברך מתברך, that every priest performing the commandments of blessing the people is himself the subject of a blessing. The Talmud means that the priest ministering on earth will in turn become the recipient of blessings from the source, the essence of Mercy in the heavenly regions; this is the meaning of what G’d promised Avraham in Genesis 12,3: “I will bless those who bless you.” In other words, the priests down here are patterning themselves after known role models in the celestial regions. Here on earth the sequence is as follows: The blessing is channeled to the congregation through the chazzan wearing a white talit through the priests pronouncing the blessing facing the congregation.   Still another meaning embodied in the words אמור להם, is that the priests are to bless the people when the people tell them to, i.e. להם. This is why Onkelos translates the words as כד יימרון להון “when they say to them.” Once the priests have been asked by the congregation to intone the blessing and they fail to do so they violate a positive Biblical commandment (Sotah 38). As long as they have not been asked to intone the blessing they are not guilty of such a violation. Concerning this subject  we find in the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 8,5 that when Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi felt weak he hid behind a pillar so that he would not be perceived as not complying with the congregation’s invitation to intone the blessing on the plaform. Rabbi Eleazar, on the other hand, preferred to leave the Synagogue altogether if he felt he could not perform the ceremony. Both Rabbis were too frail to raise their arms in the prescribed manner. [Apparently at that time individual invitations were issued to the priests to ready themselves to perform the blessing. Ed.]
      According to Rabbi Yitzchak the elder, a Tossaphist, any priest who is not married is not to ascend the platform and raise his hands in pronouncing this blessing. I believe there is a sound basis for his opinion. The reason is that man is not complete without a wife, he lives a joyless existence and the blessing to be effective must emanate from someone filled with joy. As an incomplete human being [by choice? Ed.] he is neither the recipient of blessings nor a suitable dispenser of such. This [voluntary state of being single, Ed.] was enough reason for the sons of Aaron Nadav and Avihu to be deserving of the penalty they incurred. By not marrying they caused thousands of girls to remain unmarried, each one hoping they would be chosen as a wife for them and meanwhile refusing other offers of marriage. By the time Nadav and Avihu died these girls were too old to attract suitors so that they remained spinsters for the remainder of their lives. I have already mentioned in my commentary on Leviticus 15,33 that this is one of the six opinions offered by the sages who elaborated on the nature of these two priests’s sins. This is also what lies  behind the words of Psalms 78,63: “fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The reason that the young men were burned by fire was that on their account so many girls remained unwed. According to that particular view Nadav and Avihu were killed by heavenly fire as they were not worthy to pronounce the blessing over the Jewish people having themselves remained remiss in the performance of such a basic commandment. When a priest conveys the kind of blessings which include the principle of enjoying married life with a spouse, how could he be suitable to do this unless he himself had set a suitable example?
  
  Verse 24
  
   יברכך ה' וישמרך, “may the Lord bless you and preserve you.” According to the plain meaning of the text the blessing, i.e. basically any blessing, is that the recipient enjoy the blessing he enjoys already and that these blessings be increased both qualitatively and quantitatively and that they be enduring. The ability to enjoy the continuity of such a blessing can be conferred only by G’d, not by an earthly ruler. The latter may dispense largess but cannot ensure that the recipient keeps getting the benefit. Our sages (Tanchuma Nasso 10) illustrated this point by means of a parable when they said: when a mortal king resident in Rome has a friend who resides in Syria, he inquired after the friend’s  whereabouts, visited him and left a gift of 100 bars of gold. The friend loaded a couple of donkeys with the gold intending to move to Rome with his new-found wealth. On the way he was attacked and had everything he owned stolen from him. It was clearly beyond the king’s power to protect all his friends against robbers world-wide. 
      A Midrashic approach: The word יברכך implies being blessed with material wealth; the word וישמרך implies that the recipient is preserved so that he can perform G’d’s commandments as a result of the material wealth G’d has blessed him with. The words יאר ה' פניו אליך , mean that G’d may grant you the kind of children who are full of Torah knowledge. The Midrash bases this insight on Proverbs 6,25 כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, “for like a single candle  lighting a narrow area is the performance of a single commandment, whereas the performance of the Torah in all its aspects provides great light.” Furthermore, the same words include the blessing that “from you will stem priests who in turn will illuminate the Altar in the Temple,” as it is written in Maleachi 1,10 ולא תאירו מזבחי חנם, “you will not light up My Altar without recompense.” We have another verse supporting this point in Leviticus 6,5 where the Torah writes: “and the fire on the Altar will never be extinguished.”    Concerning the precise meaning here of the word ויחונך, Rabbi Chiyah the great taught that it means that the Lord will make His camp near you (from the root חנה). Another approach holds that the word promises that G’d will make prophets descend from your loins; that school of thought bases itself on the verse in Zecharyah 12,10 ושפכתי על בית דוד ועל יושבי ירושלים רוח חן ותחנונים, “I will pour out over the house of David and over the people of Jerusalem a spirit of pity and compassion.” These are the ingredients which we think of when we think of prophets. Still another approach sees in the word ויחונך a reference to grace in the sense of being held in esteem, being appreciated. The word appears in that meaning in Esther 2,17 where we are told that all who saw Esther, including the king, immediately formed this positive opinion of her.   On the final verse, ישא ה' פניו אליך וישם לך שלום, “may the Lord raise His countenance toward you and grant you peace,” we must compare the meaning of this expression to Deut. 10,17 אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שוחד, “Who does not play favourites nor accept bribes.” How can we reconcile these two apparently contradictory concepts of asking the very same G’d whom we applaud for not playing favorites in Deut. 10,17 to play favourites with the entire Jewish people in the priestly blessing formulated by the same G’d? [The word ישא has to be translated then as “will forgive.” Ed.] If the victim of an unfavorable decree has repented before the decree has been sealed his repentance is effective. If not, such as in Deut. 17,10 it is not.     A second approach to the first verse. The word יברכך implies being blessed with sons, the word וישמרך implies being blessed with daughters who require additional protection and safeguarding on the part of their parents. This is reflected in the promise in Psalms 121,5 ה' שומרך, ה' צלך על יד ימינך, ”the Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protection, at your right hand.”    The verse יאר ה' פניך אליך describes the element life which is associated with light, such as in באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life” (Proverbs 16,15). The word appears in a similar connotation in Psalms 67,2 אל-הים יחננו ויברכנו יאר פניו אתנו סלה, ”May G’d be gracious to us and bless us; may He illuminate us with His face, Selah.”    Concerning the last verse of the blessing(s)ישא ה' פניו אליך , this means that “in every direction you turn may G’d arrange for you to find peace and harmony and be protected from all unpleasant happenings.” This is a form of G’d’s personal benevolent supervision of our fates generally referred to as השגחה פרטית. We find the reverse of this threatened by G’d as part of threats of the prophet Isaiah when he quoted G’d as saying: “I am going to turn My watchful eye away from you (G’d refusing to hear our prayers)” (Isaiah 1,15).   In Berachot 20, the sages derive from the wording ישא ה' פניו אליך that although when you look at this verse superficially you get the impression that it contradicts the verse where G’d says that He does not play favorites, using the word לא אשא פנים this way is misleading. All that is meant is that G’d will lift our countenances, i.e. respond to our first having raised our face to Him in prayer and supplication. This is not what is called “playing favorites,” i.e. using double standards. This idea is even reflected in the text of the Torah. We read in Deut. 8,10: “you will eat and be satisfied and you will bless the Lord your G’d.” Assume that father, mother, and children assemble around the family table to consume their daily meal and they find that there is not enough to sate even one of them, never mind all of them. They will turn their faces to G’d, and each one will hold back and help himself to a minimum making sure there will be enough to go around. When G’d observes such conduct, He will most certainly be affected by it and make sure that in the future this family will not be lacking for anything. This is also the deeper meaning behind the famous line in Song of Songs 3,7 that Solomon’s bed was watched over by 60 guards. Did then Solomon need these guards? Was he in danger of attacks by assassins, by terrorists? What is meant by these words is that the priestly blessing which comprises 60 letters was engraved on the edge of Solomon’s bed.    Another explanation of this line in Song of Songs: the bed mentioned in Song of Songs is not that of King Solomon at all. It is the “bed” of He who owns peace, i.e. G’d. The “bed” is the Holy Temple; The reason the Temple is compared to a bed is that just as the function of the bed is for those on it to practice the commandment of increasing the human population of the world, so it was a propensity of all the furnishings in the Temple to increase and multiply. We have a glimmer of this in Kings I 8,8: “the staves (attached to the Holy Ark) were growing longer so that they would wind up being visible in the Sanctuary in front of the Shrine. A verse indicating something similar is found in Chronicles II 3,6 where Ezra describes the gold of the Temple as זהב פרוים, understood to mean “gold which had the capacity to multiply, which produced fruit.” A third scriptural verse which at least alludes to this phenomenon as far as the materials used for the Temple is concerned is found in Kings I 7,2 where the entire Temple is described as בית יער הלבנון, "The Lebanon Forest House,” suggesting that just as a forest and its trees keep growing, so the Temple would keep expanding. The next words in that verse in Song of Songs, i.e. כלם אחוזי חרב, “all of them trained in warfare, i.e. “swordsmen,” refer to names of the Lord. The words following i.e. איש חרבו על ירכו, “each one with his sword on his loins”, beg the question what the ירך, the seat of a man's semen has to do in this verse. The answer is that these words describe that even if Solomon (symbol of the Jewish people) had frightening dreams at night, dreams during which he (they) felt in immediate danger, thanks to the encouragement derived by the proximity of all these names of G’d the people would rouse themselves in the morning, go to the Synagogue, and shake off any fear experienced during the night in a nightmare. They would find the effects of the dream dissolve without any further ado. In order to provide the Jewish people in the desert with this remedy, G’d instructed Aaron and his sons to bless the people in the way the Torah specified.   G’d said: “in the past when I needed to extend a blessing to My creatures I would bless Adam and Chavah, as we know from Genesis 1,28 ‘G’d blessed them saying be fruitful and multiply etc.’” G’d blessed Noach when the latter was in need of such as blessing as we know from Genesis 9,1: “G’d blessed Noach and his sons.” He blessed Avraham as we know from Genesis 25,1: “G’d had blessed Avraham with everything.”     From Avraham’s time on, G’d changed His mode of administering blessings directly and assigned the task to Avraham saying to him: “become a source of blessing” (Genesis 12,2). Avraham responded by siring two sons, Ishmael and Yitzchak. Avraham failed to bless either of them. In order to understand Avraham’s failure to bless either one of his sons, let us illustrate this by means of a parable. A king who owned an orchard entrusted it to a profit-sharing farmer to look after it. The orchard in question contained within it right in the center two trees, one of which contained the elixir of life whereas the second one contained a poison which would kill. The farmer was in a quandary, saying to himself that if he watered both trees he would further the growth of the deadly tree. If, on the other hand, he did not water either tree he would cause the elixir of life to die out. He decided to serve out his contract and to leave the decision of what to do to the king, the owner, after he himself had bowed out of the picture. The “king” in the parable is G’d. The “orchard” is earth. The “farmer” is Avraham, and the two trees, the elixir of life and the poisonous one, are Yitzchak and Ishmael respectively. Avraham said to himself: “if I bless Yitzchak, Ishmael will demand to be blessed also. Seeing that he is wicked, I cannot do that. I prefer to pass and not exercise my discretion. After all, I am only flesh and blood, not all-knowing like the Lord.” What happened? After Avraham had died we find that the Torah records that G’d bestowed the blessing He had first given to Avraham on his son Yitzchak after his father had died (Genesis 25,11). Yitzchak in turn blessed Yaakov. Yaakov blessed all his twelve sons as we read in Genesis 49,28 “all these (aforementioned ones) are the twelve tribes of Israel and this is what he had said to them when he blessed them.” From that point on, G’d said to Moses: “the blessings are at your (Israel collectively) disposal. The priests shall be the ones to administer them (Based on Tanchuma Nasso 9).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל, “let them place My Name upon the Children of Israel.” G’d meant that as soon as the priests would mention G’d’s name as part of the blessing, He would bless them all, Priests, Levites, and Israelites, seeing that G’d’s name appeared in each of the three verses constituting the formula of the blessing.   A Midrashic approach, elaborating on the procedure. The first verse contains three words; the second verse contains five words The third verse contains seven words. The symbolism alluded to is that the first verse represents the three patriarchs, i.e. G’d will remember their merits and the covenants made with them and bless their offspring; the second verse is an allusion to the five Books of the Torah; seeing that the Torah itself had been given to the people in recognition of the merits of the patriarchs. The seven words in the last verse are an allusion to the seven heavens, i.e. the priests ask the heavens to transmit these blessings.    I have found in the Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1,2 that when the court meets to deliberate if to add an extra month to the current year, the deliberations commence with three judges, are expanded in the presence of five judges, and are concluded in the presence of seven judges. The reason given for this is the composition of the three verses of the priestly blessing and their increasing number of words per verse, i.e. 3-5-7. These numbers "3-5-7” are featured in the Book of Kings as respective people occupying positions of influence at the palace of Tzidkiyahu. The former are known as שומרי הסף, then there were חמשה מרואי פני המלך, “five officials who have access to the king on a regular basis.” Finally, there were the שבעה רואי פני המלך, a group of seven people who were free to see the king at any time. (Jeremiah 52,25). [These various people were taken hostage by the Babylonians as a symbol representing men of authority in the Jewish state.] Nevuchadnezzar executed them. It seems reasonable therefore that when deliberating on the authority to add a month to the calendar year these numbers should be symbolized in the successively larger number of judges required for these deliberations. Ed.]
      A kabbalistic approach: the order of these blessings, in ascending order, parallels the thoughts entertained by the priests during the offering of the communal sacrifices which also were marked by their ascending order. The priests commenced the blessings daily at the conclusion of the sacrificial service. This is the meaning of Leviticus 9,22: “he (Aaron)  blessed them; then he descended from having performed the rites of the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, and the peace-offering. The proper way to understand the sequence of what the Torah writes here is: “he blessed them after he had descended (from the Altar);” at the time he had been offering the three types of inaugural sacrifices mentioned he had concentrated with his mind first on the last letter ה in the Ineffable Name. I have explained already at that point that the allusion to this is found in the ה appended to the word המזבח, the Torah writing instead המזבחה. (Leviticus, 1,9). From concentrating on that last letter ה in the tetragrammaton, Aaron had proceeded to concentrate on the letter ו in that name. From that level he concentrated in totally pure thought on the letter י in the Holy Name. The principal purpose of the Priest’s concentration while performing the part of the service allocated to him is to “draw” or attract G’d’s רצון, “goodwill,” from His Holy Attributes as expressed by His names from the celestial regions to the terrestrial regions.   This is the mystical dimension of the three verses in the Torah here comprising the formula of the blessing. To summarize: the term שמור in the blessing refers to the deflection of negative influences from Israel; the term יאר ה' is already more positive, representing the קו האמצעי of the attributes pointing to פנים, symbolizing Mercy. Finally, the last blessing which begins with the word ישא, is a reference to the higher emanation בינה, and proceeds once more with פניו, this time referring to combating the fear of a confrontation with the attribute of Justice, culminating with the promise of  שלום, the all-embracing harmony, based on pure חסד, undiluted loving kindness, resulting in a feeling of peace and harmony which knows no fear. In this way the three verses build on each other and each holds out greater promise of bliss than the one before it. According to the tradition I have the three blessings combine within them all ten emanations.
      However, according to Nachmanides these blessings proceed in the opposite direction, in a descending order... [I have decided to omit this as the interested reader can study this in Nachmanides’ commentary. Ed.]   ... I have mentioned already in connection with my commentary on the wording אמור להם, that this wording gives the priests leeway to pronounce the tetragrammaton audibly when the setting is appropriate, or to “swallow” these words sotto voce when the priests do not consider the audience as one deserving to hear that name of Hashem. The combined three tetragrammatons mentioned in the three verses of this blessing are what is known as the שם המפורש של י'ב, "the spelled out name of 12 (3 times the four letters of the tetragrammaton).” In the Sefer Habahir (111) the author discusses the way the name is to be pronounced, slightly differently vocalised in each verse. [Seeing the commentators on the Sefer Habahir do not agree on the precise way this is to be done, and nowadays we do not have the option to pronounce the tetragrammaton in any form whatsoever, I do not find it useful to pursue this at this point Ed.] 
  The author adds that he received another form of vocalization from German Kabbalists based on the verse in Joshua 2,15 ההרה הרודף ירדוף which parallels the vowel pattern to be used when the priests utter the tetragrammaton in each of these verses. [I believe that the reason the author finds the subject so fascinating is presumably that he was aware of a tradition that he who does indeed pronounce the שם המפורש של י"ב  not only correctly but with totally pure thoughts, cannot have any of his prayers denied. Basically, what the author teaches us is that contrary to what we might have thought the forbidden pronunciation of the tetragrammaton does not only refer to a single vowel pattern but to several. This is a warning not to become guilty of experimenting with  anything close to the forbidden vowel pattern. Ed.] 
  Our author uses the vocalization of the letter י in the words before the tetragrammaton in each verse as clues to the appropriate pronunciation of the respective tetragrammaton. Thus, for instance, the vowel (semi-vowel) under the י in יברכך is different from the vowel kametz under the letter י in the word יאר before the second time the Torah writes the tetragrammaton. This is different again from the vowel chirik under the letter י in the word ישא before the final time the tetragram appears in the blessings. Here the author quotes at length from Sefer Habahir items 107-109 demonstrating how the 72-lettered name of Hashem is arrived at by means of what kinds of permutations. In the process he demonstrates that the attribute גבורה presides and its influence predominates over the צורות, “images” which Kabbalists perceive as surrounding the celestial throne from the left to the right; in other words commencing with the domain perceived as Gavriel’s to the domain perceived as Michael’s with the קו האמצעי in the middle, representing what we call אמת. 
  The author also points out that the three verses contain respectively 15, 20, and 25 letters each and that the 60 letters  arrived at in such an ascending number, each verse having five letters more than the preceding one alludes to G’d’s presence having extended over past, present, and future, but that His presence is also felt in an ever increasing measure starting with the past progressing into the future. 
  Going back to the verse in Song of Songs 3,7 about the 60 armed guards surrounding Solomon’s bed, the author tries to explain why the author of that Book commenced with G’d in the present rather than in the past, progressing to the future via the present. He explains that Solomon wanted to make the point that none of G’d’s “years” belong exclusively to the past. One cannot speak of, nor must one think of G’d as “in the past,” something  which has ceased to exist at least partially. Such thoughts are reflected in Psalms 102,28 ואתה הוא ושנותיך לא יתמו, “but You are forever the same, and Your years will never end.” This is why we include this concept in our daily prayers when we say  ה' מלך, ה' מלך, ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד, “the Lord is king, the Lord was king, and the Lord will remain king forever more.” [Note that the author of the liturgical poem also begins with the present when referring to G’d, not with the past. Ed.] You are also perfectly familiar with the fact that this is not the only verse in Psalms in which this chronologically peculiar sequence is applied to G’d. There are numerous such verses.    You may be tempted to retort that in Psalm 10,7 the psalmist refers to G’d as in the future asking G’d למה ה' תעמוד בחוץ, “why O Lord will You stand aloof, etc.,” whereas in verse 16 in that same psalm  the author declares that ה' מלך that G’d is king, i.e. “He is never aloof.” Remember that you will not find that David had referred to the kingdom of heaven at all in the preceding nine Psalms. Whatever is  said in this psalm then cannot be viewed as a reversal of a previous policy of the author. In fact, you will find something confirming what we said in psalm 20, which is the tenth after psalm 10 where G’d is first mentioned as king at all, that David appeals here for the first time to the Lord, the King, to grant victory, ה' הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו, “O Lord, grant victory! May the king answer us when we call.” The timing of this plea is significant as this “tenth” hymn is dedicated to the “tenth emanation" כתר, “crown,” the one symbolizing G’d as King. If we find on occasion that David relates to G’d’s kingship in the order “past-present-future,” he took his cue from Moses himself who made this sequence part of the song he composed after crossing the sea of reeds when he recorded ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד, “the Lord will rule forever more.” (Exodus 15,18).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, “It was on the day Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle, etc.” This chapter was written after the priests had bestowed their blessing on the people, i.e. in chronological order. On the day Aaron raised his hands over the people in blessing them the inauguration of the Altar commenced. This verse is proof of the opinion expressed in Sifri Nasso 43 that during the seven preceding days Moses erected and dismantled the Tabernacle each day.
     וימשחם, “he anointed them,” i.e. with oil. 
  ויקדש אותם, “he sanctified them.” This was by means of sprinkling blood on the Tabernacle’s furnishings including the Altar (compare Ibn Ezra).
      A Midrashic approach: the words: “It was on the day Moses completed the erecting of the Tabernacle” are reminiscent of Proverbs 27,18: “He who tends the fig tree will eat its fruit; he who waits on his master will be honoured.” G’d does not withhold the appropriate reward for any creature. If man has toiled and devoted his best efforts to something worthy he will be rewarded. The Midrash illustrates this with the example of David, his son Solomon, and the Temple. It is well known that the scheme to build the Temple originated with David. Not only did he amass most of the funds and materials for the project but he had drawn up detailed blue prints. This is why we find that psalm 30,1 credits the Temple to David rather than to his son Solomon who had spent seven years building it. At the inauguration the hymn commences with the words מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד, “a psalm for David. A song for the dedication of the House.” You will observe a similar phenomenon with the Tabernacle. Seeing that Moses had devoted so much effort to see the Tabernacle built, had assembled it, erected it, etc., we find here that though Betzalel was the chief architect and executive carrying out the construction, that the Torah speaks about the day “Moses completed the Tabernacle.” This is the way the Torah expresses its recognition of the contribution by people whose efforts is likened to those who plant a fig tree.    Another Midrashic insight: the words: “it was on the day Moses completed the Tabernacle,” are reminiscent of another part of Psalms 51,2--21 “May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings; the bulls will be offered on Your altar.” Seeing that in this world, at the inauguration of the Tabernacle the sacrifices were quantitatively minuscule, as described in verse 12, G’d could have reacted to such measly offerings with some degree of indignation. The Jewish people, forestalling such a complaint explained that seeing they were not in Jerusalem, did not yet have a home of their own, were traveling through the desert, they only presented a token of their esteem for their king G’d. They hinted in this psalm that as soon as their king would lead them to their permanent home they would reciprocate by presenting the King with sacrifices more in keeping with his stature. In fact when you will study the report of the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple and compare it with the inauguration of the Tabernacle you will be amazed at the quantitative difference. The courtyard of the Temple had to be enlarged (the sanctified area) in order to accommodate all the animals being slaughtered on that occasion. Kings I 8,63 tells of 22,000 oxen, 120,0000 sheep. being sacrificed at that time. Even during the days of Ezra, at the inauguration of the second Temple, when the economic and numerical condition of the Jewish people was a far cry from the glorious days of Solomon, we read that  100 bulls, 200 rams, 400 lambs, and 12 goats were offered on that occasion (Ezra 6,17). Another interpretation: The choice of the word כלות in the verse ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן causes Rabbi Yochanan to understand the meaning of the word in the same sense as in Genesis 18,21 where it referred to total extinction of the people of Sodom. As long as the Tabernacle had not been erected the various destructive forces commonly known as demons had free reign on earth. When Moses had ascended Mount Sinai he recited Psalms 91,1 יושב בסתר עליון בצל שדי יתלונן, extolling “the Jewish people who had been allowed to reside in the shelter of the Most High and abide in the protection of Shaddai.” Tanchuma  Nasso 23 understands these words slightly differently i.e. the word צל, shadow, has a numerical value of 120. This is the combined number of days (3 times 40) which Moses spent in that “hideout” near G’d on the mountain. In verse two of that hymn Moses says to G’d: “my refuge and stronghold, my G’d in whom I trust.” G’d responded: “seeing you placed your trust in Me, I will indeed stand by you.” This is why the following verses dealing with miraculous rescues refer particularly to David whom G’d rescued from certain death at the hands of King Shaul (compare Samuel I 23,26). On the words ותחת כנפיו תחסה צנה וסוחרה אמתו, “and under His wings you will find refuge; His fidelity is an encircling shield (verse 4),” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish comments in that same Midrash that G’d promises to act in the fashion described for all who are true students of Torah. The next verse in the psalm, speaking of there being no need to fear the terror by night or the arrow that flies by day, is a reference to destructive forces on earth known by Moses in the psalm, i.e. the ones who fly around  by day. The term קטב מרירי mentioned in verse six is a destructive agent whose sighting the victim is not likely to survive at all. It kills man and beast alike without direct contact. To help identify this creature, our author describes its head as similar to the head of a calf, it sprouts one horn on the middle of its forehead; the time of year when it is rampant is between the 17th of Tammuz and the ninth of Av, i.e. the period when the city of Jerusalem and at the end the Temple were captured and destroyed.    When the psalmist (Moses) continues in verse 10 with: “no harm will befall you, no disease will touch your tent,” this is a reference to the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle. As long as the Tabernacle had not become functional these various destructive forces were commonplace; from the day described in our verse they ceased to exist. 
  According to this Midrash it appears that what Moses said about  על שחל ופתן תדרוך, תרמוס כפיר ותנין, “you will tread on cubs and vipers; you will trample lions and asps,” (verse 13) refers to 4 distinct groups of demons which are the outgrowths of four specific human beings.  I have already referred to this in my commentary on Genesis 4,22 that the sister of Tubal-Kayin was Naamah. This hymn would be recited throughout the ages in Jerusalem. It is mentioned in Tractate Shevuot folios 14 and 15 where we are told that it was not permitted to expand the boundaries (walls) or the holy precincts except with the consent of the king, prophet of the generation, and the High Priest. In addition the Sanhedrin of 71 members had to give its consent and the Urim Vetumim had to be consulted by the High Priest. Two thanksgiving offerings had to be offered to make the changes effective and the Levites had to play their instruments when these offerings were presented and to recite a hymn [psalm 30 and the hymn in which David gives thanks for having escaped the pursuit of his sons Avshalom. Apparently these hymns were obligatory. Ed.]    This is also the meaning of Exodus 25,8: “they shall make for Me a Sanctuary. When the Torah adds the apparently redundant words וכן תעשו, “and so you shall do,” at the end of this verse, the meaning is that whereas at the time the instructions were issued they applied to the construction of the Tabernacle, i.e. ועשו לי, the words וכן תעשו mean that the same rules are to be in effect when it would be time to construct the permanent Temple.     The song mentioned in the Mishnah in Shevuot is the one dealing with the damage inflicted by demons (Psalms 91). They would recite this in Jerusalem to ward off these negative and destructive forces just as Moses had recited it at the time he had supervised construction of the Tabernacle.  Tanchuma Nasso 25 has Rabbi Shimon query why we need to resort to the Book of Psalms to learn all this when we could learn it simply from our verses (the priestly blessings) where surely the words of that blessing address such dangers when the priests ask G’d to “bless and protect the recipients.” Surely, he reasons the word וישמרך means: “to protect you against all dangers!” Clearly, this blessing had to be effective on the day the Tabernacle was being erected! Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Simon commented that on the day the Tabernacle was erected Moses entered and heard a beautiful voice. He decided to go closer to hear what G’d had to say. G’d then said to him: “Moses, welcome; I will speak to them and tell them that I harbor no resentment against them at all and that I am at peace with them, etc.” G’d quoted Psalms 85,11 to this effect. Up until the day of the Tabernacle being erected there had still been a tug of war between G’d and the people dating back to the golden calf episode. Concerning this interpretation, also Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said there was no need to search the Book of Psalms for such insights as the priestly blessing in our passage already concluded with the promise of peace for the Jewish people, and that blessing had been bestowed on the people on that day.
     להקים את המשכן, “to erect the Tabernacle.” Although the erection of the Tabernacle is credited by the Torah to Moses, the fact is that it erected itself, as we know from Exodus 40,17 הוקם המשכן, “the Tabernacle had been erected.” The Torah had not attributed this to any human being or combination of human beings.  A Midrashic comment based on Tanchuma Nasso 14: the words “to erect the Tabernacle,” are reminiscent of Numbers 24,5 "how goodly are you tents o Yaakov, your sanctuaries, o Israel.” If Bileam mentioned אהליך “your tents,” why did he also have to mention משכנותיך, “your sanctuaries?” The answer given is that the "tents” Bileam referred to were the various locations commencing in the desert where the temporary structure, the Tabernacle would be located. The word משכנותיך, is to be read slightly differently, i.e. משכונותיך, from the word משכון, “pledge, collateral.” The presence of the Tabernacle (containing the Shechinah) in the midst of the Jewish people was to be their pledge that they would be loyal to G’d. Remember that history bears out that this is exactly what happened. When the Jewish people sinned  we experienced retribution as described already in Psalms 78,21 and 60. The forsaking of the Tabernacle in Shiloh in that latter verse was a direct consequence of the people’s failure to live up to their part of the bargain.   Another meaning of the words: “to erect the Tabernacle.” According to Rabbi Simon, at the time G’d gave instructions to the Jewish people to erect the Tabernacle, He instructed the angels in the celestial spheres to do something commensurate so that a celestial Sanctuary was established at the same time as the Tabernacle on earth. The celestial Sanctuary is the Tabernacle of the נער whose name is Mattatron. In that Sanctuary the souls of the righteous are being offered in order for them to atone for their errant brethren, the sinners of the Jewish people during the period the latter are in exile. This is why the Torah wrote את המשכן the word את alluding to the other Sanctuary which had been erected simultaneously. This is also the reason for the words מכון לשבתך פעלת ה',”the foundation of Your dwelling-place Hashem” (Exodus 15,17). Thus far the Midrash.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   שש עגלות צב, “six covered wagons, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text these are a type of oxen trained to draw heavy loads, such as wagons. We find the expression in Isaiah 66,20: ובצבים ובפרדים, “in drays and mules.” Alternatively, the word is related to the word צבה in Numbers 5,21 where it refers to something swollen. Here it means the wagons were fully loaded.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bamidbar Rabbah 12,17-21: “The six covered wagons corresponded to six of the heavens. You may ask that after all, there are seven heavens! Rabbi Avin answered that the seventh heaven is reserved as a residence for the “king” (G’d Himself) and is not included in the regular count of heavens. Moses reportedly said to G’d: “supposing one of the animals will die or one of the wheels will fall off one of the wagons, is not the entire offering of the princes going to be disqualified and the entire Tabernacle discredited?” [I suppose this is based on only the combined total number of all the princes’ offerings making up the number required to complete the symbolism involved. Ed.]    In response to this G’d said to Moses: קח מאתם והיו לעבודת וגו', “take it from them so they can be used in the service of the Tabernacle” (verse 5). The word והיו in this verse which is not really necessary means that these animals and wagons will have  an enduring existence (the normal meaning of the word in connection with the story of creation, for instance). This raises the question for how long did these animals live and these wagons remain functional? Answer: until the building of Solomon’s Temple some 480 years later. These oxen were slaughtered and sacrificed on the Altar of the Temple at the inauguration. We read in Chronicles II 7,5 ויזבח המלך שלמה את זבח הבקר עשרים ושנים אלף, "King Solomon slaughtered there as sacrifices 22,000 oxen, etc.  We would have expected to read the words זבח בקר instead of the expression זבח הבקר. The latter expression suggests that we have heard about these oxen previously. When did we hear about them? In our passage here. This led Rabbi Meir to state that the animals donated by the princes at this time survived until the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple. During all these years these animals had sustained neither blemish nor developed signs of old age (which would have disqualified them as suitable for the Altar).   In fact there is logic in all this: if the oxen whose function in connection with the Tabernacle was merely peripheral, i.e. they served as beasts of burden transporting parts of the Tabernacle,  and as a result G’d endowed them with such longevity and enduring youthful vigour, how much more so must the Tabernacle exert this kind of influence on the Israelites who made the Tabernacle the centre of their existence! This is testified to by Moses in his final address to the Jewish people in Deut. 4,4 when he points out to them that the reason they were alive and well on the day he spoke to them was that ואתם הדבקים בה' “you who have been cleaving to the Lord.” Thus far the Midrash.    There is another Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah (6,10) on Song of Songs 6,4 on the words יפה את רעיתי כתרצה, “You are beautiful My love when your deeds are pleasing.” The Midrash there also implies that the reason these animals lived so long was because the owners who donated them for the purpose were possessed of purity of thought in doing so. It appears that this Midrash too is based on the wording of a verse on the same procedure but in Kings I 8,63 which prompted the Midrash Rabbah in Nasso. The Midrash in Shir Hashirim uses a different nuance of the verse in Kings I 8,63 where the same offering is described. In that verse in Kings the word בקר appears immediately next to the word לה'. The wording we would have expected there was עשרים ושנים אלף בקר. The association of the word בקר and ה' then are the background to the longevity of these animals. It may well have been a long-standing tradition the sages had on the matter.  Rabbi Meir’s additional contribution to this tradition was merely to establish a conceptual link why the Israelites themselves who were devoted to the Tabernacle should be blessed with long life. There were a total of eighteen wagons and animals drawing them, the number eighteen, i.e. חי, i.e. an allusion to the life-sustaining power of the Tabernacle and those connected with its functions.     Two of the wagons were given to the sons of Gershon in accordance with the demands of their work. The other four wagons were given to the sons of Merari in accordance with the demands of the work assigned to them. The work-load of the sons of Merari was much heavier than that of the sons of Gershon. This is why the wagons were not evenly divided between the Levites who had not been commanded to carry the furnishings of the Tabernacle on their shoulders, i.e. the Kehatites. Details of who carried what have been discussed at the beginning of the Parshah.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ויקריבו הנשיאים, “the princes brought the offerings, etc.” The נשיאים referred to here are the respective tribal leaders. When the Torah repeats the same words again in the same verse they refer to the celestial counterparts of these tribal heads. You will note that the first time the word נשיאים appears in our verse it has the letter י to show that the word is in the plural, whereas the second time this letter י denoting the plural of the subject is absent. The allegorical message is that the effect of the sacrifice is unifying making a single unit of what had been diverse. This is because the sacrifice was addressed to the One and indivisible Hashem. When we try and reinforce the image of G’d throughout His universe, He in turn demonstrates His unifying power on earth.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון  נחשון בן עמינדיו, “The prince who brought his offering on the first day was Nachshon son of Aminadav of the tribe of Yehudah.” As mentioned previously, the tribe of Yehudah usually is found in the lead, in the matter of the flags, the tribal offerings, warfare, and even distribution of the land of Israel (Joshua chapter 15). In the future, during the period of the ultimate redemption, the tribe of Yehudah will again be in the forefront (Zecharyah 12,1).    There is what appears to be a grammatical anomaly when the Torah describes the offering of Nachshon with the word וקרבנו, “and his offering,” whereas the offerings of all the other princes are introduced with the word קרבנו, “his offering.” We would have expected the reverse seeing that Nachshon’s offering did not follow the offering of anyone before him. The Torah used the extra letter ו as a veiled warning to that tribe or individual not to consider the fact that he had been the first in that procession of princes as something to boast about. On the other hand, the way the Torah describes the offering of each of the other princes could allow each one to think that his offering had been the first of the string. This idea is reinforced by the absence of the title נשיא, prince, in connection with Nachshon, whereas each of the other princes has his title mentioned alongside his name.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ביום השני הקריב נתנאל בן צוער נשיא יששכר, הקרב את קרבנו, “on the second day, Netanel son of Zuor prince of Issachar brought an offering. He brought his offering, etc.” In verse 19 the letter י is absent in the word הקרב. Why is that? Moreover, in connection with the offerings of all the other princes we find the sequence 'קרבנו קערת כסף אחת וגו', whereas in the case of Netanel the Torah wrote הקרב את קרבנו, “he brought forward his offering.” The Torah implies with these words that Netanel was instructed by G’d to offer his sacrifice after Nachshon. There had been a protest by the other princes who felt they should take precedence being that the tribe of Yissachar is the fifth in the order of the tribes. To counter such claims the Torah hints by omitting the letter י from the word הקרב that G’d specifically commanded that Yissachar be the second tribe to bring the offering. This omission implies that they were initially distanced by the other tribes before G-d intervened and 'brought them close'.  The tribe of Yissachar merited this honor due to the fact that there were many Torah scholars amongst them, as related in Divrei Hayamim I 12:33 "Of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times, to determine how Israel should act; their chiefs were 200, and all their brethren followed them" —   this implies that the entire nation "followed them" in Halachic matters.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
   ביום השביעי נשיא לבני אפרים אלישמע בן עמיהוד, “On the seventh day, the prince of the sons of Ephrayim, Elishama son of Amihud.” Some commentators believe that the seventh day mentioned here was the seventh in the sequence of these offerings, i.e. the seventh day of Nissan. Others say that it was the seventh day counting from the first day of creation, i.e. it was the Sabbath. The Torah wanted us to know that although as a general rule sacrifices by individuals do not override the Sabbath legislation, in this case it did. This was exceptional and would not occur again (compare Ibn Ezra and Bamidbar Rabbah 13,14 on the subject).
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Nasso 28 on the fact that the tribe of Joseph brought his sacrifice on the seventh day of the week, i.e. the Sabbath. G’d said to Joseph: “by your life, you have fulfilled the commandment of not committing adultery with the wife of Potiphar at a time when I had not yet legislated this commandment in the Torah. In recognition of your self-sacrifice for the concepts contained in that commandment, I will allow your son to override the concept of the Sabbath regulations not to offer private offerings on that day when he will offer the inaugural sacrifice on behalf of your tribe.” Not only this, but there will not be another tribe’s offering separating between the offering of Ephrayim and the offering of Menashe his brother tribe.    On the name of the prince of Ephrayim, <i>Elishama</i>, the Midrash sees in this a reminder of Ephrayim’s father Joseph’s great character strength in that אלי שמע, (G’d speaking) “to Me he listened whereas he did not listen to his mistress, the wife of Potiphar.” The words בן עמיהוד are perceived as a reminder of עמי היה הודו, “his glory was with Me,” (and not with the Egyptian nation). The word גמליאל (name of the prince of Menashe) is understood as alluding to גמל א-ל חסדים עמי, “the Lord performed deeds of loving kindness with me.” The word פדהצור (name of Gamliel’s father) is understood as a hint of פדה צור the “Rock” (G’d) redeemed him from his troubles in jail.” Psalms 18,21 reflects such feelings of Joseph at the time when the psalmist writes [though he refers to his own rescue from Shaul by G’d. Ed.] “the Lord rewarded me according to my merit; He requited the cleanness of my hands.”  It is normal for man to put his trust in the Lord as long as he is poor (and has nothing or no one else to put his trust in). When he becomes affluent he relies on his wealth to stand by him, no longer making the Lord the focus of his trust. Joseph, by contrast, placed his trust in the Lord both when he was in dire straits and when he had risen to the pinnacle of his career.  When he was a slave and a prisoner in the house of Potiphar and subject to the enticements and threats of Potiphar’s wife, he said to her: “how can I possibly commit such a great wrong against G’d?” (Genesis 39,9). When he had been appointed king he continued to revere the Lord as we know from his own lips in Genesis 42,18: “I fear the Lord.” When he had been a mere slave he nevertheless recited a benediction over the food he ate (Bamidbar Rabbah 14,5). When his master saw him whisper with his lips, he asked him what he was doing. Joseph replied that he was giving thanks to the Lord for the food He provided for all of His creatures. His master demanded: “show me this G’d you are talking about.” Joseph replied: “the sun is just one of his servants; seeing that you cannot even look at the sun without becoming blinded, if you were to behold its master you would die.” Nonetheless, G’d revealed Himself on behalf of Joseph. This is the meaning of the verse in Genesis 39,3: “when his master saw that the Lord was with him (Joseph), etc.“ These sentiments are reflected by David in Psalms 60,9: “Gilead and Menashe would be mine; Ephrayim my chief stronghold;” concerning the words לי גלעד, “Gilead is mine,” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “in the event the heretics tell you that G’d is unable to resurrect the dead, there is Elijah the prophet who came from Gilead and who revived the dead. If he could do so, would G’d be unable to do it? If, on the other hand, the same heretics will tell you that G’d does not accept repentant sinners into the fold, King Menashe of Yehudah is proof that G’d does so as that king was a great heretic, and, after having been in captivity and praying to the Lord, becoming a penitent, G’d restored him to his throne in Jerusalem (Chronicles II 33,13). This is why the psalmist speaks of “Menashe is mine.” Concerning the words: “Ephrayim is my stronghold,” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish continued, if an heretic denies G’d’s ability to enable barren women to bear children, consider the case of Elkanah from Ephrayim, whose wife Channah had been unable to become pregnant. After she had appealed to the Lord in Shiloh, He remembered her and granted her children (SamueI 2,21). In the event some heretic will tell you that G'd cannot save someone out of the flames, look at the three men from Yehudah, Chananel, Mishael, and Azaryah, whom G'd rescued from a flaming kiln (Daniel 1,6). This is what David meant when he spoke of יהודה מחוקקי, “Yehudah my scepter," in that same verse.   An alternative explanation of this verse in Psalms. The words לי גלעד, לי מנשה, are a reference to Elijah at Mount Carmel. Someone may challenge the fact that prophet Elijah offered sacrifices on a private Altar at a time when the Temple was standing in Jerusalem. He may point out that there is a Biblical prohibition to do so, based on Leviticus 17, 3-4: "any man from the House of Israel who will slaughter a bull, or a goat in the camp or who will slaughter it outside the camp and he has not brought it as an offering to Hashem before the Tabernacle of Hashem- it shall be considered bloodshed for such a man, (i.e. a capital crime).” Tell such a questioner or challenger that whatever the prophet Elijah did he did for the sake of the holy name of G’d and the enhancement of His image among the people; moreover he did it at the behest of G’d. Proof of all this is Kings I 18,36: “it was at the time of the meal-offering, the prophet Elijah came forward and said: “O Lord, G’d of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Israel! Let it be known today that You are G’d in Israel and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding!” This is what the psalmist had in mind when he spoke of “Gilead is mine.” Elijah was a resident of Gilead. As to the words: "Menashe is mine” in the same verse; if someone challenges the conduct of Gideon (Judges 6,25-6)  who also had sacrificed an offering on a private altar at a time when the Tabernacle in Shiloh was functional, the same answer applies.    Rabbi Abba bar Kahanah said that on the day in question Gideon performed seven actions (normally prohibited). 1) He sacrificed a bull which had been used for idolatrous purposes; 2) he sacrificed a bull intended for idolatrous purposes; 3) he built a private altar; 4) he cut down wood for it from an ashera (a tree which had served as a centre for idolatry). 5) He offered a sacrifice at night; 6) he did all this although he was not a priest (he was from the tribe of Menashe); 7) the bull had belonged to the priests who served the Baal. All of these actions he undertook he had been instructed to do by divine decree. We know all this from Judges 6,25-26): “it was during that night that G’d said to him: ‘take the young bull belonging to your father and another bull seven years old; pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred post which is beside it. Then build an altar to the Lord your G’d on the level ground on top of this stronghold. Take the other bull and offer it as a burnt-offering, using the wood of the sacred post that you have cut down. This is the meaning of: “Menashe belongs to me.”   If some were to say that David violated a negative commandment of the Torah (when sleeping with Bat Sheva and marrying her) G’d responds to such a statement by saying that David’s action was designed to teach the sinners that repentance is accepted by G’d and the sinners can be rehabilitated. This is what David said in Psalms 51,15: “I will teach transgressors Your ways, that sinners may return to You.”   If someone were to challenge the fact that Joshua violated the Sabbath when preparing to attack and capture Jericho (Joshua 6,2-4), answer such a scoffer that Joshua acted on G’d’s instructions as we know from the verse referred to: “The Lord said to Joshua, “See I will deliver Jericho and her king and her warriors into your hands. Let all the troops march around the city and complete one circuit of the city. ....Do this for six days, with seven priests carrying seven ram’s horns preceding the Ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the horns, etc., etc.” How do we know that the seventh day the Book of Joshua speaks of was the Sabbath? There is no sequence of seven days one of which is not the Sabbath.     There was something else which Joshua did which he had not been instructed to do. When the walls had collapsed and the city had been captured, Joshua reasoned that seeing the Sabbath is totally sacred, the loot of a city captured on the Sabbath must also be considered sacred, no one using any of it for a private purpose. Hence we read in verse 19 of that chapter that Joshua issued instructions for all the gold, silver, copper objects, and iron to be consecrated to the Temple treasury.  Rabbi Berechya the priest said: Joshua treated the city of Jericho according to the rules applied to an עיר הנדחת, (a Jewish city the majority of whose inhabitants had become guilty of practicing idolatry). We know that the contents of such a city are forbidden for use by any other Jew (Deut. 13,17) “you shall burn the town by fire including all its contents, totally.” Rabbi Yehudah Halevi said (Tanchuma Nasso 28):”the reason that the contents of the city of Jericho were consecrated to G’d was that it was the first city in the land of Israel which was captured. We always consecrate the “first” of everything to the Lord, both humans, animals, and crops, etc. In this instance Joshua extended this principle to apply it to inert matters such as gold, silver. G’d responded to this initiative of Joshua (in the future) by permitting the representative of the tribe of Ephrayim (Joshua’s tribe) to offer his individual offering on the Sabbath.
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
  
  
  Verse 69
  
  
  
  Verse 70
  
  
  
  Verse 71
  
  
  
  Verse 72
  
  
  
  Verse 73
  
  
  
  Verse 74
  
  
  
  Verse 75
  
  
  
  Verse 76
  
  
  
  Verse 77
  
  
  
  Verse 78
  
  
  
  Verse 79
  
  
  
  Verse 80
  
  
  
  Verse 81
  
  
  
  Verse 82
  
  
  
  Verse 83
  
  
  
  Verse 84
  
   קערות כסף שתים עשרה, “twelve silver bowls, etc.”  Seeing that the Torah had specified in each of the princes’ offerings details such as ”one golden spoon of a certain weight, etc,” why did we need to be told here what the totals amounted to?" Actually, the Torah informs us that contrary to utensils made for secular use, these were identical in weight. When you have 12 spoons which had been fashioned to weigh one ounce each you will find that twelve of these spoons do not necessarily weigh 12 ounces together. The spoons donated by the princes were precisely fashioned so that 12 of them collectively weighed exactly 12 times what each single one of them weighed (compare Sifri Nasso 54). 
  When offering these donations and sacrifices, each prince concentrated on matching exactly the donation of the other tribes, but contained significance specific to his tribe as well. Nachshon, the prince of Yehudah thought of the two great men who would be descended from his tribe, King Solomon and the Messiah. They would extend their respective domains both on land and sea. This is the reason he donated a bowl the shape of which is reminiscent of the ocean which spans the universe. The shape of the ocean is like the shape of a bowl. The number 130 mentioned here as its weight refers to the third day of creation when G’d ordered all the waters of the oceans to congregate together in a continuous mass and he called them ימים . The numerical value of that word is 100. When you add one more “round, ocean-shaped bowl” with a circumference of 100 to the appurtenances of the Temple and you bisect it to get the line representing its diameter you have 30, i.e. a total of 130 for that bowl.    מזרק אחד, “one basin of silver,” this was to symbolize the earth which is shaped like a ball. You have an allusion to the oceans in the bowl, and an allusion to the mass of dry land on earth in the offering of the basin. The weight of 70 shekel of the basin is an allusion to the fact that both these kings (Solomon and the Messiah) will extend their rule over seventy nations, spanning earth and the oceans and islands therein. The words שניהם מלאים, “both of them filled,” are an allusion to the gifts these nations will bring to Solomon and the Messiah to demonstrate their homage. The word סולת, “fine flour,” is reminiscent of המסולאים בפז, (Lamentations 4,2) that the Jewish people were valued as fine gold. The words בלולה בשמן, “soaked in oil”, is a reference to the excellent reputation enjoyed by both Solomon and the Messiah, reminding us of Solomon’s statement in Kohelet 7,1: “better a good name than even the best of oils.” The word כסף, is used in the sense of Proverbs 10,20: “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver.” The words: כף אחת עשרה זהב, “one golden ladle of ten shekel weight,” are a veiled reference of the ten generations which elapsed between the birth of Peretz (son of Yehudah and Tamar) until the generation of people who all qualified as righteous. The words מלאה קטורת, “filled with incense,” describe the good deeds of the members of that generation as exuding a pleasant fragrance just as did the incense. The animals listed, i.e. פר אחד, איל אחד, כבש אחד  refer to the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov respectively. The שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת, the male-goat as a sin-offering, is in respect of the sin of the original Yehudah who had presented Joseph's torn coat to his father causing him untold anguish. The words ולזבח השלמים בקר שנים, "and for a peace-offering two cattle," are a reference to David and Solomon respectively who commenced the dynasty of the house of Yehudah on a spiritually high note. The words אילים חמשה, עתודים חמשה, כבשים בני שנה חמשה, "five rams, five he-goats, five yearling sheep," are a reference to the 15 kings of Yehudah starting with Rechavam, son of Solomon and concluding with Tzidkiyahu, the last king of Yehudah prior to the destruction of the Temple. Some of these kings had been thoroughly righteous, some had been lukewarm in their adherence to Torah, whereas others had been fiercely heretical in their beliefs and their behaviour as rulers. This then comprised the thoughts which ran through the mind of Nachshon as he presented his offering.    Netanel ben Tzuor had some other thoughts. Seeing that the tribe of Issachar excelled in Torah knowledge, it was obvious that the thoughts occupying the mind of its prince when he presented his (physically identical) offering would focus on different meanings associated with the individual items he presented. In his mind, “the silver bowl,” which had a connotation of the ocean to Nachshon, reminded him of Torah, as Torah is considered as לחם, bread, and bread is served in a silver bowl. The expression occurs specifically in connection with the show-breads in the Temple, such as in Exodus 25,29 ועשית קערותיו וכפותיו וג', “you shall construct its bowls, its ladles, etc.” Just as Netanel was preoccupied with symbols pertaining to his tribe’s favorite subject, so the prince of Zevulun, Eliav ben Cheylon, was preoccupied with thoughts of his tribe’s favourite occupation, seeing they were mariners. The same applied to the princes of each and every tribe. In effect, we find that although each prince offered the exact same materials in the exact same quantity, the כוונה accompanying each prince’s offering lent it individuality. Nonetheless, each prince addressed the offering to the same attribute of Hashem, acknowledging Him in the same way.  We need to understand why it was necessary for the Torah to write such a lengthy chapter repeating the precise details of each tribe’s sacrifice word for word when weighty matters of Torah legislation had only a few letters devoted to them! The true reason is that G’d acknowledges the efforts made by sincere people and He reciprocates by honoring these people with what appears to be superfluous verbiage in the written Torah. This is the practical application of Samuel I 2,30: “For I honor those who honor Me.” If, at the end of giving the details of Nachshon’s offering, the Torah had written: “this was the offering of Nachshon, and the other princes offered similar offerings,” the Torah would thereby have downgraded the efforts of all the princes who had followed Nachshon.    An additional reason for listing each prince’s offering separately was the fact that each offering was accompanied by individual thoughts of the owner. It would not have been possible to lump together all these different כוונות, meanings, intentions, in one paragraph. Moreover, by listing each offering separately the Torah also wanted to get across to its reader that just as the components of all of these offerings were identical, so the reward which each prince qualified for in bringing them was also identical. Each prince qualified for the same degree of recognition by Hashem.    Although it was quite clear to G’d that in the almost immediate future each one of these princes would become guilty of participating in the uprising of Korach and his 250 collaborators, G'd does not judge man except according to the deeds he has already committed, not what he may or may not become guilty of in the future (compare Rosh Hashanah 16).
      A rational approach: The Torah had to repeat the list of each of these princes as otherwise the linkage to the twelve horoscopes would not have been apparent. Each zodiac constellation contributes an influence to the domain to which it has been assigned by G’d. The reason each prince made the silver bowl part of his offering was to allude to the planetary system involved, each planet being perceived as a globe, just like the shape of the bowl. The number 130 which is given as a weight measure of this bowl describes the 130 known stars. [I suppose this was the number of stars whose orbits had been tracked by astronomers at the time. Ed.] The reason that the weight of each silver basin was 70 shekel is an allusion to the fact that these signs of the zodiac exert their influence on the seventy nations on the world, decreeing their various fates. The golden ladle whose weight was 10 shekel was an allusion to the planetary system known as שכל, a superior planetary system. The fact that it was made of gold also alluded to the disembodied celestial forces such as the chayot hakodesh, seraphim, fiery angels, whose appearance in prophetic visions resembled gold so that we think of them in such terms. 
  
  Verse 85
  
  
  
  Verse 86
  
  
  
  Verse 87
  
   כל הבקר לעולה, “all the cattle for the burnt-offering, etc.” This offering of the princes on the occasion of the inauguration of the Tabernacle comprised 12 bulls, 12 rams, 12 male sheep, 12 he-goats  corresponding to the twelve tribes in the celestial spheres. 
  You are aware already that the attribute כבוד which descended on Mount Sinai was the same which now had taken up residence in the Tabernacle. Just as at the time this attribute descended onto Mount Sinai it was accompanied by myriads of ministering angels, so the journeys of the Jewish people with the Tabernacle took place under the auspices of flags. Just as at Mount Sinai G’d had warned the people not to touch the mountain (Exodus 19,13), a similar restriction was placed against entering the sacred domain of the Tabernacle when the Torah writes: “any stranger (non-priest) who approaches shall die” (Numbers 1,51).  Here too during the inauguration of the Altar and the Tabernacle, we have a replay of some of the events which occurred at the revelation at Mount Sinai. Twelve sacrifices were offered on this occasion, corresponding to the 12 monuments on behalf of the twelve tribes of Israel which Moses had erected in Exodus 24,4. On this occasion 24 bulls were offered (as peace-offerings).
  It is likely that at Mount Sinai there were also 24 bulls offered, as the wording פרים “bulls (pl.) applied to 12 altars means there could not have been fewer than 24. This number 24 would correspond to the חיל השמאלי, which I discussed in connection with the priestly blessings on 6,27.[This was part of the kabbalistic aspect of the blessings in which the author described each of the names of G’d as represented by the tetragrammaton as “an army. I had condensed that section. Ed.]. The fact is that the Torah did not spell out precisely how many bulls had been offered at that time.  The reason that in addition to the bulls also 60 rams, 60 he-goats, 60 sheep in their first year were part of this inaugural offering has been touched upon in my commentary on Shir Hashirim 3,7 about the 60 bodyguards surrounding the bed of King Solomon. I stated there that the number 60 is a symbolism for the maximum degrees of rapprochement to the essence of G’d which may be achieved by the concept of קרבן. We had explained repeatedly that G’d extends His influence in six directions, i.e. the four directions East, West, North and South, plus down and up. It is perceived that in each direction this influence extends in ten stages until it reaches the outer perimeters of the universe. If one wants to approach the center at which G’d’s essence is perceived to be, one has to progress from the outer perimeter of each direction inwards, i.e. a maximum of sixty stages, ten from each direction. There is a seventh “extremity,” i.e. a purely spiritual concept as distinct from the terrestrial concepts discussed when we mentioned the number 60. This seventh extremity, also comprising ten segments is alluded to by the seventy elders, of whom the Torah spoke at the revelation at Mount Sinai but who are not featured here seeing there was a difference between that manifestation of Hashem and the manifestation of the Shechinah in the Tabernacle (compare Exodus 24,1). [I have used my own phrasing of these concepts in this paragraph to facilitate understanding what the author has in mind. Ed]. The words: “when Moses arrived at the tent of Meeting” (verse 89), may be understood as parallel to Exodus 34,34 where Moses is described as removing the veil from his forehead in anticipation of speaking with G’d (or G’d speaking with him).
  
  Verse 88
  
  
  
  Verse 89
  
  וישמע את הקול, “he would hear the voice speaking with Him(self);”  the letter ה at the beginning of the word הקול, makes it plain that this was the same voice that had spoken to Moses at Mount Sinai; he recognised it as such. The principal reason for this verse is to inform us that this voice emanated from between the cherubs on top of the kapporet, the lid over the Holy Ark. From that location the voice filled the Tent of Meeting; this is the meaning of the additional words אל אהל מועד לדבר אתו, “to the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with him (Moses).” Anyone standing outside the walls of the Tabernacle would not hear this voice at all. According to Rashi the reason that the Torah concludes this chapter with the words וידבר אליו, “He spoke directly to him (Moses),” is to make sure that we understand that Aaron was not included.   It is possible to explain these apparently redundant words  to mean that Moses was the subject. These words would demonstrate the enormous spiritual stature of Moses compared to all other subsequent prophets. He was not taken aback by being addressed by G’d; on the contrary, he engaged in conversation with G’d as attested to by G’d Himself in Exodus 33,11: “Hashem would speak to Moses face to face, as a man would speak with his fellow.” How does a man speak with his fellow? The former initiates the conversation whereas the latter responds. Our verse here would report a similar message to that in Exodus, i.e. that Moses engaged freely in conversation with Hashem. Proof that Moses was on this level is supplied in Numbers 9,8 where Moses had not known the answer to the question how the people who had not purified themselves in time for the Passover should conduct themselves. Instead of telling the people who had raised the point to come back on the following day so that he would have a chance to get a ruling from G’d, Moses simply said עמדו ואשמעה, “stand still and I will hear (G’d’s reply) immediately.” This stature of Moses is mentioned here just as it had been mentioned at the time the people stood at Mount Sinai where the Torah wrote Exodus 19,19 משה ידבר והאלו-הים יעננו בקול, "Moses would speak and G'd would respond in an audible voice." The meaning of those words is that "Moses would respond after G'd had addressed him audibly.” Basically, the Torah reveals here that Moses had attained the ultimate level of spirituality that it is possible for man to attain while alive on earth. His knowledge of G'd was similar to that of a trusted butler long in the service of the same master who is thoroughly familiar with the way of life of his employer. This is what G’d had in mind when He said of Moses in Numbers 12,7: “not so My servant Moses; he is trusted in My entire household.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
     אור צדיקים ישמח ונר רשעים ידעך, “The light of the righteous rejoices; the lamp of the wicked will be extinguished” (Proverbs 13,9). 
  King Solomon compared the soul of a righteous person to אור, “a great light,” seeing that the soul provides spiritual light. It is derived directly from the celestial throne of glory. This light is not a derivative, but originates with G’d’s essence. By contrast, Solomon compared the soul of the wicked to a lamp, suggesting that it is merely a derivative, has no staying power of its own. It depends on oil and wick to keep it going. It is not a “self-starter.” As soon as either the oil supply fails or the wick develops some problem, the lamp is extinguished, i.e. the person dies. In other words, the body serves as the oil and wick of the soul of the wicked and it cannot survive the failure of his body. The reason is that the soul of the wicked does not derive his joy except from matters innately related to his body Although, technically speaking, a soul does not die, the punishment such a soul experiences may be far worse than death (compare author on Leviticus 18,29).    Seeing the wicked person did not pursue the path of light but the path of darkness, the attribute of darkness will be applied to him. This is a kind of destruction of the soul, an ongoing process involving unending painful afflictions.    Solomon stated this explicitly when he said in Proverbs 11,7: “when a wicked man dies his hopes perish.” Note that he did not say במות רשע, “when the wicked dies,” but במות אדם רשע, “when a wicked man dies.” The word אדם is meant to alert us that anyone who patterns his life after the attractions provided by what is earthly, אדמה, is considered a wicked individual. This is why, at the time of his death, he loses all the things he put his hopes in. After all, his hopes had focused only on matters of the body. He had not displayed any interest in matters spiritual, matters which should have been the prime concern of his soul. The word ידעך “will be extinguished,” is most appropriate to describe the demise of such a soul as it implies the cessation of light and constitutes the punishment of the sinful soul.    We may consider that the word דעיכה does not describe a total extinction of light but rather that the soul in question no longer experiences the amount of light which would be appropriate for it. We find the word used in Job 18,5 where Bildod speaks of the light of the wicked failing, (ידעך), “in that the flame of his fire does not shine.” In other words the meaning of that word is not exactly the same as כבוי, which would be a total extinction of the light. Isaiah 43,17 supports our point. The prophet says: ישכבו בל יקומו דעכו, כפשתה כבו, “they lay down to rise no more as they were extinguished; quenched like a wick.” It appears that the prophet speaks of two successive stages of light going out, the last stage כבו being the absolute extinction of any light.   However, in lauding the virtues of the righteous, Solomon mentions the word ישמח, “rejoice.” The righteous rejoices with the reward he receives for his righteousness. The expression שמחה is invariably applied to spiritual enjoyment due to the soul having attained new dimensions of Holy Spirit. Examples of such in Scripture are found in Psalms 104,31, ישמח ה' במעשיו, ”may the Lord rejoice in His works.” Another such example is found in Psalms 104,34 אנכי אשמח בו, “I will rejoice in Him (the Lord).” Seeing that the righteous serve the Lord joyfully while they are on earth they will enjoy an added degree of joy in the hereafter.    There is yet another reason why Solomon compared the soul of the righteous to light; the reason is that the souls were created on the first of the six days of creation simultaneously with the original light. (Compare author’s commentary on Genesis 1,4). There is a specific verse speaking about the souls in Chronicles I 4,23: ”These were the potters who dwelled at Netaim and Gederah; they dwelled in the king’s service.” (According to Bereshit Rabbah 8,6 the reference is to the souls of the righteous in the proximity of the King of Kings, the Lord). These souls were meant to benefit from this light which was created on the first day. In that particular passage in Genesis the Torah spoke of five different categories of light; we also find the נפש, “soul” appearing under five different names they are: רוח, נשמה, נפש, חיה, יחידה. Concerning this relationship between light and soul, David said in Psalms 119,130: פתח דבריך יאיר מבין פתיים, “the words You inscribe give light and understanding to the simple;” our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 3,1 comment on this verse that  the opening words of the verse i.e. פתח דברים mean that as  soon as G’d opened His mouth light came forth. The message is that as soon as “G‘d opens His mouth,” illumination, wisdom emerges. When the Torah writes; “G’d said let there be light, and there was light,” the meaning is that that this light came forth from the original darkness. It was quite unlike light produced by man. When man produces light he lights one candle from another, i.e. he adds light from an existing source of light. This matter is clear from the Torah’s description that there was only darkness over the entire expanse of the “deep” (Genesis 1,2). Job 12,22 confirms this state of affairs; “He draws mysteries out of the darkness and brings obscurities to light.” Another verse along the same lines is found in Daniel 2,22: הוא גלא עמיקתא ומסתרתא ידע מה בחשוכא ונהירא עמה שרא, “He reveals deep and hidden things, knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells within Him.” The word עמיקתא, “hidden things,” are understood by our sages as a reference to the מעשה מרכבה, “the mystical dimensions of what goes on in the celestial regions.” The word וסתרתא, on the other hand, refers to the mysteries of the process of creation. Seeing that G’d produced light out of darkness, it is quite clear that He does not need man-made light (such as supplied by the Menorah in the Tabernacle). In Psalms 139,12 David spelled this out when he said: ”darkness is not dark for You; night is as light as day; darkness and light are the same.” [the author quotes more such verses which I omitted. Ed.] Although we have seen that G’d is certainly not in any need of light supplied by man He legislated that the Tabernacle, His residence, be lit up internally by means of the lampstand, מנורה. 
   בהעלותך את הנרות אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות, “when you kindle the lamps, toward the face of the Menorah shall the seven lamps cast light.” The Torah’s choice of the word בהעלותך, [as opposed to כאשר תדליק.  Ed.] is a reference to the flame, שלהבת, which rises of its own accord (Shabbat 21). The sages consider the words as a form of עלוי, “spiritual ascent,” quoting Bamidbar Rabbah 15,5, G’d said: “it is not that I need your light but I want that you light up in My presence just as I lit up  the path for you in the desert when I sent My pillar of fire ahead of you.” It will enhance your stature in the eyes of the Gentile nations when they observe that although it is G’d who provides light and illumination for the entire world, the Israelites provide light at His disposal. In order to understand the phenomenon of creating light out of darkness consider two things. 1) The human eye has a white surface surrounding a black pupil. Contrary to what you might expect we do not see with the white of the eye but with the black part. 2) Lightning is a derivative of celestial fire. It emerges from those regions and brilliantly lights up the entire horizon. We find this reflected in the vision of Ezekiel 1,13: “Such was the appearance of the creatures. With them was something that looked like burning coals of fire. This fire, suggestive of torches, kept moving about among the creatures; the fire had a radiance, and lightning issued forth from the fire.    In this paragraph Aaron was commanded to light the Menorah, both at this time and as a procedure to be followed for all times when the Temple was standing. The words דבר אל אהרן “speak to Aaron, etc.,“ convey the commandment as it applied in the desert in the Tabernacle, whereas the apparent repetition ואמרת אליו, “and say to him,” conveys the thought that the legislation being formulated here was for all future priests to observe. Seeing that this commandment of keeping the interior of the Tabernacle/Temple lit was not limited to the Tabernacle this paragraph does not mention the word אהל מועד, “Tent of Meeting.” This is in contrast to Exodus 27,21 where the details of the Menorah are spelled out and the Torah writes: באהל מועד יערך אותו אהרון הכהן ובניו, “in the Tent of Meeting Aaron and his sons shall arrange it, etc.” People might have thought that seeing there were no windows inside the Tabernacle there was a need for the lights of this Menorah, whereas in the Temple which was equipped with windows (Kings I 6,4) there was no need for interior illumination.
   The Book of Kings makes a point of stating that the windows in the Temple were very narrow on the inside and wide on the outside suggesting that their purpose was not to let light enter, but on the contrary, to illuminate the outside world with the spiritual light contained therein. Our sages (Tanchuma Behaa-lotcha 2) phrased it thus: when the average person builds himself a house he arranges for the windows to be narrow on the outside and wide on the inside in order to admit the maximum amount of daylight. Solomon did the reverse. He made the windows narrow on the inside and wide on the outside in order for the Temple to radiate the maximum amount of spiritual light to the outside world. This conveyed the message that the entire Temple was a source of light, and that G’d most certainly did not require man-made light to light up the interior for Him. The meaning of the words שקופים אטומים in the verse from Kings I 6,4 we referred to earlier is: ”they were open toward the outside, but closed toward the inside,” i.e. short. This prompted Ezekiel 40,25 to write that both it and its vestibule had windows כהחלונות האלה. The extra letter ה in the word כהחלונות, is an allusion to something “faint, dim,” in other words these windows provided faint light. The prophet indicates that the windows are in the shape of the letter ה, narrow on the inside and wide at the outside. This was to enable the light to escape to the outside.     This is the reason the Temple was also known as the אריאל,  (Isaiah 29,1) an allusion to the lion which is narrow at its rear but broad at its front.    This paragraph teaches us three things: 1) the lamps should be facing the center shaft of the Menorah. This light on the center shaft is known as the נר המערבי, “the lamp of the West.” 2) The Menorah ought to be constructed of gold, if at all possible; in the absence of suffficient gold, other metals would be acceptable (Sifri Nasso 61). The principal restriction was that one must not have more or fewer than the seven lamps prescribed. The third lesson we learn from this paragraph is that the whole Menorah was to be cast in one piece of metal. In order to make this point clear the Torah repeated the words מקשה היא, “it is to be a (single) casting.” Whereas a Menorah of more than one piece would not be acceptable for use, a Menorah which was not of gold would be acceptable.
     אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות, “toward the centre of the Menorah its seven lamps shall shine.” If you will examine the text closely you will note that the Torah should have written יאירו ששת הנרות, “the six lamps shall shine,” seeing that the seventh was in the centre. How could the center light be described as “facing the centre of the Menorah?” 
  According to the plain meaning of the text you will have to understand our verse as follows: “when you kindle the lamps facing the centre shaft of the Menorah you will kindle them in such a way that altogether seven lamps will shine.” This is the meaning of יאירו שבעת הנרות, “the seven lamps will shine.” The Torah could not write the words יאירו ששת הנרות, “the six lamps shall shine,” as in fact seven lamps shone.
      A kabbalistic approach; in terms of Kabbalah the wording of the Torah is most appropriate as the subject is the corresponding Menorah in the celestial regions. The words אל מול mean that the Meorah in the terrestrial Sanctuary is to correspond to the celestial Menorah which consists of seven emanations (the lower seven of the table of emanations). The author sees in the words העלה נרותיה a mystical dimension of elevating terrestrial light to the level of celestial light. Something parallel is found in the vision  of the High Priest described by the prophet (Zecharyah 4,2). It is remarkable that in the spelling of the word מנורה, only in verse 2 is that word spelled each time with the letter ו. This suggests that in that verse the Torah speaks of the celestial Menorah, whereas in the subsequent verses where the letter ו is missing this is to remind us that there the Torah speaks of the terrestrial Menorah in the Tabernacle. 
  You will observe that the expression מנורה occurs four times in our paragraph, the first two times with the letter ו indicating that the Torah speaks of the celestial Menorah, whereas the last two times the Torah mentions מנרה it is spelled without the letter ו, indicating that the Torah speaks of a different Menorah, the terrestrial one. Moreover, such descriptions of the Menorah as “golden,” and “from its base to its flower,” also clearly hint that the Torah now speaks of the terrestrial Menorah in the Tabernacle. It is interesting that also in the verse in Zecharyah dealing with the vision of the High Priest Joshua the word מנורה is spelled with the letter ו, indicating that it was not a terrestrial Menorah which the High Priest saw in his vision. In the entire Torah  the word מנורה is spelled with the letter ו only on three occasions, the two instances here and the verse in Exodus 25,31. We have a statement to this effect by the Massoretes in connection with Exodus 25,31.
     שבעת הנרות, “the seven lamps.” The entire subject matter of the Menorah is wrapped in many mysteries and I have already alluded to this in my commentary on Exodus 25,39 in connection with the commentary by Rabbeinu Chananel.
      A Midrashic approach to the words שבעת הנרות, based on Tanchuma Behaalotcha 6. The matter is best approached by means of a parable. A king had a close friend, and one day he told this friend that he planned to have a meal at his house. He asked the friend to set a place for him at his table. The friend prepared for his honored guest to the best of his ability. When the king arrived he brought with him an entire entourage of servants, butlers, fancy candlesticks, etc., etc. When his host saw all this splendor he was so ashamed of his comparatively puny effort that he hid whatever he had set out for his guest. When the king saw that the friend apparently had not made any preparations to receive him, he said to his host: “did I not tell you that I was going to have a meal with you, so why did you not make suitable preparations?” The host told the king that he had indeed made preparations to the best of his modest ability but that when he saw what the king’s servants brought he felt so inadequate that he removed his inferior dishes, etc. Upon hearing this the king said to his friend: “I am going to abandon all the fancy chandeliers and other vessels which my servants have brought, and instead I am going to use only your vessels, all in appreciation of your fondness of me.” Seeing that G’d is all “light” in the most brilliant form, He decided not to use His own light in the Tabernacle but to allow His “friend” the Jewish people to provide Him with the kind of light they are able to provide. This is why G’d commanded the Menorah to be kindled daily in the Tabernacle to demonstrate His fondness of His host, the Jewish people. Seeing that Moses had constructed the Tabernacle for G’d and all its appurtenances and this constituted the best he was able to do and when the Shechinah did arrive Moses found himself unable to enter, (Exodus 40,35) G’d now called to Moses to the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him. What was the subject of this conversation?  The instruction to kindle the Menorah regularly, etc. Israel was pleasantly surprised, saying: “G’d who illuminates the entire universe wants us to provide light for Him?!” When the Temple was destroyed the Menorah was hidden (because of the powerful sanctity it exuded). This reflects what our sages told us already in the Tanchuma that Moses had extreme difficulty in comprehending exactly how the Menorah was to be constructed. In the end, G’d commanded Moses to throw the requisite amount (1 kikar) of gold into a crucible and the Menorah emerged completely formed. This is the meaning of the words תיעשה המנורה, “the Menorah emerged ready.” There is no mention made of Betzalel or anyone else fashioning the Menorah. (compare Exodus 25,31) The expression מקשה normally translated as “cast” also alludes to the difficulty קשה Moses had with the concept of the Menorah. [Although Exodus 37,17 gives the impression that Betzalel had made the Menorah, the absence of his name may indicate that although G’d made it he received credit for it seeing he was so dedicated. (Compare Shemot Rabbah 50,5.   Ed.)]   These were the details of the Menorah: it was 18 tefachim high, corresponding to the numerical value of the letters in the word וזה (verse 4). Concerning the word מקשה, our sages state that Moses had difficulty with four different instructions by G’d until He had to show him with a “finger” what the finished product was going to look like. The Menorah, the sacrificial offerings, the shekel contribution, and the new moon were the four pieces of legislation which Moses did not understand in the mere abstract. Each of these pieces of legislation has been described at one point or another by the Torah with the word זה, “this,” meaning that Moses was given help by being shown a graphic illustration. (Compare Leviticus 6,13 regarding the sacrifice of Aaron; Exodus 12,2 regarding new moon; Exodus 30,13 regarding the shekel, i.e. half-shekel, and our verse here).    Even though our sages said in connection with such verses as Leviticus 11,29 וזה לכם הטמא, and “this will be impure for you,” that G’d took Moses by the hand and showed him the animals in question, in those instances Moses did not have conceptual difficulties and this is why the Midrash spoke only of four examples (Compare Chulin 44).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . קח את הלוים מתוך בני ישראל, “take the Levites from among the Children of Israel, etc.” The paragraph dealing with the separation of the Levites was written  immediately after that of the Menorah, as the former was the exclusive domain of the priests, whereas now the Torah prepares the Levites for assuming their duties. The next paragraph deals with the Passover as an historical commandment remembering the Exodus, a commandment involving every single Israelite. This is the meaning of 9,2: “The Israelites shall make the Passover.” You will observe therefore that these paragraphs have been arranged in a careful manner in a descending order of those to whom they apply, i.e. the Priest, the Levite, the Israelite. The reason that G’d had to say: “take the Levites from among etc., etc.,” was that until then they had been an integral part of the other tribes.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וכה תעשה להם לטהרם הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “so you shall do to them to purify them.” The מי חטאת refers to the ash of the red heifer. The need for this was due to people who had been contaminated through contact with the dead of the people who had been executed due to their involvement in worshipping the golden calf. At the time Moses had issued instructions to the Levites to kill the guilty persons even if they were close relatives of the Levites (Exodus 32,27).
  והעבירו תער על כל בשרם "They should pass a razor over their entire flesh."    The instructions to pass a razor over the entire flesh of the Levites includes the beard and sideburns. The Levites were required to shave just as one who is afflicted with tzoraat (Lev. 14,9), being that they replaced the firstborn who had previously functioned as priests. The firstborn had become disqualified for further service due to their involvement in the sin of the golden calf, and were hence considered as having been associated with זבחי מתים, offerings addressed to the dead (as opposed to the living G’d). When someone is afflicted with tzoraat he is also considered as equivalent to the dead. These Levites had not yet been purified and in their present state they could not have commenced their sacred duties. This is why the Torah writes: “after that the Levites may come and perform their service,” in connection with the Tabernacle (verse 15).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והניף אהרן את הלוים תנופה, “Aaron shall wave the Levites as a wave-service.” The word תנופה, “waving,” appears three times in this paragraph It appears in verse 11 as “Aaron shall wave the Levites...in the presence of the Lord.” It appears again in verse 15 ”you shall perform a wave-service with them.” It appears a third time in verse 13 in a similar connotation. According to Rashi the reason it appears three times is once each for the Kehatites, once for the Gershonites and once for the Merarites. This is the reason why the Torah varies the job-description of the Levites each time, once speaking of עבודת ה', i.e. the Kehatites who carried the Sanctuary (literally), i.e. the sacred vessels including the Holy Ark. When the Torah justified the other wave-offering describing the Levites in question as (כי עבודת הקדש עליהם (7,9, this was a job description of the Kehatites. Concerning the Gershonites the Torah merely writes 'תנופה לה, “a wave-offering for the Lord,” seeing that they too carried the woven materials of the roof and the courtyard. The third group of Levites, the Merarites who transported the beams, the sockets, etc., are referred to simply as undergoing a תנופה waving, but there is no mention of the word לה', “for the Lord,” seeing that this group was furthest from the center of sanctity. At the end of the whole paragraph (verse 21) we find once more that “Aaron waved (all) the Levites as a wave-offering in the presence of the Lord,” in order to show that all the Levites had qualified. As to the meaning of the words נתונים נתונים המה לי, “for presented, presented they are to Me,” in verse 16, this means that they have been presented to the Lord to perform either the song and music or the work of transportation, as the case may be at different times. Alternatively, these words are a justification for the appointment of the Levites to these sacred tasks in recognition of when they had presented themselves as totally dedicated to G’d during the golden calf episode. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף  בגשת בני ישראל אל הקודש, “so that there will not be a plague among the Children of Israel when the Children of Israel approach the Sanctuary.” The plague will be prevented as the Levites ensure that the Israelites do not cross the line into sacred precincts which are out of bounds to them. You will find the word ישראל five times in this verse. Whenever the name of a person or group of persons is repeated in this fashion this reflects the extreme fondness of the author writing this comment about the people concerned. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,4 illustrate this point by means of the parable of the father who has a young son just about ready to begin his schooling. The father constantly inquires about his son whether he drinks properly, eats properly, sleeps properly, etc. This is why we also find that all matters pertaining to the Tabernacle have been written in the Torah five times (compare author’s comment on Exodus 35,1 where he points out that most matters have been written repeatedly). The reason the Torah wrote these matters five times was to correspond to the five Books of the Torah the Jewish people observe. These Books are what keep the world going, seeing the world was created with the letter ה, as we pointed out in connection with the under-sized letter ה in Genesis 2,4 בהבראם. These five Books were not designed for any nation other than the Jewish people. We know already that the Tabernacle was a microcosm of the terrestrial world so that referring to its details five times makes excellent sense.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויעש משה ואהרן וכל עדת בני ישראל ללוים, “and Moses and Aaron together with the whole congregation of the Children of Israel did to the Levites, etc.” Moses was putting the Levites on their feet, whereas Aaron was “waving” them. This is the meaning of the words in verse 13 והעמדת את הלוים לפני אהרן ולפני בניו. The fact that Aaron performed the “waving” is mentioned specifically in verse 11 והניף אהרן את הלוים תנופה לפני ה’. This procedure consisted of Aaron personally lifting up each individual Levite, waving him in different directions. This reflected the fact that Aaron possessed exceptional physical strength. [It was one of the 5 qualifying attributes of a High Priest that he be  physically strong. Ed] Lifting 22,000 people individually all in one day was certainly no mean accomplishment. Alternatively, the entire procedure took place with a heavenly assist, i.e. a miracle. Aaron may have been able to call upon such assistance as he represented the attribute of Mercy and was able to command assistance from the attribute of חסד as well as that of גבורה. The attribute of Mercy is composed of large parts of חסד, and a smaller part of גבורה. (Compare author’s comment on Leviticus 21,10 under the heading “a kabbalistic approach”) This is also the meaning of the words in Malachi 2,6 בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי, “he (Aaron) walked with Me in peace and equity.” The reason that Aaron at the time had chosen the zodiac sign of the ox was also that this was the chayah which appeared to the prophet Ezekiel on the left in his famous vision of the merkavah, the divine entourage. He used to atone for the iniquities of the people of Israel, sins which had their origin in the North [Compare our author’s explanation on Exodus 32,4. Ed.]     The Israelites placed their hands on these Levites investing them with the authority to be their “agents.” This is the meaning of verse 10: “the Israelites shall place their hands on the Levites.” It is most likely that the entire procedure relied heavily on G’d’s miraculous assist.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   זאת אשר ללוים, ”this shall apply to the Levites, etc.” according to the plain meaning of the text the word זאת refers to the limitation (in age) when they are on active duty. 
      A Midrashic approach (based on Vayikra Rabbah 21,8): Whenever the word זאת appears it refers to the Torah. Compare Deut. 4,44 וזאת התורה. “זאת“ is the Torah.” The Levites were the teachers of the Torah. This has been made clear already by Moses in his blessing in Deut. 33,10 where he said: “They shall teach Your ordinances to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The words זאת אשר ללוים are to be understood in the same vein as Psalms 118,23 מאת ה' היתה זאת, “This (covenant) emanated from Hashem.” We know this from Genesis 17,10: זאת בריתי, “This is My covenant.” In connection with the tribe of Levi the Torah writes ובריתך ינצורו, “they have observed Your covenant meticulously” (Deut. 33, 9). When the Levites were counted the Torah wrote the words על פי ה' (Numbers 3,16), an expression we do not find in connection with the census of the other tribes. The idea is that the מדה, the particular attribute applicable to the Levites is that they are the transmitters  of the פי ה', the word of G’d, the Torah.
     מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה יבא לצבא צבא בעבודת אהל מועד, “from twenty-five years old and up he shall join the legion of the service of the Tent of Meeting.” In Numbers 4,23 the Torah had described the years when a Levite serves as between 30-50. How do we reconcile this? 
  According to the plain meaning we could make a distinction between two kinds of service. The service within the Tent he may commence at the age of 25, whereas he does not qualify for the labour of carrying the parts of the Tabernacle until he reaches the age of 30, traditionally the age at which the body reaches full strength.
  According to the Talmud (Chulin 24a), what is written here refers to when the Levite enrolls in the training program, i.e. at the age of 25. He does not qualify for active service, however, until he reaches the age of 30. This arrangement prompted our sages to say that when a Torah student does not seem to make proper progress by the time he has studied for five years, he is not likely to accomplish much by remaining in the academy. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    ויעשו את הפסח בראשון, “They prepared the Passover in the first month, etc.” Nachmanides writes that in accordance with the opinion of the sages this was the only time that the Israelites celebrated the Passover during all the years they were in the desert. The reason was that they had uncircumcised slaves and children whom they could not circumcise due to the hazard of infection in the desert conditions. The matter is discussed in Yevamot 72. However, in Sifri Behaalotcha 67 the word בראשון is understood as a criticism of the Children of Israel for having celebrated the Passover only on that occasion. Similarly, Amos 5,25, where the prophet speaks of “did you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me those forty years in the wilderness?” is also seen as a criticism of the Israelites for not offering all these sacrifices. This criticism is based on the unnecessary words “in the first month, the fourteenth of the month, in the evening in the desert of Sinai.” It would have sufficed for the Torah to write that the Israelites offered the Passover in accordance with the rules laid down by G’d. The additional details provided are a hint that this was the one and only time the people did observe the Passover. (Thus far Sifri).    The reason that the Torah saw fit to write this passage at this point was that the inauguration of the Tabernacle and the Altar took place in the first month (of the second year); this was the month the Levites were set apart. Seeing that in connection with the Passover observance the Torah wrote (Exodus 12,25) “it will be when you come into the land, etc.,” and in Exodus 13,11 the Torah also appeared to tie the observance of the Passover to the Israelites coming to the Holy Land, the Torah here had to legislate its observance now as otherwise the people would have thought that the desert was not a suitable location for offering the Passover.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה' לכם, “stand still while I will hear what Hashem will command concerning you (your problem).” According to Rashi the word עמדו means that the people concerned were to wait at the entrance of the Tabernacle and Moses would immediately relay to them G’d’s response. He adds that a human being who can give such an assurance that G’d will respond to him without delay is really one that is blessed.  The fact that Moses said: “what Hashem is going to command to you,” rather than “what Hashem is going to say to me” demonstrates his humility in attempting to deflect attention from himself.    The reason that Moses added the letter ה to the word ואשמעה, instead of saying ואשמע, may have been an allusion to the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton, a phenomenon we have encountered repeatedly. The voice he expected to hear was the one of which G’d had said in Exodus 15,26 אם שמוע תשמע לקול ה' אלוקיך וגו', “if you will surely hearken to the voice of the Lord your G’d, and do what is right in His eyes. etc.” From that attribute embodied in the letter ה, G’d’s directives would issue forth. Onkelos hints at that in his translation when he translates עד דאשמע מה אתפקד מן קדם ה' על די לכון, “until I hear what it (this attribute) orders from Hashem concerning you.” 
  If Moses did not know the answer himself this is not held against him as it was when he did not know the answer to the query of the daughters of Tzelofchod (Numbers 27,1). In that instance the answer did not need divine guidance as even the Gentile nations appreciate that before the brothers of the deceased are entitle to inherit him, daughters as next of kin take precedence. If Moses nonetheless did not know, this was a punishment for his having made a careless remark when he told the chiefs of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands that when they encountered a matter too difficult for them they should submit it to him and he would deal with it (Deut. 1,17). Seeing that Moses had not known the answer to a simple question, the sages considered this as a form of punishment for him. The law involving a possible postponement of the Passover celebrations for individuals who through no fault of their own could not participate on the date set aside for it, was something that had to be legislated and could not be arrived at by use of one’s intellect. Not knowing the answer could not therefore be considered a failing on the part of Moses and therefore a form of punishment.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   או בדרך רחוקה, “or on a distant road;” The Massoretes placed a dot on the last letter of this word to teach us that the subject is not physical distance but that even if the person in question stood barely outside the threshold to the courtyard of the Temple during the entire period permitted for the slaughtering of the Passover, he is halachically considered just as distant as if he were miles distant from the Temple.    The observance of פסח שני, “an alternate Passover,” involves eating unleavened bread while leavened bread is in the house and does not need to be removed. The date is not considered a Yom Tov, i.e. a festival, with the attendant work prohibitions. The eating of chametz is prohibited only as part of the Passover meal. This is Rashi’s comment..
      I have already explained the reason that chametz is prohibited on the (regular) Passover in a kabbalistic way (Exodus 13,3). The principal reason is that one should not think that only the attribute of Justice was involved in orchestrating the Exodus and that the attribute of Mercy did not have a part in it. Anyone thinking otherwise is guilty of a severe form of heresy. Seeing that the “second” Passover is on a date which is historically unrelated to the date of the Exodus, there would not be any significance to not eating chametz at that  time. Seeing that both the attribute of Mercy (as  represented by the matzah, and the attribute of Justice as represented by the chametz) were involved in the Exodus there is no question of heresy involved by keeping the chametz in the house. 
  Nachmanides sees in the dot by the Massoretes merely a hint that distance is subjective and that what appears distant to one person may be considered nearby to another younger one, someone equipped with transportation, for instance. This is why the Torah repeats that “he was not on the way,” i.e. although the way was not even distant from the Temple. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   על פי ה' יסעו ועל פי ה' יחנו, “they would journey at the command of the Lord and they would make camp a the command of the Lord.” The Torah only had to write the words: “the Children of Israel would journey or make camp at the command of the Lord.” The additional words על פי ה' יחנו appear quite superfluous. Seeing that we know all this from Exodus 13,21 where the Torah wrote that “G’d walked ahead of them by day in a pillar of  cloud etc.,” the meaning of our verse here has to be that the words על פי ה' יסעו are a reference to the attribute of Justice. The very word  has a connotation of the attribute of Justice seeing the word is always used in connection with going to war. By contrast then, the words על פי ה' יחנו, is reminiscent of the attribute of Mercy, the very word יחנו, reminding us of מנוחה, rest, calm, quiet, the opposite of war and warfare. We have a parallel situation where both the attribute of Justice and that of Mercy appear side by side. When the Torah speaks of ויהי בנסוע הארון in Numbers 10,35-36 the word נסע refers to he attribute of Justice and Moses‘ call for G’d’s foes being scattered clearly shows that forces of the attribute of Justice must be at work. When Moses continues speaking about the Ark coming to rest this indicates that now the Torah speaks about the attribute of Mercy. Whenever the Israelites are assembled in their thousands and tens of thousands the attribute of Mercy is nearby. At any rate, we must not perceive of these two attributes as separate and independent entities, rather they are bound up with each other, sometimes one attribute predominating, sometimes the other. Concerning this arrangement the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the kindness demonstrated by Israel in its youth when it followed G’d into the desert an area full of agents of the attribute of Justice in the form of harmful animals. The  fact that the Israelites were always saved in such surroundings testifies to the attribute of Mercy being present although the habitat “desert” is that of agents of the attribute of Justice. Similarly, in Egypt, among all the negative influences Israel was exposed to they did not perish, proof of the presence of the attribute of Mercy (in some degree) even there. This is what Hoseah 13,4 had in mind when he said: “only I, the Lord, have been your G’d ever since the land of Egypt.” When the Israelites were being redeemed from Egypt, the Torah testifies that this occurred as an intervention by G’d with a “strong hand.” References to this “strong hand” appear in Moses’ prayer after the golden calf episode (Exodus 32,11) at the sea of reeds, (Exodus 15,2), in Exodus 15,6, etc. There is a constant interchange of references to the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice, each appearing at the most unexpected times and places. All this demonstrates that both forces are constantly on the alert and circumstances determine which force asserts itself as dominant. At the very moment when the attribute of Mercy appeared at its most near, when G’d took up residence in the Tabernacle, Moses could not enter, as if rebuffed by the attribute of Justice. Having appreciated all this, we must not be surprised when the words 'על פי ה'  are understood as the attribute of Mercy instead of as the attribute of Justice.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ובהאריך הענן , “and when the cloud remained stationary for a long period,” the Torah describes these matters at length to compliment the Israelites who were guided in their journeys or lack of movement by the behaviour of the cloud. The desert was not uniform; some places where the Israelites camped were more pleasant than others, and it would have been understandable for the people to be restless to get away from the less pleasant sites. Proof that there were distinct differences in the natural habitat are such descriptions as “the bitter waters at Marah” contrasted with the pleasant oasis Eylim which was liberally supplied with date palms (Exodus 15, 23 and 27 respectively). The Torah testifies that as soon as the cloud would move, even if the camp was a very pleasant site, the Israelites would get ready to move. To sum up: the Israelites instead of arranging their journeys in accordance with their own preferences submitted willingly to the decision made on their behalf by G’d as expressed by the movement of the cloud. The Torah here also describes another act of kindness by G’d in that all occasions when the people broke camp were in the morning. We derive this from the words או יומם ולילה, “or a day and a night,” instead of או לילה או יום, “or a night and a day” (verse 21). According to the report of the creation (Genesis 1,5 as interpreted by Chulin 83), day followed night, i.e. ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר. However, had the Torah followed that script, we would have concluded that at least on some occasions the Israelites were required to break camp in the evening.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   עשה לך שתי חצוצרות כסף, “make for yourself two silver trumpets, etc.”  According to the plain meaning of the text these two trumpets were made of silver, a single casting each as directed in our verse by the words מקשה תעשה אותם,”make them hammered out.” These trumpets had two functions 1) they served to call the people or the princes to an assembly. 2) They provided the signal for the people to break camp and commence their journeys. This is the meaning of the words: “they shall be yours for summoning the congregation and to cause the camps to journey.”   When both trumpets would be sounded simultaneously this would be the signal to assemble the people; if only one of the trumpets was blown this was the signal that only the princes need assemble. This is the meaning of the words in verse 4: “when they will blow in one (trumpet), the princes will assemble to you, the leaders of the thousands of Israel.” Seeing that these people were special, unique amongst their peers, only a single trumpet was blown to call them to an assembly. The kind of blast blown was that known as tekiah, a smooth unbroken tone. The smoothness of the sound was a reminder of the attribute of Mercy, reminding people that G’d’s right hand is outstretched waiting to welcome penitent sinners.    In order to make the camps start journeying the kind of sound blown was the teruah, shorter broken sounds, staccato-like. We know this from verse 6: “a teruah they are to blow for their journeys.” The reason, as we explained already, is that journeys called מסעות mean marching into war, i.e. involving the attribute of Justice. Basically, the journeys of the people of Israel were directed at dislodging the seven Canaanite nations from their homeland. It is the attribute of Justice which grants one victory in battle, and the Jewish people therefore alerted the attribute of Justice whenever they set out on their journeys. This is why in that connection you will always find the words 'על פי ה', “at the command of the Lord.”    When the people got ready to journey the trumpets would be blown in each direction of the four camps seeing that the four  camps faced the four directions (winds) of the earth. This is why we have separate verses describing the different camps breaking up at different times (verses 5-6).
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Behaalotcha 9-10: [In order to understand this one must remember that the word חצוצרות is related to חצץ which also means crushing stones into pebbles. Ed.] According to this Midrash there is a connection with Psalms 24,7 where Solomon prayed for the gates of the Temple to raise themselves, seeing they were too low to admit the Holy Ark. When the gates demanded to know who was going to enter that they had to change their posture, Solomon said  that “the king of glory wants to come in.” This did not satisfy the gates and they demanded again who this king of glory was. Solomon replied that it was ה' עזוז וגבור ה' גבור מלחמה, “the Lord, mighty and valiant, the Lord valiant in battle.” This still did not prove enough to persuade the gates to raise their heads until Solomon added that the king of glory he spoke about was ה' צבאות הוא מלך הכבוד סלה, that it was “the Lord G’d of hosts, He is the king of glory, Selah.” Up until that moment the gates had threatened to crush Solomon. When they heard the latter description of G’d, they opened up immediately. Seeing these gates had shown this honor to G‘d, G’d in turn promised to reward them saying that if and when He allowed His Temple to be destroyed these gates would not fall into the hands of the enemy or into the hands of any other creature.    You should know that when the Babylonians took King Yehoyakim into captivity together with most of the furnishings of the Temple (Daniel 1,2), the gates were hidden. This is the meaning of Lamentations 2,9: “its gates sunk into earth.”    The reason G’d is referred to as the king of כבוד, “glory,” is because He shares some of His glory with His creatures.  How do we observe this in practice? We know that G’d is called אלו-הים. We find that G’d accorded the title Elohim to Moses when He told him: “here I have made you Elohim for Pharaoh” (Exodus 7,1). We know that it is G’d’s prerogative to kill and bring to life. Yet we find in Kings I 17,23 when Elijah told the mother: “here your son is alive (again)” that G’d had transferred this power to revive the dead to the prophet Elijah. G’d is known as “king” as we know from Psalms 47,6-8 עלה אלו-הים בתרועה....כי מלך כל הארץ אלו-הים, “G’d ascends as part of the teruah; ....for the king is king over the whole earth.” Moses has also been accorded the title “king,” as we know from Deut. 33,5 ויהי בישורון מלך, “he was king in Yeshurun (the Jewish people). Just as people herald the impending arrival of a king by blowing trumpets so G’d told Moses to make for himself two silver trumpets that were to be blown at the time the Israelites would be assembled (compare verse 3).    The words עשה לך, “make for yourself,” mean that they will be yours exclusively; you will make them and no one else is to use them. Even Moses’ successor and foremost disciple, Joshua, never used the trumpets to blow in but only ram’s horns, such as when he was about to capture the city of Jericho (Compare Joshua 6,3). In fact we have reason to believe that Moses hid these trumpets already during his lifetime as we read in Deut. 31,28: that Moses commanded the Levites to assemble the people to him so he could address them. If the trumpets had ben available at the time, why did he not sound the trumpets to assemble the people?  Obviously, they had already been hidden in order to fulfill the statement in Kohelet 8,8 that there is no authority exercised by a ruler on the day he dies. [Deut. 31,28 quotes happenings on the last day of Moses’ life. Ed.]    We find a verse in Chronicles II 29,26 discussing matters which took place in the Temple during the time of King Chiskiyahu. ”The Levites stood equipped with the musical instruments of King David and the Priests were (blowing) the trumpets.” In verse 28 of the same chapter we read והשיר משורר והחצוצרות מחצצרים, “and the song was sung and the trumpets were blown, etc.” This was in contrast to David personally who favoured playing the harp as we know from Psalms 57,9 “awake, O my soul (my glory), awake, O harp and lyre, I will wake the dawn.” We are told that he had a harp hanging over his bed and that as soon as midnight arrived and the North wind began to blow the harp would start playing on its own. As soon as this occurred David would rise from his bed and together with all the other students they would study Torah and chase the sleep from their eyes until dawn.     According to the Tanchuma the reason the verse in Psalms speaks about “waking dawn” in connection with his soul awakening was to demonstrate that David’s personal כבוד was nothing compared to G’d’s כבוד, glory. David “woke” dawn not just for himself but he wanted to shake up people from their slumber.  A more kabbalistic approach: the two trumpets symbolized the tekiah and teruah, i.e. the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. When G’d said to Moses “these shall be for you an instrument to call the congregation to journey,” this is equivalent  to His saying to Moses: “they shall be for you as either tekiah or teruah.” If so, this is clear proof that the journeys and campings of the Israelites were subject to the two attributes mentioned, i.e. that the words על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו את משמרת ה' שמרו which are written adjoining the paragraph instructing Moses to make the trumpets are conceptually closely connected, and that the words על פי ה' refer to both attributes, as the case may be.   If we consider that Moses was entrusted with these two trumpets and what they symbolised you can appreciate his elevated status, i.e. that he could call upon either the attribute of Justice or the attribute of Mercy at will, so to speak. This proves his status as king.   The reason the trumpets had to be made only of silver, and that no other metal was acceptable as a substitute (as opposed to the Menorah), is discussed in Menachot 28. The Talmud says that the silver used for their construction was a silver bar. Whereas smaller pieces of silver scrap were acceptable as the raw material, other metals were not. The reason there had to be two such trumpets was in order for Moses to be able to address and be addressed by the attribute of Mercy on a “face to face” basis,” as sort of a vision within a vision, there had to be two. The construction is described in the Torah as מקשה, “hammered, beaten work,” This is the mystical dimension of what is written in verse 3 ונועדו אליך כל העדה, “the tekiah element when blowing both trumpets” is the signal to assemble the entire congregation to be exposed to the communication from the attribute of Mercy which addressed the Israelites out of the fire. This is what Moses had in mind when he told the people in Deut. 4,15: “on the day the Lord spoke to you at Chorev out of the fire.” When the tekiah was blown out of only one of the trumpets this was the signal for the princes who were unique people to be assembled around Moses. Moses who was unique, would hear the voice of G’d who was unique. He was the only one who could understand the voice of the attribute of Mercy speaking to him.   The teruah sound would be blown to signal that the people were to get ready to journey, part of their campaign to conquer the Holy Land. The fact that the attribute of Justice (symbolized by the teruah sound) was called upon is a compliment to the stature of the Jewish people. Seeing that no other prophet had attained the stature of Moses to be addressed both by the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice on a “face to face” basis by means of the trumpets, these trumpets had to be “hidden,“ so that no one else would use them. The very words והיו לך, “they shall be yours,” which G’d said to Moses concerning these trumpets mean that only Moses would have access to these two attributes of Hashem in such a manner. Seeing these trumpets were so sacred they had to be hidden prior to Moses’ death.   Do not wonder why they were made of silver (and not of gold). The manner in which they were hammered out of one piece made it impossible to construct them of any metal other than silver. The cherubs on the kapporet of the Holy Ark were also constructed in a similar manner, (out of gold). In the case of the cherubs the attribute of Justice was subordinate to the attribute of Mercy contained within it. Hence a soft metal, gold, was used. By the same token seeing that in the case of the trumpets the situation was the reverse, i.e. that the attribute of Mercy was subordinate to the attribute of Justice which was part of it, a hard metal, silver, had to be used to symbolize that concept. Joshua was not allowed to use the trumpets and he used the shofar instead to symbolize the attribute of Justice which was poised against his enemies, the inhabitants of Jericho. David also was not allowed to use the trumpets and used the harp instead which corresponded to his principal attribute, virtue. The author draws a comparison between the word כנור and the lake called ים כנרת, (sea of Galilee). The blue applied to the tzitzit is drawn from a fish in that lake, this is why his attribute is known as כנור דוד. (Rabbi Chavell found a source in the Zohar Beshalach 48 for this.) There are kabbalistic writings explaining why תכלת represents these attributes of Justice. [Remak (Rabbi Moshe Cordovero) quotes a saying that any color one sees in one’s dream is acceptable except techelet, as this represents the attribute of Justice in its full power. Pardess Rimonim discusses the colours and their mystical significance in a chapter called שער הגוונים. Ed.]. What we learn from the above is that every great historical personality was given the tools appropriate to his spiritual level to use in communicating with G’d or on behalf of G’d.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויאמר משה לחובב, “Moses said to Chovav, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the Chovav mentioned here is identical with Yitro, Moses’- father-in-law. He was given a new name when he converted to Judaism. It is customary to give converts a new name when they are accepted into the Jewish religion. This is what happened to Tzipporah’s father. Her grandfather’s name was Reu-el. This is based on Isaiah 65,15 that “His servants will be known by another name.” This is the meaning of Exodus 2,18: “the said to Reu-el their father,” i.e. to their grandfather. The reference to a grandfather as a “father” is not unusual; we have seen this already in Genesis 32,1 where Yaakov speaks about “the G’d of my father Avraham.” We also find that Belshazzar was described as the son of Nevuchadnezzar although he was the grandson of Nevuchadnezzar (Daniel 5,2).   On the other hand, our sages in the Mechilta at the beginning of Parshat Yitro claim that Yitro had seven different names.  When Yitro said in verse 30: “I will not go but I will return to my country and my birthplace I will go,” Moses had turned to him without specific proposals just saying the Jewish people would  treat him well (verse 29). Yitro understood this remark in terms of the Israelites giving him money, that they were going to let him share in the loot to be gained as a result of the conquest of the land of the Canaanites. He did not think that Moses’ promise would include land in the conquered country. This is why he declined the offer. He pointed out that in his own country he was better of, owning inalienable pieces of land, enjoying prestige, etc. When Moses became aware of this he told him: “please do not abandon us, etc.” He implied that Yitro’s knowledge of the desert etc., made him invaluable to the Jewish people. He assured him that he would share in all the advantages that would accrue to the Jewish people. He hinted that there would be a proper heritage for Yitro and his family in Eretz Yisrael in return for his assistance in conquering the land. I believe that Yitro agreed to this proposal. Thus far the commentary of Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   והיית לנו לעינים, “you will act as our eyes,”  to show us the way. Seeing that the Israelites had been journeying exclusively at the direction of the cloud and the cloud showed them the way, what need was there to employ the services of Yitro? The reason Moses said the words quoted was to reinforce the minds and hearts of the people whose faith in the miraculous guidance of the cloud was somewhat limited, people who preferred to rely on leaders of flesh and blood. Another meaning of the words: “you will be our eyes” was that they referred to Yitro testifying to the Gentiles what he had observed while traveling with the Jewish people. Yitro was to report all the miracles he had observed while traveling with the Jewish people. Upon hearing all this it was hoped that more Gentiles would be moved to convert to Judaism This is the approach of Onkelos who translates וגבורן דאתעבדין לנא חזיתא ויהי טבא ההוא יוטיב ה' עמנא ונוטיב לך, “the great deeds which have been done for us you have seen and the good that you have seen we will confer upon you.” 
      A Midrashic approach (Sifri Behaalotcha 80) the words “you will be our eyes” mean that “anything which had thus far been concealed from our eyes you will reveal to our eyes.” Still another approach: “you (Yitro) will be as dear to us are our own eyeballs.” The background to such a sentiment is the commandment in Deut. 10,19: “You shall love the proselyte.”
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  'ויסעו מהר ה, “they journeyed from the mountain of the Lord.” The Israelites journeyed away from Sinai, the cloud leading the way. The Ark was being carried by the Kehatites behind the cloud. The cloud did not stop moving until the evening of the third day as it had been searching for a suitable site to make camp. This is the meaning of the words לתור להם מנוחה, “to search out for them a place to rest.”    Our sages in Shabbat 116 interpret the words מהר ה' as meaning מאחרי ה', that as soon as they left the environment of Sinai the people deviated from following G’d, they literally fled from the nearness of G’d. Different desires began to surface. These desires surfaced on the 22nd day of Iyar seeing that on the 20th of that month the cloud had risen from the Tabernacle and commenced to move. The first day of the three days which is mentioned here was the 20th of the month, the day the cloud started moving. The overpowering desire to eat meat surfaced on the 22nd of the month; the meat materialised on the same day and the people kept eating of the quail for 30 days until the 22nd of Sivan. Why did the sages in Shabbat have to interpret events in this manner? It was to teach us that as soon as the people moved away from Mount Sinai they no longer felt that they were under the immediate benevolent supervision of Hashem. They believed that this kind of supervision existed only right at the Mountain of G’d. The expression הר ה' as opposed to הר האלו-הים is so unusual that the sages felt the essence of the move was “away from the Torah element associated with that mountain.”
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויהי בנסוע הארון, “When the Ark would journey,” the Torah interrupted its narrative with these two verses. By rights the Torah should have continued writing here ויהי העם כמתאוננים וגו', i.e. the first verse of chapter 11 which would have made the proper continuation for the words בנסעם מן המחנה, “when they journeyed from the camp.” As long as the Israelites were encamped around Mount Sinai they were not far from civilization, whereas the direction the cloud traveled took them deeper and deeper into the desert. The people reacted negatively to this journey becoming afraid of the discomforts they expected to encounter. Seeing that chapter 11 is a direct continuation of verse 35 in chapter 10 there should not have been any interruption of the subject matter.
      The reason for this insertion of verses 36-37 according to the plain meaning of the text is this: we know that the terrestrial world is divided into three parts, i.e. sea, civilised areas, desert. Our sages in Pessachim 94 (Tossaphot) said: “one third of the surface of the globe is oceans, one third is land that is cultivated, and inhabited; one third is desert. When the Israelites entered the land of Israel they had already traversed all three kinds of the globe. The Israelites had had a visible manifestation of the fact that G’d created the world as something entirely new seeing G’d had demonstrated miracles both on sea, on land and the miracles which occurred when the seven Canaanite nations were driven out of the land of Canaan.    Seeing that when one comes face to face in nature with high mountains, etc., etc., one forms the impression that these phenomena have existed for eons of years and have preceded man and G’d historically, it is necessary to counter such impressions among the people. This is why the Torah inserted the two verses 36-37 at this point as it had become aware of the impression that the wilderness had begun to make on the Israelites. The words ויפוצו אויביך וינוסו משנאיך, “may Your enemies scatter and those who hate You be put to flight,” are aimed at the people who believed that forces in nature are more powerful than G’d. The Torah which is deposited inside the Holy Ark testifies to the fact that G’d preceded all phenomena known to man. When the enemies of the Israelites are scattered this is the most potent proof of G’d’s having preceded all. This is the reason G’d performed so many miracles in the desert in order to demonstrate precisely in an environment which would otherwise lead people to believe that it had existed forever, that our G’d exercises full control over such phenomena. This is also the reason that the members of the Great Assembly who formulated most of our liturgy included a statement in Berachot 54 that benedictions are to be recited when one sees the ocean, the mountains, and deserts. The formula is generally: “blessed be the One Who created the universe.” The point of such a benediction is to confirm that in spite of appearances to the contrary the universe was created out of “nothing,” not out of pre-existing bodies of matter.
      A Midrashic approach by our sages in Shabbat 115 concentrates on the inverted letters נ in order to demonstrate that this paragraph is not in its proper place. Rabbi said that these inverted letters did not really belong here but that they signal that what is within them is really a whole Book by itself. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel does not agree with Rabbi seeing that he is on record as saying that in the future the Torah will be revised and these verses will be removed from here and be written at an appropriate place. The reason that they have been inserted here in the meanwhile is to provide a break between one disaster and the next. The first disaster was the fact that the physical departure from Mount Sinai coincided with a spiritual departure from what Mount Sinai stood for, something which occurred on the first day of the journey. The second disaster is the one commencing with verse 1 in chapter 11, that the people were looking for something to complain about. Thus far the Midrash.    There are three opinions concerning this subject among our sages (according to Rashi on that folio). The first opinion holds that the appropriate place for these two verses would have been where the flags are described, adjoining Numbers 2,17. This is where the journeys are described for the first time. There the Torah mentions the Tent of Meeting, and the Ark about which these verses speak, was in the tent of Meeting. If the Torah inserted the inverted letter נ it was to alert us that these verses really belonged elsewhere. If you will count the number of paragraphs between where these two verses should have appeared and where they did appear you will find that there are fifty paragraphs between them. This is alluded to by the Torah employing the letter נ whose numerical value is 50 as the dividing symbol.
      The second opinion is that of Rabbi who holds that this short paragraph was written in its appropriate place in the Torah. Seeing that it is part of the journeys of the Children of Israel it is in its proper place. The paragraph had commenced with the words: “it was in the second year in the second month on the twentieth of the month that the cloud rose... and the people journeyed” (10,11). The Torah continues here to enumerate the order in which the flags were journeying. Rabbi said: לא מן השם הוא that the reason that these two verses are enclosed in these inverted letters נ is not because they appear out of context but because the message is so important that the two verses constitute a whole Book of the Torah by itself. Rabbi holds that by means of these inverted letters נ the Torah was divided into a total of seven Books, or the Book of Numbers into three Books.    The Talmud in Shabbat 116 inquires who is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni who reported in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the words in Proverbs 9,1 חצבה עמודיה שבעה, ”she has hewn her seven pillars,” is a reference to the seven Books of the Torah. The answer given is that this was Rabbi’s interpretation of this verse in Proverbs.   Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi in a minor detail; he agrees that the two verses are in the right context, but believes that in the future, after the arrival of the Messiah, the sequence of these verses will be changed seeing there will no longer be any reason to recall all these disasters. Seeing that at that time the evil urge itself will have disappeared, recalling these disasters as a warning against the evil urge will no longer be necessary. The reason that these verses were inserted here in the manner in which they were inserted was to separate between one disaster and another.
      A kabbalistic approach: These two verses contain allusions to the entire history of this terrestrial universe, i.e. its existence of a total of 7,000 years. The hint consists of the seven times the letter א which is equivalent to אלף, 1,000, appears in these two verses. This is parallel to the very first verse in the Torah (Genesis 1,1) in which the letter א also appears seven times. [Actually in Genesis the letter א appears only 6 times in that verse, giving rise to the statement of the sages that the universe G’d created at that time was to endure in its present form for 6,000 years. (Compare Rosh Hashanah 31)]. After these 6,000 years there will be another 1,000 years during which the universe will be in ruins. We have to understand that seeing the entire Torah is built on the premise of creation ex nihilo, that just as the universe came into existence, had a beginning, it will also have an end. This is what is meant by Isaiah 44,6 quoting G’d as saying: “I am the first and therefore I am the last.” The prophet meant that just as G’d was first, i.e. before any creatures, so He will survive all creatures. This verse in Isaiah is proof that the terrestrial universe as we know it will have an end. If there would be a single surviving creature in the universe, how could G’d describe Himself as being the last?   David explained this in greater detail when he said (Psalms 102, 26-27): “of old You established the earth; the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish but You shall endure; they shall all wear out like a garment; You change them like clothing and they pass away. But You are the same and Your years never end.”    The letter relating to the sixth millennium is the letter א in the word אלפי of the sequence רבבות אלפי ישראל. This is the sixth word in that verse. The seventh word, i.e. ישראל, in this instance alludes to a withdrawal of the forces which had kept the universe a going concern during the previous six thousand years, and a hint that during that millennium there would be ruin. This millennium is the one of which the Talmud said חד חריב, “one which is desolation.” We also find an interesting anomaly in Hoseah 9,12 where the prophet writes the word בשורי מהם spelling the word with the letter sin instead of with the shin. The idea is that the “turning away by G’d from Israel” will not be total. Seeing that the wordישראל  can depict the absence of positive forces or the presence of positive forces depending on the context in which the word appears, it is possible that just as on occasion that word alludes to destruction, it may allude to reconstruction on occasion, i.e. a marshaling of positive, constructive forces. The word in our verse would therefore also allude to a rebuilding of the universe including the people of Israel. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 24,2 על נהרות יכוננה, “He founded it on subterranean streams.” The psalmist did not write כוננה, “He founded it,” in the past, parallel to the word יסדה, in the same line where we read: “for He founded it on the oceans,” כי הוא על ימים יסדה, but יכוננה, “He will found it,” in the future. This reflects that at the beginning of this psalm David spoke about the fact that eventually the whole universe would return to the state it was in before the Creator created light. All of this proves that G’d had originated the universe not merely improved it or expanded it.    You will also find that in the hymn dedicated to the Sabbath (Psalms 92,1) David said in verse 13: “the righteous bloom like the date-palm,” an allusion to an existence after the Sabbath (the seventh millennium). This is the mystical dimension of the verse in Genesis 2,3. I have already mentioned this concept when commenting on that verse commencing with the words ויכלו השמים והארץ, a verse which concludes with אשר ברא אלו-הים לעשות, “which the Lord had created in order to continue to perfect it.” The time when this will occur is “after the Sabbath,” i.e. after the seventh millennium. When David said in Psalms 72,7 that יפרח צדיק בימיו ורב שלום עד בלי ירח, “the righteous will bloom in his days and there will be much peace (well-being) until the cessation of the moon,” the meaning is that the world as we know it will continue until the great Yovel at which time the forces of nature as we know them will cease to exist. This cessation of the forces of nature will include the function of the sun and the moon. At that time the earth will revert to its state of Tohu Vavohu prior to G’d having given the directive: “let there be light.” As to the verse in Genesis 8,22: “as long as the earth will exist, seed-time, harvest-time, cold and heat, summer and winter, shall not cease” is concerned,  this is merely confirmation that there is a time limit to the phenomena mentioned in that verse. The time set for these phenomena expires during the great Yovel, i.e. the seventh millennium. This is  also the opinion of Solomon who said in Kohelet 1,4 “and the universe continues forever.” The word עולם used by Solomon in that verse is the עולם היובל, the “world” as perceived of as a cycle of seven Shemittah cycles followed by a year of Yovel as spelled out in Leviticus 25,8-10, where the microcosm is discussed, whereas Solomon referred to the macrocosm. All of this is due to the principle that things which have a beginning must be perceived to have an end. Solomon’s father David was of the same opinion as his son when he wrote about G’d’s handiwork perishing in Psalm 102, 26-7 whereas G’d Himself would endure.    There are some verses in Psalms which at first glance appear to contradict the concept we have outlined, such as Psalms 145,1, 65-6 or Psalm 104,5  When the psalmist speaks about the phenomena mentioned enduring forever, he does not mean that they will actually endure forever but that they have been so constructed that they would not disintegrate on their own unless by an act of G’d.   Seeing that we cannot perceive of the sequence of Shemittah cycles followed by the Yovel as being something which continues indefinitely, this small paragraph is encapsulated in the inverted letters נ, to indicate that such a progression as we experience will come to an end after 50 cycles. The great Yovel occurs at the end of 1,000 generations at which time the earth will revert to a state of chaos. The reason why the letter נ has been reversed is that just as when letters are written in the normal manner this is an indication of matters described by these letters continuing to exist, when you turn the letter upside down you are giving notice that what had been perceived as continuing indefinitely does in fact come to an end. In order to reinforce our appreciation of what these inverted letters mean the Torah wrote two of them in order to drive home the point, as well as in order to hint that not only earth as we know it will undergo the metamorphosis described but heaven will too. [‎After all, heaven was created on the second day, after the light. Ed.] The reason that the Torah wrote the word ויהי “it came to pass,” each time after one of these inverted letters נ appears is to convince us that there will be a new existence after the great Yovel during which this metamorphosis will occur. The Torah wanted us to appreciate these concepts. In order for this to become easier for us it legislated in the microcosm, i.e. in our life cycles the Shemittah and Yovel legislation concerning the sale of slaves, return of land which had been sold as the result of the owner’s distress, etc., etc. Once concepts such as Shemittah and Yovel, both of which represent different degrees of reversals of natural processes have become part of our daily lives, the macrocosmic principles which we described are much easier to visualize. Let me now try and explain to you the underlying reason for these cataclysmic events which will occur at the end of each cycle of 6,000 years and again at the end of 49,000 years. It is generally known that six of the ten emanations were active during the six days of creation. The first day was under the aegis of the emanation בינה, whereas the second day was under the aegis of the emanation חסד. The third day was associated with the emanation גבורה, and so on until the seventh day, the Sabbath, was under the aegis of the emanation יסוד. This emanation commenced its work which was to provide עונג ומנוחה, Sabbath entertainment and creative rest. The rest provided by this emanation was both in respect of the Sabbath itself and in respect of the preceding six days. When the emanation יסוד was at rest on the Sabbath, all the other emanations were at rest also. This is the meaning of Exodus 20,11 כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ וינח ביום השביעי, “for during (a unit of) six days the Lord made heaven and earth and on the seventh day He rested.” The words ששת ימים describe the six emanations which G’d created and employed to do His work; the “rest” occurred on the seventh day by means of the emanation יסוד. Something similar will occur at the end of the six thousand years  when the cycle will repeat itself with the interval being a period corresponding to the rest of the original Sabbath. Each millennium will be under the aegis of the respective six emanations we already referred to. Seeing that every emanation has completed its work at the end of one thousand years, it follows that the world will then become chaotic seeing all the emanations are inactive.   This means that in our terrestrial, or “lower” world, a world governed by the relatively low emanation בינה, continuity has come to an end, all the “lower” emanations striving to return to the emanation בינה, their immediate origin. Once this has occurred the cycle renews itself; this whole cycle of 6,000 plus 1,000 years repeats itself six times until at the end of the seventh such cycle we come to the “great” Yovel. One of the reasons that during the first six such cycles there was a relative חורבן at the end of each 6,000 years is that the emanations תפארת and כבוד which govern the orbits of sun and moon respectively, return to their immediate origin the emanation בינה, and terrestrial earth cannot function unless both sun and moon are active in their orbits. Nonetheless the seventh millennium during these six cycles does not mean total chaos, i.e. תהו ובהו, seeing that these forces will rejuvenate themselves forthwith after having received input from the emanation בינה. At the end of the seventh such cycle all emanations including the ones above בינה revert to the אין סוף, G’d’s essence, necessitating a return to total תהו ובהו in the process. This is what Isaiah referred to when he wrote: “all the host of heaven shall molder, the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll and all their host shall wither like leaf withering on a vine, etc”. Another verse in Isaiah 51,6 describes something similar happening to earth. The reason for these phenomena is the withdrawal of sun and moon, i.e. the emanation תפארת and כבוד.  This subject was revealed to David in Psalm 24 where he speaks about “the earth being the Lord’s as well as all that it contains, the world and its inhabitants.” The author proceeds to show that verses 7 and 9 in that hymn describe the developments which we have been describing. [Since the author himself imposes restrictions upon himself in going into details, I will also refrain from translating the remainder of his comments on that psalm. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “The people were as if looking for a pretext to complain.” The word מתאונן occurs in Lamentations 3,39 where it means “complain.” As the people entered the desert they experienced a variety of uncomfortable sensations. These complaints were very displeasing in the ears of the Lord, seeing they were caused by the fact that instead of marching joyfully towards their destiny and the Holy Land, the people marched only grudgingly. The reason the word מתאוננים is spelled with the prefix כ i.e. a preposition describing something in relative terms, i.e. “as if,” is because at that stage they did not yet dare verbalize their feelings of discontent. They did not want Moses to hear their complaint. This is why the Torah describes G’d as “hearing” unspoken complaints by the people. Moses had not heard these complaints.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . והאספסף, “and the rabble,” these people were the fellow travelers, they were not natural born Israelites. They were described elsewhere as ערב רב, “a mixed multitude.” The word אספסף, is a doubling of certain letters just as we find in the word סחרחר, or חמרמרו מעי in Psalms 38,11 (reeling) or in Lamentations 1,20  (my entrails are distressed).
  
  Verse 5
  
   את הקשואים ואת האבטיחים, “the cucumbers and the melons, etc.” The people spoke in a desultory way of the superior food the Lord had provided, the manna. In order to belittle the manna they compared it unfavorably to such food as is universally considered as inferior such as cucumbers and melons. We know that the land of Egypt produced excellent food, seeing the Torah had described the land of Egypt as “a garden of the Lord” in Genesis 13,10 when describing the fertility of the Jordan valley. In order to emphasize their disdain for the manna the people did not compare it unfavorably with Egypt’s best produce but they compared it to Egypt’s most inferior produce. Moreover, the fact that they mentioned fish was an outright insult against the manna seeing the only kind of fish the Israelites had been given in Egypt were the fish which had already begun to decompose and to stink. They were given only fish which had been caught at least 4 or 5 days previously. This is the reason they spoke about remembering הדגה instead of דגים or הדג, “the fish.” The word הדגה means that these fish were recognizable only as a species not individually. We know that this is an appropriate distinction from Jonah 2,1 where the prophet describes G’d as commanding דג גדול, “a large fish” to swallow Jonah. However, when the Torah refers to the fish in the river Nile at the time the river was turned into blood, the dead fish are described as דגה. The river is described as “stinking with these dead fish.” (Exodus 7,17). When Jonah prayed inside the belly of the fish, that fish is described as דגה, because Jonah describes himself as praying from “Sheol,” i.e. from the grave (Jonah 2,3). If someone sits inside a dead belly he is equivalent to sitting in a grave. If, later on, we read that G’d commanded Jonah to be spewed out and to be swallowed by a second (smaller) fish, this was only because it was not dignified for Jonah to sit inside a dead fish. The second fish was then ordered to spew out Jonah on dry land (Jonah 2,11).   To get back to our main subject: The Israelites expressed their disgust at what was a most valuable gift from G’d. The people  were not so much wanting something as expressing their dissatisfaction with what they had. Significantly, throughout this episode the Torah speaks of the people as העם, “the people,” a term describing the lowest common denominator. They are not referred to as either עדה or בני ישראל, which would have pointed at people on a spiritually higher level. Eventually (verse 5) the בני ישראל, the elite of the people, also became infected with this discontent.   The place referred to in verse 34 as קברות התאוה is none other than תבערה which was mentioned in verse 3. The meaning both times is that at the very site where their unjustified desires surfaced they were punished. The “fire” is none other than their “burning desire.” The reason these two paragraphs dealing with תאוה desire, is written adjacent to the story of Miriam making uncalled for comments about Moses and his family life or lack thereof, is because Miriam too made inadmissible comments, just as had the people who had denigrated the manna or who had wanted to stuff themselves on a meat diet. The paragraph reporting Miriam’s inadmissible comments is followed by the one with the spies who also made inadmissible comments about Eretz Yisrael being a country which devours its inhabitants, etc. 
      It is also possible to see in the fact that the Israelites referred to cucumbers and melons at this time proof of their bad character and the strength of their desire. Not only the rabble but also some of the elite of the people were caught up in this irrational desire. This is reflected in the doubling of the words התאוו תאוה with which the Torah describes these feelings of the people. It means that the people drew on reservoirs of desire, the source of their animalistic soul. They allowed their feeling free reign. Our sages in commenting on the words בוכה למשפחותיו captured the underlying feelings of the people when they translated these words as: “they cried because certain incestuous sexual unions had become forbidden at Mount Sinai” (Yuma 75). When they said בלתי אל המן עינינו, “our eyes are focused only on the manna,” they meant that just as the manna was composed of a single element as distinct from earth which is composed of four elements, they felt very keenly they had been denied these other elements and what they would contribute to their well being.    The fact is that the very fact that the manna was not מורכב, composed of several elements, made it close to abstract, helping to sharpen the people’s wits seeing it was intellectual in essence. Instead of appreciating this aspect of the manna as a valuable asset, they considered it as a serious shortcoming to their well being.   In picking on specific examples of food that they were nostalgic about, i.e. fish and cucumbers, one reminiscent of the element of earth, dust, the other of the element of water, they indicated their desire to feel close to these elements. This is the reason they made no mention of fruit grown on trees. Fruit grown on trees also contains parts of the element רוח, the very element they felt they already had too much of.    The Talmud in Yuma 75 explains that the reason the Israelites mentioned five categories of food here, i.e. cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic was that although the manna could assume the taste of any food under the sun, it could not assume the taste of these five plants. G’d had arranged it thus as the taste of these five plants is potentially harmful to both pregnant women and women who are nursing babies. We know ourselves that doctors recommend that pregnant women and nursing mothers should abstain from certain foods out of consideration for their babies or fetuses.
      Nachmanides adds that the reason the Torah adds the word חנם when the people described the conditions under which they ate fish, i.e. “for free, without having to pay for them,” was because the Egyptians employed the Israelites to pull the fish out of their nets and instead of paying them wages, they gave the Israelites some of the fish for free. This was an established custom in Egypt. Thus far Nachmanides.    Our sages in Yuma do not see it in this light at all. They say that the word חנם, “for free,” means that these  fish had not had owners and G’d arranged for the fish to be caught in the nets or jugs of the Israelites. This is spelled out in Sotah 11.
      A Midrashic approach based on Sifri Behaalotcha 87. The Midrash asks: how could the Israelites’ argument that they ate these fruit and fish for free be taken at face value when we know that the Egyptians did not even supply the Jewish labourers with the straw they needed for their brickmaking for free (Exodus 5,18)? Therefore we cannot understand the word חנם to mean “free” in the sense of “without payment;” rather the meaning is that they did not have to undertake any obligations of a ritual nature in order to eat fish. By using the word חנם here, the people indicated that the commandments of the Torah were a burden for them and that they wished themselves free from that burden. It is a reminder of the description of the Exodus when the Torah mentioned how difficult it was to extract one nation from amidst another nation, i.e. the Jews and the Egyptians had been so intermingled culturally (Deut. 4,34). The Israelites had practiced idolatry no less than their masters the Egyptians.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   שטו העם ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או דכו, “the people would stroll and gather it, and grind it in a mill or pound it in a mortar.” We know the expression שטו from Job 1,7  when Satan described himself as roaming all over earth. This indicates that when the people went out to collect the manna they did not do so in groups, but each one pursued a different path. The word ולקטו “and they collected,” means that the manna was ready to be eaten forthwith. It did not have to be cooked, baked, or fried.
   Most foods lend themselves to one method of preparation for eating it. If a new method is tried this food will often not be tasty. Not so with the manna. This food was amenable to all known ways of preparing food and it would be equally tasty. It would be at least as tasty as baked goods made with dough kneaded with oil. The Torah quotes this example to contrast it with what some of the people had said, i.e. “our soul is dried out” (from eating manna, verse 6). The Torah provides objective rather than subjective yardsticks. According to the Torah’s description it would be impossible for a person to “dry out” from dough which contained both oil and honey. According to one opinion the word לשד is an acronym of the three words לישת שמן דבש, “something kneaded from oil and honey.” According to another opinion the letter ל in the words לשד השמן is part of the root of the word לשד. We find that word in Psalms 32,4 לשדי בחרבוני קיץ, “my vital juices in the summer drought.” Applied to our verse it would mean that far from dehydrating a person the manna would do the reverse as it tasted like something soaked in oil. The word השמן as opposed to merely שמן, suggests that this was the highest quality oil.    In this verse you will find an interesting allusion if you take one letter each from the words  העם ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או and ending with the word השמן, yielding מטטרו-ן, the name of the angel running the universe on behalf of G’d and responsible for rainfall, i.e. ממטיר which is mentioned in connection with the מן. The word שטו is an allusion to the “employer” of Mattatron who sends him to “roam” (לשוט) over earth in his efforts to discharge his duties.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
    ואם ככה את עושה לי, ”And if this is how You will deal with me, etc.” The word את in this verse is a reference to the attribute of Justice. Moses refers to the reaction of G’d described in verse 10 where the Torah wrote ויחר אף ה' מאד, that “G’d had become exceedingly angry.” The word את as describing the attribute of Justice is also found in Deut. 5,24 when the people expressed their inability to endure the sound of the voice of G’d. It is also found in Ezekiel 28,14 את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You are a great protective cherub.” This is a pseudonym for the second highest ranking angel known as כבוד, his partner being the angel known as תפארת. [compare author’s comment on Exodus 25,18 on the subject of the cherubs. Ed.]     I have already explained that seeing the written text of the Torah does not contain vowels, it is possible to supply the vowel kametz when reading the word עושה with the vowel kametz under the letter ש, so that it sounds as “ossah.” The reason we have been forbidden to write the vowels in the written text of the Torah scroll is to enable a person to understand a variety of meanings in the text which he could not find if he were bound to a specific vowel pattern under or over the consonants.   For instance, in Genesis 22,12 the word ידעתי in the sequence עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלוהים אתה, normally translated as “now I know that you are truly G’d-fearing,” would have a different meaning if the letter ד in ידעתי had a dagesh in it. It would become transitive in meaning, i.e. “Avraham made known (to the world) who and what he was in relation to G’d.” Another example where a minor change in vocalization makes a substantial difference in meaning is found in Exodus 2,5 in connection with how the daughter of Pharaoh saved Moses. The conventional reading of the words is ותשלח את אמתה ותקחה, “she dispatched her maid and took it (the basket).” The word אמה then would have the same meaning as the word שפחה. However, one can understand the word אמתה  as meaning “her arm” indicating a miraculous lengthening of her arm; this is the way the sages in Sotah 12 understood it as if the letter מ had a dagesh in it. There are numerous such examples throughout the Torah.
     הרגני נא הרוג, “please kill me (now).” It is possible to explain the repetition of the infinitive here as referring to the original person whose soul had been reincarnated in Moses’ body, i.e. Hevel. He meant that he preferred to be killed by G’d now and not by the hands of mortal man later on. 
  According to the Midrash, Moses pleaded with G’d to “kill the one who was already dead” [seeing that his original incarnation had been killed this would not account as a death wish which is halachically inadmissible. Ed.] He implied: “if I speak to the Israelites opposing their demand they will kill me. If I fail to carry out Your instructions I will make myself liable to the death penalty. In other words, I am dead already.”
  
  Verse 16
  
   אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושוטריו, “gather for Me 70 men from among the elders of Israel whom you know to be elders of the people and its officers.” G’d meant that Moses was aware that the people in question had demonstrated empathy for the people in Egypt absorbing physical punishment on their own bodies rather than inflicting it on their charges. The officers were the ones of whom we read in Exodus 5,14 that “they were beaten by their Egyptian counterparts” for having displayed sympathy for the Jews they were in charge of. They had acquired experience in the qualities needed to deal with the people, and they had established a reputation for fair play.
      Even though the wording “gather for me” suggests that the people who were being selected now were a new phenomenon, this was not so. The number of Israelites who originally descended to Egypt was 70; this was the number of people who could spread blessing on their offspring. The number attained great symbolic significance, became an example of the concept that there were never fewer than 70 people devoted to the study of the Abrahamitic tradition. They were the ones whom Moses was commanded in Exodus 3,16 to take along for his first interview with Pharaoh, although there we are not given a number (compare Yuma 28). These same 70 elders mentioned here were also the ones mentioned in Exodus 24,8 where they are linked with Nadav and Avihu, Moses and Aaron, as the elite of the Jewish people.   In spite of these seventy elders who had already practiced their leadership qualities, the ones whom G’d wanted Moses  to gather now were not the same as the ones with whom we are familiar. Those 70 elders had died at Taveyrah having been slated to die already from the time at Mount Sinai mentioned in Exodus 24 when they had feasted their eyes on a vision of G’d and had continued to eat and drink as if nothing extraordinary were taking place. G’d had not killed them at the time as it was a time of joy for the people. Although the Torah describes the elders Moses is to gather now as people whom Moses was personally familiar with, this must not mislead us into thinking that they were the same elders who were mentioned in Exodus. From the days the Israelites moved to Egypt throughout the period of even the first and second Temple there were never fewer than 70 such people who possessed all these qualifications for being the senior presidium of the people.
      These seventy people now selected plus Moses, i.e. a total of 71, corresponded to a similar quorum in the celestial spheres where 70 angels presided over by G’d Himself function as the highest tribunal. At the time when Yaakov descended to Egypt he also was the 71st person who presided over the 70 biological descendants of him who traveled with him. 
  You find a statement in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 24 according to which when G’d said in Genesis 11,7: “come, let us descend and confuse their language,” the reference was to G’d and these seventy angels who form His inner cabinet, also known as His Sanhedrin. We derive this from the verse there starting with the word 'וה', i.e. G’d and some one else. Every time we encounter such a verse it means that G’d together with His Sanhedrin were involved in what follows. 
  Having appreciated this we can also understand the first verse in the Book of Exodus where the Torah writes: “and these are the names of the Children of Israel who came to Egypt with Yaakov, etc.” The words: “with Yaakov” mean that their arrival and continued successful existence in Egypt was due to their patriarch Yaakov. When the Torah there adds the words איש וביתו באו, these words have an additional meaning, i.e. that the Shechinah and its entourage also accompanied the Israelites to Egypt, as I pointed out in my commentary on that verse. There are several occasions when the euphemism for the great name of G’d א-ד-נ-י is spelled with an additional letter ו in the middle to give us the numerical value of 71, i.e. the attribute of Justice with its full complement of the celestial Sanhedrin (compare Amos 7,7 where the word אנך also has the numerical value of 71 to make our point still stronger.) [The prophet described a vision of the attribute of Justice threatening to lay waste Jerusalem Ed.].   When the Torah in our chapter verse 24 instructs Moses to position these seventy elders around the Tent of Meeting, this is to symbolize the seventy angels which surround the throne of the Lord in the celestial regions. 
  The greatness of Moses can be discerned from the fact that G-d asked him to confer some of his Holy Spirit onto these seventy elders, just as G-d himself equips the seventy angels in heaven with His Holy Spirit.  This is the meaning of ויעמד אותם סביבות האהל "He stood them around the Tent of Meeting", for the Holy Ark inside the Tent of Meeting represented the throne of G’d in the celestial regions as I have explained in Parashat Terumah (Exodus 25,10). 
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Behaalotcha 11: the words אספה לי are reminiscent of 13 different items which G’d has an exclusive claim on as they are all associated directly with the name of the Lord. They are: silver, gold, the priests, the Levites, the Jewish people, the firstborn, the altar, the terumah., (first tithe of the grain harvest for the priests), the oil of anointing, the Tabernacle, the dynasty of David, the sacrificial offerings, the land of Israel, and the elders. The author lists 13 verses in each of which the word לי appears to signify that the phenomenon mentioned  is G’d’s.  The Midrash  interprets Amos 9,6: “Who builds His chambers in heaven, and founded His vault on earth,” as describing a palace built on a number of ships which are tied together. As long as these ships remain closely linked together the walls of the palace remain intact. G’d built the heavens on the assumption that the twelve tribes of the Jewish people remain closely linked to one another. The celestial structure’s integrity is linked inextricably to the fate of the Jewish people, i.e. to their conduct.    The Midrash extrapolates further on the appropriateness of the word אספה, “gather, assemble,” by quoting from Deut. 33,5: “then he became king in Israel when the people assembled.” The Midrash goes on to explain the function of these elders by quoting Kohelet 12,11: “the words of the sages are like goads.” Just as it is the function of the goads to prompt the animal to plough straight lines, so the function of the elders is to see to it that the Jewish people “toe the line,” i.e. obey the commandments of the Torah meticulously. They are to reveal different aspects of the Torah to the people. There are three Hebrew words, each of which means “goad;” they are דרבן, מלמד, מרדע. The word דרבן suggests that the sages instill some דר, i.e. בינה, insight, in the cow (people). The word מלמד suggests that the goad teaches the animal to plough properly. Finally, the word מרדע, suggests that the goad imbues the cow with some דעה, knowledge.
       The Talmud Chagigah 3, in commenting on these words of Solomon, says that the comparison of the words of the sages to a goad is because just as the goad ensures that the cow will contribute to life on earth through ploughing, etc., so the function of the teachings of the sages is to bring life into the world. After all, the whole purpose of Torah is to enrich life, to ensure that life continues, etc. They are to steer its students away from paths which lead to death to paths which lead to life. Just as the goad causes the cow to move forward, so the words of the sages teaching Torah prompt their listeners to move forward spiritually. The word used there, i.e. מיטלטל, also can be understood as  משמרות נטועים, “firmly embedded nails,” (continuation of the verse from Kohelet quoted above). Just as a well driven nail is permanent so should be the words of the sages. The word נטועים used by Solomon for the nails can also mean that just as that which is planted will produce new plants, fruit, so the words of the sages when properly planted will produce “offspring” in due course. Another view concludes that Solomon means that one must not study books other than those of the Bible as the word משמרות used here for “nails” is not spelled with the customary letter ס but with the letter ש, an allusion to the different divisions of the priests which were divided into 24 such משמרות parallel to the 24 Books of the Bible.     The בעלי אסופות, “masters of collections” mentioned by Solomon in that same verse are the people in charge of arranging these compositions of the groups of priests were the Sanhedrin seeing the Torah used the expression אספה לי here in connection with the selection of the elders. Solomon concludes his verse saying “they have all been given by one shepherd (G’d),” in order to forestall the thought that the different sages will arrive at different meanings of the Torah and would contribute disunity rather than unity. The sages are not to be classified as one group which issues edicts prohibiting things whereas a competing group concentrates on permitting that which is forbidden. If they were perceived as doing so the people would throw up their hands in despair asking how they could possibly study authentic Torah!?
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “and I will increase some of the spirit which is upon you, etc.”  Basically G’d is saying that at the very moment He will be speaking with Moses He will transfer some of Moses’ spirit onto these elders so that they will be able to be true partners in carrying the burden of leadership. This was G’d’s answer to Moses’ complaint: “I cannot carry the burden all by myself.” When G’d said: “when I speak with you there,” He meant that these seventy people would hear G’d speak with Moses, something that had not happened before seeing that G’d’s voice used to be audible only to Moses. The whole procedure was a reward for Moses who had said הרגני נא הרוג thereby indicating that he was willing to give his life on behalf of the people. Moses had also said ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to see my evil,” when in fact he had meant “I do not want to see the evil which will befall them!” 
  Through this procedure Moses’ stature was greatly enhanced in that he and his quorum of seventy elders from now on could be perceived as parallel to the celestial quorum which we described earlier. Moses’ position relative to the seventy elders compared to G’d’s position relative to the seventy angels who form His Sanhedrin. Any transfer of Holy Spirit from Moses occurred only at times when G’d would speak with Moses. This is clear from the wording of the Torah, i.e. “when I descend  to speak with you there (at the tent of Meeting) I will increase from the spirit which is upon you, and place some on them so that they will carry with you the burden of the people and you do not have to carry the burden of the people all by yourself.”    This is also exactly what happened.  We read in verse 25 that G’d descended in a cloud and spoke to him (Moses) and He increased some of the spirit which was on Moses and transferred it to the seventy elders; when this occurred they began to prophesy but they did not do so again.”     This verse was the answer to Moses’ question: “where can so much meat be found for them (in a natural manner, without miracle)?” G’d implied that seeing Moses’ spirit was only that of one man he could not understand what the combined spirits of seventy men could understand. Seeing that G’d was able to increase the perceptions of all these people, supplying them with additional spirit from Moses without depriving Moses of any of his spirit, surely G’d could similarly increase the amount of meat available in a natural way without creating “miracle” meat!    At this point the author raises the technical question of how the people constituting Moses’ Sanhedrin were seated, etc., if similar to what  the Mishnah describes that there was a נשיא, president, and an אב בית דין, a senior member of the Sanhedrin, sort of a deputy and the other members were seated opposite these two senior members in a semi-circle so that every member could see every other member of that quorum. Apparently, when someone was ordained a similar procedure was followed, all those participating in the procedure having full view of what was going on. (Sanhedrin 36 and Maimonides Hilchot Sanhedrin 1,3)
      You should know that the principal meaning of the word ואצלתי, is “the drawing forth,” i.e. continuing something by increasing it quantitatively. Clearly, this is the opinion of Onkelos who translates the word  ואצלתי as וארבי, “I will increase.” Onkelos again translates the word ויאצל in verse 25 as ורבי, “He increased.” This is the reason that the word appears as denoting something G’d gave, i.e. ויתן על שבעים זקנים וגו'. When the Torah speaks of ועץ השדה יתן פריו, “that the tree(s) of the field will ‘give’ its fruit”- as part of a special blessing- the meaning is that it will give more than its normal amount of fruit (Leviticus 26,4). The word אצל means “an increase of spiritual values,” whereas the word יתן פריו refers to an increased material contribution. This is also the opinion of the philological experts, i.e. that ויאצל refers to המשכה, a continued and therefore increased presence of something.    It is well known that the term אצילות and ויאצל is distinct in that increasing, giving, transferring described by this term imply that the original source or owner of what is being given or increased does not suffer a reduction in what he had before. In Sifri Behaalotcha 93 Moses is described as similar to a Menorah at that time from which many people draw light without the light of the Menorah being in any way diminished. 
  Another description quoted by Tanchuma compares what occurred in our passage to the owner of an orchard who had hired a manager to supervise it. After a while, the supervisor told the owner that the task of looking after the entire orchard was too much for him and that he needed assistants The owner told the supervisor: “I have handed the orchard to you and now you tell me to give you assistants! O.K. I agree; however, you should know that the salaries needed to pay the assistants will be deducted from your salary. I am not going to allocate additional funds to supervising the orchard. The remarkable thing in this situation was that although the seventy elders derived their spiritual inspiration from Moses, Moses’ own Holy Spirit was in no way diminished.    You should know that when after forty years G’d told Moses to place his hand on Joshua and to transfer to him some of his Holy Spirit (Numbers 27,18), the Torah describes what happened in these words: “Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with a spirit of wisdom because Moses had placed his hands upon him” (Deut. 34,9). G’d said: “in this present imperfect word only select individuals are given the gift of prophecy. There will come a time, however, when all the Israelites will prophesy.” We know this from Yoel 3,1: “it will be after that time I will pour out My spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your elders will dream visionary dreams and your young men will experience visions.” 
  You have to realize that there is another dimension to the word and concept of אצילות, i.e. it is a concept which preceded the creation of the physical universe, the three stages of the coming into existence of the physical universe, i.e. בריאה, יצירה and עשיה. The world of אצילות combines within itself all the powers of the three worlds which we just mentioned seeing that it preceded them. The Torah had referred to the seventy elders who had been killed at Taveyra as אצילי בני ישראל, indicating that these people had possessed knowledge of such a world and had seen the full extent of it.   The subject of אצילות  has been dealt with both in scripture and in the writings of our sages but it appears under different headings. The terms used change according to the general context of where they appear. In Song of Songs 3,9 Solomon speaks about אפריון הנעשה מעצי הלבנון, “a palanquin made from wood of the Lebanon.” He means that something was derived from something else making it into something more valuable. The most important thing to remember when the term אצילות is used is that the one who “gives, provides, endows,” does not himself incur any loss through his conferring whatever it is he confers on someone else.
      Kabbalists use the term עקירה, “uprooting,” when they speak of something which experiences אצילות. The term “uprooting” is used in the sense of “transplanting” not in the sense of “destroying.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 15,1 speak of the verse in Psalms 104,16 “the trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon, His own planting.” According to the Midrash G’d uprooted the cedars and moved them to Gan Eden where He replanted them (i.e. in an even more ideal environment, thus adding to their stature, giving them אצילות) Rabbi Chaninah said that prior to being transplanted to Gan Eden these “cedars of the Lebanon were no taller than the feelers on certain types of grasshoppers. We must remember that vegetation on earth was the result of a directive from G’d to earth: “let the earth bring forth all manner of plants, etc.” (Genesis 1,11-12). When the psalmist speaks about G’d personally having planted these cedars there is obviously a question why G’d had to do this. Furthermore, when G’d is reported as having planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2,8-9) the Torah does not say from where G’d took the plants for that garden. Solomon provided a partial answer to this question when he said that G’d planted these cedars in a place where G’d had done planting. Rabbi Yehudah describes the “promotion” of these cedars in the Lebanon as occurring in three stages, i.e. first according to the verse in Psalms “they drink their fill;” secondly, seeing that every plant requires irrigation, the  trees enjoyed a sufficient amount of life-giving water; thirdly they were transplanted to near the source of life itself. At any rate we deal with a form of אצילות experienced by these trees. 
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואל העם תאמר התקדשו למחר, “and tell the people: ‘sanctify yourselves for tomorrow.’” According to Nachmanides, from the fact that G’d told Moses to tell the people to sanctify themselves without telling them what this sanctification was for (as he had done at Mount Sinai, or when the manna was about to descend), Moses understood that G’d was not going to provide meat by means of a miracle but by natural means.
  
  Verse 19
  
  . לא יום אחד תאכלון ולא יומים, “You will not only eat it for a single day or two days, etc.” The numbers here are usually doubled up, i.e. not one but two, not five but ten, not ten but twenty. It is as if G’d were saying they will eat as much as they could, employing all the fingers on hands and feet in the process. The final statement “until a full month of days,” suggests that until the moon has come full circle the people will still be busy wolfing down the meat. The words: “until it will come out of your nose,” suggests that until the smell of the meat evaporates seeing that the smell is concentrated in the nose. The words: “it will become nauseating for you,” refer to the fact that that which had previously been the object of your irrepressible desire will instead become something nauseating for you. We find a similar phenomenon after Amnon had raped his half-sister Tamar when his erstwhile love for her turned into an abiding hatred (Samuel II 13,15). The reason the word  לזרא is spelled with the letter א at the end instead of the letter ה, is to describe the intense repugnance the people felt for the very meat they had craved so much only a month ago. Every time a word which is normally spelled with the letter ה is spelled with the letter א instead, the idea is to show the intensified measure of what the word represents. Examples are: when Naomi says she should be called the “bitter” one, meaning מרה, the author of the Book of Ruth spelled the word with the letter א at the end to demonstrate the depth of Naomi’s embitteredness. She spelled it out saying המר שדי לי מאד, “G’d has caused me much to be bitter about.” A similar example is found in Daniel 11,44 where  the word חמא, for anger or alarm, normally spelled חמה, is spelled with the letter א at the end to describe the profound alarm caused by the news described in that verse. What happened to the Israelites in this instance is only typical of what happens to people who overindulge their lust and craving for physical pleasures. They start out by complaining about physical pleasures denied them and neglect spiritual values in their headlong pursuit of these “apparent” pleasures only to find in the end that their very pleasures are the reason that they die prematurely. Solomon defined such supposedly sweet pleasure as נפת, saying of the seductress נפת תטופנה שפתי זרה וחלק משמן חכה, “her lips drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil” (Proverbs 5,3). In the verse following Solomon describes the conclusion of that seduction as “in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו, “six hundred thousand footmen are the people in whose midst I am, etc.” Moses did not bother to include the 3550 people who were in excess of the round number 600,000. When he mentioned that the task of finding meat for all these people was truly phenomenal, he did not mean to suggest that it was something beyond G’d’s ability to provide. He meant that such a large number of people deficient in faith in the Lord surely do not qualify for a miracle which G’d would have to perform to satisfy their request. He did not think that the required amount of meat could be found and served up by natural means. He did not think that all the livestock which the people had taken out of Egypt plus all the fish that could be hunted in the neighboring rivers where they were marching would supply a sufficiently adequate meat diet for them. All of these comments were phrased as a question. 
  Moses’ whole approach to the subject was that he considered the demands of the people totally unjustified; this was not asking for bread or water but for luxuries! Asaph echoes these sentiments in Psalms 78,18 where he writes of the Israelites at that time: “to test G’d was in their mind when they demanded food for themselves.” They had demanded something which they thought was impossible to provide by natural means.   When G’d replied to Moses: “is then the power of the Lord inadequate?” He meant not only am I able to provide all this for them by means of a miracle, but I am able to provide it even by natural means. He told Moses that he would witness that this was the case. He quoted the very fact that Moses would imbue seventy additional men with Holy Spirit without his own spirit being diminished thereby as proof that what did not appear to be available could become available without even depleting the source where the meat came from. As soon as Moses heard this he went and told the people what G’d had said; he gathered the seventy mean and positioned them around the Tabernacle as he had been instructed to do in verse 16 already. The next thing that happened was that G’d descended in a cloud and provided the seventy men with prophetic powers. The Torah then deals with Eldad and Meidad at length. The lesson to Moses was that although his spirit (רוח) was only one and yet it was sufficient to supply from it to seventy elders so G’d can provide sufficient meat for the people from a single natural source. This is the meaning of the verse that “a רוח went forth from Hashem and blew, etc.” The quails which flew in from the direction of the sea appeared to be a totally natural phenomenon. They had previously been congregating on the beaches at the sea and now were carried by the wind in the direction of the camp of the Jewish people. The expression ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew quail from the sea,” is related to the expression in Psalms 90,10  כי גז חיש ונעופה, “for it is soon cut off and we fly away.” 
  This whole paragraph is a demonstration that G’d’s “hand,” (power) is unlimited, that He is able to provide such large quantities of meat not only by natural means but practically immediately, (so explains Maimonides).    Regarding the expression היד ה' תקצר, “is the hand of G’d too short?” Why did G’d speak of His hand in the third person instead of saying: “is My hand too short?” Actually, the construction is not so unusual; we have already encountered it in Exodus 24,1 where the Torah wrote ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend toward the Lord.’” There too the question would have been in place, why did G’d not say: “ascend to Me?”
      Rashi explains the words הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle to be slaughtered for them?” (verse 22) as Moses asking: “why do the beasts have to die if instead of feeding the people and the food keeping them alive, the meat will actually cause their death!?” Moses based his question on G’d having told him previously that the meat would come out of the people’s noses (verse 20). He understood the words ומצא להם as “it will be their final meal!” Moses suggested it would not enhance G’d’s stature amongst mankind if He killed the people in the process of demonstrating His ability to provide them with meat. It is like saying to a horse: “eat a large measure of excellent barley and then we will cut off your head.” G’d answered him: “Do you think it is better for the people to think that I am unable to meet their demands? It is better that some of them die and not all of them think that I am unable to provide their requests.” G’d added: “now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!”    Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehudah the prince (editor of the Mishnah), interpreted Moses’ question to mean that it is impossible to grant the people’s demands as they were not legitimate demands but attempts to discredit G’d. If G’d were to provide fowl, they would say that they wanted lamb; if He were to provide lamb, they would say they wanted beef. Seeing it was impossible to satisfy their demands, what was the point in even trying. They would anyway conclude that G’d was unable to meet their desires.
      Rabbi David Kimchi, quoting his father, has this to say on the subject: at the time when the Israelites uttered their demand for meat they possessed substantial herds of beef and large flocks of sheep. They could not eat any of these animals until they had been brought to the Tabernacle as sacrificial offerings (peace-offerings) first. After the slaughter the blood had to be sprinkled on the Altar and certain fat parts of the animals had to be burned there. A further restriction was the fact that anyone suffering from ritual impurity could not eat of such sacrificial meat until he had purified himself, a procedure which could take as long as seven days in the case of ritual impurity incurred through contact with the dead. Sacrificial meat must be consumed no later than 2 days after slaughter. This meant that many people would not be able to eat even the meat of their own animals. When Moses asked: “shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them?” He meant: “will the restriction that the people can consume only sacrificial meat be rescinded on account of their request?” When he added ומצא להם, “and be found for them,” he implied that in such an event there could indeed be an adequate supply of meat for the people by natural means. Moses implied that unless these restrictions were to be rescinded there could hardly be sufficient meat for all the people by natural means. G’d answered him that he would see that He was able to comply with the people’s request in a natural way without rescinding Torah legislation. There would not be a need to either provide sheep or beef or fish, and still the needs of the people would be met in full. The author accepts the part of the interpretation applicable to צאן ובקר, but does not think that it answers Moses’ question “if all the fish in the sea would be adequate?”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וירד ה' בענן וידבר אליו ויאצל מן הרוח  אשר עליו ויתן על שבעים איש הזקנים, “G’d descended in a cloud and spoke to him, and He increased some of the spirit that was upon him and gave it to the seventy men, the elders.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that Moses took six men from each tribe, a total of 72. Since G’d had told him to take 70 men, two of them were left out. This is correct. Thus far the wording of Ibn Ezra.
      According to Tanchuma Behaalotcha 12 Moses took 72 pieces of paper. On seventy of them he wrote the word “elder,”  whereas two pieces of paper he left blank. Every man drawing a slip of paper with the word “elder” knew he had been appointed. The two men who would draw blanks would have to conclude that  they had not been found worthy. Seeing Eldod and Meydod were aware of this and were very humble, they remained in the camp without either returning to their private tents nor assembling around the Tabernacle before the drawing of these slips of paper to ensure that none of the participants would be embarrassed by drawing a blank (seeing now Moses only had to prepare 70 such slips). They knew that if they had participated they would have been chosen as the Torah had testified והמה בכתובים, “they had been among the recorded ones” (verse 26). Seeing that they were so modest and humble they were rewarded with a measure of Holy Spirit. Concerning this the Torah wrote (verse 26) “they did not go  to the ‘Tent,’ but prophesied in the camp (the general encampment of the Israelites).” The ability to prophesy in an area of a lesser degree of sanctity than the proximity of the Tabernacle was remarkable.    There is an explicit verse in Isaiah 61,1 indicating that the virtue of modesty and humility leads to its owner being imbued with prophetic spirit. The prophet writes: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; He has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble.” The merit of their humility resulted in these two people Eldod and Meydod enjoying a higher degree of Holy Spirit than the seventy elders. Whereas the elders were able to prophesy only concerning events on the following day, i.e. telling the people to sanctify themselves in anticipation of events which would occur on the morrow (verse 18), Eldad and Meidad enjoyed prophetic visions extending to the time when the Messiah would arrive. They made statements regarding the downfall of Gog and Magog. as is written in Ezekiel 38,17: “Thus said the Lord G’d: ‘why, you are the one I spoke of in ancient days through My servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied for years (שנים) in those days that I would bring you against them.’” Our sages in Sanhedrin 17 suggest that the word שנים, ”years” in that verse be read as שנים, “two,” the reference being to the two people Eldad and Meidad in our verse here. [There is good reason for this as throughout the verse the word the prophet uses for “years” is ימים, not שנים. Ed.] Additional proof that Eldad and Meidad possessed superior Holy Spirit is the fact that whereas the Torah does not mention the names of the seventy elders, the names of these two men are recorded for all posterity. Furthermore, whereas the elders received their Holy Spirit via a human being, i.e. Moses, Eldad and Meidad had received it from G’d directly seeing Moses had not placed his hand on either of them. In addition to this, the 70 elders all died in the desert whereas Eldad and Meidad entered the Holy Land (Eldad was referred to as אלידד בן כסלון , and Meidad as קמואל בן שפטן, in Numbers 34,21 and 24). These men are described as having been appointed to help in allocating the land of Canaan to the Israelites. All this teaches you that  they were richly rewarded for their humility.  ויהי כנח עליהם הרוח, “it was when the spirit rested upon them, etc.” This refers to the spirit of Moses which they received. Concerning the Holy Spirit received by Eldad and Meidad the Torah writes ותנח עליהם הרוח (verse 26), meaning this spirit came directly from G’d. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   וירץ הנער, “The disciple ran.”  The lad in question was Gershon, son of Moses. The reason the Torah adds the words  “the servant of Moses since his youth” in verse 28 is that he was one of the choicest among a number of men who acted as Moses’ disciples.
  
  Verse 28
  
   אדני משה כלאם, “My lord Moses, lock them up!” The reason Joshua said this was because Eldad and Meidad had prophesied that Moses would die (in the desert). Joshua would lead the people into the land of Canaan.
      Nachmanides feels that the reason Joshua wanted these men locked up was because they had refused Moses’ instructions to present themselves at the Tabernacle together with the other seventy men. They had failed to obey an order. He considered it possible that what they prophesied was a lie and that they were irrational, and had to be put under guard. Moses, in a typical display of humility, said that he wished that G’d would bestow prophetic spirit on the entire nation directly not merely using him as an intermediary.    Another nuance in the exclamation by Joshua “lock them up” is that it was against accepted practice to prophesy in the presence of Moses. It had become an accepted norm that no prophet would prophesy about something in the future when there were prophets of greater stature alive among the people. The minor prophets would deport themselves as disciples of the leading prophet of that generation. They were the people often referred to in the Book of Kings as בני הנביאים, “the sons of the prophets” (Kings I 2,35). The Talmud Sanhedrin 17 also says that according to the opinion that what these two men prophesied, i.e. that Moses would die and that Joshua would lead the people to the Holy Land, we can understand why Joshua felt compelled to call for the incarceration of these two men. However, according to the opinion that Eldad and Meidad prophesied concerning matters related to the quails, why would Joshua be so concerned? His demand that these men be locked up would be tantamount to giving a ruling in the presence of a higher authority, something strictly forbidden (maybe even on pain of the death penalty). The Talmud in Megillah 14 raises the same question when it asks by what right the prophetess Hulda prophesied at a time when Jeremiah was the leading prophet? The answer given there is that Hulda was biologically related to Jeremiah so that he did not mind.
  
  Verse 29
  
  . ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים, “would that the entire people of G’d be prophets!” It is possible that Moses alluded to the time of the Messiah when his wish would be realised. He wished for that time to occur soon so that the status of the people would be raised to the level of prophets. At such a time, the evil urge would disappear and jealousy would be unknown. In the words of Yoel 3,1: “at that time I will pour My spirit over all flesh.” It is also the time of which Isaiah 11,9 spoke when he said: “and the whole earth will be filled with a measure of the knowledge of the Lord like the waters which cover the oceans.” Even though these prophecies have not yet been fulfilled in our terrestrial universe, they will be fulfilled in due course in a world which will be more perfect.
      I have found a hint of this in Psalms 14,7 where the psalmist writes: “O that the deliverance of Israel might come from Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of His people, Jacob will exalt, Israel will rejoice.” Why did this same verse occur twice in the Book of Psalms, once here in the first Book, and then again in 53,7 in the second Book? You will have to answer that the first time the verse was spoken by the “teacher,” i.e. G’d, whereas the second time it was repeated by the student, i.e. by Moses.
  
  Verse 30
  
  . ויאסף משה אל המחנה  הוא וזקני ישראל, “Moses then reentered the  camp, he and the elders of Israel.” He went with the elders to accord them honour. The disaster did not strike until each one had returned to his tent. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  . מכה רבה מאד, “a very great blow.”  It was pestilence. We must ask why Moses did not pray to G’d to stop the plague as he had done at Taveyrah when G’d had sent fire? Perhaps he was ashamed seeing the sin was so great and the people’s faith so small, their guilt being their ingratitude. They had kept piling guilt upon guilt ever since they had moved from Sinai into the desert and had tried to induce physical desires in themselves. They had failed to learn the lesson from what had happened at Taveyrah where many of them had been burned to death. Moses was also ashamed so that he had been provoked into saying to G’d: “why have You done evil with Your servant?” (verse 11) He was afraid that if he started to pray he would give the attribute of Justice an opening against the people, seeing he had already noticed ויחר אף ה' מאד, “that G’d had become very angry” (verse 10).
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויהיו בחצרות, “And they remained at Chatzerot.” These words belong to the next paragraph, as the people remained in Chatzerot until Miriam had been cured.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . ותדבר מרים, “Miriam spoke out.” She spoke and that is why she was punished; Aaron remained silent or agreed with her and we find that he was punished also. This is the meaning of verse 9 ויחר אף ה' בם, “G’d was angry at them.” Wherever the Torah reports that G’d became angry at someone this is followed by a noticeable phenomenon. Seeing that Miriam had commen-ced speaking לשון הרע, “unseemly comments,” the Torah spelled out her punishment. In Aaron’s case the Torah did not spell out his punishment out of regard for him.
     על אודות האשה הכושית, “on account of the woman of Cushite origin.” The woman in question was Tzipporah who was a Midianite. Midianites were descendants of the Ishmaelites, nomads, dwelling in tents. We base this on Chabakuk 3,7: “the tents of Cushan, shaken at the pavilions of the land of Midian.” There were no white-skinned people among the Midianites due to the sun being very hot in that country. The reason Miriam spoke out was because Moses had married a “black-skinned woman.” Miriam thought that the reason Moses had separated from Tzipporah was because he did not consider her attractive looking on account of the colour of her skin. If Onkelos translates the word כושית as שפירתא, “beautiful,” this is not to be taken at face value but is meant to save her embarrassment much as we call a blind person “as possessed of a good eyesight,” in order to save that person embarrassment. When the Torah writes immediately that Moses was very humble, this is the answer to Miriam’s suspicion, i.e. that Moses did not even know whether Tzipporah was beautiful or not. It is similar to Avraham who did not become aware of Sarah’s being physically attractive until they were at the boundary of Egypt (Genesis 12,11) [when he had been married to her for decades already. Ed.]
      Rashi, on the other hand, considers that Tzipporah was indeed beautiful but that the term כושית which implies the opposite was meant to ward off the evil eye, to make sure people would not be jealous of her beauty and want to harm her. Now Moses had divorced her. Incidentally, the numerical value of the word כושית (736) is the same as יפת מראה, “of beautiful appearance.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  . הרק אך במשה, “was it only to Moses?” Miriam meant that if Moses separated from his wife because of G’d communicating with him, there was no such law pertaining to prophets. The word הרק אך are a double negative, each word meaning a diminution of something. The expression Miriam used was meant sarcastically, just as when the Israelites had said to Moses in Exodus 14,11: “are there not enough graves in Egypt that you had to take us to the desert to die?” The word במשה must be understood as parallel to גם בנו “also with us” (Miriam and Aaron). The preposition ב instead of אל or something similar is in order, seeing that the prophet views himself as G’d’s vessel. The word במשה may therefore more accurately be translated as “within Moses,” and the words גם בנו as “within us.” One of the clearest examples of such a construction is found in Genesis 6,3 לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם, “My spirit will not rule within man forever.” In that verse G’d made it plain that man’s body is to be perceived as a vessel for his spirituality. The word ידון is related also to the word נדנה which occurs in Daniel 7,15 where it means “sheath.” The body is the sheath of the spirit. 
     וישמע ה', “the Lord heard.” Our sages in Sifri Behaalotcha 100 state that Miriam and Aaron said what they said even in the presence of Moses as we should read the words וישמע ה' והאיש משה, together, i.e. “G’d and the man Moses heard.” Due to Moses’ extreme modesty he remained silent; this is why G’d had to react to such talk.
  
  Verse 3
  
   והאיש משה ענו, “and the man Moses was humble, etc.” The word ענו is written defectively, i.e. the letter י being missing. This seems extraordinary seeing Moses is described as possessing the virtue of humility in its full dimension. The reason that the letter י is missing here is because on a different occasion Moses left out the letter י when it would have given honor to Hashem. In Numbers 20,10, at the rock which Moses was supposed to have spoken to but struck instead, he said to the Jewish people: המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “are we supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” He should have said: המן הסלע הזה יוציא לכם מים, “is HE supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” Seeing Moses had been remiss on that occasion, the Torah omitted the letter י when describing him as the most humble man on earth on this occasion. This is a fine interpretation. We read the word as if it had been spelled with the letter י in its appropriate position.   Why did the Torah add the adverb מאד, “very” to the description of Moses’ humility? We have been taught concerning all other virtues, attributes, that we must not practice them excessively but must strive to tread the path called דרך הממוצע, striving not to veer to the right or to the left. The attribute of humility, modesty, by contrast is one which one should practice in the extreme. The Torah alludes to this by complimenting Moses on doing just that (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Deiot 2,3). This consideration prompted the sages in Avot 4,4 to say מאד מאד הוה שפל רוח, “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The additional words “of any man on earth,” have been added to remind us that only amongst human beings did Moses qualify for this title. Had the Torah written על פני הארץ, instead of על פני האדמה it would have included the creatures in the celestial regions as the word ארץ is often used as a term describing the universe. It is comparable to Genesis 6,6 where the Torah writes וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ, “G’d had second thoughts about having made man on ‘earth.’” There was no real need for the word בארץ, but it was introduced as an overall term for the world. When G’d speaks about precisely what He is going to do, the Torah uses the word אדמה in Genesis  6,7 אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי מעל פני האדמה, “I will wipe out man whom I have created from the face of the earth.” I have elaborated on that difference in connection with that verse. האדם, “Man” as a concept will not be wiped out from the universe, only “man” whom G’d placed on terrestrial earth will be wiped out at that time.    When David (Psalms 145,12) speaks of להודיע לבני האדם גבורותיו וכבוד הדר מלכותו, “to make His mighty acts known amongst man and the majestic glory of His kingship,” these words which are the only time in the hymn that the author does not use direct speech, i.e. address G’d, we need to understand why the sequence commences with individual acts instead of with G’d’s overall majesty. David means that in order to comprehend the overall majesty of G’d one must first learn to appreciate individual mighty acts He has performed. Before addressing G’d directly one needs to acquire knowledge of Him indirectly. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  . פתאם, “suddenly.” Rashi explains that G’d surprised them in state of ritual impurity occasioned due to their having had marital relations with their respective spouses. They then exclaimed: “water, water,” implying the need to purify themselves as well as recognition that Moses had been correct in separating from his wife so as not to be ritually impure when G’d would choose to address him. Seeing that there were no fixed periods of time when G’d would appear, Moses had to be in constant readiness for such a communication.
      Some commentators understand the word פתאם as meaning that the suddenness of G’d’s reaction was designed to prevent Miriam and Aaron from repenting on what they had said at that time. Their sin included desecration of the name of the Lord, a sin which is so severe that people guilty of it are not presented with opportunities to repent. Miriam and Aaron had to know that speaking out against G’d’s prophets was considered as on a level with speaking out against the Shechinah. The author appears to attribute this comment to his grandfather a Rabbi Nathan. It reflects the statement in Kidushin 40 that “no credit is extended in matters pertaining to desecration of the Lord’s name.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  'אם יהיה נביאכם ה', The meaning is similar to Chronicles II 15,8: והנבואה עודד הנביא, “the prophecy was that of Oded the prophet.” The meaning of our verse is: “even if someone amongst you is a prophet of the Lord he does not prophesy using My Ineffable Name, but through mediums such as mirrors, riddles, etc.” Your prophetic inspirations are transmitted by what is known as רוח הקדש, “Holy Spirit.” We find a reference to this level of prophecy in Samuel II 23,2 רוח ה' דבר בי, “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (David speaking). This was also the same as the יד ה' which the prophet Ezekiel describes as speaking to him (on occasion). [We know that Ezekiel had also attained a higher level of prophecy when he had visions. Ed.]  The fact that the Torah writes במראה אליו אתודע, “I will be known to him by means of a mirror,” instead of writing במראה אליו אראה, “I will be visible to him by means of a mirror,” may be compared to  Exodus 63, where the Torah did not write as we could have expected ואתודע אל אברהם ואל יצחק, but wrote וארא אל אברהם ואל יצחק instead. The emphasis in both verses is on the fact that neither category of prophet experienced that בשמי הגדול אתודע, “that I revealed Myself to him directly my means of My Ineffable Name.”   When G’d said that communications with prophets on a lower level than Moses took place in a dream, He meant that seeing Moses was familiar with all of G’d’s attributes, he did not need to be addressed in a dream in order to lower the impact of such a revelation on his psychological equilibrium as he was already נאמן בכל ביתי, “fully trusted i.e. “at home,” in “My entire House.” Basically, G’d taught Miriam and Aaron a lesson in the difference between the prophetic stature of Moses and that of other prophets including themselves.
     במראה אליו אתודע, “in a vision do I make Myself known to him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reference is to a nocturnal vision; this is why G’d elaborated: “in a dream I speak  with him.”
      A kabbalistic approach: the expression במראה refers to the emanations which are known as נצח, הוד or sometimes צבאות. G’d explained the limit of perceptions other prophets could attain in terms of the respective emanations. These prophets are perceived as entering through a “gate” of perceptional ascents  assigned to prophets. There is an upper limit where these prophets cannot expand their perceptional powers further. Perhaps we may best describe this limit in terms of במראות הצובאות, “the mirrors which were piling up in heaps” in Exodus 38,8. These mirrors “piled up” at the entrance to the Tabernacle.
      It is appropriate for you the reader to appreciate that when G’d sums up here the various levels of prophecy from Moses down to “minor” prophets, that He spelled the word מראה, generally translated as “mirror” with the vowel kametz instead of the vowel segol with which it is familiar to us. G’d contrasts His appearances to Moses by spelling the word מראה as a masculine in connection with him, whereas in connection with the other prophets the same word is spelled as if it were a feminine noun. Using the feminine is a hint that visions experienced by other prophets were weaker, i.e. more confused, the message not being totally clear. 
  G’d may have wanted to illustrate the limitations of other prophets by the comparison with seeing things by means of a mirror instead of seeing things directly with one’s eyes without any intermediaries. Perhaps we can understand this better when we recall the halachah that on the Sabbath one must not look in the mirror (Shabbat 149). [If the mirror is made of metal, enabling the viewer to use its sharp edges to trim unwanted hair. Ed.] The author speaks of a mirror (with the vowel kametz) made of glass whose polished surface reflects images which have no substance but appear so real that though they are but reflections they are apt to deceive the viewer into believing that they are alive, real. When Moses looked at such a “mirror” he realised  that what he saw was abstract, i.e. that he was shown a concept as opposed to a two-dimensional reflection of something material, “real.” This is the meaning of the words ותמונת ה' יביט, “he looks at a divine image.” in other words, the difference between different levels of prophecy is in the prophet’s perspective. If G’d attributes the “image” of G’d to Himself, this must not be misunderstood anymore than the expression that man was created בצלם אלו-הים in “the image of the divine” (Genesis 1,27). None of these words mean that there is something “physical” or “physical image” in connection with G’d the totally abstract. The prophet Hoseah 12,11 had also spoken about providing His prophets with “images” when he said of G’d וביד הנביאים אדמה, “by means of the prophets I provide images.” [If a “parable” is an abstract image, then a mirror reflection is a quasi material image. Ed.]     Our sages in Yevamot 49 phrased it thus: “all the prophets experienced murky visions whereas Moses experienced a clear vision.” They brought proof for their statement from Ezekiel  where many different visions of G’d are reported by the prophet. The fact that Ezekiel experienced different levels of images and visions (Ezekiel 1,1 - 1,27, etc.), is proof of the distinction between what a prophet of his caliber (high) experienced and what Moses experienced. This is what G‘d meant when He emphasized looking at a mirror with the vowel segol as opposed to viewing things through a mirror with the vowel kametz.
  
  Verse 7
  
   בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “In all My house he is trusted as loyal.” According to the plain meaning of the text  this means that just as a member of the family has access to all parts of his  father’s house and can speak without asking for permission to do so, so Moses had the right to address G’d at all times without having to make an “appointment.”
      A kabbalistic approach: when the Torah speaks about “in all My house,” this is a reference to the house known as בית אל, recalling the time G’d had identified Himself to Yaakov (Genesis 31,13) as אנכי האל בית אל, “I am the G’d whom you have encountered when you called the monument you built for Me בית אל.” The word “My house” was also a reference to “all My goodness “ of which G’d had spoken when He had told Moses (on the Mountain) “I will let all My goodness pass before you” (Exodus 33,19). It is also reminiscent of the place where Adam had sinned, i.e. had proven that he was not trustworthy in “My house.” Seeing that there had once been a human being who had been given free rein in “G’d’s house” i.e. Gan Eden, and had to be expelled, G’d contrasts Moses’ stature by saying that he is trusted in all parts of “G’d’s house. We may perceive the word הוא, “he,” in our verse as a contrast to Moses’ “father” Adam who had not proved trustworthy.” 
  Some Kabbalists understand the expression בכל ביתי as a reference to the ב in בראשית, i.e. the house of prayer, such as in ושמחתים בבית תפלתי, “I will make them rejoice in the House of My prayer,” (Isaiah 57,7) The meaning of the word תפלתי in that verse is similar to כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא, ”for my House is known as a House of prayer” (same verse). This is what Hillel had in mind when he said: “G’d meant that “if you come to My house, I will come to your house.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him mouth to mouth, etc.” The meaning of these words is that G’d communicates with Moses without an angel as an intermediary. The word ומראה means: “I show him matters as they are in reality.” Just as G’d had shown Moses an illustration of the Tabernacle and it served as his blueprint, so whenever G’d speaks to Moses He illustrates matters for him in an unmistakable manner. Of the illustration (in the sky) of the Tabernacle the Torah had told us in Exodus 25,40: וראה ועשה בתבניתם, “see and make according to their form.”
     בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Our sages in Tanchuma Tzav 13 comment on the emphasis on both these words that even if My servant were not Moses you have no right to speak against him. Seeing that he is of the stature of Moses you have even less right to speak against him.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והענן סר מעל האהל, “and the cloud departed from above the Tent.” If the Torah referred to the cloud which had descended onto the entrance of the Tabernacle in verse 5, the Torah would now have had to describe it as “the cloud departed from the entrance of the Tent.” Seeing that the word מפתח is missing, we must assume that the cloud the Torah speaks of is the one which always signaled that the people should either move or make camp. Seeing the cloud departed the Israelites thought that they were meant to break camp and start moving. However, G’d commanded them to wait for seven days. This is the meaning of the words תסגר שבעת ימים, “let her be quarantined for seven days” (verse 14). When the Torah reported afterwards that the people did not journey this is equivalent to saying that the cloud had not actually traveled away from the Tabernacle any distance at all. It only departed to show that ordinarily, if not for Miriam’s quarantine, the people would have been on the way already. In other words, the Torah made it clear to everyone that the entire people’s progress toward the Holy Land had been delayed for seven days in honor of Miriam.
  
  Verse 11
  
  . אשר נואלנו, “for we have been foolish” vis-a-vis you (Moses) ואשר חטאנו, “and we have sinned“ (against You G’d). The reason for the unusual expression נואלנו, is that raising this whole subject by speaking about it was an act of foolishness on the part of who spoke about it.
      Zevachim 101 raises the question of who quarantined Miriam. If you were to say it  was Moses, how could he do this seeing he was not a priest? Only priests are allowed to inspect such skin afflictions and pronounce them as purified or not. If you were to say that Aaron quarantined her, how could he do that seeing that he was related to Miriam and therefore biased in his judgment? We have a clear rule that no blood relation is allowed to inspect the status of such skin afflictions and to pronounce them as healed, etc. G’d showed Miriam respect by announcing that seeing that He was a Priest, He could determine the length of her quarantine.
  
  Verse 12
  
  . אל תהי נא כמת, “do not let her be like a dead person!” Aaron told Moses: “I am not qualified to rule on when her affliction is healed seeing that I am her relative. There is no other priest in the world at this time who is qualified to rule on this; therefore, unless you pray on her behalf she will remain thus afflicted indefinitively” (compare Tanchuma Tzav 13). This is why Aaron used the words: “like one who leaves his mother’s womb with half his flesh consumed.” Aaron meant that people born in a state of tzoraat are not subject to being healed ever. Aaron concluded that due to such considerations Moses had to pray on Miriam’s behalf so that his sister would not suffer from the same status as a baby born with this affliction.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . ויצעק משה אל ה', “Moses cried out to the Lord:” he expressed his pain over Miriam’s fate and prayed for her. The reason the Torah continues with the word לאמור, was to tell us that this prayer by Moses was not merely in his heart but that he verbalized it. This is the meaning of Berachot 31 “if someone prays he must move his lips and enunciate the words of his prayer.” The reason is that by moving one’s lips the letters one says assume a certain shape (in the atmosphere) through the use of voice, breath, and verbalising them. When such a prayer has assumed a certain shape it ascends to the celestial regions and arrives in the presence of the Lord.
     אל נא רפא נא לה, “O Lord, please heal her.” The attribute El which Moses prayed to is the one with the power  to heal; it is part of the attribute of Justice “wrapped” in Mercy. In most instances when this attribute is mentioned it represents חסד, “G’d’s loving kindness." Examples are: Psalms 22,2 אלי אלי למה עזבתני, “My G’d, My G’d why did You forsake me?” or Psalms 50,1  אל אלוהים דבר וירא ארץ, “G’d the Lord G’d spoke, and summoned forth the earth.” The sequence of these attributes is חסד-דין-רחמים, the attributes which were employed by G’d when He created the universe. We also have a verse in Psalms 99,8 where G’d is described as relating to the Jewish people as אל נושא היית להם “You related to them as a G’d who forgives.” If, in apparent contradiction to the aforementioned, we find a verse in Psalms 7,12 which describes ואל זועם בכל יום, “a G’d who pronounces doom each day,” the meaning is that only on such days as the attribute of Justice is manifest does G’d pronounce doom. There are many days when that attribute is not in evidence seeing that the attribute of חסד has displaced it as we know from Genesis 18,23. (where Avraham prayed for the good people in Sodom).
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואביה ירק ירק בפניה, “were her father to spit in her face, etc.”  If her father were angry at her so that he would spit in her face, would she not be banned from his presence for at least a week? Is it not only logical that she deserves to be banned from G’d’s presence for at least as long a period seeing she has incurred G’d’s displeasure! She should by rights be quarantined seven days for angering G’d and seven days for speaking out against G’d’s prophet. However, seeing that we do not impose a greater penalty based on mere logic, she  will be quarantined only for seven days. This is what the Talmud Baba Kama 25 writes.   From the description in the Talmud it seems clear that the “spitting out” does not describe the sin involved but is merely an example of the anger expressed by the party who has been insulted. Were it to refer to the sin committed, the Torah should have written: “if she had spat out in the face of her father, etc.” After all, Miriam was the sinner in this episode.
      Actually, the sin consisted of unseemly speech, similar to someone spitting out, a form of unseemly use of his mouth. We have encountered the example of spitting out in connection with חליצה when the widow who has been rejected by the brother of her deceased husband spits out in front of him to show her disdain for his conduct (Deut. 25,9). We must understand the fact that G’d punished Miriam with tzoraat as parallel to spitting out in front of her as a response to the insult He had endured. G’d’s reply to Moses therefore was that seeing He had already demonstrated His reaction to her insult by afflicting her with this skin eczema, He could not heal her immediately, but she had to remain quarantined for at least as long as she would have been banned form the presence of her biological father had she insulted him.    Our sages (Moed Katan 16) describe the incident with Miriam as one called נזיפה, “rebuke.” There are three degrees of such rebukes. The mildest form of such rebuke results in one’s being an outcast for a single day; a more severe case of such a ”rebuke” involves in one being an outcast for seven days. The most severe case of such a “rebuke” involves that the guilty party is an outcast or 30 days. The Talmud reports that two students who had discussed matters which should have been treated as confidential in public incurred the anger of their teacher and were banned from his presence for a day. When someone has caused grief to a Torah scholar and he knows that the Torah scholar is aware of this he has to impose such a “rebuke” upon himself for a full 24 hour period. Having done so he does not need a “release” from another rabbi or tribunal to readmit him to the presence of that scholar. The self-inflicted rebuke only served to assuage the hurt feelings of the injured party. If someone spoke out against a prophet or a leading personality of his generation he must inflict seven days of such “rebuke” upon himself. This is based on what happened to Miriam. We do not treat the seventh day of this period as we do the seventh day of mourning, i.e. that partial observance of such ostracism is accounted as a whole day. Finally, if someone speaks out against the president or head of the Jewish community he deserves to be ostracized in this manner for 30 days. Again, the last of these 30 days is also to be observed in full. To help remember this the sages used the words האבן האזל in Samuel I 20,19 as a reminder. In the word האזל the letter א symbolizes the Torah scholar, the letter ז represents the prophet, whereas the letter ל represents the head of the community. Insulting such a person results in one’s being ostracized for 30 days.    The Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3 does not recognize a “rebuke” of less than seven days. It bases itself on the example of Miriam who was quarantined for seven days and treated very mildly. At the same time the sages there do not allow for someone being outcast, נדוי, for a period of less than 30 days. They base this on what happened with the quails in 11,20 where the Torah describes G’d’s disgust with the people’s reaction to meat as extending for up to thirty days.
      The reason that G’d’s response to Moses’ prayer commences with the conjunctive letter ו, i.e. ואביה, instead of אביה, is merely an indication that this is the beginning of a verbal communication. It is not an isolated occurrence. The author quotes Numbers 18,8, Genesis 27,28, Number 9,2, Kings II 2,9 as examples of such constructions in the Bible. No doubt in each such instance there is a compelling reason why the author chose to commence a sentence with a conjunctive letter ו. 
      Seeing the principle called קל וחומר, an inference arrived at by means of simple logic, is one of the thirteen methods of valid exegesis and it is the first one mentioned in the famous list by Rabbi Yishmael which we recite in our prayers daily, I have decided to list all thirteen principles at this point.  The principle of the קל וחומר is derived from our verse here as well as from Exodus 23,5 where the Torah commands us to assist our enemy whose beast has collapsed under its load in unloading it. If we are to do this for our enemy, the Torah implies that we most certainly have to do this when the animal in question is the property of a friend of ours.     The second principle which is a legitimate vehicle for arriving at a valid interpretation of Torah legislation is called גזרה שוה, and is almost the precise opposite of the former, seeing that it is based on similar expressions in matters which have no conceptual relation to each other; the words used for comparison are words which the text could have done without, hence they are perceived as alerting our attention to such legislation. In Leviticus 18,10 the Torah writes ערות בת בנך או בת בתך לא תגלה ערותן כי ערותך הנה; “do not uncover the nakedness of either the daughter of your son or the nakedness of the daughter of your daughter, for they are the same as your own nakedness. There is a pointed absence of mentioning that uncovering the nakedness of your daughter is prohibited. In Leviticus 18,17 the Torah writes: ערות אשה ובתה לא תגלה, את בת בנה ואת בת בתה לא תקח לגלות ערותה שארה הנה זמה היא, “you must not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you must not marry either the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter as they are close relatives, it is a depraved plot to do so.” In either instance no mention is made of not sleeping with, i.e. marrying one’s daughter. The words הנה “they are,” are superfluous in each verse. The sages therefore derive the prohibition of marrying or sleeping with one’s daughter from these superfluous identical words. These two words made it unnecessary for the Torah to write a verse prohibiting marrying one’s daughter (or one’s son).    The third category of valid exegetical tools is called בנין אב and implies that if the Torah permitted a particular procedure or prohibited it, say on one festival, then, unless there was a verse disallowing such a conclusion the rule applying to the first procedure mentioned also applies to similar procedures on other festivals. If, say, the Torah permitted using fire on the Passover in order to prepare food, then it is presumed that on other festivals where a general work prohibition exists also the preparation of food is excluded from such a prohibition. An example of such an exegetical tool is Exodus 12,16 אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם, “except that which must be eaten by any person-- only that may be done for you.” Our sages considered this verse as a precedent, בנין אב, for all the festivals. Another example for something similar is Leviticus 20,9 where the Torah discusses the penalty for cursing father and mother, concluding with the words דמיו בו, “his blood is upon himself.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 54 state that wherever this wording appears either in the singular or in the plural, i.e. דמיהם בם, this means that the applicable death penalty is סקילה, “stoning to death of the guilty party.” They use as the precedent the word in Leviticus 20,27 (where sorcery etc. is discussed)  מות ימותו באבן ירגמו אותם דמיהם בם, “they shall die by execution, they shall pelt them with stones, their blood is upon themselves.” This method of exegesis is known as בנין אב מכתוב אחד, “a textural precedent based on a single verse.”    There is a similar principle where the same rule is derived by the Torah having employed two verses to teach us the precedent, a sub-category of what we just explained. The example is found in connection with blemishes of human beings which disqualify a priest afflicted by them from functioning in the Temple or Tabernacle. In Leviticus 21,20 the Torah lists או גבן או דק או תלול בעינו או גרב או ילפת או מרוח אשך, “or who has abnormally long eyebrows, or a membrane in his eye, or a blemish in his eye, or a dry skin eruption, or a moist skin eruption, or has crushed testicles.” In that context a blemish known as יבלת (split eyelid) is omitted although that blemish is listed as disqualifying a sacrificial animal from being offered on the altar (compare Leviticus 22,22). Our sages concluded  that wherever a blemish is mentioned in the Torah, be it in connection with an animal or a human being, such blemish is disqualifying regardless of whether it is written in connection with animals or humans. This exegetical method is known as a בנין אב משני כתובים, ”precedent based on two verses.”    A fourth exegetical method in the list by Rabbi Yishmael is called כלל ופרט, a general rule mentioned in the Torah followed by an example illustrating that rule. The Torah writes in Deut. 22,11: לא תלבש שעטנז, “do not wear a garment made of two different kinds of materials.” It proceeds to give an example, i.e. a mixture of wool and linen. The reason the Torah gave us this example is that this is the only combination of the principle not to wear a mixture which is forbidden, i.e. subject to the principle enunciated in the general rule. Whenever the Torah first writes a general rule followed by such a detailed example, the rule applies only when it also corresponds to what is mentioned in the detailed example which followed the rule.    The fifth exegetical rule is the reverse of that which we just described, i.e. the Torah lists a specific item as being either forbidden or permitted, and then follows that example by a general rule. We find this rule illustrated in connection with the legislation to restore lost property (which one has found) to its owner. In that connection the Torah writes in Deut. 22,3: “thus you shall do to all the lost property of your brother.” It is understood, based on the wording of this verse, that only items which correspond to the example mentioned by the Torah first are subject to the general rule of restoring lost property to the owner. The words: “thus you shall do to all” are understood as the general rule, whereas the words: “lost property of your brother,” are the specific detail. In all such instances the general rule determines the application of the legislation contained in the detailed example.    A sixth rule is known as כלל ופרט וכלל, “a legislation couched in general terms, followed by an example, followed by a reiteration of the general principle mentioned first. In such instances the general rule is applicable only when it corresponds to the main features present in the detailed example mentioned by the Torah. We read in Exodus 22,8: על כל דבר פשע, “concerning all matters involving misappropriation, etc.” This is a general principle involving any wrongdoing. The Torah follows this by citing examples such as oxen, sheep, etc., which are the subject of theft or other kinds of misappropriation. The Torah concludes by repeating once more ”concerning any lost object, etc.,” that disputes like this must be adjudged before a judge. The examples cited all have the following common denominators: they are portable, are chattels. This excludes a slave and landed property both of which are not considered as chattels from the legislation described in that paragraph. We have a special verse in the Torah comparing the status of slaves to that of landed property (compare Leviticus 25,46) “you may bequeath them to your children” (the slaves) [just like you bequeath property].  Due to such considerations documents which though they declare that something belongs to someone are not comparable to chattels as the documents have no inherent value other than the paper they are written on.  Another instance of the principle of כלל ופרט וכלל, occurs in Deut. 14,27 in connection with מעשר שני, the second tithe. Concerning what may be done with the money which was realized in redeeming the produce of the second tithe which was too bulky to transport to Jerusalem, the Torah wrote in verse 26 that “you may spend this money (in Jerusalem) for all that your heart desires.” It proceeds to give examples of what your heart desires such as “beef, sheep, wine, alcoholic drink,” repeating once more “and all that your heart desires.” In such a situation where the general rule is followed by examples only to be followed again by the general rule, the substance of the items cited as the examples is the guideline for what is included in the general rule. In this case, the examples are all edibles, produce of the ground (animals which feed on produce of the ground are considered as in the same class). It follows that any other edibles which are produce of the ground are included in the general rule though they have not been enumerated here in detail. Synthetic foods might not qualify as matters for which money from the proceeds of the second tithe may be spent.   The seventh rule is known as כלל שצריך לפרט, “a general rule which is indispensable for understanding the detailed examples.” We find an example of this principle in Numbers 3,40  פקוד כל בכור זכר לבני ישראל, “count every male firstborn of the Children of Israel.” Had the Torah written the word “male” without also writing the word “firstborn” would have assumed that all the males whether firstborn or not  have to be included in that census. Had the Torah only written the word “firstborn”, I would have thought that female firstborn are also included in that legislation. Therefore the word בכור in that verse is a general rule which is indispensable for understanding what is included in the detailed example.    Rule number eight is described as כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא, “any matter which was included in a general rule but is singled out to teach something pertaining to this legislation does not teach only regarding this specific example but teaches something regarding the general rule from which it was singled out.” In connection with the prohibition of sacrificing children to the Moloch cult the Torah writes in Leviticus 20,2 “if any man (person) from among the Children of Israel or from a resident stranger (proselyte) hand over any of his children to that idol, such a man shall be executed. The common people shall pelt him to death with stones.” Up until the appearance of this verse the Moloch cult was just one of many forms of idolatry and the death penalty had already been provided for anyone serving idols. In this verse this particular form of idolatry (abomination) was singled out by the Torah. Why was the penalty spelled out in detail here? [the kind of death penalty]. Rabbi Yishmael teaches that the Torah did not mean that only this particular form of abomination qualifies for the most severe death penalty; rather, it was singled out as an example of the kind of death penalty applicable to people guilty of performing other abominations.     Rule number nine: כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טען אחר שלא כענינו יצא להקל ולהחמיר, “any matter which had already been included in a general rule but was singled out in order to teach something out of the context in which it had appeared, does so in order to either reveal an advantage or a disadvantage as the case may be.” In Exodus 21,2 the Torah writes: כי תקנה עבד עברי שש שנים יעבד ובשביעית יצא לחפשי חנם, “when you purchase the services (labor) of a Jewish servant he will serve with you for six years and will leave in the seventh year free of charge.” It is clear that a female Jewish servant was not included in this legislation as the Torah details rules applicable to the release of female Jewish servants when it writes in verse seven of the same chapter what the rules are when a father sold the labor of his daughter while she was a minor. Why was the word אמה mentioned in verse 7 seeing that a Jewish girl was already included in the general legislation mentioned in Deut. 5,12 when the Torah spoke about a Jewish servant with these words: “if your brother  a Jewish man or Jewish woman is sold to you, etc. etc.?” The only reason the Jewish maid servant was singled out from the general rule governing both male and female Jewish servants is to legislate certain advantages she enjoys vis-a-vis her male counterpart. Whereas a male Jewish servant does not leave the service of his master merely by displaying signs of puberty, his counterpart the female Jewish servant does so. A male Jewish servant does not leave the employ of his master when the master dies but only at the end of six years service. In other words, one reason the Torah singled out the female once more was to reveal certain advantages she enjoys as compared to the general rules pertaining to the service of Jews who have been acquired by Jewish masters. At the same time there is also an aspect which is to the disadvantage of such a maid servant in that her master can marry her against her consent while she is in his service, seeing that at the time she was sold this was the understanding with her father.    Rule number 10. כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון דבר אחר שהוא כענינו יצא להקל ולא להחמיר, “any legislation which was part of a general rule and has been singled out to describe an example pertaining to the context of that legislation, has been singled out only in order to introduce an ameliorating circumstance, not the reverse.” In Deut. 19,5  where the Torah discusses the law about involuntary manslaughter, we read: “or who will come with his fellow into the forest to chop down trees and his hand swings the ax to cut the tree and the iron slips from the handle, etc.,” such a person has to seek refuge in the city of refuge to protect him from the avenger of the slain party. Nonetheless, the Torah makes it clear that such involuntary manslaughter is under the general heading of “murderer,” seeing the Torah wrote in Leviticus 24,21 (without mentioning an exception) ‘anyone striking dead a human being is to be executed.’” The example cited in Deut. 19 then teaches that there are exceptions to the death penalty, namely when the killing was under the heading of involuntary manslaughter. Both verses speak of the same subject, i.e. killing; however the involuntary killer is exempt from the death penalty seeing his situation was singled out by the Torah which provided cities of refuge.    Rule number 11: When a matter which had been subject to legislation of a general rule had been singled out by the Torah to provide a totally new perspective, it will not again become part of the original general rule unless the Torah writes so specifically.  An example is Leviticus 22,11: “when a priest acquires a slave who becomes his physical property he may eat (terumah) just as may someone born in his house, etc.” In the verse following the Torah writes that such a priest’s daughter cannot eat such terumah anymore once she marries a husband who is not a priest. Seeing that up until her marriage she had been part of her father’s household, the Torah had to inform us that her status changes drastically upon her marriage. Once she has forfeited the right to eat terumah there is no way she can regain this right unless the Torah legislates so specifically. This is why in verse 13 the Torah writes that if this daughter who had forfeited her right to eat terumah through marriage to a non-priest had become widowed or divorced she may again eat terumah in her father’s house.   Rule number 12. דבר הלמד מענינו ודבר הלמד מסופו, “A legislative matter derived through study of its context or from its subsequent passage.” We find an illustration of this principle in connection with the laws of the Sabbath. The Torah writes (Exodus 16,29) שבו איש תחתיו, “let every man remain in his place;” this does not mean that one is not to move for the entire period of the Sabbath but that one must not distance himself from one’s home (starting from the city’s boundary) for a distance of more than 2,000 cubits (1300 yards approx.) in any one direction. This is an example of deriving something from the context in which the passage is written. Seeing that the Israelites had to walk up to that distance to collect the manna during the week days and there was no manna on the Sabbath, it is reasonable to interpret the word ממקומו, “from his place,” as meaning the distance he had to move in a certain direction on days other than the Sabbath. We now have to show an example of deriving legislation by studying a passage in conjunction with the passage following it. In Leviticus 18,6 the Torah writes: איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “any man shall not approach his close relative to uncover nakedness;” on the face of it this is a prohibition against sexual contact with any blood relative. Later on, in verses 7-18, the Torah spells out the list of blood-relations which are covered by the general statement in verse 6. This list enables us to derive which blood-relations are permitted as marriage partners, i.e. any not included in the verses 7-18. This is an example of what Rabbi Yishmael means when he says that deriving something from the end of a passage is a legitimate exegetical tool.    Rule number 13 deals with two verses in the Torah which appear to contradict each other and which require a third verse for clarification. The Torah writes in Genesis 1,1 that “G’d created heaven and earth.” From this verse it appears as if the creation of the heaven preceded the creation of the earth. On the other hand,  we read in Genesis 2,4: “these are the products of ....on the day the Lord G’d created earth and heaven.” This verse creates the impression that earth preceded heaven at the time of creation. We therefore need a third verse in Scripture which resolves this apparent contradiction. This verse is found in Isaiah 48,13: ”My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call upon them, let them stand up.” Another example of apparently contradictory statements in the Torah occurs in Exodus 20,22: “You have seen that I spoke to you out of the heaven.” This verse gives the impression that G’d’s voice at that time did not emanate from Mount Sinai but from the celestial regions. On the other hand, in Deut. 5,4 the Torah writes: “face to face the Lord spoke to you at the Mountain out of the fire.” The third verse which resolves the apparent contradiction is found in Deut. 4,36: “From the heaven He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst that fire you heard His words.” A third example of such a need for a third verse reconciling two apparently contradictory ones is the subject of consumption of fat and blood. In Leviticus 3,17 the Torah writes: “you must not eat any fat or blood.” This verse gives the impression that the prohibition applies equally to free-roaming beasts and to domesticated animals. On the other hand, in Deut 12,22 we read that the free-roaming beasts may be consumed (apparently without restriction). In Leviticus 7,23 the Torah writes that “all the fat of ox sheep or goat you must not eat.” This verse indicates that it is in order to consume the fat of free-roaming animals.
  
  Verse 15
  
   והעם לא נסע, ”And the people did not journey.” The reason was that the cloud had not risen. It was a great compliment for Miriam that both the cloud and the people waited for seven days until Miriam was cured. Our sages in Sotah 8 state that a person is “measured,” i.e. treated, in accordance with the way he treats others. Shimshon was in the habit of judging matters based on what his eyes saw, as we know from Judges 9,2 where he told his parents that he insisted that they arrange for his marriage to a Philistine girl seeing “she seems right in my eyes.” As a result of the yardsticks he applied, the Philistines in due course gouged out these very eyes which had misled him (Judges 14,3). Avshalom was very proud of his hair. As a result, when he was punished for rebelling against his father David and sleeping with 10 of his father’s concubines he was hung up by his hair (Samuel II 18,15). The same “measure for measure” principle works also in reverse, i.e. positive character traits displayed by individuals usually are rewarded by G’d in kind. Joseph who had taken a great deal of trouble to bring his father’s bones to burial in the Holy Land, was rewarded in Moses securing his casket and the people taking it with them to the Holy Land during their 40 year trek through the desert (compare Genesis 50,7 and Exodus 13,19). The most illustrious Israelite ever personally looked after keeping the promise made to Joseph by his brothers in this regard. Seeing Moses had taken so much trouble, he was rewarded by G’d Himself burying him (compare Deut. 34,6). We must not be surprised therefore that Miriam experienced the same kind of treatment. When her brother Moses had been lying in a basket in the reeds alongside the river Nile, she had kept watch from a distance in order to see what would develop (Exodus 2,4). Having kept watch for an hour or so at the time, she was now rewarded by the entire Jewish people waiting for seven days with their journey until she could rejoin the main body of the nation. In this connection our sages in Sotah 8 have said that although in practice the four kinds of death penalty in the Torah can no longer be applied seeing we do not have a Temple and our judges do not have that authority while we are in exile, the principle of such kinds of deaths has not been abrogated. When certain people die violent deaths this may reflect the fact that had there been a chance to convict them of the death penalty they would have been executed by a method parallel to that which caused their death. This is an ongoing miracle proving that what we call השגחה פרטית, “G’d’s individual supervision of each of our fates” is still very much in evidence. This is the meaning of Isaiah 30,18: ”for the Lord is a G’d of Justice; happy are all who wait for Him.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
    סוס מוכן ליום מלחמה ולה' התשועה, ”the horse is prepared for the day of battle; but victory comes from G’d” (Proverbs 21,31). 
  In this verse Solomon warns everybody to do whatever is in his power by using natural means to achieve his success (in a military encounter when such is unavoidable). Beyond that he must leave things to G’d. A miracle occurs only when all the natural means have been exhausted and have proven to be inadequate to produce the desired result. Man was created in such a way that he can cope with most problems by using natural means. If one plans to secure victory over an adversary in a confrontation one must strive to equip oneself with the amount of weapons and the quality of weapons needed to give one an advantage. In other words, in the days of Solomon one needed horses and chariots. If one left everything to heaven one will find that heaven does not intervene on one’s behalf. If someone is sick and one prays for him to be healed such a prayer is useless unless one has first taken the measures known to help the patient to get well, such as giving him the type of food he needs, Only after one has taken all the measures known to medical science which are capable of curing such a patient does one ask heaven to do its part in curing the sick person at hand. This is the deeper meaning of Psalms 147,3 הרופא לשבורי לב ומחבש לעצבותם, “He heals their broken hearts, and binds up their wounds.” It is also written in verse 10 of that same psalm that “He does not prize the strength of horses, nor value the fleetness of men.” We have a third verse (Psalms 33,17) in which David expressly ridicules those who place their trust in their horses by saying: “horses are a false hope for deliverance, for all their great power they provide no escape.” When we reflect on all these verses we can understand why G’d agreed to the dispatch of the spies in spite of the fact that He Himself would deal the mortal blows to the Canaanites. The Israelites were right in doing what is humanly possible to gird themselves for war against the Canaanites including spying out how best to invade the land of Canaan at minimum risk. Setting ambushes, sending undercover agents, etc., are all legitimate ways for preparing an invasion and maximising the chances of success. Once all these steps had been taken G’d would add whatever measure of supernatural assistance was needed to ensure success. The Torah does not make the performance of miracles the cornerstone of its dealings with mankind or the Jewish people. Miracles are exceptions, not norms. This is why G’d had commanded Noach to build an Ark (Genesis 6,15) although G’d could have let all the people whom He wanted to save walk on water or save them in some other miraculous fashion. All the detailed instructions of what material to use for the Ark, how long and how high it was to be, etc., etc., are proof that G’d wanted Noach to do everything humanly possible to make his salvation appear compatible with natural law. Nonetheless, in spite of man’s best efforts, this most likely would not have been enough for all the inmates of the Ark to endure a whole year inside it without divine input, i.e. some form of miracle. This is what Solomon spoke of when he said that the horse should be prepared. When David asks the Urim and Tumim concerning whether he should attack the Philistines in the valley of Refaim (Samuel II 5,23), G’d told him not to mount a frontal attack but to wait until he would hear the sound of the leaves of the baca trees rustle before taking any action. At that time he was to go into action as G’d would march ahead of him attacking the Philistines. In other words, when David consulted G’d by supernatural means, the response was to proceed as far as posible according to natural means. His victory was supposed to be viewed by the other nations as a natural event. When G’d commanded Joshua to lay an ambush before mounting a renewed attack on the town of Ai, (Joshua 8,2), He also wanted the conquest to proceed along the laws of natural law (not like making the walls of Jericho collapse from the sound of the blasts of the shofar). This then is the reason that the Torah wrote that G’d had commanded Moses to dispatch the spies as we read in this portion.
    שלח לך אנשים ויתורו, “send out men on your behalf who shall tour, etc.” The Torah implies that seeing the people had asked that spies be sent as we know from Deut. 1,22: “let us send men ahead to reconnoiter the land,” G’d then said to Moses: “send out men for yourself, etc.” The men were to find out the best routes, which city to attack first, etc.
      Rashi explains the words שלח לך, as “in accordance with your judgment.” G’d meant: “I am not commanding you to do this, but I leave it up to you.” What Rashi means is that although the dispatch of the spies took place at G’d’s “instructions,” על פי ה', the commandment did not originate in G’d’s mind but was an accomodation to a desire uttered by the people. It is similar  to Deut. 17,15 where the Torah commands שום תשים עליך מלך, “you shall surely appoint a king over you,” and proceeds to describe who is suitable to be king. The Torah, i.e. G’d, was not enthused about the idea of governing the Jewish people by a king of flesh and blood, but concurred knowing there would be political pressure to have such a king, and the alternative would probably be worse. We have the testimony of the prophet Hoseah 13,11 that appointing a king for the Jewish people was something that took place against G’d’s will and that the cessation of the Davidic dynasty when the first Temple was destroyed was also a display of G’d’s anger.
      Other commentators understand the word לך as meaning לתועלתך, “for your benefit.” It means something similar to when Moses was told to make himself the trumpets where the word לך, “for your benefit” is also mentioned. A similar word לך is used in connection with עשה לך ארון עץ, “make for yourself an Ark of wood.” According to that view the specific advantage that was to accrue to Moses from all these examples was that Moses would live long enough for all these things to be completed. Had it not been for the sin of the spies and what ensued afterwards, the Israelites would have entered the land of Canaan almost 38 years sooner after which Moses could have died seeing that G’d had hinted to him already in Exodus 6,1 long before he had failed to speak to the rock, that: “now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh,” implying that Moses would not live to see what G’d would do to the 31 kings of the land of Canaan. At the time this had been G’d’s reaction to Moses having said that things had got worse for the Jewish people after his appointment instead of better.
      The reason there were 12 spies although we note that later on in Joshua’s time two spies were enough and even these spies were sent in secret (Joshua 2,1) as were two spies when Moses sent them to spy out Yazer, is that G’d wanted that there should be a national consensus on the subject of the conquest of the land of Canaan. It  was necessary therefore to have every tribe represented in that first spy mission. If they would fail, all the people would bear an equal share of the responsibility and the penalty.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Shelach 1: the spies whom Moses sent out were fools. The spies whom Joshua dispatched were righteous people. We know this from  Joshua 2,1 where we read: “Joshua sent out from Shittim two spies secretly to say, etc.” What is the meaning of the word חרש, generally understood to mean “deaf,” i.e. something no one heard about?”  Those two men pretended to be potters offering their wares cheres, earthenware, for sale, calling for people to come and buy from them. They did all this in order not to arouse suspicion that they had come to spy. The two men in question were Pinchas  and Calev. When they came to the house of Rachav the innkeeper and wanted to stay the night the King of Jericho somehow heard about these men and presumed them to be spies. Rachav tried to hide them. Pinchas told her that seeing he was a priest he possessed some faculties similar to those of angels and could make himself invisible. He also claimed to have prophetic stature, which meant that if he wanted to he could become invisible. Although Rachav took both men up to the roof of her house she hid only one of them amongst the flax stalks put out there to dry seeing that Pinchas had made himself invisible. All this is based on the words ותצפנם, “she hid them,” followed by ותצפנו, “she hid him,” in Joshua 2,6. First the Book described Rachav as hiding two people, then as hiding one person. This one person was Calev.    The twelve spies whom Moses had sent out were foolish by comparison. We know this because Solomon taught us that he who is מוציא דבה, engages in slander, is a fool (Proverbs 10,18). Thus far the Midrash. The Midrash means that these men who were righteous at the time Moses selected them managed to ruin their reputations, their future, no longer qualifying for the flattering description in Numbers 13,3 כלם אנשים, “all of them men of outstanding character.” When Channah (wife of Elkanah) prayed that G’d grant her a male child she begged for זרע אנשים, “seed who would grow into a worthwhile personality.” She used the word אנשים intentionally to describe the hopes she had for such a baby boy if and when G’d would grant him to her (Judges 2,1). Instead these 12 “men” aborted their mission, caused ruin to themselves and to a whole generation of Israelites; in his parting address to the Jewish people Moses described that whole generation as דור תהפוכות המה, “a generation that reversed itself, children who possess no loyalty” (Deut. 32,20). We learn from the whole passage how even a group of righteous men can turn into wicked people. This is what Solomon meant when he said that “he who engages in slander is foolish,” i.e. as soon as he engages in slander he becomes a fool.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . למטה יוסף למטה מנשה, “from the tribe of Joseph, i.e. from the tribe of Menashe.” In verse 8 the Torah  mentioned the tribe of Ephrayim seeing he was the more important of the two sons of Joseph, i.e. of the tribes which developed out of Joseph. The reason that Joseph’s name was associated with Menashe here was that Joseph too had been guilty of slander when he told his father about the activities of his brothers (Genesis 37,2). Gadi ben Sodi, the spy representing Menashe had been one of those guilty of spreading slander as opposed to Joshua the spy representing Ephrayim. The reason Joshua and Calev are not mentioned successively, seeing that these two were the only ones who did not slander the Holy Land, was so that by being “surrounded” by the names of spies who did spread slander, his failure to be influenced is highlighted even more.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אלה שמות האנשים, “These are the names of the men, etc.” Why did the Torah repeat the introduction “the names,” seeing it had already written the words: “and these are their names” in verse 4? The reason is to tell us that all the other spies did not have their names changed since birth. Only Joshua had his name changed.
     ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יחושע “Moses called (renamed) Hoshea son of Nun “Joshua.” Our sages in Sotah 34 comment that Moses added the latter י to Hoshea’s name so that the letters י-ה at the beginning of his name represented a prayer that he should be saved from making common cause with the majority of the spies. Moses foresaw in his Holy Spirit that when the spies would return they would slander the land of Israel.    Another reason cited (Tanchuma Shelach 6) for Moses adding the letter י to Hoshea’s name is that Joshua and Calev who remained loyal to G’d received their reward in the Holy Land. Calev was given the city of Chevron as we know from Judges 1,20: “they gave Calev Chevron.” Joshua received the reward which would have been in store for the ten spies who perished because of the slander they spread (Numbers 14,37), a verse which is immediately followed by “and Joshua son of Nun and Calev son of Yefuneh remained alive from among the men who had gone to explore the land.” The verse contrasts what happened to the slanderers and what happened to the loyalists. The addition of the letter י suggests that Joshua inherited the share of the other ten men.
   It appears from that Midrash that Joshua’s name prior to his joining the spies had been Hoshea. If so, we are entitled to ask why the Torah introduced this man already with the name Joshua in  Exodus 17,9, Exodus 33,11 as well as in Exodus 24,13 and in Numbers 11,28? It may be that when the Torah was written and Joshua had already had the letter י added to his name the Torah did not want to call him by his former name as a compliment to Moses. If, in this instance, the Torah does mention that his name had not always been Joshua  this was to tell us that it had been Moses who had changed his name for the sake of this mission, but that in principle his name had been Hoshea even where the Torah spells it as Joshua. We find something similar with Moses’ own name, a name given to him by the daughter of Pharaoh. G’d decided to always call Moses by this name as a compliment to her seeing she had converted to Judaism.
  
  Verse 17
  
   עלו זה בנגב, “ascend here in the south.” According to the Zohar Shelach 160, Moses gave them his staff to act as protection for them. This is based on a [somewhat tenuous Ed.] comparison between the words ואת המטה הזה, in Exodus 4,17 and the words עלו זה in our verse. 
  According to the commentators Moses revealed the secret of the 12-lettered name of G’d to the spies, the word זה having a numerical value of 12 and being a reminder of when G’d had said to Moses: זה שמי לעולם, “My name is זה forever” (Exodus 3,15). All of this was to help them maintain unity and to protect them against the giants in the land.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויבא עד חברון, “He arrived at Chevron.” The Torah wrote this in the singular as only Calev went to Chevron where he prostrated himself at the site of the graves of the patriarchs. He engaged in prayer seeking to fortify himself against the advice of his colleagues. Joshua had already been saved from being influenced by the ten spies seeing he had become the recipient of a special blessing from Moses who had told him:, י-ה יושיעך מעצת מרגלים,“may the Lord save you from the advice of the spies.”
   I have seen a comment in a Midrash (Zohar) that the words “he arrived at Chevron,” should be understood as “He arrived at Chevron,” i.e. G’d arrived at Chevron. He went there to inform the patriarchs that the time had come for their descendants to take possession of the land He had promised them.
     וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צוען מצרים, “and Chevron had been built seven years prior to Tzoan of Egypt.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah merely informs us that Chevron was historically older that the kingdom of Tzoan (Egypt).
      A Midrashic approach based on Sotah 34: Chevron was seven times more fertile than Tzoan in Egypt. The Torah wants to contrast the fertility of Chevron which was the worst agricultural land in Canaan, full of rocks, with Tzoan, generally presumed to be the most fertile part of Egypt which the Torah had described as ”like a garden of the Lord” in Genesis 13,10. The entire verse was meant to describe the excellence of the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 23
  
  . וישאוהו במוט בשנים, “they carried it (the cluster of grapes) on a double pole.” The word בשנים is understood to refer to two poles. Eight men were needed to carry the cluster of grapes between them, one carried a pomegranate, one carried a fig; Joshua and Calev did not carry anything. The reason that they did not carry any fruit was that the other spies wanted to use the fruit as an illustration of how different the land of Canaan was from any other country. They planned to argue that just as its produce is different from any other country so its inhabitants are different from people in any other country. They wanted to show that whereas it took eight of them to carry a cluster of grapes, a local inhabitant carried such a cluster by himself. According to Rashi, if we want to get some idea of the weight carried by these spies, look at the stones the Israelites lifted as memorial stones from the river Jordan which, according to our sages, weighed 40 sa-ah each. (33,000 ccm). We are also told that the weight a person can carry when he lifts the load up himself is only a third of what he can carry when others lift the load unto his shoulder. All of this teaches that the weight of the cluster of grapes was extraordinary! 
      There is a Midrashic approach in the Zohar we already mentioned that the words וישאוהו בשנים במוט, refer to Joshua and Calev. A grape, while still attached to the soil is called זמורה, whereas when it has been cut it is called מוט. The Torah wants to tell us that whereas all the other spies combined were unable to lift this cluster of grapes after it had ben cut, Joshua and Calev managed to lift it and to carry it between them. This feat served as a hint to them that they would be chosen to enter the Holy Land and to receive their inheritance in that land.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וישיבו אותם דבר, “they brought back word to them.” They did not first go to their respective tents upon their return after a forty day absence, but went immediately to the centre of the camp to make their slanderous report. The slander consisted of the words ארץ אוכלת יושביה, “it is a land which consumes its inhabitants” (verse 32). Our sages in Sotah 35 explain that this impression the spies formed was due to G’d at that time having brought a pestilence on the Canaanites so that they would be busy burying their dead and not pay attention to the 12 men who were spying out their country. The very miracles which had been performed on their behalf became the cause of these spies slandering the country. They caused the Israelites to become afraid of the Amalekites whom they reported seeing in the southern part of the country (verse 29). They hinted that there was no way of entering the land from the south as these people were all physically far stronger than the Israelites. Seeing that the powerful Canaanite people occupied the east and the west, this would also not be a good place to start the conquest. The Emorite in the mountain was certainly another reason for not attempting the invasion from that direction. They succeeded in frightening the people hinting that even Moses and Aaron were afraid and that is why they had agreed to their mission.     Calev silenced the people by pretending that he shared the views of the other spies before he had his say when he told them עלה נעלה וירשנו אותה, “we can certainly ascend and dispossess these people” (verse 30). He argued that if these people are strong then we are stronger than they. As soon as Calev made his statement the spies exclaimed that there was no chance to ascend as these people “are stronger than we.” This was something that they had not dared spell out previously when they had contented themselves with such hints as “the Amalekite is in the South,” etc. When they said in verse 31 “we cannot go up against these people,” instead of saying: “we cannot go into the cities,” this was a deliberate exaggeration. They meant that they would not even be able to prevail against these people if they left their fortified towns and came out to fight. The reason they used the term עליה in connection with conquest, a most unusual word for that purpose, is that  they referred to a military encounter in an open field. The word occurs in this context in reports of pitched battles in the field (Nachmanides). Having first undermined the people’s self confidence by hints and allusions, they proceeded to frighten them further by such statements as that the land (even if conquered) would consume its people (verse 32). Seeing that they had already referred to the inhabitants of that land as being powerful, they then said that these people were more powerful than G’d, i.e. the alternate meaning of the words כי חזק הוא ממנו, “it is more powerful than He.” They implied that the owner of the land would be unable to remove his property from there.    They further frightened the people when they reported having seen the nefilim, people whom they had previously described as בני הענקים, “descendants of the giants.” When they now referred to these same people as נפילים, a word related to נופל, “falling,” they implied that at the very sight of these people the onlooker would fall down in sheer fright of them. They implied that these people were the same as the ones described in Genesis 6,4 and variously described as בני האלוהים, “the sons of G’d,” or “fallen angels,” at any rate super-human creatures with great power. As one may faint when beholding an angel, the sight of them would inspire shock and weakness in the beholder. Later they appeared to tone down their description by merely calling these people ענקים, “giants.” In fact, this was a play on words suggesting that the sight of these people inspired fear at the very sight of their height. The word reflects the awe that someone feels when he sees a very high tower. They referred to their experience of being allowed to view such giants with their own eyes. They implied that former generations such as the antediluvian people were of course familiar with such phenomena and were not overawed, whereas the present  generation which was physically so inferior could not behold such phenomena without becoming frightened of them. Due to the changed conditions on earth after the deluge, the remnants of these people were actually referred to by Moses as רפאים i.e. the “weakened ones” (giants). Deut. 3,11 describes examples being such giants as Og, King of Bashan. (Compare Tanchuma  Chukat 25, and Sotah 34). Most of them had been killed by Amrafel, (Genesis 14,13), Og being the exception. The Talmud describes stunted giants of the caliber of Og as comparable to unripe olives which never attain their growth potential (Baba Batra 17). The reason Og had been saved from the deluge was for the sake of Avraham as well as for the sake of the Jewish people. It was Og who had told Avraham that his nephew Lot had been captured  (Niddah 61), and at the time when he opposed the request of the Jewish people to traverse his land and attacked them (Numbers 21,33) he thereby provided the people with the excuse to conquer his territory and to annex it. G’d meant for this piece of land to be populated by morally superior people like the Israelites.   This people who had so recently experienced miracles upon miracles at the hand of G’d on their behalf, had forgotten them or they had receded so far into their subconscious that they were once more קטני אמונה, lacking in faith, and even feared the Amalekites whom they had already defeated on the battlefield less than 2 years previously. (Exodus 17,13). Not only that, but they wished themselves to have died in Egypt rather than to have experienced the revelation of G’d at Mount Sinai, etc., when they exclaimed: “wish we had died in Egypt or the desert” (14,3). They actually accused G’d of having redeemed them from Egypt only to let them perish at this time. They preferred returning to slavery in Egypt to their present situation!    At this point Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces in a profound feeling of shame that the people had so disgraced themselves that they had become guilty of publicly desecrating the name of the Lord. They could not believe that all the people had accepted the version of the ten spies. Concerning this event Solomon said in Proverbs 26,6: “he who sends a message by a fool, cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.” He meant that if someone pulls back his feet excessively (in the effort to avoid having to go to work), he will reap violence.” The effect will be conterproductive. Similarly, here; Joshua and Calev, who in a psychologically futile effort, tried to calm the people by telling them that with the help of the Lord the land would be conquered, produced the opposite effect so that G’d had to rescue them from the wrath of the people who were about to stone them to death. Their vain attempt, though well-intentioned, resulted only in the people becoming guilty even of attempted murder in addition to their other sins.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם, “The entire assembly raised its voice,“ According to the plain meaning of these words the people commenced crying in the evening and kept crying all night long. We know that the spies had returned close to nightfall bringing with them a special kind of darkness, similar to the one we experience on the night of the ninth of Av when we mourn the destruction of the Temple. The prophet Jeremiah (Lamentations 1,2) refers to the repeated crying of the Jewish people on that night. Midrash Eicha Rabbati (1,28) points out that the dates when the people cried mentioned by Jeremiah coincided with the date they cried on this occasion.    How is the date of this occurrence arrived at? According to Taanit 29 Moses constructed the Tabernacle during the first year of the Exodus and put it together during the second year when he also sent out the spies. The cloud lifted off the Tabernacle on the twentieth of the second month in that year. The month of Iyar is always only 29 days long. The Torah testifies (10,11) that the people commenced their journey away from Mount Sinai on the twentieth of that month and that they traveled for three days in the first instance. The first of these three days does not count in the calendar as it was identical with the day on which the cloud had lifted. According to Rabbi Chama in the name of Rabbi Chanina this (the third) was the day on which the people already departed from their obedience to G’d, as the Torah mentions in Numbers 11,4 that the rabble among them lusted after various cravings, which in turn caused even the elite (בני ישראל) to commence crying from discontent. This occurred on the 22nd day of Iyar. The meat provided by G’d as a result of this rebellion lasted for 30 days (11,20) which brings us to the 22nd day of Sivan. The Torah then mentions that further travel was delayed while Miriam was isolated for seven days (12,15) which brings us to the 29th day of Sivan. This is the day when Moses dispatched the spies who returned after 40 days, i.e. the 9th day of the month of Av. The month of Sivan had thirty days whereas the month of Tammuz had 29 days. This would mean that the spies actually stayed away only thirty nine days if they returned on the ninth of Av. The Talmud raises this point. The answer given is that during that particular year the month of Tammuz had thirty days so that the ninth of Av occurred on the fortieth day of the spies’ departure. The scriptural reference to this unusual length of the month of Tammuz is provided by Lamentations 1,15: “He proclaimed a set time against me to crush my young men.” This “time” was the thirtieth day of Tammuz which caused the spies’ return to occur on the fateful ninth of Av.    When the Torah wrote in our verse that the entire congregation raised their collective voice in weeping, the reference is to the calendar date, the ninth day of Av. Rabbi Yochanan quotes G’d as saying that seeing that on the occasion of the spies’ report the people spent the night weeping without cause, He would give them cause to weep on a future occasion on that same date, i.e. the night of the destruction of the Temple. Starting from that night, the people would have many occasions to weep; this accounts for the repetition of the words בכה תבכה,“you will weep repeatedly, in Lamentations 1,2.    Our sages in that connection also understand the repetition of these two words as referring to the weeping for the destruction of the first Temple as well as the weeping for the destruction of the second Temple. Midrash Eicha Rabbati 1,24 also comments that the repetition refers to weeping for the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (10 tribes which preceded the destruction of the Kingdom of Yehudah) and that for the destruction of the latter kingdom. Similarly, the words refer to separate weeping for Jerusalem and Zion respectively, i.e. the loss of our physical and our spiritual capital respectively. We have evidence that the destruction of the first Temple occurred at night as this is mentioned explicitly in Jeremiah 39,4: “When King Tzidkiyahu of Yehudah saw them, he and all the soldiers fled. They left the city at night through the gate between the double walls.” Jeremiah had already prophesied (Jeremiah 6,5) “up, let us attack by night, and wreck her fortress!” The destruction of the second Temple also occurred at night as the Talmud Taanit 29 interprets Jeremiah 6,4: “alas for us! For the day is declining, the shadows of the evening grow long,” as a reference to the destruction of the second Temple. When the wicked Titus destroyed Jerusalem and set it ablaze the Jews fled to the camp of Titus’ army and were exiled from their city. There were a number of Arabs in that army and they kidnapped 400 Jewish children and carried them to the sea at night and shipped them to their homeland as prisoners. (Gittin 57). The children debated among themselves if to commit suicide by jumping ship. They were afraid to lose their share in the world to come if they would commit suicide. To this argument other boys replied that there is a verse (Psalms 68,23):”The Lord said: ‘I will retrieve from Bashan, I will retrieve from the depth of the sea.’” [They meant that their share in the world to come would not be forfeited. Ed.] When the girls heard this they immediately jumped overboard drowning themselves. When the boys observed this they said to themselves that if even the girls who are no strangers to being sexually abused prefer death to being violated, they, the boys, who are not usually exposed to sodomy [an Arab specialty, Ed.] must certainly prefer death to such indignities being perpetrated upon them.   All these tragic events occurred at night as a punishment for the weeping of the children of Israel on the night after the return of the spies. Even the eventual destruction of the Temples and the dispersion of the Jewish people was decreed on the night mentioned in our verse. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,25-27: “they grumbled in their tents and disobeyed the Lord. So He raised His hand in oath to make them fall in the wilderness. To disperse their offspring among the nations and scatter them through the lands.” The prophet Ezekiel also refers to this when he says in Ezekiel 20,23: “However, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the lands.” So you have clear proof from all three parts of the Bible that this night was predetermined to become a night of weeping for the Jewish people throughout the generations.
      A Midrashic approach to our verse (Tanchuma Shlach 12): The wording of our verse corresponds to Jeremiah 12,8: ”My own people acted toward Me like a lion in the forest; she raised her voice against Me, therefore I have rejected her.” The voice they raised against G’d at that time became the cause of their future disasters. Concerning this generation Isaiah 17,11 says: “On the day that you plant, you see it grow, on the morning you sow you see it bud, but the branches wither away on a day of sickness and mortal agony.” The prophet describes that while in the process of attaining their goal as a people, the Jewish people’s budding future was cut short by the tragic events of the ninth of Av of the second year of their wandering. The Midrash continues that on that night the decree that the Temples were going to be destroyed was already decreed by G’d as retribution for the unjustifiable weeping which occurred on the night described in our verse here. The verse in Psalms 106 we quoted is understood by the Midrash as equating the raising of Israel’s voice to the raising of G’d’s hand (oath) in a gesture decreeing reason for weeping in the future. Jeremiah 11,17: “verdant olive tree, fair, with choice fruit. But with great roaring sound He has set it on fire, and its boughs are broken.” The prophet means that the sound of the multitude in weeping on that night precipitated the eventual destruction of the Temples alluded to as olive leaves in the beginning of the verse.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words כל העדה in our verse refer to the כנסת ישראל, the Jewish people as a spiritual concept, a spiritual entity. 
  This approach is also alluded to in Midrash Eicha Rabbati where the author suggests that the word tivkeh  is understood as capable of being vowelized so that it be read as tevakkeh, a transitive form of the verb בכה, to weep. It would then mean that the spiritual counterpart of the Jewish people will have cause to weep at the conduct of its people on earth. The additional words ויתנו את קולם, they raised their voices, would refer to the ministering angels joining in that weeping, whereas the words ויבכו העם, refer to the Jewish people in the desert weeping. The words בלילה ההוא, in that night, are to tell us that all these decrees were formulated during that night.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אך בה' אל תמרודו, “Only do not rebel against the Lord!”  This verse teaches that a nation afraid [of other nations, Ed.] is an act of rebellion against the Lord. We have a verse in Proverbs 29,25 in which Solomon expresses a similar sentiment, i.e. “man’s fear becomes his own trap, he who trusts in the Lord will be safeguarded.” This fear may lead the frightened person to forget about G’d altogether. This is what the prophet Isaiah 51,12-13 had in mind when he said: ”what ails you that you fear man who must die like grass? You have forgotten the Lord your Maker!”
     סר צלם מעליהם, “their protective shadow has departed from them.” The protective force active on behalf of the Canaanites in the celestial regions is referred to by Calev as “shadow.” This is because its function in protecting the people it represents is similar to the function of the shade which protects against excessive heat. Basically, Calev was telling his compatriots that  the collapse of a nation on earth is preceded by the collapse of its celestial representative; this is the meaning of the men who had fallen like flies whom the spies had seen. Calev added the word מעליהם, which can be translated as “from above them,” i.e. the protective force in the heavens.
      A Midrashic approach found in Song of Songs on chapter 2,20: “and the shadows have departed:” This is a reference to all the nations of the world.
      Nachmanides explains the words: “their shadow has departed from them,” to mean that their shadow had been removed from their heads. He refers to a kabbalistic tradition that on the night of Hoshanah Rabbah, the 21st of Tishrey when the seal is attached to the fate of the individuals for the coming year, anyone whose shadow cannot be seen in the moonlight is slated to die during the course of that year. That calendar date corresponds to the 26th day after G’d commenced creating the universe. Calev meant to say that death had been decreed for these people already on the previous 21st of Tishrey. Although Calev did not spell this out in so many words, this is what he alluded to. This is also the allusion contained in Song of Songs 2,17: “until the day blows past and the shadows have fled.” Solomon meant that when a person’s “day,” i.e. his lifetime on earth, approaches its end this is signaled by his shadow departing from him first. This “shadow” comes closer to the Lord (the Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה whose numerical value is 26, corresponding to the 26th day after commencement of the creation). When David writes this “name” it also is described as ה' צלך, “the Lord is your shadow” (Psalms 121,5). Actually it would have been sufficient to refer to ונס הצל, “the shadow (sing.) departed, fled.” The reason Solomon spoke about צללים, “shadows” in the plural, is that every human being has two shadows (compare Yevamot 122). The regular shadow is the one visible when the sun shines. The “secondary” shadow is the one visible at night. [The Talmud distinguishes between the ability of demons to cast a shadow, suggesting that they can cast a shadow when impersonating persons by day, but cannot do so at night. Ed.]
      When reflecting on the reason for these phenomena perhaps we must consider that any creature on this terrestrial earth is equipped with a shadow, even plants and inert objects. This is because the light of the sun penetrates into their domain when it shines from the domain of the planets into one that is not its own. Seeing that at that time the sun is like an invader into a foreign domain, it does not have the power to deprive the creatures on earth of their shadows. Rather, the sun itself is pushed aside by these shadows, i.e. the sun’s rays cannot reach areas in the shade. The fact is that shadows appear in areas designated for the sun to illuminate with its rays. G’d did not want that anyone of His creatures should interfere with the rightful domain of another creature. In order to make this clear, each creature has been equipped with its personal, individual shadow as proof of its entitlement to a certain place on earth. When the shadow of someone’s head is missing at night (not distinguishable), this indicates that the person or creature it belongs to has been deprived of this space on earth, will die during the course of the year after the night of Hoshanah Rabbah when such a decree has been issued. The moon became the manifestation of this decree as it had been appointed to exercise supervision of the living creatures on earth, something well known in scientific circles. 
  Personally, I am surprised why it was necessary for the Torah to write such words as: “their protective shadow has departed from them, whereas the Lord is with us do not be afraid of them.” After all, if the Lord is with us what does it matter whether their protective shadow had departed or had not departed? Is G’d then unable to be with us unless their protective shadow had departed from them? Is not the power of the G’d of Israel greater than the protective angels assigned to any other nation or combination of nations? Have we not been told in Deut. 32,32 “not like our Rock is their  rock?   The answer to these questions is that Calev meant to say: “you have no reason to fear either them (the Canaanites) or their protective celestial representatives.” This is all included in the plural of “do not be afraid of them, i.e. either their terrestrial phenomena or their celestial protectors.” Calev then proceeded to supply the reason for his confidence by saying they should not be afraid of the inhabitants of this land seeing “they are our bread.” They had become “our bread” as their protective “shadow” had already departed from these people, i.e. their power in the celestial spheres had expired. The only reason the Jewish people had been afraid of these Canaanites was on account of their celestial protective angels. Calev countered this argument as invalid seeing “the Lord is with us,” and the Lord is stronger than any celestial force these people could call upon to help them. The Lord and His celestial court can defeat these people even while their protective angels were still active; therefore, Calev said: “you have no reason to fear them.”
      It is also possible to interpret the words: “for they are our bread,” as a reference to the merit the Israelites possessed as evidenced by  their fulfilling the commandment of eating matzah and dwelling in huts at the appropriate time. The word צל, would refer to the shade provided by the covering of the Sukkah. Whereas these people had forfeited the protection of their angels, we could count on the protection of the Lord by dint of having fulfilled the commandments of matzah on Passover and the dwelling in flimsy huts relying only on G’d’s shade to be our roofs. This thought has been paraphrased by David in Psalms 121,5 when he said: “the Lord is your guardian, the Lord is your protection at your right hand.” In view of these considerations, “you have no reason to fear them.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   עד אנה ינאצוני העם הזה ועד אנה, “how long will this people provoke Me, and how long, etc.” The sages of the Midrash (Tanchuma Shelach 12) said that G’d said: “I had to exclaim My displeasure in two exclamations” (twice the words עד אנה), therefore they will have to exclaim their frustrations when being exiled to four different empires. The four occasions when these exclamations are found as being made by the Jewish people are found in Psalms 13,2-3: “how long, O Lord; will You ignore me forever? How long will You hide Your face from me? How long will I have cares on my mind, grief in my heart all day? How long will my enemy have the upper hand?”    The second exclamation by G’d was in verse 27: “how long will this evil congregation provoke complaints against Me?” David paraphrased the exclamation by the Jewish people as retribution for causing G’d to make this latter exclamation in Psalms 6,4: “my whole being is stricken with terror, while You, Lord, O how long?”
     בכל האותות אשר עשיתי בקרבו, “through all the miracles I performed in its midst?” Significantly, G’d did not say: “in your midst,” plural, but “in its midst, singular?”     According to the plain meaning of the text the reference is to the time when all the people were united, of one mind, in their devotion to the Lord.
      A Midrashic approach to this wording based on Bamidbar Rabbah Shelach 16,15: the word “in its midst,” means that the people did not even have to turn around in order to witness the miracles G’d was performing. The meaning of the words קרב וכרעים is used in the Talmud Yuma 75 as an allusion to the manna being food which was totally absorbed by the bodies of the people eating it, there being no excrement, waste material from it. If this is true, the question is why the Torah legislated in Deut. 23,14 that the soldiers should be equipped with tools to bury their excrement in the earth in order to maintain the holy nature of a Jewish encampment even during war? What excrement did the soldiers have to bury, seeing they ate manna? Answer: they had to bury the excrement of the food they had purchased from the surrounding nations and had eaten it.
      Another view expressed on this subject is that even that food was absorbed totally together with the manna. However, when the Israelites had allowed themselves to become lax in their performance of the commandments the manna also did not dissolve completely. G’d said to them: “I have taken the trouble to enable you to stand in front of Me just like the ministering angels (who do not excrete) and now you have forced Me to legislate to bury your excrement three miles away from your camp!” This is the meaning of the words in Numbers 33,49: “they camped by the river Jordan as far as  Beyt Hayeshimot until the plains of Shittim, the plains of Moab.” [Although the commandment to take a shovel in addition “to your weapons” was written in connection with soldiers going out in a war of aggression, the questioner implies that the rule to bury excrement outside the Jewish camp applied to all the Israelites also in times of peace. Ed.] Rabbi bar Chana said that he had personally seen the site where the Israelites had encamped near Beit Hayeshimot and it was three miles distant from the banks of the Jordan .
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ושמעו מצרים כי העלית בכוחך את העם  הזה מקרבו ואמרו אל יושבי הארץ הזאת מבלתי יכולת ה', “when Egypt will hear (about this) people whom you have taken out of Egypt with Your powerful hand...and they will tell the other nations that this was due to G’d’s inability, etc.” After the Torah had mentioned about the Egyptians hearing, the Torah continues  outlining the nature of the intimate relationship between G’d and the Jewish people, by pointing out that the entire people had seen G’d’s revelation with their own eyes.
      According to Nachmanides the mention of the word עין here is essentially the same as מראה. The word appears in a similar sense in the description of the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7. A similar meaning of the word occurs in Ezekiel 1,27 where the prophet describes his vision of the angel he had seen who came to destroy the city of Jerusalem. Thus far Nachmanides.
          From the fact that both here and after the threat of wiping out the Jewish nation after the sin of the golden calf Moses each time used the argument of how such an event would diminish G’d’s image in the eyes of the Egyptians, one might conclude that had it not been for this consideration Moses would have acquiesced in the destruction of the Jewish people, and would have accepted G’d’s proposal to make a new Jewish people with himself as the founding patriarch. Such an assumption is completely erroneous as Moses had already linked his own death to the death of the Jewish people asking G’d to wipe him out of G’d’s history-book  if He were to kill the Jewish people rather than his living to witness such a disaster (Exodus 32,32). When Moses appears to harp on the impression the demise of the people of Israel would make on the Egyptians and other nations, the point was that the deities of the Canaanites would be enhanced in the eyes of the Egyptians and they would ascribe superior power to them. G’d’s exertion of power in orchestrating the Exodus would be perceived as the maximum the Jewish G’d was capable of. If, nonetheless, the Israelites would not arrive at their destination, they would conclude that the deities of the Canaanites had the power to save themselves and their people from the hands of the Jewish G’d. This in turn would be a grave desecration of the name of the Lord and instead of the Exodus and all that took place in connection with it bringing the nations closer to monotheism the opposite would occur and the belief in certain deities would be immeasurably strengthened. G’d’s monopoly of power as recently manifested when He split the sea, etc., would be undercut. Moses rejected the proposal to become the founding father of a new Jewish nation as it would have been an act of desecrating the name of G’d to countenance the destruction of the Jewish people. Our sages said in Berachot 32 that as soon as G’d had told Moses to descend from the mountain as “your people have become corrupt,” his strength was greatly weakened just like that of a female. Why did the sages make this comparison to a female? They meant that just as the female receives, is passive by nature and receives all its strength through the male, Moses as the leader of a corrupt nation had become exposed as no better than a female, i.e. his greatness depended on the stature of the Jewish people, his charges. The peoples of the world would no longer perceive him or the Israelites as “males” but as female. The great Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, may he live long, perceives this weakening of the power as referring to the perception of G’d’s power by the Egyptians who would no longer see in Him the prime force of the universe as they had done since the Exodus, but would conclude that the Jewish G’d was also only a secondary and not a primary source of power.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  'ועתה יגדל נא כח ה', “and now may the strength of My Lord be magnified, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses meant that anyone who possesses the attribute of being slow to anger  (extreme patience) possesses the strength to conquer his anger; Moses therefore added: “as You have spoken, saying,” referring to the attributes of His which G’d had revealed to him after the episode of the golden calf. This is why he immediately added mention of the attribute ה' ארך אפים, “the Lord is slow to anger.” The reason he added the word לאמור was to show that this attribute would be invoked in a time of distress. This is similar to a statement by our sages in Bereshit  Rabbah 70,1 on Genesis 28,20 וידר יעקב נדר לאמור, “Yaakov vowed a vow saying,” is quoted as meaning that he found himself in a state of distress. The word לאמור is understood as referring to future occasions when Jews would find themselves in distress and when the making of a vow to invoke G’d’s assistance is advised by Yaakov as being appropriate.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bamidbar Rabbah (16,22): The words “let Your strength be magnified” mean that Moses pleads that the attribute of Mercy should prevail over the attribute of Justice at all times in the future. 
  Consider the fact that the letters א-ד in the word א-ד-נ-י as well as the letter י in the word יגדל are written in larger size letters. [I have found  editions with a larger י in the word יגדל whereas I have not found the word א-ד-נ-י spelled different from normal. Ed.] At any rate, the author uses the larger letter י in the word יגדל as an allusion that the attribute of Mercy as represented by that letter י should always be in the ascendancy.    This may be understood in terms of a parable. A friend of the bride (king’s daughter) entered the palace in order to sing the praises of the king’s daughter. When he entered the king’s chamber he found the king and the judges discussing some misdemeanor the daughter had been guilty of. The friend was now in a quandary as to how to proceed. He said to himself that if he would plead her case before the king the judge would be affronted, whereas if he pleaded her case in front of the judge the king would be affronted. What did he do? He pleaded the case before both the king and the judge addressing the king first. This is why the letter י as an allusion to the attribute of Mercy is spelled in larger script to indicate that Moses first addressed the attribute of Mercy before pleading with the attribute of Justice which was dealing with the Israelites’ sin. As a result of this ingenious approach the “king” i.e. the attribute of Mercy, immediately responded favorably saying: “I have forgiven in accordance with what you have said.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The words יגדל נא כח א-ד-נ-י  mean that the latent power reposing in the attribute of Mercy should be reinforced so that it will not escape into the highest regions of the heavens, [a withdrawal from mankind or the people of Israel of that attribute. Ed.] The whole matter may be understood thus: when the Jewish people perform the commandments and therefore the will of the Lord, G’d will “ride the heavens,” as Moses said in Deut. 33,27 “He rides the heavens with your (Israel’s) help.” Israel’s conduct exerts influence on the manifestation of G’d’s powers. This is the meaning of Psalms 60,14 באלו-הים נעשה חיל, “we will perform valiantly for the sake of the Lord.” On the other hand, when the Jewish people do not observe the commandments He distances Himself from those of His attributes which are invoked often on behalf of Israel. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,29: ובגאותו שחקים, “He will adopt a haughty attitude by withdrawing to the level of the celestial domains known as Shechakim.” In other words, Israel’s sinful conduct causes the manifestations of G’d’s powers to wane. The meaning of the word יגדל in our verse then is that G’d’s powers should become manifest in ever greater measure.    Another reference to the ability of the Jewish people to “weaken” the apparent power of G’d is found in Deut. 32,18 where Moses describes the rebellious Jewish people as causing צור ילדך תשי, “you caused the Rock Who gave birth to you to become ‘weak.’” Seeing that at this point the Israelites had all become guilty of death, Moses was forced to pray that the manifestation of G’d’s power should be great. In Psalms 40,17 David uses a similar language when he concludes with the word יגדל as the word the people who are in search of the Lord are to use when they look for G’d’s help. 
      The experts in Kabbalah have used the term עזר when referring to the drawing forth of G’d’s abundance on behalf of man (Shabbat 89). This is what is meant by the Talmud when we are told that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai he found that G’d was busy tying “crowns” to the various letters in the Torah. When Moses failed to extend a greeting to G’d, G’d asked him if in his city it was not customary to extend greetings to someone when one meets him. Moses replied that it is presumptuous for a slave to open his mouth in greeting to his master. G’d responded that in spite of this dictum it had been up to Moses לעזרני. [This word is usually translated as “to assist Me.” Ed.] In kabbalistic terms the word means “to provide a reason for My abundance to be channeled to my creatures.” When Moses ascended the Mountain a second time, he said: ועתה יגדל נא כח א-ד-נ-י upon arrival. So in our verse too the meaning of these words is that Moses appealed for G’d’s largesse to become manifest as proof of His power. 
      We are faced here with the failure of Moses to invoke another one of the attributes G’d had taught him after the debacle with the golden calf, I refer to the attribute ה' אל רחום וחנון, “the Lord is a gracious and merciful G’d.” He also did not invoke the attributes ואמת ונוצר חסד לאלפים, “Truth, preserving kindness and for thousands of generations.” He also failed to invoke the attribute called חטאה in Exodus 34,4 (a reference to G’d’s willingness to forgive unintentional sin). If Moses failed to mention the attributes we just mentioned, this was not an oversight but was quite deliberate. Moses taught us a lesson in how to structure our prayers and into the manner a supplicant has to pray if he wants his prayers to find a favourable echo in G’d’s ears. Moses invoked here only six of the thirteen attributes G’d had taught him as potentially designed to appease His anger. He omitted seven of these attributes. The reason he did not mention the attributes ה' אל רחום וחנון is because these attributes are invoked on behalf of people who are confident that their merits exceed their demerits. The Jewish people’s merits at this time were clearly in the minority and any mention of these attributes of G’d would have been provocative rather than designed to appease G’d’s anger. He did not invoke G’d’s attribute of אמת, Truth, as according to the standards of that attribute the Jewish people would clearly have been guilty of death. The attribute of “truth” is part of the attribute of Justice. Our sages in Avodah Zarah 4 explained that the meaning of that attribute is that G’d does not go beyond the boundaries of what is coming to a person, He does not extend latitude beyond the requirements of Justice. In this instance (in the words of Jeremiah 7,28) “truth (faithfulness) had perished, vanished from their mouths.” How could Moses therefore invoke such an attribute at this time?  Moses also did not invoke the attributes נוצר חסד לאלפים, seeing that at this time Moses did not invoke the merits of the patriarchs as he had done in the case of the sin of the golden calf. After all, the people’s sin had been their contempt for the very land which the patriarchs had chosen as their homeland. It would have been disastrous to invoke the patriarchs as support for a people who had just rejected the values the patriarchs had held dear. Neither did Moses invoke the attribute חטאה as the sin they were guilty of now was deliberate, not due to oversight or carelessness. Moses did have to invoke the ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה however, as this was the first name given to him in the list of the thirteen attributes.
      According to Rosh Hashanah 17, the reason that this name is repeated in the list of the thirteen attributes in Exodus is that this name is invoked first before repentance has taken effect and again after the sinner has repented. The message of G’d is that as David phrased it in Psalms 145,9 “G’d is good to all His creatures,” i.e. He is not prejudiced against the sinners. Moreover,  once the sinner has repented G’d will accept this repentance even if in the overall balance of that person’s deeds the demerits outweigh the merits. G’d hopes that His mercy will result in the sinner confessing his other sins also and restructuring his lifestyle. In this respect G’d is different from a human king who will always remember and consider in the back of his mind that someone whom he had pardoned a trespass had been guilty of that trespass at one time. [Forgiveness is an exclusive attribute of G’d; it is not given to man to “forgive” in the sense of blotting out the sin in his mind. This is why Yaakov did not tell the brothers to ask Joseph’s forgiveness. Ed.]    In this instance Moses invoked the ineffable Name only once as at this time the Israelites had not yet repented at all. G’d’s Ineffable Name could be invoked after the sin had been committed even without repentance having occurred yet. [This was a new dimension of G’d’s reaction to sinners, i.e. that His basic relation to them had not changed. Ed.].
      There was another reason why Moses mentioned the Ineffable Name here only once. Moses appealed to the Lord in His capacity as the Supreme King, from whom all attributes emanate. He was hopeful (but not certain) that the people would repent. In the event that their repentance would not be forthcoming immediately, Moses appealed immediately to the attribute of ארך אפים, reminding G’d that He extended His patience both to the sinners and the righteous. This is why he referred to the wordאפים  in the plural, i.e. wrath against the wicked or against the righteous who had become guilty of sin. Not only this, added Moses, but “You are רב חסד, “abundant in kindness,” i.e. if someone’s merits and demerits are in balance You tip the scales in his favour, even if he did not do repentance. If such a person did תשובה, You forgive him for both his intentional sins and even the ones which represented acts of insurrection against You, עון ופשע. Those who do not repent do not qualify for such forgiveness, i.e. לא ינקה, He does not consider such a person as completely cleaned from sin, ever. Nonetheless, He does not wipe them out together with their offspring but waits several generations פוקד אבות על בנים to see if subsequent generations will find their way back to the Lord. Seeing that G’d had previously revealed  these attributes to Moses, he could now argue that to kill the people by pestilence would negate some of these attributes which G’d had taught him to use in prayer. G’d could, however, without violating His principles, exact punishment from the children and subsequent generations a little at a time  as He Himself had said. To this plea G’d responded by saying: “I have forgiven in accordance with your words.” Moreover, if they had any residual claim on unused merits of the patriarchs-here described as חסד- G’d promised to preserve this for many future generations [instead of squandering it now, Ed.] However, G’d would not pardon this sin forever and as a result they would die in the desert and perish there. G’d would allow the children and grandchildren to complete the journey to the Holy Land in accordance with His principle of suspending certain judgments for up to four generations.    Part of this promise entailed that the Jewish people would have many occasions to weep on the anniversary of this night as we have outlined before. This was the downside of the words פוקד עון אבות על בנים, that G’d would delay exacting the balance of the punishment due and not canceled. Moses was astute enough not to ask for forgiveness for the sin of the people as he realised that what had happened here was totally unforgivable. This is why he phrased his prayer in such a way that the punishment should be exacted over a period of time instead of all at once. In recognition of the careful way Moses had phrased his prayer G’d responded immediately by saying: “I have forgiven,” but “only on the terms you have spelled out yourself.” The people, however, who had been eye witnesses to all of G’d’s miracles could not be allowed to see the land that G’d had intended to give them.  Shemot Rabbah 8,13 understood the additional words כאשר אמרת in G’d’s response as referring to the sin of the golden calf. Our sages understand the: “I have forgiven,” which G’d said at the end of the third 40 days which Moses spent on the mountain when he received the second set of Tablets, as a contrast to the sin of the spies. G’d told Moses (here) that whereas I have forgiven the sin of the golden calf in accordance with your plea and arguments, I have not and will not forgive this sin and the people old enough to be accountable will die in the desert. The fact is that though the words: “I have forgiven in accordance with your words” have been written here in connection with the sin of the spies, they really apply to the sin of the golden calf.
      A Midrashic approach, based on Mechilta Yitro Bachodesh 9: the word  כדברך in addition to the word סלחתי is similar to when Pharaoh told Moses כדברך, i.e. it is a form of admission. When the master agrees with conditions set by his servant such a servant is indeed blessed. (the reference is to Moses accepting Pharaoh’s request to delay removal of the frogs until the following day; Exodus 8,6) In this instance G’d, the master, accepted the servant Moses’ conditions.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי כל האנשים, “for all the men, etc.” The meaning of כי in this instance is the same as אם, “if.” The meaning of these verses is: “I swear by the fact that I am alive forever and the earth is full of My glory that all these men who have seen My glory will not see the land, etc.” The wording is the formula appropriate for an oath. However, the words which appear to be missing have been omitted in order for G’d Himself not even to mention His “inability” as a supposition as this would not be deferential and in keeping with G’d’s honor (based on Rashi).
      Nachmanides also writes, after quoting Rashi and rejecting his approach prefacing his remarks על דרך האמת, i.e. the kabbalistic approach, that the words חי אני were spoken by the כנסת ישראל, as part of the promise to Moses accompanying the words “I have forgiven as you said,” that whereas if He were to allow this generation to live the earth would not then be filled with His glory. He would, however, let the children live and be the replacement of the fate intended for their parents, i.e. to conquer and settle in the land of the Canaanites, the land promised to the patriarchs. When that would occur the whole earth would be filled with G’d’s glory. [This would not be an oath then but would contrast the dishonorable death of the parents with the glory-filled lives of their children which would reflect G’d’s own glory. Ed.] The words כבוד ה' in our verse as being spoken by the כנסת ישראל, is not unique. We have several examples in the Bible of such wording, such as in Psalms 104,31 יהי כבוד ה' לעולם, “may the glory of the Lord endure forever,” where the speaker is the כנסת ישראל. 
  The words חי אני are equivalent to אלו-הים חיים,”by the living G’d.” This expression or almost identical expressions occur in Joshua 3,10; Judges 8,19; as well as Daniel 12,7. When the expression חי נפשך (Samuel I 1,26) occurs it describes the domain בינה in the emanations, the domain in which vows originate.
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכל מנאצי, “and all those who provoke Me.” This is a reference to any children or grandchildren of the generation which was to perish in the desert. [I suppose the interpretation is based on the repetition of this expression concerning whom G’d had already decreed death in verse 11. Ed.] This is also an allusion to the weeping which would occur on that night in subsequent generations, all the exiled Jews who would not enjoy the good fortune to see the Land of Israel.
  
  Verse 24
  
   רוח אחרת עמו, “who was imbued with a different spirit,” the word אחרת is relative, i.e. a spirit different from that of the ten spies. The Torah reminds us that the righteous person is “different” from the wicked person. The Torah first uses the word in connection with the third son of Adam and Chavah, Sheth, whom his mother describes as זרע אחר, “a different seed” (Genesis 4,25). Sheth was the righteous person who replaced Hevel both of whom were “different” from Kayin who was wicked. “Goodness” is essentially different from “evil.” Similarly, ”evil” is essentially different from “goodness.” This is the reason idols are described as אלוהים אחרים, “different” gods rather that “other” gods. When the word אחר occurs in connection with someone or something evil, it means “good” by comparison to the evil person.
     והביאותיו אל הארץ אשר בא שמ'ה וזרע'ו יורישנ'ה. והעמלק'י “And I shall bring him to the land where he has been (already) and his offspring shall possess it.” And the Amalekite, etc.” Here too is an example of the letters of the Ineffable Name appearing in reverse order (the last letters in the last four words of the caption; compare author on Genesis 11,9) This is an allusion to the fact that at that time the attribute of Justice was poised, ready to strike the Israelites. This is why it was decreed that the Israelites make a permanent home in the desert and that they would even retrace their steps in the direction of the sea of Reeds. This also why, when they were willing and anxious to proceed forward and ascend the mountain (as the spies had done), Moses warned them not to commit a sin by violating G’d’s commandment and embark on an undertaking that was doomed (41). The meaning of the words יושב בעמק, applied here to the areas inhabited by the Canaanite and the Amalekite, is not the usual “in the valley,” but “sitting ready to ambush you.” This is why G’d instructed them to change direction to save them from such attacks seeing He, G’d, would not protect them now by means of a miracle.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   במדבר הזה יפלו פגריכם, “your carcasses will drop in this desert.” It appears that the Israelites’ guilt in this episode could be divided into three levels. Some of them had wept, some of them had complained against Moses and Aaron saying: “if only we had died already.” The third level consisted of the people who had said: “let us appoint a leader and head back for Egypt” (verse 4). The reason the Torah mentions the word “your carcasses” three times is to allude to these different levels of the people. The choice of the word “your carcasses,” which at first glance seems very harsh, is actually the reverse. It means that only the bodies of these people would die, they would not lose their entitlement to life in the hereafter. (Compare Rabbi Eliezer in Sanhedrin 105 and 110). This allusion is repeated in verse 35: “in this desert they will expire and there they will die.” The words: “all of you who have been numbered for military service,” mean that the Levites were excluded from this decree as they had not been part of the army and when they had been numbered the babies of one month old were already included in that count (Baba Batra 121).
  
  Verse 30
  
  . אם אתם  תבואו אל הארץ, “if you are going to enter the land, etc.” This statement by G’d was addressed to both Moses and Aaron and they were to convey this message to the people as G’d added (verse 28) by saying אמור להם, “say to them.”
      It is possible to argue that seeing this instruction was addressed to both Moses and Aaron that they themselves were included among the people who would not be allowed to enter the Holy Land. In fact Moses himself had already alluded to the fact that he would not enter the Holy Land in Exodus 15,17 when he said: “You will bring them and You will plant them firmly on the mountain of Your inheritance.” He had not said: “I will bring them, etc.” Even though both Moses and Aaron were totally righteous at this time and no decree had been issued against either of them they did not want to enter the Holy Land and thereby show up their charges the Jewish people as inadequate by comparison to their leaders. This is why they would die in the desert. Seeing that Moses and Aaron tied their fates to that of their people, when the time for the resurrection arrives both they and their people will ascend to the Holy Land under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Seeing that Moses had actually longed to enter the land for the purpose of performing the commandments which could not be performed outside it, he would be granted even greater insights at the time of the resurrection to reward him for this pious wish. People who have kept all the commandments that it is possible to keep are entitled to such greater insights. The generation of the people who had witnessed the revelation at Mount Sinai had achieved greater insights and will participate in the resurrection regaining or surpassing their former stature at that time.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   יום לשנה יום לשנה  ”a day for a year, a day for a year.” We would have expected the Torah to write the opposite, i.e. “a year for a day,” i.e. that the punishment for each day the spies had spent traveling the land and planning to slander it would be that the people would have to spend an additional year in the desert. Theirs would be nomads’ tents which flutter in the wind, an existence daily reminding them of their insecurity on earth. Not only that, but according to the context of the story mention of the punishment should have preceded mention of the sin. If the Torah wrote the verse in the manner it did it was to teach us something about G’d’s mercy which is manifest even while He metes out punishment.   When the Torah chose the wording: “a day for a year,” we must consider the fact that seeing the land of Israel has been described as an area of 400 by 400 miles, approx, this is an area which the spies could not possibly have covered in the space of a mere forty days. However, seeing G’d had known in advance that He would have to decree the punishment mentioned, He telescoped the distance under their feet so that they could cover it in such a short period of time. This is why G’d said: “a day for every year,” i.e. just like a father who is forced to inflict a blow on his son. He does not inflict a cruel blow but is as considerate as possible. The meaning of the verse therefore is: “here I have reduced the extent of your punishment as much as is possible by shortening the time you (the spies) needed to traverse the land so that it took only forty days. “
  
  Verse 35
  
   אני ה' דברתי, “I the Lord have spoken, etc.” This expression is equivalent to the rendering of an irrevocable decree; seeing that it is accompanied by an oath it could not be revoked. Although it could not be revoked, it's application could be delayed. Moses’ prayer accomplished that execution of the decree was spread over almost forty years.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  'במגפה לפני ה, “by a pestilence before the Lord.” The punishment was commensurate to their sin. They had sinned by abusing their power of speech with their tongues; this is why their death resulted from a plague which first attacked their tongues lengthening them until their navels. Then worms crawled out of their navels through their tongues (Sotah 35). This is why the Torah added the words: “before the Lord,” This is the way Rashi explains this verse.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  . והוא לא תצלח, “and it will not succeed.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words mean that the plan to ascend the top of the mountain would not succeed.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word והוא refers to the words פי ה', “the commandment of the Lord,” mentioned in the same verse. The reason the word is spelled with the letter ו instead of the letter ה which is the way we read it, is that it is an allusion to the interaction between the active force (male) and the passive force (female). 
      According to Nachmanides who also uses a kabbalistic approach, the word והוא (spelling) is similar in meaning to the same word in Ezekiel 1,13 היא מתהלכת בין החיות, i.e. it is an allusion to the Shechinah, a manifestation of G’d perceived as “feminine.” Moses was telling the people concerned that the “feminine” presence of the Lord would not suffice to grant them success. [If I understood this correctly. Seeing the cloud remained over the camp the people had reason to believe that G’d was with them. Ed.]
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   ויעפילו, the word is derived from עפל, climbing a fortified place and means that they tried to ascend a fortified hill.     A Midrashic approach found in Bamidbar Rabbah (10) compares the word to the root אפל, darkness, i.e. “they walked in darkness,” not having secured approval for their undertaking.which was considered wicked.
     וארון ברית ה' ומשה לא משו, “and the Ark of the covenant of the Lord as well as Moses had not moved.” In this verse the Torah drew a comparison between Moses and the Ark of the covenant. In Numbers 11,21 we have a formula where the Torah seems to equate Moses to the 600,000 men of military age of the Israelites when it is written: “and Moses said the people are 600,00 foot-soldiers, etc.” The Torah alluded to the spiritual worth of Moses as being equivalent to the people as a whole. If that had not been the intention of the Torah in that verse it should have written: “the people amongst whom I find myself comprise 600,000 foot-soldiers.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם....ועשיתם אשה לה', “when you arrive in the land of your permanent residence....and you prepare a fire-offering for the Lord, etc.” This paragraph was attached to that of the failure of the mission of the spies in order to reinforce the confidence of the children who were already mourning the upcoming premature deaths of their parents that they would indeed come to the land and offer sacrifices there.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Shelach 14): just as a father is obligated to train his son in five aspects of successful living, i.e. to circumcise him, to teach him Torah, to redeem him from a priest if he is a firstborn, to teach him an honest trade, and to arrange for him to marry a suitable woman, so G’d provided similarly for the Jewish people (His firstborn son). He circumcised them employing Joshua as the Mohel performing the ritual as recorded in Joshua 5,2. G’d “redeemed” Israel as we know from Samuel II 7,23: “and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth whom G’d went and redeemed as His people, etc.” He taught the Israelites the Torah as He said: “you shall teach them (the words of the Torah) to your children,” [employing the fathers as the teachers. Ed.]. It is also written that G’d personally taught the Torah, as stated in Isaiah 48,17: ”I the Lord am your G’d, instructing you for your own benefit.” G'd taught the people a useful trade by teaching them the commandments, as we know from Leviticus 27,34 “These are the commandments which G’d instructed, etc.” Finally, He arranged for the people to have suitable marriage partners when he blessed them saying: “Be fruitful and multiply.”    Just like a father feeds his family, anoints them with oil and washes them (arranges for all this) so G’d does the same for Israel as we know from Ezekiel 16,9-10: “I bathed you in water, and washed the blood off you, and anointed you with oil. (verse 19) and the food which I had given you, the choice flour, the oil and the honey, which I had provided for you to eat, etc.” In Numbers 21,11 we find the Israelites addressing the well of water provided for them by G’d with the words: “spring up O well-sing to it,” Just as when the father gives properties to his children the children offer gifts to the father as symbols of their gratitude, so G’d here told the Israelites to offer certain libations to express their gratitude when they would arrive in the land of Israel.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ראשית עריסותיכם חלה תרימו תרומה, “As the first of your kneading you shall set aside a loaf, a portion for the Lord.” The commandment of setting aside this loaf was not applicable in the desert (seeing the bread had not grown on our soil) but this commandment became applicable as soon as the Israelites set foot on the West Bank of the Jordan and ate from its produce. (Sifri 110). The reason the Torah had to use the words מלחם הארץ, “from the bread of the land,” is that it had to be contrasted with the “bread” the Israelites had been eating before entering the Holy Land, i.e. heavenly “bread.” The Biblical injunction described here is applicable in the full sense of the word only for people resident in ארץ ישראל, this is why the Torah writes בבואכם, “when you come (plural)” i.e. when all of you come. When only part of the Jewish nation resides in the Holy Land the commandment applies only as a Rabbinic decree. The commandment consists of setting aside this loaf from the dough before it has been baked, this is why the Torah uses the word ראשית, “the first of your kneading.” The person setting this part of the dough aside, generally a woman, recites a benediction mentioning that we have been commanded to perform this commandment. Even in the diaspora the dough is set aside although the benediction is not recited there. The reason this ritual is being observed also in the diaspora is so as not to cause the entire commandment being forgotten during the many years of our exile.    There is no specific quantity for the size of either the dough from which the loaf has to be set aside or for the minimum size of that loaf. However, the Rabbis have made certain rules about this. They consider the minimum acceptable size of that loaf as being 1/60th of the dough whereas a generous person is expected to set aside 1/40th of the size of that dough. The minimum quantity of dough qualifying for this commandment to become mandatory is an amount equivalent to 423 eggs in volume. Anything less would not qualify under the heading of “a gift for the Lord,” i.e. the priest, His representative on earth. Anything less than the amount mentioned would be an insult rather than a symbol of gratitude, a gift (compare Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim chapter 5). Nowadays, seeing the whole commandment in the diaspora is of rabbinic origin, eating this is forbidden only to such priests as are ritually unclean through a discharge from their bodies. Other lesser degrees of ritual impurity, even such impurity as contact with the dead do not disqualify the priest from eating such חלה. The wording of Maimonides concerning who may eat it nowadays is subject to argument, Raavad certainly has a different version regarding parts of it. At any rate, seeing that these types of ritual impurity once contracted cannot easily be removed, and furthermore the חלה if containing water or certain other liquids is almost certainly unclean to start with, only a priest under the age of nine, before he is subject to seminal discharge may be permitted to actually eat it under strictly supervised conditions. There is therefore no absolute need to burn the חלה taken in the diaspora.
      A kabbalistic approach: The commandment to set aside חלה, which is the only commandment applicable to the dough, is an allusion to the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept “Israel.” Of this spiritualized version of the Jewish people Solomon wrote in Song of Songs 6,9: “unique is she My constant dove.” Israel, i.e. the spiritual concept known as כנסת ישראל, represents the world’s tithe and heave-offering to the Lord. We know this as Israel is described as תרומה, “heave-offering”  חלה תרימו תרומה. [The words תרימו תרומה already appeared at the end of the previous verse so that in our verse it must refer to a different subject, not the dough, but the people of Israel. Ed.] The כסת ישראל itself is “distilled” from the emanation חכמה which is also known as ראשית, as it is the “first” of the emanations [below כתר which is in a different category completely being the connecting link to the עולם האצילות, Ed.]. We had explained already in Genesis that the words בראשית ברא אלוקים are to be understood as “using the emanation ראשית (חכמה), G’d created etc.” 
  When you reflect on his concept you will realize why this commandment could not apply (as a Biblical commandment) except in the Holy Land, the residence of the Shechinah in the Holy Temple. This was something that could occur only when the whole Jewish people had come to that land (compare Ketuvot 25). Perhaps the fact that the verse in question comprises 10 words is a further allusion to the ten emanations.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . והם הביאו את קרבנם אשה לה' וחטאתם לפני ה', “and they have brought their offering to the Lord, and their sin-offering before the Lord.” Nachmanides writes that the words: “before the Lord,” refer to the celestial court, as these words had not really been necessary. The fact is that sins are expiated both by the attribute of Mercy, i.e. Hashem, as well as by the attribute of Justice. This has been spelled out in greater detail in connection with the sin of idolatry, i.e. that the forgiveness of both attributes is required to wipe out this sin. The word ונסלח appears both in verse 25 as well as in verse 26 although the subject is the same sin. This proves that forgiveness is required both from the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. The reason that in verse 28 the Torah makes special mention of G’d forgiving the proselyte is that proselytes, who used to be idol-worshipers, are more prone to commit an act which in Jewish law is considered as idol worship, than are natural born Jews. The repeated emphasis that the sin had been an unintentional one, i.e. שגגה, is the Torah’s way of justifying that forgiveness for this cardinal sin is indeed appropriate after the sinner or sinners have brought the appropriate offerings as outlined in our passage.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   כי דבר ה' בזה, “for he scorned the word of the Lord.”  The entire Torah is included in the description “the word of the Lord.” When someone deliberately commits an act of idolatry he has therefore shown contempt for the entire Torah.
      It is also possible to interpret the words את דבר ה' בזה as a reference to the first of the Ten Commandments. The idolater violates the concept of the divinity of the Lord, shows his contempt by what he did. The words ואת מצותו הפר, “and he violated His commandment,” refer to the second of the Ten Commandments, the warning not to have or to serve any other deities besides the Lord.
      A Midrashic approach: the words “he has shown contempt for the word of the Lord” refer to the heretics who deliberately pervert the meaning of parts of the written Torah (Sifri 112). The sages taught as as a corollary of this verse that the scholar who teaches Torah is considered as “the word of the Lord,” seeing he is the instrument by means of which the word of the Lord becomes known amongst the public (Compare Daniel 12,3: ”and the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness will be like stars forever and ever”). Psalms 103,20 has a similar meaning when the psalmist says: “mighty creatures do His bidding.” The person who perverts the words of Torah, on the other hand, is the educated heretic, generally known as “Apikores.”
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “while the children of Israel were in the desert, etc.” we already know that the episode of the spies, as well as the uprising of Korach and the incident of the person who gathered kindling on the Sabbath occurred in the desert. Why then did the Torah have to preface this paragraph with he words: “the children of Israel were in the desert?” According to the plain meaning of the text these words could be meant to underline the seriousness of the sin of the person who had gathered this kindling. While the people were in the desert they experienced miracles daily, such as the descent of the manna, the protective layer of cloud, etc., miracles which testified to the fact that G’d had preceded the world in time and therefore was able to ignore the laws of nature. This man, in defiance of such knowledge violated the Sabbath which is meant to testify to our belief in G’d’s being eternal, predating the existence of any physical universe.   Another way of explaining the words: “the children of Israel were in the desert,” could be that seeing that G’d had decreed that the people would remain in the desert for a long time and there they would die and perish, the Torah came to inform us that amongst the people (even the elite, i.e. “Children of Israel”) there were some who violated such basic commandments as the Sabbath, Tzitzit, etc., so that even without the sin of the spies G’d might have decreed death in the desert for many of them. The reason such paragraphs are recorded in the Torah one after the other is to draw our attention to the reciprocal responsibility one Israelite has for the observance of G’d’s commandments by his fellow Israelite (compare Sanhedrin 27). If, nonetheless, Israelites committed such sins publicly this points to a failure of the principle of reciprocal responsibility at that time.
      It is also possible to explain  that in view of the Torah having written earlier (14,25) that the Canaanite and the Amalekite  dwelled in the “valley,” ready to set an ambush against the Israelites should they attempt to invade their lands, that this had prompted G’d to decree: “tomorrow you will turn and travel in the direction of the desert direction see of Reeds,” that the Israelites obeyed this instruction and remained in the desert. While engaged in obeying the command of the Lord the incident with the person collecting kindling on the Sabbath occurred. This was an illustration of one sin leading to another, i.e. if they had not had to remain in the desert due to the sin of the spies, this sin would not have occurred.
      Still another possibility of explaining the words ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, a paragraph which is attached to the sin of committing idolatry, is that seeing that sin is first described as having occurred unwittingly, בשגגה, by the public at large, עדת ישראל, the next example was the same sin committed intentionally, i.e. ביד רמה. These were abstract examples of the very real examples of the sin of the golden calf and the sin of the spies. One starts committing idoltary unintentionally only to later on commit the same sin knowingly. The wording of the Torah in this connection is somewhat strange. When the Israelites made the golden calf they set out by simply wanting to replace the absent leader Moses, i.e. “make for us an authority to walk before us seeing that the man Moses we do not know what happened to him” (Exodus 32,1). After the calf emerged, suddenly they said: ‘these are your gods O Israel who have taken you out of Egypt,” and they prostrated themselves before the golden calf and offered sacrifices to it (Exodus 32,8), i.e. now the sin had become a knowing form of idol worship. In spite of this their sin was forgiven as they repented. The penalty prescribed for idolatry, i.e. extermination of that person from his people applies when no remorse has been demonstrated, etc. In our instance the Torah describes that as a result of lack of remorse the people had been required to remain in the desert, a fact which was immediately followed by at least one individual demonstrably violating the laws of the Sabbath thus demonstrating the truth of the saying that once one sin has been committed it is not a big step to commit another sin, in this instance a sin by an individual. 
      The Torah may have used to teach us by means of this example that if one travels in the desert far from civilization (and does not know the day of the week) one is still obligated to observe the Sabbath. The way to do this is to count six days for himself and to observe the seventh day as Sabbath (Shabbat 69). The underlying reason for this is that during the six days of creation each of the respective emanations which were involved in assisting in the creation of the specific phenomena created on that day observed a rest at the end of their respective activity. When the Sabbath came and contributed its specific activity, i.e. מנוחה, this contributed a sense of pleasure and contentment to all the emanations and they all desisted from their respective activities.    Even though the Israelites in the desert certainly kept track of the calendar and the days of the week, and there could not be a question of any error in their calculations, the Torah hints that if someone who does not know the day of the week because he is in the desert and he deliberately fails to set aside the seventh day in his personal calendar as the Sabbath, he is guilty of the death penalty no less than if he had been aware of the correct date.
      A Midrashic approach based in Shabbat 96: the man in question was Tzelofchod son of Chefer. The sages derive this from the fact that both the word: “in the desert” here and the word “in the desert” which we find as describing the location of Tzelofchod’s sin in Numbers 27,3 were really superfluous. The Torah wrote them to let us know who the מקשש עצים was.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויקריבו אותו, “they brought him (to Moses).” As soon as the Sabbath had ended.   המוצאים אותו, “the people who had found him (collecting the kindling).” By rights the Torah should have written: אשר מצאו אותו, the ones who had found him (past tense) seeing that they did not find him now. The Torah chose the present tense to inform us that this man had continued to collect the kindling in spite of having been warned of the impending penalty if he would not stop (compare Sifri 113).
      It is worth noting that the word אותו, “him,” occurs  no fewer than six times in this short paragraph. This appears unnecessary as the Torah could have appended the suffix הו in most of these instances saving several letters. When you compare the Torah’s report about the blasphemer at the end of Parshat Emor (Leviticus 24,11-23) you will note that the Torah did make use of the suffix after the first time the man was mentioned. Another unusual feature of this paragraph is the description of the sinner as מקושש עצים, when we would have expected to read מלקט עצים בשבת, “someone collecting wood on the Sabbath.” The expression מקושש is reserved for matters connected with hay and straw. Examples are Exodus 5,7 and 5,12. On the other hand, the expression לקט is appropriate for the collecting of wood as we know from Jeremiah 7,18. 
  There is, however, a reason why the Torah chose the expression מקושש. It is well known that the earth has six extremities. They were created with the power of G’d which resides within six seals, each seal being applied to a different one of these extremities [Boundaries, i.e. terrestrial earth is not an expanding part of the universe. Ed.] This is alluded to in Exodus 31,13 כי אות היא ביני וביניכם, “for it is a “sign,” i.e. ”seal” between Me and you” (part of the mystique of the Sabbath). The person gathering the kindling denied the validity of this covenant by what he did. This is why the letters שש (six) are part of the description the Torah chose to report his sin. He had turned something sacred into something profane by denying the significance of sealing the six extremities of the earth. The word could be read as מקו ששה, “from the sixth line”. By violating the concept of the six lines (leading to the six extremities), he made it impossible to perceive of the Sabbath as the seventh line specifically aimed at the Jewish people. This seventh “line” may be perceived as the Holy Sanctuary, something over and beyond the limitation of terrestrial space.
  
  Verse 34
  
  . כי לו פורש מה יעשה לו, “because it had not been made clear what should be done to him.” This refers to which of the four types of death penalties was applicable to someone committing this type of Sabbath violation. All that was known so far was that deliberate violation of the Sabbath is subject to the death penalty as written in Exodus 31,14. Now G’d clarified: “the man shall be put to death the entire assembly shall pelt him with stones outside the camp” (verse 35).
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” The commandment to make fringes at the corners of four-cornered (almost all) garments was first mentioned in general terms, and then spelled out in detail. This is why the Torah adds: ואמרת אלהם, “and say to them.” Every single commandment consists of the general commandment plus its details. I have elaborated on this subject at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus (page 1473 our translation).
     ועשו להם ציצית, “they shall make fringes for themselves.” The word ציצית alludes to the four cords, threads, which are to be attached to each corner of the garment and which are suspended from it. We find that Ezekiel speaks of a vision (8,3) in which he  was taken hold of by an angel בציצת ראשי, “by the lock of my head,” i.e. a fringe of his hair.    The words: “they shall make for themselves cords,” means that they must not use threads which are already part of the garment, talit, and then make the fringes out of these threads (Menachot 41). Maimonides Hilchot Titzit 1,6-18 explains the procedure and appearance of making and attaching the fringes. One takes four cords, introduces them into a small hole near each of the corners of the garment and bends them double in the middle so that eight cords appear to hang down from that hole. The hole has to be no further than three fingers’ breadth from the edge of the garment. The place where the fringes are attached must be at least far enough from the edge of the garment to enable a knot to be made there the size of the thickness of a thumb. If subsequently, through wear and tear, the width is reduced so that the fringes appear literally at the edge of the garment this does not disqualify them from performing their function. The same holds true if the angles of the garments, the corners, shrink. Initially, the length of the threads used to make the fringes should not be shorter than four finger-widths with the thumb. If, subsequently, enough length remains exposed so that one can construct a loop this is sufficient. If, one of the four threads of the four tzitziyot is totally torn off, however, this renders the garment to which it was attached unfit to wear.    In the process of attaching the fringes to the respective corner of the garment to which it is being attached the wearer takes one of the four (respectively eight) cords and winds same around the others so that approximately one third of its total length will be so wound. This “wound” part is known as the גדיל. The remaining two thirds of the length of the fringes are left to dangle by themselves, unwound. The part wound around the other threads by one thread three times is known as a חוליא, “vertebra,” and there should not be fewer than seven such vertebrae wound around part of the threads before they are interrupted by a double-knot. When winding more than seven such vertebrae around the other four threads one should not exceed the number 13 per section. The whole procedure symbolizes the seven layers of the heavens which are separated by six layers of space between them (Menachot 39), seeing that the color blue of the one thread resembles the color of the sea, and the sea in turn resembles and therefore recalls the color of the sky (heaven) and what this symbolizes. (Menachot 43). The idea behind all this is to be remembered favorably in heaven.
      Nachmanides writes that of the number of threads, i.e. 8, seven are white whereas one is techelet, sky-blue, seeing the Torah speaks about פתיל תכלת, a (single) sky-blue thread. The colour itself is a dye derived from the snail known as חלזון, a marine creature whose essential colour is similar to the appearance of the sea and whose blood is black; it is found in the Dead Sea and the wool must be soaked first in lime, in order to bleach it; after that the wool is washed thoroughly until it is absolutely clean. Then it is placed in a pot of boiling water into which the blood of the חלזון has first been poured. Subsequently one adds the wool of which the thread in question is to be dyed in the customary manner of applying dye so that the wool will look like the colour of that snail called חלזון (Maimonides Hilchot Tzizit 1,6).    A second view holds that six of the eight (resp. 4) threads are white whereas the entire eighth thread is of the ציצית is blue, not only half as it would be according to the first opinion cited (Raavad). According to the view cited first, one takes one of the white threads and winds them around the other threads once, close to the garment itself, leaves it and then takes the blue thread and winds it around the other threads twice. These three “rings” are called aחוליא , vertebra. He leaves a little space by making two knots and repeats the procedure this time winding two rings of blue thread around the other white threads making a knot. The three rings together are called “a vertebra”. The first knot is known as the “upper knot;” the procedure is repeated after allowing for a little space beneath the knot. The second vertebra consists of only blue rings. This procedure is again repeated so that the final vertebra consists of two rings of blue wool and one ring of white wool. The reason for this sequence is that seeing he started with white rings he also concludes the procedure with a white ring. There is an allusion to his procedure in the text when the Torah writes ונתנו על כנף פתיל תכלת, “they shall attach to the edge a blue thread.” Concerning this our sages in Menachot 39 have said the word כנף is not to be understood literally but refers to something resembling the edge, i.e. the first “ring” should be of the same colour as the garment itself. The first part of the visible פתיל should appear as if it were a continuation of the talit, the garment to which it is attached. It follows that only after a ring of white wool has been wound around the eight threads is a ring of blue wool to be wound around it. The reason why the final ring should also be white is the principle of מעלין בקודש, that when engaged in creating levels of sanctity one always proceeds from a lesser degree of sanctity to a higher degree. Seeing that the Torah had intended that that which is attached immediately to the corner of the garment should be white, it follows that the color white is holier than the color blue. The Geonim have written in this vein in their various comments about this subject.    Nowadays, seeing we do not have the blue thread, all the threads are made of white wool seeing the principle had already been established that in the absence of blue wool [of the required color derived from the halachically approved source, Ed.] the absence of this blue thread does not make the whole commandment of tzitzit redundant (compare Menachot 38 and Maimonides Hilchot tzitzit 1,4). We also have a rule that the absence of white threads when blue threads are available does not invalidate the application of the commandment either. This means in practice that if the visible part of the white threads had torn so that only the color blue remains visible the garment may still be worn in such a condition (Menachot 38). The reason why the fringes are called tzitzit we already explained, is based on the verse from Ezekiel as the appearance of the fringes is similar to the appearance of the locks of hair on the head. The reason this part is called “white” is simply because we have not been commanded to dye it. Even though we have been taught that the presence of either blue or white is not of the essence, i.e. that the commandment is effective anyway, this does not mean that we are dealing here with two separate commandments [as in the case of the phylacteries where we recite separate benedictions over each phylactery, Ed.] The reason the “branch” i.e. the fringes are referred to as “white,” is because there is no instruction to dye them. If someone dons a garment which contains either white, blue or both of these colors he has fulfilled a single commandment seeing the Torah wrote: “they shall put on (each) fringe of the corner a blue thread whereupon these will become for you fringes” (verses 38,39). This teaches that both colors combine to make one commandment.    We have a Baraitha (Menachot 43) in which Rabbi Meir is quoted as saying that if someone fails to incorporate white threads in the tzitzit he is subject to a harsher punishment than if he merely fails to incorporate the colour techelet, sky-blue. The matter can best be explained by a parable. A king told his servants to bring him two seals, seeing that in those days every slave had two stamps on him to show who he belonged to in the event he would be sold. He told one of his servants to bring him a seal made of gold whereas he told the other to bring him a seal made of clay. Both servants failed to carry out their respective tasks. Whom would the king punish more harshly? Obviously, the servant who had failed to produce a seal made of clay would be in line for harsher punishment as it is easy to find or produce a seal made of clay whereas it is much more difficult and expensive to produce a seal made of gold. For the same reason, if someone fails to incorporate white threads in the fringes this is a greater degree of negligence than if he fails to incorporate the blue thread seeing that white threads are in abundant supply.   Nowadays, when we use only white threads for making the fringes one takes one of the eight threads and winds them around the others for a total length of approximately the first third of the protruding length. The remaining two thirds of the length are left to hang freely. If he wants to perform the system of making the vertebrae we described earlier this is perfectly admissible. If he does not want to make these vertebrae he is at liberty to merely wind the one thread around the others without making this division by making knots after each vertebra. The main thing is that the upper third of the fringes should have the eighth thread wound around it (Maimonides Hilchot Tzitzit 1,9). A similar principle is applied when affixing the מזוזה to the door post of our houses and rooms, i.e. the mezuzah is to be attached within the top third of the door post.   The reason that we make five knots when attaching the tzitzit to the talit is that we have been taught that the fulfillment of this commandment is equivalent to all the 613 commandments of the Torah. The word ציצית has a numerical value of 600. When you add the eight threads and the five knots you have the number 613, an allusion to all the commandments of the Torah. This is the mystical dimension of (15,39) “when you see it (the fringe) you will remember all the commandments of the Torah and remember to perform them, etc.   Do not object that the word ציצת appears three times in this passage spelled without the letter י before the letter ת, so that the numerical value of the word is only 590 and not 600. The letter ל in the word לציצת in verse 38 makes up for the missing thirty through the absence of three times the letter י, so that the combined numerical value of each word ציצת, לציצת, ציצת is 1800, which divided by three still amounts to 600. 
  The reason the word has been mentioned three times in our paragraph is to serve as an allusion that the statement that a single commandment is equivalent to all the 613 commandments is applicable to a total of three such commandments, i.e. he commandment of tzitzit, the commandment of observing the Sabbath, and the commandment not to engage in idolatry (Compare Chulin 5).    Rashi (end of verse 41) writes that the eight threads of the tzitzit are an allusion to the eight days which elapsed between the day of the Exodus and the singing of the song of thanksgiving after the Israelites had crossed the Sea of Reeds and the Egyptians had been drowned in it. We all know that this song is read from the Torah on the seventh day of Passover, not on the eighth day. How then are we to understand Rashi’s comment? The correct interpretation of Rashi’s words i.e. משיצאו ממצרים, when the departed from Egypt, is from the time that He (G’d) gave them permission to leave the country, i.e. on the evening of the fourteenth (see Rashi Berachot 9). The 14th day of Nissan, the day on which the Passover was slaughtered was part of the eight days Rashi refers to seeing that the Passover was קדשים, “sacrificial meat, and we have a rule that when it comes to anything connected with the sacrificial meat the night follows the day, i.e. the night from the 14th of Nissan to the fifteenth is still considered a part of the preceding day, i.e. the 14th of Nissan. This is based on Leviticus 7,15: “on the (same) day he shall consume it, he shall not leave over from it until the morning,” i.e. until the following morning is part of the same day. If the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds on the 21st of Nissan his was the eighth’s day after the Passover. 
      A Midrashic approach to our verse: the word ציצית is related to “seeing.” The root appears in that sense in Song of Songs 3,9 מציץ מן החרכים, “looking through the shutters.” When someone wears tzitzit he must take care not to commit any sins as he is under observation by G’d from the celestial throne of glory, a throne which resembles the colour of the blue thread on the tzitzit.    The sages call a garment fitted with tzitzit a טלית, talit, a word denoting something superior, exalted; we find the word used in that sense in Daniel 7,4 ונטילת מן ארעא, “and it was removed (elevated) from earth,” This is an allusion to G’d who is exalted above all, and we have been commanded to drape ourselves in a talit based on an interpretation of Exodus 34,6, “the Lord passed in front of him (Moses).” If we did not have a specific verse in scripture to this effect it would have been presumptuous for any human being even to write such a line. At any rate, the meaning of the verse is that G’d wrapped Himself in a talit, just like the cantor in the synagogue, and showed Moses what He wanted to show him at Mount Sinai, telling him that whenever Israel is guilty of a sin, he should drape the talit over himself as he had seen G’d do, and then his prayers would result in G’d forgiving them. 
  The entire thrust of the passage in Exodus 34 is to teach the Israelites how to pray and entreat G’d in order for their entreaties to be effective. They are to drape the talit (with the tzitzit) around themselves and invoke the attributes of the Lord relevant to the sin committed for which they seek forgiveness. When the sages spoke about draping the talit over oneself they referred to a white talit, seeing that white is the symbol of forgiveness. This is why the prophet Isaiah 1,18 said: “if your sins are as red as certain types of red wool, they will become white as snow (as a result of your repentance). Just as the color red is a symbol of sin so white is a symbol of forgiveness. When man drapes the white talit over himself this is a pointer to G’d that He should cover His creatures in the white of His pardon and forgiveness. The first time G’d did this is recorded in Genesis 3,21: “The Lord made tunics made of leather for Adam and his wife and clothed them in it.” It is also a reminder that in the future G’d will resurrect the dead and dress them in garments appropriate for them. This is the mystical dimension of Job 38,14: “it changes like clay under the seal till its hues are fixed like those of a garment.” Seeing that this commandment is an allusion to the resurrection of our bodies, it is one which envelopes our body seeing the tzitzit are threads hanging from a talit similar to the locks of hair hanging from the head. This is the meaning of Ezekiel 8,3 which we discussed before. The holes made near the corners of the talit through which the threads of the tzizit are introduced symbolize the eyes, whereas the five knots symbolise the five senses man possesses. The eight strings represent the eight days which elapse until the male baby is circumcised. This is why the sages (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 20) have said that anyone who has not been circumcised will not take part in the resurrection of the dead. You will find five knots at each of the corners of the talit making a total of 20 such knots. This number corresponds to the combined number of fingers and toes, i.e. all these details symbolise man’s entire body.   The reason that the upper third of each bundle of tzitzit is wound whereas the lower two thirds remain hanging freely is to hint that although at the present time the Jewish people are scattered throughout the surface of the globe, i.e. are in exile,  (the principal nations harbouring our exiles being Ishmael and Edom (Esau), and therefore the Israelites are at the bottom of the totem pole (nowadays), when the redemption comes we will occupy our true place at the top of the totem pole, i.e. the upper third of the tzizit, bound together), fulfilling the promise of Deut. 26,19: “and to place you at the top among the nations of the earth.” This idea has been spelled out by Zecharyah 13,8: “throughout the land, declares the Lord, two thirds shall perish, shall die, and one third of it shall survive.” Elaborating on this verse Bamidbar Rabbah 15,11 states that the third which will survive the events described by the prophet are the Jewish people. The Midrash bases this on Isaiah 19,24: “In that day, Israel shall be a third (partner with Egypt and Assyria) as a blessing on earth.   Another observation by the sages of the Midrash (Shabbat 32): anyone who observes the commandment of wearing tzitzit will merit to be attended to by 2800 servants. They derive this from Zecharyah 8,23: “In those days ten men from nations of every tongue (70 nations) will take hold- they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say: ‘let us go with you, for we have heard that G’d is with you.’” (Seeing that each talit has four corners this means that 2800 men will beg an individual Jew to be his servant.)    Anyone who treats the commandment of tzitit with contempt is described in Job 38,13 as subject to the curse: “and seizes the corners  of the earth and shakes the wicked out  of it.”
      A kabbalistic approach to the verse: “they shall make tzitzit for themselves.” This commandment applies to the 32 threads which are an allusion to the כלה, bride, in Song of Songs which is adorned and surrounded by 32 paths of wonderful wisdom. Concerning this “bride” Solomon said in Song of Songs 4,11: “and the fragrance of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon.” It is common knowledge that the word שלמה  in that text is not to be taken at face value but represents a simile for the superior wisdom the wearer was “garbed” in. We have an example of this in Bereshit Rabbah 21,5 where the author explains the words in Daniel 10,5 describing Daniel’s vision of איש לבוש הבדים, “a man dressed in white linen” as a reference to the angel Gavriel. Clearly, the angel wears neither linen [nor gold as mentioned in the latter half of that verse. Ed.] The “clothing” described as worn by the angel is the “wisdom” surrounding his essence. According to the Midrash the function of this covering is similar to the horn-like protective shield worn by certain kinds of locusts which cover their entire bodies. Man needs such protective cover when exposed to radiation, revelation, from celestial sources. The thirty-two threads of the talit’s fringes synbolise this. [The oldest kabbalistic text, the Sefer Yetzirah, attributed to Avraham, already commences with a reference to these thirty-two paths of wisdom. Ed.] Wrapping oneself in a garment equipped with thirty-two tzitziyot symbolises that we wish to possess these thirty-two paths of wonderful wisdom. They are what G’d wraps Himself in and we have been commanded to והלכת בדרכיו, to “walk in His ways,” i.e. to emulate Him to the extent possible (Deut. 28,9).    The reason this commandment is one which is equivalent to the entire 613 mitzvah-complex is that it is the “headstone” consisting of 613 precious stones (the mitzvot)  and every one of the 32 paths of wisdom is divided into 2, i.e. negative and positive aspects of the mitzvah making a total of 64 each of which consists of elements of the ten emanations making a total of 640. When you deduct the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. 27, you are left with the number 613. This is the mystical dimension of what the Talmud Menachot 43 says that the words וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את מצות ה', “when you see it,” the mitzvah of tzitzit , you will remember all the commandments of the Lord and perform them as a result.” Reflecting on this commandment and its details calls to mind all other commandments. This is what the sage Rabbi Ezriel wrote in the introduction to his commentary on Song of Songs.
      There is an additional reference to a mystical element of this commandment wherein the Jewish people (when wearing tzitzit) are compared to the chayot supporting the Divine entourage מרכבה, in the celestial regions. You are already aware that all the commandments have been divided into two major groups. One group is purely traditional, no specific purpose or reason having been revealed concerning it The other group consists of commandments which recommend themselves to our intelligence as soon as we examine them and think about them. The former are known as מקובלות, the latter as מושכלות.    The Kabbalists who have composed the wording of the prayers did so only regarding the commandments known as the מקובלות not regarding the commandments which we defined as  מושכלות. The reason is that the former group of commandments constitute the essence of sanctity. We, the Jewish people, are referred to as a “holy people” because we perform the commandments known as מקובלות, not because of our observing the group of mitzvot known as מושכלות, appealing to our reason. This is also why all the benedictions recited prior to the performance of the מצות מקובלות, are prefaced with the formula “who has sanctified us by means of His commandments, and commanded us to perform such and such a commandment.”
      Intelligent people realize that the performance of those commandments which we understand (or believe we understand) employing physical instruments in order to perform them, all relate to matters of the mind and they symbolize matters subject to our intellect.    The sages compared a person when he stands before the Lord offering his prayers as similar to the holy chayot. This is one of the reasons the sages insisted that when intoning the principal prayer, the עמידה, a person has to first align his feet so that they are parallel and close together in order for him to appear similar to the holy chayot described in Ezekiel’s vision Ezekiel 1,7 as ורגליהם רגל ישרה, understood by Rashi in Berachot 10 as “their feet appeared to be a single foot.” 
      Let us now discuss this mitzvah during the performance of which the Jew is considered as comparable to the holy chayot. First of all, you should know that there are four such “chayot” who are carriers of the Divine entourage, מרכבה. Actually, the four are in reality one; they looked like four because of the clouds, darkness, and other phenomena surrounding this vision which covered part of them making it appear in the vision as if Ezekiel was confronted with four separate phenomena. The vision was similar to the vision of a tree all of which is a single phenomenon though it appears to be divided into trunk, branches, twigs, leaves, etc. The entire tree, however, has a common root. This is the reason that we read in Ezekiel 1,22: “above the head (singular) of the chayah was an expanse with an awe-inspiring gleam of crystal, etc.” You will note that after the prophet had earlier spoken of four separate chayot, he now refers to them as a single unit.    Each one of these “four” chayot had four wings, making a total of 16 wings for the four chayot. Each one of these four chayot also had four faces as described in Ezekiel 1,6: “each had four faces.” This makes a total of 16 faces and 16 wings for the four chayot. When you add the total number of  faces and the total number of wings of that vision you have a total of 32 phenomena. Each of these had profound “roots” representing weighty subject matters.
      According to the opinion of Targum Yonathan the number of faces of the chayot were 64 and the combined number of wings were 256. In that case the meaning of the verse is: “each had four faces, i.e. each chayah had four faces and each face had four sides,” i.e. facing in each direction. The “four wings” of which the prophet speaks belonged to each of these 64 facets making a total of 256 wings. An easy way of remembering this are the words of  Daniel 7,9 גלגלוהי נור דליק, “its wheels blazing flames.” When the Temple was destroyed the number of wings of these chayot were reduced. This resolves an apparent contradiction discussed in Chagigah 13 where it is pointed out that one verse (Isaiah 6,2) describes each of the chayot as having six wings whereas a similar verse in Ezekiel 1,6 describes the chayot as having four wings each. The answer given is that Isaiah prophesied and had visions at a time when the Temple was still standing. This is why the chayot had more wings than when Ezekiel prophesied at a time when the Temple had already been destroyed.  The Talmud discusses whose wings were reduced in number, and Rav Chananel  quoting Rav said that the ones who used to recite the songs of praise before the Almighty were the ones who had the number of their wings reduced. This is why the prophet writes in Ezekiel 1,6: “their legs were a straight leg,” suggesting that what had been several had been reduced to one.” In other words, the wings which in Isaiah’s vision had concealed the legs now were absent so that the legs were exposed. This is why in Isaiah 6,1 the prophet reports that with two of the wings the chayah (seraph) would fly whereas one chayah would call to the other: “Holy, Holy Holy, the Lord of Hosts, His presence fills the whole earth,” i.e. the text of the song. We read in Proverbs 23,5: “as soon as you focus on it is gone, riches grow wings, fly away heavenward like an angel.” The latter verse in Proverbs was understood by Rabbi Chananel as an allusion to the disappearance of the other two wings. The other sages, on the other hand, argue: “how would the prophet have known that in Isaiah’s vision these chayot had six wings? At that time their feet were not exposed due to the lower two of the six wings having covered them.” Thus far the Talmud.   The total number of wings which the chayot were deprived of was eight, i.e. two were taken from each. According to the view of the other sages these eight wings were the ones which covered the feet of the chayot. This was sufficient to remind G’d of the sin of the golden calf, i.e. the chayot remained with 248 wings instead of the original 256, to intone the song corresponding to their 248 wings. We humans [counterparts of the angels] use the remaining 248 organs [our equivalent to the angels’ wings] to serve the Lord with each one to perform one of the 248 positive commandments. We compensate for the missing eight “organs” (wings) by circumcising our males on the eighth day after birth. It is this mitzvah which protects us throughout the generations.
      In order to appreciate all this you have to remember that when G’d created Man He intended for our species to fulfill the role on earth which the chayot fulfill in heaven. Man is basically a single body, having branches, i.e. arms and legs, fingers and toes  like the tree we described earlier. When one separates from this unit four specific organs which are to serve as the carrier of G’d’s entourage, מרכבה, so that as a result he becomes similar in function to the chayot in the celestial spheres, the presence of the Shechinah will come to rest on these four organs. They are: “the brain, the heart, covenant with the tongue [verbal promise to obey the commandments when the Israelites said: “we will do and learn” Ed.] and the organ on which the covenant Brit Milah has been performed. This is the reason that when we drape the talit around ourselves the four corners of the talit envelop the part of us corresponding to that of the chayah. This is the mystical dimension of Deut. 22,12: “you shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.” This also explains the deeper meaning of the word כנף, כנפים, “wing or wings” which the Torah uses to describe the corners [instead of the usual word קרן, קרנות which is used to describe the corners of the Altar. Ed.] In order to remind us of the four faces and four wings of the chayot whose function in the heaven we are to duplicate on earth, our tradition (halachah) decided on the number of these tassels, i.e. eight for each corner to make a total of 32.    Just as the “body” of the chayah was divided in the prophet’s vision into four separate parts, “faces,” whose task it is to conceal certain parts of the Shechinah, the attribute of כבוד, so the relevant part of the talit has to have white tassels to symbolise the chayot and a blue tassel to remind us of our counterparts in the celestial region which is perceived as blue. Nonetheless, the white fringes (tassels) are the more important ones as our sages taught in Menachot 39: “one begins with the white threads and one concludes the making of the tzitzit with the white threads” (the rings we wind around the upper third). The mystical dimension of this procedure parallels that of the blowing of the sound of the teruah, the broken sound of the shofar, which is also introduced by our first blowing an unbroken sound tekiah as well as our concluding with the same unbroken sound tekiah.
      The relationship of the white tassels and the blue tassel are somewhat similar to the relationship of the Lulav, palm frond, to that of the Etrog, citron.     Just as the absence of the Etrog or the Lulav invalidates the performance of the mitzvah, the whole procedure of the “four species,” so (when it is available) the absence of the blue thread or the white threads invalidates the whole commandment of tzitzit, i.e. one cannot pronounce a benediction over the parts of the mitzvah which is being put to use. Nowadays, when we do not have or do not know the correct color of the techelet, the blue to be used, this does not invalidate the performance of the mitzvah of tzitzit and we recite the appropriate benediction as long as white tassels are available as these are the principal part of the commandment. The “blue thread” of the tassels is to the commandment of ציצית what the אתרג which is known as הדר, beautiful, represents for the mitzvah of the four species, generally known as לולב.
      There is an interesting comment by Midrash Tehillim on Psalms 90,16 on the words והדרך על בניהם, “and Your glory by their children.” [normally, the Midrash understands this verse as G’d showing the patriarchs that we, their children, observe His commandments something for which they are entitled to feel some satisfaction. Ed.] The Midrash in question understands the word והדרך, “and Your glory (beauty)” as a reference to the blue thread of the tzitzit we, His “children” are to wrap ourselves in order to emulate Him. Furthermore, the sages taught in Menachot 42 that whereas there is no maximum length for these tassels there is a minimum length. The same applies for the Lulav for which the sages did not set a maximum size (as opposed to the Etrog) although they stipulated a minimum size.    When our sages in Berachot 12 interpreted the words ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם in our passage as meaning: “you shall not follow the inclination of your hearts resulting in heresy,” they understood this as a danger inherent in the distinction between the white and the blue threads of the tzitziyot which could lead a person to believe that the two colours represent two separate divine domains, a division of power between two deities. The manner in which the white and the blue threads of the tzitzit are to be joined together is meant to forestall such thinking. 
  I would add to this that if you will look closely at Proverbs 24,21: “fear the Lord my son and the king,” Solomon made it plain that he referred to different attributes of one and the same G’d. We can understand the white tzitzit as symbolising the attribute of Hashem, the attribute of Mercy, whereas the blue thread symbolises the attribute of G’d as “king,” i.e. as the attribute of Justice. This latter attribute is the function of the emanations. In order for it to be clear that we are to emphasise the basic unity of these attributes, Solomon concludes the verse we quoted with ”do not associate with those who keep changing,” in other words: “do not think in your hearts that there is a divided authority, but be certain that there is total unity even though G’d may manifest Himself with different facets.” This is the message in our verse: “do not follow the urges of your heart.” Following the urges of your heart is nothing but a form of heresy. When we approach the verses from this vantage point we can understand the word אותו in  וראיתם אותו, as derived from the word אות, “a sign, a symbol,” [not a pronoun but a noun, Ed.] It is as if the Torah had written that when you look at the tzitzit you are looking at G’d’s “seal,” the symbol of His existence .
      You will find this thought spelled out in the Sefer Habahir item 93, where the author writes: “what is the reason for the blue-coloured thread on the tzitzit?” A king and his daughter had a number of servants and they (the servants) wanted to make a trip abroad. Seeing they were afraid the king would be angry at them, the king gave them his seal indicating his approval of their plans. They were still afraid that the king’s daughter would disapprove of their plans; the daughter gave them a seal of approval of her own to put their minds at ease. Having obtained seals of approval by both their masters the servants were at ease when they began their journey. The seals in question were the phylacteries and the tzitzit. Between them the person equipped with them announces that he is under G’d’s protection.
      Midrash Tanchuma Shelach 15 makes the following comment on the words: “they shall make tzitzit for themselves.” This is a practical  demonstration of what is written in Isaiah 42,21: “the Lord desires His servant’s vindication that he may magnify and glorify His teaching.” G’d gave the Torah to the Jewish people in order to secure for them a permanent place in the hereafter. This is why He made sure that no part of an Israelite’s daily activities is not inextricably involved with performing His commandments. When the farmer goes out to plough his field, G’d had already commanded him not to use two mismatched animals in drawing the ploughshare (Deut. 22,10). As soon as this farmer proceeds to scatter his seed he encounters the injunction not to mix alien seed when planting a vineyard (Deut. 22,9). When it is time to harvest some of his crop, the Torah preceded this activity by warning the farmer not to go back to pick up certain minor parts of the harvest he had left behind but to leave them for the poor (Deut. 24,19). When it comes to winnowing the grain harvest, the Torah first reminds the farmer to allocate the respective tithes before doing this. Before kneading the dough in preparation for baking bread, the woman doing so must set aside the first part of the dough for making loaves for G’d, i.e. to give them to the priest (Numbers 15,20). Before and after eating the bread, or any food for that matter, the Jew is to recite benedictions reminding him of G’d’s largesse which made it possible for him to have the food (Deut. 8,10). Before shearing the wool of one’s sheep, the Torah directed that the first shearing be given to the priest. When the animal gives birth the firstborn belongs to he priest. When the animal is slaughtered certain parts of it are given to the priest (Deut. 18,3). When one encounters a nest of chicks the mother bird must be sent off before one may take the chicks or eggs (Deut. 22,7 and 9). When one slaughters birds or free-roaming animals their blood must be covered (buried) before the meat may be consumed (Leviticus 17,13). Before making or donning garments to wear one must ensure they do not contain a mixture of wool and linen (Deut. 22,11). When a son is born to a father he must circumcise him and observe a certain period of continence when he cannot cohabit with his wife (Leviticus chapter 12). When planting an orchard, the fruit which has grown during the first three years must neither be eaten nor used by the owner in another manner beneficial to him (Leviticus 19,23). There are restrictions pertaining to burial, construction of the roof on one’s house, prohibitions governing the manner in which one expresses one’s grief over the loss of family members, (no tattoos) etc., etc. The door posts of one’s house must have a parchment with sections of the Torah (called mezuzah) attached to it. In short, there is no facet of our daily lives in which the performance of the commandments does not figure prominently.    The wearing of the talit with fringes may also be perceived as similar to a man who has fallen overboard and who flounders in the water. What does the captain of the ship do? He throws him a rope or life belt to keep him afloat until he can be brought back to the ship. The talit with its tzitzit attached fulfills a similar role in our lives in which we constantly flounder were it not for the help extended by the Torah, i.e. G’d’s commandments. This is the true meaning of Deut. 4,11 “and you who have cleaved to the Lord your G’d are all of you alive this day.” Thus far Tanchuma. 
  
  Verse 39
  
   וראיתם אותו, “when you see it (the tassel).” The Torah refers to the visual impact of the commandment. This line is the source for the halachah that this commandment does not apply at night (as there is then no visual impact). Seeing that the application of this positive commandment is tied to a specific time frame, women are absolved from observing it (Menachot 43).   וזכרתם את כל מצוות ה' ועשיתם אותם, “you shall remember all of the Lord’s commandments and carry them out.” The visual impact produces memory and the memory triggers the performance of the commandments (Menachot 43).    ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם, “and you are not to follow your hearts or your  eyes.” The heart and the eye act as “brokers” for the commission of sins. The eye sees, the heart desires, and the body commits the sin. By wearing the talit with its tzitziyot, man becomes as if he had seen the throne of G’d’s glory with his own eyes.
  The tzitziyot are the symbol reminding him not to chase after pleasures in the terrestrial universe and all that his eyes ask for. The reason that the Torah mentions the heart first although the eye contact with the forbidden object occurs first, is that the heart acts as guide and “leader” for the entire body. The other organs follow the lead of the heart.
  
  Verse 40
  
   למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי, “in order that you will remember and carry out all My commandments.” The Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 2,4, discussing the requirement to recite the קריאת שמע both mornings and evenings, explains that when reciting this verse the letter ז in the word תזכרו has to be drawn out somewhat when enunciated. The reason is to avoid that the word sounds like תשכרו, i.e. “you will secure compensation,” as one should not perform the commandments only in order to receive the reward promised (Avot,1,3). In this connection we may add that dwelling on that letter ז may also bring to mind the Torah which consists of 7 books (when we include the verses in Numbers 10,35-36 which were introduced by the inverted letters נ to show that the Book of Numbers are actually three books, giving us a total of seven Books of Moses). Seeing that the commandment of tzitzit is equal in moral weight to that of all the other commandments combined, such a thought when drawing out the letter ז is quite near at hand.    Another thought that may surface when we pronounce the letter ז in the word תזכרו as urged to do by the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot is that it conjures up thoughts of the שבת הגדול, the “great” Sabbath. The subject matter of the whole verse then is: “I have commanded you to perform this commandment involving the blue thread here on earth in order that corresponding to your activity on earth you will also remember that in the celestial regions there is an emanation which is part of the emanation הכל  which is also known as the שבת הגדול. The words which follow, i.e. ועשיתם אותם, “and you will perform them,” mean that when you concentrate on these various meanings of the letter ז in the word תזכרו you will in effect be thinking of all the commandments.
  
  Verse 41
  
   אני ה' אלו-היכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלו-הים, אני ה' אלו-היכם, “I am the Lord your G’d who has taken you out of the land of Egypt in order to become your G’d, I am the Lord your G’d.” Here the Torah reveals that the purpose of the Exodus was in order for Hashem to become our G’d. If that is so, we can look at the Exodus as something which did not only benefit the Jewish people but as something which bestowed similar benefits on G’d Himself. This is what Joshua had in mind when he said (Joshua 7,9) “if they will destroy our name from earth what are You going to do for Your great name?” If G’d does not have a people how could the fact of His kingdom become manifest on earth?   Our verse commenced with the words: “I am the Lord your G’d,” and it concludes with the very same words. The reason this has been repeated is to remind us that G’d’s status vis-a-vis us in the hereafter will remain the same as it is in our terrestrial world.
      Another approach to the meaning of these words: “I will remain the same G’d and have the same relationship with you which I had after the first Exodus as I will have in the future after the final redemption.” Our verse would then be an assurance of the future redemption at which time the full extent of G’d’s Shechinah would once again become manifest in Jerusalem. This is in contrast to the presence of G’d’s Shechinah during the period of the second Temple when only a very ”weak” form of the Shechinah was manifest as we know from Yuma 21. The evidence of this “weak” Shechinah were the five important ingredients of the Temple which were absent during the entire existence of the second Temple. We have previously pointed to the letter ה in the words וארצה בו ואכבדה, as a clear allusion to the recurrence of these five manifestations of the Shechinah, seeing the prophet Chagai 1,8 did not need to write ואכבדה but could simply have written ואכבד, “I will be glorified.” By writing what he did, the prophet compared the first redemption to the final redemption. This thought is also expressed by Isaiah 11,11 when he writes: “in that day G’d will again apply His hand to redeeming the other part.” The prophet Micah elaborates when he said (Micah 7,15)  “as in the days when you sallied forth from the land of Egypt I will show wondrous deeds.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     שוחר טוב יבקש רצון ודורש רעה תבואנו, בוטח בעשרו הוא יפול וכעלה צדיקים יפרחו “He who diligently strives for good will find favor; but he who seeks evil, it will come to him. He who relies on his wealth will fall; but the righteous will sprout forth like foliage.” (Proverbs 11,27-28). 
  In these verses Solomon warns man to endeavor to further the interests of his fellow and not to try and cause him any harm; he should do so as he can expect to reap the fruits of his activities, i.e. if he is helpful he will succeed, whereas if he is the reverse he will inevitably fail. Solomon espouses the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that sooner or later he will be measured by the yardstick he applied to others. He bases himself on Isaiah 3,10: “hail the just man, for he shall fare well, he shall eat the fruit of his works.” Concerning the wicked person the same prophet writes in verse 11 of the same chapter: “woe to the wicked man, for he shall fare ill; as his hands have dealt, so it shall be done to him.   The expression שוחר used by Solomon here is a reference to prayer. The word appears in a similar sense in Proverbs 8,17: ומשחרי ימצאונני, “those who seek Me out diligently (in prayer) will find Me.” In our opening verse too Solomon speaks of people who are so concerned with the well being of their fellow that they pray on his behalf. Such people are considered as if concerned with the securing of G’d’s goodwill. This is why our sages said in Baba Kama 92 that if someone prays for G’d to grant a particular request to a third party and he himself is in need of having that same request granted by G’d for his own needs, not only will his prayer concerning the third party be granted but his own unspoken prayer will also be granted. Proof is found in Job 42,10: “The Lord restored Job’s fortunes when he prayed on behalf of his friends, and the Lord gave Job twice what he had before.”    We learn from this that if someone is the leading member of the congregation and in a unique position he is obligated to offer prayers on behalf of the other members of the community who are less fortunate than he is. If he fails to do so he will punished for this omission as we know from what our sages explained in connection with someone who committed involuntary murder and who must remain in a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest (Numbers 35,25). The Talmud Makkot 11 explained why the length of time such a man has to remain in the city of refuge is tied to the death of the High Priest. The High Priest should have prayed on behalf of the people of his generation that no one should become guilty of killing anyone even unintentionally. Seeing he had failed to do so he is punished in that presumably all the people in cities of refuge will wish for his speedy death so that they may leave that city.   We find that anyone who fails to offer a prayer which he should have offered is called “a sinner,” as we know from Samuel I 12,23: “far be it from me to become guilty against the Lord by refraining from praying on your behalf.” [G’d had sent lightning, thunder, and rain in the middle of the summer to indicate that He had been displeased with the people’s request to be ruled over by a king. The people became scared at these unusual phenomena at that time of year. Ed.] We find a similar occurrence with David who prayed on behalf of others, their sicknesses, etc., when he said (Psalms 38,5,13) “yet when they were ill my dress was sackcloth, I kept a fast — may what I prayed for happen to me!” He added in Psalms 141,5: “my prayers are still against their evil deeds.” He meant: “while I am still alive I pray on their behalf as they have committed evil deeds.” At any rate from David’s statement that what he prayed for others he should also himself be granted we learn that praying for others has positive results for oneself, i.e. a form of מדה כנגד מדה, that it is appropriate to entreat G’d on behalf of others who need to be cured or otherwise helped. It stands to reason that if one prays that evil befall others that G’d will let such evil befall the petitioner. This is much worse than not praying on behalf of one’s fellow. Not only did one fail to pray on behalf of one’s fellow one even engaged in prayer to G’d to victimize him!   Most of those who wish evil on others are the ones who rely on their material wealth to protect them against harm. Wealth is the principal reason why one individual lords it over his neighbour who is less affluent. Such people arrogate to themselves the right to revenge themselves for any slight they think has been inflicted upon them. The word הוא in the line בוטח בעשרו הוא יפול, refers to the word בוטח. This is another facet of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה i.e. that the very wealth which someone put his trust in will be the cause of his fall. It is similar to Kohelet 5,12: עושר שמור בעליו לרעתו, “riches hoarded by their owner (lead) to his misfortune.”    Alternatively, the word הוא in the verse quoted at the opening refers to the word עושר, wealth, meaning that as a result of the fact that the wealthy made his wealth the source of his faith he is punished by losing it. Concerning wealth Solomon also said (Proverbs 23,5) “you see it then it is gone, it grows wings and flies away like an eagle, heavenward.” We also have a verse in Psalms 92,13: “the righteous bloom like a date-palm; they thrive like a cedar in Lebanon.” The speed with which the righteous may be rescued is compared to the blossoming of a development of a leaf, making way for the development of the fruit. What happens to the righteous is the exact reverse of what happens to the wealthy who makes his wealth the object he puts his trust in instead of putting his trust in the Lord. This is the plain meaning of the verses quoted.
      A Midrashic approach to the verses from Proverbs we quoted at the beginning of this introduction to Parshat Korach understands Solomon as referring to Mordechai when he wrote שוחר טוב יבקש רצון. The opposite is true of Haman who is characterized by Solomon as a person who set all his faith in his immense material wealth. Another person who set his faith in his personal wealth was Korach who also wound up losing all his possessions within seconds. The Torah spells out that not only he but his possessions went down into the earth (Numbers 16,32). On the other hand, the people described in the latter half of the verses quoted by Solomon are Moses and Aaron who represent the righteous “who will sprout forth like foliage.” Of Aaron we are told specifically that his staff sprouted, representing the house of Levi (Numbers 17,23).   There were two outstandingly wealthy men in the world, one A Jew the other a Gentile. They were Korach and Haman respectively. Both listened to their wives and as a result they came to an evil end. Haman had listened to his wife’s advice to build a gallows and ask the King’s permission to hang Mordechai from it (Esther 5,14). As a result of accepting his wife’s advice he himself was hung on that gallows. Korach had also listened to the advice of his wife and as a result lost his life and all his wealth. His wife had asked him what new halachah he had heard from Moses on a certain day. He told her that Moses had expounded on that day on the laws of techelet for the tzitzit. When his wife wanted to know details, Korach explained to her that Moses had said that they had been commanded by G’d to put the tzitziyot on the four corners of their garments and that one of the threads should be blue wool, seeing that it is written in the Torah: “they shall put on the tzitzit a thread of blue wool.” Korach’s wife responded that surely Moses was making fun of them. She would make him a talit which was all blue wool. She proceeded to do so. Thereupon most of the elders from the tribe of Reuven, a total of 250 men all dressed up in such a talit completely made of blue wool and came to Moses asking if such a talit required tzitziyot. This is the meaning of: 
  ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי, “Korach son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat took, etc.” The question arises here “what was it that Korach took?” Answer: he took his talit, the one made of all blue wool, and presented it to Moses asking if such a talit required tzitziyot. This is the reason that this paragraph follows immediately after the paragraph detailing laws about tzitzit.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “Korach took” mean that he persisted in his quarrel with Moses and Aaron. This is also the view of Onkelos who translates the word ויקח as ואתפליג, “he separated from the assembly.”
      Ibn Ezra understands the verse as abbreviated and suggests that the noun in that verse, i.e. “men” is missing. The complete verse would be “Korach took men.” Alternatively, it may refer specifically to three men mentioned by name, i.e. Datan, Aviram, and On.    In that event the letter ו at the beginning of the word ודתן would be superfluous as he had the same reason as Korach. It is more likely that he was prompted by a different reason hinted at by the letter ו.
      Datan, Aviram, as well as On whom Korach took with him in his confrontation with Moses supported him in his quarrel as they viewed the fact that the birthright had been transferred from their tribe [Reuven, Yaakov’s oldest son] to Joseph as a grave injustice and insult to their tribe. They suspected Moses of having done this in order to justify the elevation of Joshua who was from the tribe of Joseph (Ephrayim) as his personal valet. The fact that Ephrayim had a flag of its own, i.e. that the tribe of Joseph possessed two flags enraged them. Both On as well as the two hundred and fifty men who joined Korach were all firstborn sons who had an axe to grind considering themselves deprived of the honour due to them from birth. Seeing that in the time before the Levites had been appointed the firstborn had performed the priestly functions all these people felt keenly disadvantaged. Korach himself was also a firstborn as we know from Exodus 6,21.
      Korach’s personal grievance was twofold. 1) He was “dressed” in jealousy, a negative character trait, a disease for which there is no known therapy. 2) He misinterpreted the meaning of the vision in which he had foreseen that his descendants would achieve outstanding greatness. Concerning the first reason, i.e. his jealousy,  this is a very vicious disease. One starts by scheming until one achieves whatever it is that his fellow owns and he does not. Even if one achieves this goal and therefore should cease to be jealous, one has in the meantime become addicted to the craving for personal honour, a desire to lord it over others, a craving for power, until eventually all this becomes similar to עבודה זרה, a form of idolatry. On the other hand, if the jealous person fails in his attempt to equal the one he is jealous of, his whole life is one of frustration and it may, G’d forbid, result in his murdering the object of his jealousy. Solomon already referred to this phenomenon in Proverbs 14,30 when he said: “envy is like rottenness of the bones.” Also Eliphaz is quoted in Job  5,2 as saying: ”jealousy kills the fool.” If someone allows himself to be seduced by jealousy it will eventually kill him. Our sages in Avot 4,28 have said that the three traits “jealousy, greed, and the thirst for personal honour” contribute to man’s premature demise.”    When one displays jealousy of one’s fellow one will eventually hate him and possibly become guilty of murder. The Torah describes this graphically in Deut. 19,11: “if someone hates his fellow, sets an ambush for him, and rises up and slays him.” Concerning such saddening phenomena Solomon commented in Kohelet 4,4: וראיתי אני את כל עמל ואת כל כשרון המעשה כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו, גם זה הבל ורעות רוח, “I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other — another futility and pursuit of the wind.” When Solomon speaks of עמל, labor, he refers to the material possessions, honor, and the other exterior paraphernalia denoting personal power. When he speaks of כל כשרון המעשה, he refers to Torah, repentance, and good deeds.” The word “Hevel” is a reference to Kayin’s brother who had observed his older brother offer a sacrifice and wanted to outdo him as he was jealous of his having preceded him with a good deed. He therefore emulated his father Adam and offered a living creature (as opposed to Kayin who had only offered vegetable matter. compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9 and Bereshit Rabbah 22,15) [This is based on the Torah reporting Kayin as being the first of the brothers to offer the sacrifice, Genesis 4,4. It helps explain why G’d tolerated Hevel being murdered. Ed.] The jealousy led to Kayin and Hevel developing mutual hatred until Kayin murdered his brother. This character trait contains within it the potential destruction of the universe.   The trait of jealousy is not limited to human beings. Even the ministering angels are reported as having been jealous of Adam until they succeeded in seducing him into sinning and he was forced to exchange the “garments” of intelligence for garments made of inferior materials (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13). The word בגד “garment,” is related to בגד, “betray.” In other words man’s clothing may betray him. Adam’s superior “garments” were the cause of the angels’ jealousy. The result of this was that the Shechinah departed from him and therefore from mankind on earth.    Korach’s jealousy also resulted in his being expelled from the universe. The immediate focus of Korach’s jealousy and that of his sympathizers was the manner in which Israelites had been appointed to high office. He saw in this high-handed action by Moses, nepotism of  a kind. When Moses, in answering Korach’s accusations, says כי לא מלבי, “I did not do these things arbitrarily” (verse 25), it is clear that this was his response to Korach’s accusation. Korach and company had even suggested that the appointment of all the Levites to their position and their replacing the function of the firstborn had only been a device by Moses to elevate members of his own tribe to a higher social status. If even Levites also took part in that uprising it was because they perceived that Aaron and his family, Moses’ closest relatives, had been given the highest rank of all. Korach also believed that Moses had appointed Elitzafan ben Uzziel as prince of the tribe of Levi seeing that Uzziel had been one of Moses’ uncles, though the most junior in age (Numbers 3,19). Korach was particularly irked by the fact that he felt he had been passed over in the sharing out of honors though he was senior to Uzziel, being a son of Yitzhar who was older than Uzziel. In his mind, Amram, Moses’ father had been the firstborn (an honor), whereas his two sons had taken for themselves the highest positions, King and High Priest. Korach felt that the second of these honors should have been his, seeing that he was the son of Yizhar, who was next in line to Amram. When he found that the next highest honour had been given to Elitzafan, son of the younger Uzziel instead, he started the uprising.    How did Korach secure support for his demagoguery? He assembled 250 heads of the respective tribal supreme courts, most of them from the tribe of Reuven; he clothed all of them in talitot made completely of blue wool, תכלת; this is the meaning of “Korach took”, i.e. he took his talit and came to Moses wearing it. The other 250 men did the same. They all asked Moses whether such a talit required tzitziyot in order for it to be fit to wear. When Moses said that indeed even a talit made exclusively of blue wool required tzitziyot these people all started laughing, saying: “if a white talit can be converted into an halachically sound garment by means of a single thread of תכלת, blue wool, surely a talit which is completely of blue wool does not need an additional blue thread in order for it to be fit to be worn!” They then asked a similar question pertaining to the affixing of a mezuzah on a house filled with sacred texts. Moses ruled that such a house too is not absolved from the need to have a mezuzah affixed to its entrance. Thereupon the rebels said that if affixing two paragraphs out of a total of the 275 paragraphs contained in the Torah can make such a house fit to live in, surely when the house contains all 275 paragraphs, seeing that there is a Torah scroll inside, this must be enough to absolve such a house from the need to affix another two of these paragraphs to its door post! They concluded that Moses’ ruling was arbitrary and could not represent instructions he had received from G’d. Korach had asked these questions using his intelligence to make Moses look ridiculous.    There is another nuance contained in these questions, i.e. Korach used the simile of the house full of sacred texts and the talit made completely of blue wool as a parable describing the Jewish people. He meant that seeing the Jewish people are all holy, there was no need to appoint a High Priest who would perform the function for the people which the tzitzit performed for the talit. He compared all the fringes to the religious dignitaries who are part of the oligarchy of the Jewish people. He implied that a nation such as the Jewish nation should be a totally egalitarian society with no special duties or privileges for anyone, especially no hereditary ones.    Korach’s second mistake, one which led him to vent his jealousy, was that he erred in interpreting the chain of prominent people who would be descended from him. Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 5 and quoted by Rashi), say. He was deceived by foreseeing that the prophet Samuel would be descended from him, a prophet who has been described as equal to Moses and Aaron combined, as we know from Psalms 99,6: “Moses and Aaron among His priests and Samuel among those who call upon His name.” He reasoned that he had to be saved as otherwise this prophecy could not be fulfilled. He also foresaw that 24 groups of Levites would be descended from him all of whom prophets, sons of Heiman (Chronicles I 6,18). Seeing that he foresaw such a brilliant future for his descendants he said to himself: “how can I remain silent and not challenge the present hierarchy?” He thought that his speaking up would ensure that the future he foresaw would materialise. This is why he tried to force the issue. He had heard from Moses that everyone of the present hierarchy would perish and only one would be saved. This is how he interpreted Moses’ words אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “the one whom the Lord will choose he is the holy one (verse 9).” He thought there would remain only a single person fit for the description “holy,” i.e. himself.
      The Talmud in Sanhedrin 109 views the words: “Korach the son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi  took,” as a string of allusions that Korach, i.e. “the bald one”  made a bald spot in Israel (by his and his followers’ disappearance). He was the son of Yitzhar, i.e. a son who managed to arouse the anger of the whole world against him publicly, in broad daylight as if it were noon; “the son of Kehat,” i.e. his conduct blunted the teeth of his father and grandfather, i.e. they were ashamed of this offspring; “the son of Levi,” a “son” who wound up” i.e. was escorted, לויה, to purgatory. The same Midrash sees in the name דתן a hint at “violating the דת אל, G’d’s law.” In the name אבירם, this Midrash sees a reference to a refusal to repent, i.e. maintaining a defiant posture, רם, upright. The name און is understood there as a reference to אנינות, someone who sat disconsolate, seeing he had first made common cause with Korach until his wife blocked his way so that he was prevented by miraculous ways, פלא, from becoming enmeshed in that guilt. The word בן ראובן is seen as an allusion to this son “seeing,” ראו, the error of his ways and understanding the abyss he was facing. The expression קריאי מועד is understood as a reference to these people having been called by Moses to assemble at the entrance to the Tabernacle. The words אנשי שם, men of distinction, are a reference to their status prior to the Exodus.    The twelve princes of the various tribes were part of the total of 250 men Korach had been able to attract to his uprising. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18 arrive at the same conclusion basing themselves on the use of the words קריאי מועד both here and in Numbers 1,16. Rashi also supports this theory in his commentary on the appointment of the prince of Reuven, Elitzur ben Shede-ur and his colleagues described as נקבו בשמות (Numbers 1,17) “designated by their names,” i.e. the reputation they had acquired for themselves. Even though the Torah did not spell out the fact that all of these tribal leaders joined in Korach’s rebellion the Torah threw out sufficient hints that this was so. It is similar to the owner of a bath house whose well reputed son had stolen a number of valuable trinkets from that bath house. Seeing that the son had enjoyed a fine reputation up until then, the owner did not want to accuse him outright of being a thief, but he threw out hints, such as when asked who the thief was he would describe the thief as possessing certain features which were common knowledge as belonging to his son. Nonetheless, he refused to name the person to whom these features belonged. Similarly here. Although the Torah hinted in various ways that the 12 princes were part of the uprising it did not mention any names other than those of Korach, Datan, and Aviram (and On). This is merely part of the ways of the Torah which have been described as דרכיה דרכי נועם, “its ways are ways of loveliness,” i.e. the Torah avoids embarrassment to people unless absolutely unavoidable as a way of ensuring others do not become guilty of the crimes of the people named.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כלם קדושים, “they are all holy.” Korach referred to the firstborn Israelites as “holy,” seeing the Torah had written in Exodus 13,2: “sanctify for Me every firstborn.”   ומדוע תתנשאו, “and why do you try to elevate yourselves?” He meant Moses and Aaron respectively claiming the position of King and High Priest.
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, “when Moses heard this he fell on his face.” Aaron was not included, as the Torah reports only that Moses fell on his face, singular. The fact that Aaron is not reported as falling on his face was because the main complaint of Korach was directed at Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. It would have been unbecoming for the modest Aaron to remonstrate by displaying such a reaction. Moses, who felt insulted on behalf of the challenge to his brother, was entitled to react in such a manner. The fact that Moses fell on his face, i.e. “was floored,” may have been the cause for Korach already incurring a punishment for his conduct seeing he had humiliated Moses. This is probably the source from which Rabbi Eliezer learned (Baba Metzia 59) that he could punish Rabbi Gamliel by displaying his humiliation by merely falling on his face, or sitting on the floor and weeping in shame.
      Every intelligent student knows that entreaty (a form of prayer) is addressed to the attribute of Justice and that it represents G’d’s “left hand.” We have an explicit verse distinguishing between different kinds of prayers [and the addresses to which they are directed in the first instance, Ed.] In Psalms 30,9 David says: אליך י-ה-ו-ה אקרא, ואל א-ד-נ-י אתחנן, ”to You O Lord I called, and to my G’d I made appeal.” Another verse describing an entreaty being addressed to the attribute of Justice is found in Deut. 3,24: א-ד-נ-י אלוקים אתה החילות וגו'. At that time Moses’ prayer had been described as a תחנה in the preceding verse. [The concept with which we are all familiar is that G’d employs the right hand to attract, to draw near to Him, whereas when He has occasion to reject, to push away, He uses His left hand, i.e. the “weaker” hand to do so. Ed.] Our sages also make a distinction between prayers offered  and described as לפני ה', and those addressed as לה', the former being addressed to the attribute of Justice.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Korach 4: The words: “Moses fell on his face when he heard this” may be compared to a father whose son has become guilty of a major misdemeanor. He had a friend who would always intercede on behalf of that son and calm down the father’s irritation. When the son had become guilty of serious misconduct for a fourth time, the father’s friend felt that he could no longer defend the son’s conduct in good conscience by offering a variety of excuses. Here too, Moses had reached the stage where after having interceded on behalf of the people after the sin of the golden calf, and again when the people complained about their diet and the advantages of Egypt, and more recently when hey had rejected the Holy Land after hearing the report of the ten spies, Moses had come to the end of his rope as a defender of the people. This is why “he fell down.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  . בקר וידע ה' את אשר לו, in the morning the Lord will make known who is His own.” Moses meant by this that “whereas you are claiming that we are trying to dominate the congregation of the Lord and that I do things without authority, on my own, tomorrow you will know if this is so; tomorrow you will have evidence that the Levites are His, especially.” He needed to reconcile the apparent contradiction between Numbers 8,14 “the Levites will be Mine” and Exodus 13,2: “sanctify for Me every firstborn.” The additional words ואת הקדוש refer to the occupant of the position of High Priest, i.e. Aaron, seeing that we have a verse in Chronicles I 23,13: “He set apart Aaron to sanctify him to become ‘holy of holies.’”
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Korach 5). The words “in the morning G‘d will make known, etc.” are to be understood as a sort of oath quoting G’d, i.e. “just as the magicians of Egypt if they assembled at the same time in the same location would be unable to change morning to evening, and just as I (G’d) distinguished between light and darkness, so I have set apart Aaron to make him ‘holy of holies.’”
  
  Verse 6
  
   זאת עשו, קחו לכם מחתות, ”you are to do the following: ‘take fire-pans for yourselves, etc.” Moses said: “seeing that you have accused me of substituting the Levites for the firstborn in order to give high rank to my brother Aaron and his sons, and that I have made the Levites subservient to Aaron, and that I have done all this arbitrarily without instruction from G’d, I will give you a chance to test your claim.” Take fire-pans and offer incense, a procedure which is forbidden to non-priests on pain of death- seeing the Torah wrote: ‘anyone not authorised to do this who approaches sacred precincts will die’ (Numbers 1,51). If you will succeed in your offering and will be saved from the punishment spelled out, I will admit that your claim that G’d does not make any distinction between one tribe and another is correct.”    This is also what is meant by the Midrash which claims that “Moses gave these people a deadly poison.” The Midrash meant that the advice Moses gave these rebels, i.e. to offer incense contained a deadly ingredient;  if they would accept the challenge they would become guilty of death at the hands of G’d. Had the Midrash meant this literally, the fact that these rebels died would not have demonstrated that it was G’d’s judgment that killed them and the rebels would have had further cause for complaint against Moses.
      You should know that Onkelos translates the word קטורת, incense, in this paragraph as קטרת instead of as קטרת בוסמין as he does elsewhere. [Rabbi Chavell quotes Nachmanides as emending the text in Onkelos as our text does not correspond to what our author writes, and in our text Onkelos writes קטרת בוסמין, Ed.] It appears, based on the changed use of the word קטרת by Onkelos, that he felt that what the 250 men offered on their pans was not the classic mixture of incense described in Exodus chapter 30, but a different mix of incense altogether, the one usually described by the Torah as לבונה, frankincense. Onkelos makes the same distinction when describing the “incense” offered by the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu. Perhaps he did not want to add the word בוסמין whenever the offering of this mixture was unauthorized. At any rate, the opinion of our sages in the Tanchuma is that the mixture in question which the 250 rebels presented in their fire-pans was identical to that regularly offered inside the Tabernacle mornings and evenings. This is the view of Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 7
  
   רב לכם בני לוי, “You have gone too far, O sons of Levi!” Moses meant that G’d had already given the Levites plenty. In the following verse he spells out precisely what it was that G’d had given the Levites.
   It is worth noting that in the entire paragraph Moses refers only to the Ineffable Name when referring to G’d. Only here in this verse, seeing Moses had to mention אלוקי ישראל was he forced to employ a different attribute of G’d in order to allude to their attributes (the attribute of the founding father of the Levites, the original Levi, brother of Shimon who was described as an exponent of the attribute of Justice by our author on Numbers 1,51).
  
  Verse 8
  
  . שמעו נא בני לוי, “Hear now, offspring of Levi!” The following words are addressed to the arguments of the Levites (against Aaron). The previous remarks of Moses were addressed to the arguments of Korach and the firstborn.
  
  Verse 9
  
  . המעט מכם, “is it too little for you?” Moses asked if their selection as Levites and their performing duties in and around the Tabernacle  was considered by them as something so insignificant?
     ולעמוד לפני העדה לשרתם, “and to stand in front of the congregation to serve them,” when they offered their sacrifices.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . לכן אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים, “therefore you and your whole assembly who have banded together.” Moses meant: “you who have banded together against me and Aaron have actually banded together against G’d. We find a similar construction in Psalms 2,2: ורוזנים נוסדו יחד על ה', “and regents intrigue together against the Lord.” Another similar verse is found in Numbers 26,9 בהצותם על ה', “when they agitated against the Lord.”
     ואהרן מה הוא, “for who is Aaron?” “What did he do to you  and how did he sin against you that you challenge his position as High Priest?”
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ויאמרו לא נעלה, they said: “we will not go up.” The Tabernacle was on an elevated site in the desert. We find this construction again in verse 24 when the people are instructed  to “go up and away from the area surrounding Korach”.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . המעט כי העליתנו, “is it not enough that you have made us go up, etc.?” Datan and Aviram paraphrased (sarcastically) Moses’ question: “is it not enough that G’d has set you apart to become Levites, etc.” by referring to the “elevation” from a land flowing with milk and honey to the desert. Actually, Egypt, situated at sea level was lower than most of the Land of Canaan except a narrow coastal strip and the Israelites at that time were on a high plateau at the southern end of Eretz Yisrael.
     כי תשתרר עלינו גם תשתרר, “that you also want to lord it over us?” The word “over us” refers to the manner in which they perceived Moses as having lorded it over them already in Egypt something which was followed by their continuing to exercise their rule over the people in the desert (this justifies the word גם, also, in this line). On the other hand, one may understand the reason the word השתרר has been repeated as the dual “rule” by Moses as the political autocrat over the people and Aaron as the religious autocrat in his capacity as the High Priest. Other secondary forms of authority wielded by the Levites and the princedom of Elitzafan ben Uzziel are referred to in the word גם, “also.”
  
  Verse 14
  
   אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, “nor did you bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey.” They meant: “not only did you take us out of a good place, but if you had brought us instead to another good place and each one of us would have had a field and a vineyard such as we had in Egypt we could have put up with your autocratic ways. But instead you took us out of a good place and have not offered us compensation by providing us with a similarly good place; why then should you claim the right to lord it over us?”
     העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “even should you gouge out those men’s eyes, we will not come!” the meaning of “those men” is a reference to Datan and Aviram themselves, as they would not associate such a disaster with themselves as victims by identifying themselves with it even conditionally. They simply meant that even if the penalty for not appearing in front of Moses as asked would be the loss of their eyesight they would not give him the satisfaction of doing his bidding.
      Ibn Ezra interprets the verse as “do you want to gouge out the eyes of those men so that they cannot see” (what you are doing to them?) The subject of האנשים ההם are the people who had left Egypt, Datan and Aviram saying that these people had not been blind enough not to see how their lot had deteriorated under Moses’ rule. It is like someone saying about others: “these people must have their eyes shut, this is why they do not see.”
      The mouth of the wicked always leads them into a trap both when they commence speaking and when they conclude what they have to say. At the beginning Datan and Aviram had said: “we will not go up!” They also concluded their diatribe with the words: “we will not go up!” Their opening words were foolish and so were the same words at the end.
      A Midrashic approach to the words: “are you going to gouge out the eyes of those men, we will not go up!” It is significant that the Torah did not quote them as saying: “we will not go,” or; “we will not come,” but wrote “we will not ascend, go up.” Their mouth betrayed them as having refused to ascend. They died by descending into the earth and into purgatory. They had prepared the way they were going to die with their own mouths.
  
  Verse 15
  
   אל תפן אל מנחתם, “do not turn to their gift-offering.”  It is a well known fact that both the total-offering and the gift-offering brings long life for the people offering it even if the people concerned are wicked. Moses prayed that contrary to this accepted norm G’d should punish the rebels immediately.   Rashi, on the other hand, views the meaning of the above prayer by Moses as a plea to G’d not to accept the incense offering which they were going to bring on the morrow. It seems that the subject of the words “their gift-offering” were Datan and Aviram. This is also the opinion of Nachmanides.
   If that indeed were so we would have to ask why Moses only prayed concerning the offering by Datan and Aviram who were not the principal rebels and why he did not also pray concerning the offerings of Korach and the other 250 rebels? Besides, seeing that Moses was not aware of any merit that these people had which would postpone their punishment at this time, why did he have to pray that their offering not be accepted altogether? He should have prayed that equal punishment should befall all of these people, so why single out only Datan and Aviram?br&gt;   In view of these problems I believe that the words: “their gift-offering” refer to that by the twelve princes, i.e. to the inaugural offerings which were reported at the end of Parshat Nasso (Numbers 7) when each one of them had offered a bowl full of incense although they were not priests and therefore had no right to do so (Numbers 7,16). Moses did not bother to pray to G’d concerning His possible acceptance of the offering of Datan and Aviram as he was not aware of any merit they had accumulated which could delay the punishment due to them for their provocative conduct. Furthermore, from the moment that these two men had reiterated their refusal to appear near the Tabernacle as directed by Moses he knew that their own mouths had already convicted them and that they were lost in his eyes.    He did, however, pray that G’d not accept the incense offering of the 12 princes who were the mainstay of the other 250 rebels that the merit they had accumulated through their inaugural offerings should not cause G’d to delay their punishment at this time. After Moses had offered his prayer that the offering of the princes not be accepted, he reverted to the comments made by Datan and Aviram, offering his rebuttal of the accusation by these men that he had “lorded it over the people,” by pointing out that he had never been the beneficiary of his position as leader to the extent of even a single donkey, nor had he caused anything negative to befall a single Israelite due to his conduct.   The opinion of our sages in Tanchuma Korach 7 is  that the point of Moses’ prayer was that G’d should not accept their financial contribution as expressed by their half-shekel contribution to the daily public offerings which were brought also on their behalf. 
     לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken the ass of any one of them.”  It is usual for political leaders or rulers  to arrogate to themselves the right to use other people and animals for their personal convenience and to let them perform chores on their behalf. This is why Moses in rebutting the accusations of Datan and Aviram that he had “lorded” it over the people had to point out that he done nothing of the kind. He had not even used such an animal to carry his personal belongings. Seeing he had not even used a beast of burden for his own personal use, how could he be accused of using people, i.e. his subjects, for such a purpose? How then had he “lorded” it over the people? We find that the prophet Samuel also could say of himself: (Samuel I 12,3) “here I am, come forward against me in the presence of the Lord and in the presence of his anointed one, whose ox or donkey I have taken and whom did I defraud or whom have I robbed? From whom have I accepted a bribe, etc.?”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ויקהל עליהם קרח, “Korach gathered against them, etc.” The firstborn all agreed with Korach’s accusation that Moses had disqualified the firstborn from performing ritual sacrifices, whereas the members of the tribe of Levi agreed with him that they had become subservient to Aaron and his sons at Moses’ bidding. Our sages explain  that Korach had said to them: “look at what the son of Amram has done to you! Whereas by rights Reuven is the firstborn of the tribes of Israel, Moses appointed Nachshon the prince of the tribe of Yehudah to offer the first of the inaugural sacrifices in the Tabernacle instead!” These kinds of arguments  won Korach sympathy among large segments of the people until the Torah could report that Korach managed to assemble the whole community in a confrontation with Moses. This demonstrates the power of a single sinful individual to cause the whole people to become sinners themselves. This was a demonstration of the far-reaching negative influence exerted by people who engage in לשון הרע, badmouthing others.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת, “Separate yourselves from this congregation, etc.!” The reference was to the congregation of Korach seeing that Moses and Aaron stood next to them at the entrance to the Tabernacle. Moses misunderstood, thinking that the expression: “this congregation” applied to the entire Jewish nation. This is why he answered G’d by saying: “shall one man sin and You will be angry at the entire assembly (people)?” Thereupon G’d explained to him immediately that the expression העדה applied only to the rebel community, i.e. העדה הזאת. This is the meaning of the words: “move away from around the tent of Korach,” an elaboration of what G’d had said previously.   Why did G’d have to give instructions for the people who did not support Korach to separate from him physically, as if He were unable to single out the sinners and kill them only, [as He had done with the firstborn in Egypt? Ed.] Do we not have a saying  that when two or three people take shelter under the same talit, the two standing on the outside would die and the one standing in the center would be saved (Midrash Rabbah in connection with the dying of the first born in Egypt)? David elaborated on his phenomenon in Psalms 91,7 when he said: “a thousand may fall at your left side and ten thousand at your right, but it (disaster) shall not reach you.” In view of all this, why did G’d insist on the people distancing themselves physically from the group supporting Korach? It was in order that the contaminated air around Korach and his fellow rebels should not infect the people around him. Just as one has to flee a town in which pestilence rages in order to escape the chance of such infection through radiation of bacteria so the people had to leave the vicinity of Korach. When Lot and family were told by the angel not to stand still while running away from the city of Sodom and his wife ignored the warning she turned into a pillar of salt, i.e. the negative fallout from the sulfur in the air caught up with her (Genesis 19,26).   Another reason for the instruction that the people standing around Korach were to put space between themselves and him may have been the well known fact that when the attribute of Justice is at work it does not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent who are in its path. It was therefore necessary for the ‘innocent’ to take action to save themselves from the attribute of Justice (compare Baba Kama 60). The reason may also have been that G’d ‘honours’ the righteous, i.e. He does not release forces of destruction while the righteous are in the immediate vicinity of the wicked to be destroyed.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויפלו על פניהם, “they fell on their faces” (Moses and Aaron),” in prayer. This is the source for our prostrating ourselves during certain parts of our prayers, supplications. You should know that there are actually three distinct considerations present when we “fall on our faces” during prayer. 1) To show awe of the fact that we are in the presence of the Shechinah, so that we may wrap ourselves in shame and humility in the face of it, a normal reaction when displaying one’s inadequacies. The petitioner wants to demonstrate his awareness of facing the presence of G’d. This has been described by David in the words: “I am ever mindful of the Lord’s presence” (Psalms 16,8). We fall on our faces to symbolize this feeling. We find that Moses hid his face already when G’d first appeared to him at the burning bush (Exodus 3,6) as he was afraid to look at what he perceived to be the presence of G’d. 2) We want to display our anguish and pain by prostrating ourselves. 3) We want to demonstrate that we relax our emotional control, i.e. our posture of being in control of ourselves, and throw ourselves instead completely on G’d’s mercy.    The wording describing נפילת אפים is found even in connection with the chayot hakodesh, certain groups of angels. Our sages, when describing these angels as reciting their hymns of adulation in the presence of the Lord, speak of these angels first prostrating themselves before the Lord. This is based on Ezekiel 1,14 where the prophet describes these angels as running to and fro, i.e. as not being allowed to remain stationary in a certain place and to look at any point above the layer of heaven they found themselves in. They had to ‘dash’ below that layer of heaven immediately they had sung the hymn and the speed with which they did this is expressed by the prophet with the word כמראה הבזק, “as the appearance of a flash of lightning.” The reason Ezekiel does not call lightning ברק in this instance but בזק is that the former is a manifestation in our terrestrial world, always descending, whereas בזק is its counterpart in the celestial regions traveling both upward and downward. The word בזק is a variation of זיקות, “a flash of fire, a spark.”    Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 50,1 commenting on the arrival of the angels who were going to destroy Sodom and save Lot, respectively, explain the expression כמראה הבזק in Ezekiel 1,14 by  comparing it to the olive waste which when used as fuel bursts into flame immediately, and produces flames which travel both in an upward and a downward direction. This is the meaning of the words רצוא ושוב in Ezekiel 1,14. [The author elaborates further on that vision, something which has no relevance to our subject. Ed.].  
  The second important aspect of prostrating oneself during certain prayers is that through expressing one’s anguish and pain one is helped in making one’s repentance meaningful and this in turn ensures that G’d will listen favorably to our entreaties. We are told in Taanit 24 as well as in Baba Metzia 59 of incidents in which righteous people who experienced pain during their prayers had their prayers answered immediately, such as rain materializing out of nowhere, or that Rabbi Eliezer was prevented by his own wife from prostrating himself during prayer as his prayers were immediately answered by G’d when he fell on his face. In some instances such prayers involved considerable economic harm to the community the petitioner lived in. Once his wife made an error in the date of the month thinking it was New Moon (when one does not prostrate oneself in one’s prayers), and she did not therefore monitor him while he prayed. She was the sister of Rabbi Gamliel who had put Rabbi Eliezer in ban for his publicly disagreeing with the majority decision of the other sages. When his wife saw that Rabbi Eliezer prostrated himself in prayer she remonstrated with him saying that his prayers had already caused the death of her brother. While telling her husband that her brother Rabbi Gamliel had died, a long blast of the shofar emanated from the house of Rabbi Gamliel announcing the Rabbi’s death. Rabbi Eliezer wanted to know how it was that his wife had already known about this? She told him that whereas the gates of prayer had been shut since the destruction of the Temple, she had a tradition from her grandfather that prayer accompanied by tears on account of the petitioner feeling wronged was still able to penetrate the iron curtain between the Jewish people and G’d and that her husband’s tearful prayer  complaining about the decree making him an outcast had had this effect. As a result Rabbi Gamliel who had confirmed that decision had died.
      The third element in “falling on one’s face” during prayers of entreaties is the utter denial of self, surrendering oneself to the mercy of G’d at the expense of what we usually call one’s own personality, one’s ego. A person becomes so engrossed in his prayer that he closes his eyes, is blind to his surroundings and totally oblivious of any danger that might face him while he was so indifferent to his physical surroundings. Such a person acknowledges at such a time that he is completely unable to chart a course unless he receives guidance from G’d. This is described in Jeremiah 10,23 as כי לא לאדם דרכו, “I know, O Lord it is not up to man to choose his road, that man as he walks cannot direct his own steps.” 
  The Gentiles symbolize such feelings when they pray by arranging their hands in a posture of entreaty vis-a vis G’d, although they themselves cannot explain to you whence they took this custom. The real reason is that it is an expression of the denial of self and the petitioner’s personal aspirations. By folding his hands in the manner described, the petitioner shows G’d that he is willing to leave to Him that which he normally tries to accomplish with his own hands. He signals to G’d that his hands are as if shackled, unable to perform their assigned tasks. Seeing that placing one’s feet in a parallel position close to each other expresses the same thought even more forcefully, our Rabbis  decreed that we do with our feet what the Christians do with their hands.
      Ravi Hai Gaon has said that when prostrating oneself during prayer one should do so with his face on his left side signaling that he is willing to submit to the attribute of Justice which is perceived as being on the left side of G’d. This is an allusion to the “hand” of G’d which orchestrated the liberation of the Jewish people on Passover. When Moses commenced his prayer on this occasion with the words   אל, אלו-הי הרוחות, “O G’d, G’d of the spirit of all flesh, etc.,” he referred to G’d’s power to destroy a multitude instantly. He implied that seeing that G’d’ is familiar with the individual spirit of each individual there was no need for Him to apply collective punishment seeing He was well aware of who was guilty and who was not, as distinct from human rulers who do not possess such knowledge about what goes on in the hearts of their subjects.  האיש אחד יחטא, “because of one man who sins,” i.e. because of Korach and his group whom he seduced into sin so that eventually all the people became confrontational against Moses and Aaron,  ועל כל העדה תקצוף, “against the whole assembly You will vent Your anger?” Moses meant that Korach and his rebels had seduced the people into sin, a sin which was really of their making. This prayer which Moses and Aaron offered while they had prostrated themselves, was a short prayer, similar to the one he offered when he prayed for Miriam to be cured in Numbers 12,13. On that occasion he had described his Creator, praising Him as אל, also using entreaty as evident by the word נא, whereas here he was a little more long-winded in heaping praise on his Creator by referring to His attribute as אלו-הי הרוחות לכל בשר. Our sages have taught us, using Moses’ prayers as models, that one must always introduce one’s entreaty with expressions praising the attributes of Hashem  before speaking of one’s own concerns, requests (Berachot 32). This is why in our עמידה prayer the principal prayer in which we voice our requests, the first three benedictions are devoted to reciting G’d’s praises and mighty deeds. Only after that do we approach G’d with our collective and individual concerns and requests.
      I believe that the word הרוחות in Moses’ prayer here refers to the angels, i.e. G’d, Who is the G’d of the angels who are composed exclusively of רוחות, spirits, not flesh. The same G’d, according to Moses, is also the G’d of all flesh. The reason Moses phrased it thus was to say that He is the G’d in the celestial regions as well as in the terrestrial part of His universe.
   I also believe that the expression אלו-הי הרוחות used by Moses here as an attribute for G’d is similar to Avraham referring to G’d as אלו-הי השמים והארץ, “G’d of the heaven and G’d of the earth” (Genesis 24,3). In Moses’ instance there is the additional allusion to G’d governing all four directions on earth. We also find this elsewhere though it is expressed as אני ה' בקרב הארץ “I am the Lord in the midst of the (whole) globe” (Exodus 8,18). G’d is similar to a king who, though resident in the center of the country, exercises his dominion over the far corners of his country. Seeing that the patriarchs described G’d’s kingdom as extending “vertically,” starting from heaven above and including earth below, Moses preferred to describe His dominion as extending “horizontally,” i.e. in all directions, East to West and North to South. In this manner he completed the praise of G’d seeing that now G’d had been acknowledged as extending His supervisory powers to all six extremities of the universe.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   העלו מסביב למשכן קרח, דתן ואבירם, “get yourselves up from around the dwelling of no one, and Datan and Aviram respectively!” Actually, the Torah should have included in its call  for the people to remove their presence from the vicinity of Korach, On, son of Peles, seeing he had figured by name as one of the instigators of the rebellion in verse one of our chapter. Our sages view the failure of the Torah to mention On at this point as proof that he had withdrawn from the rebellion and had done תשובה, had repented his former part in it.     Tanchuma Korach 10 claims that On had been saved by his wife who had said to him: “what difference does it make to you personally if Moses is High Priest or whether Aaron is High Priest seeing that in either event you will only be the student, i.e. subordinate to either of them? Concerning the wife of On (and others like her) Solomon said in Proverbs 14,1: “the wisest of women builds her house, i.e. the wife of On, whereas “folly tears it down with its own hands,” a reference to the wife of Korach who had inflamed his ego when she first belittled the halachah about a blue woolen talit requiring tzitziyot. She became the immediate cause of the rebellion and the death of hundreds (compare Proverbs 7,26).
  
  Verse 25
  
  . וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל, “the elders of the people of Israel followed Moses.” The reference is to the 70 elders, appointed in Numbers 11,25.
  
  Verse 26
  
   ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם “and do not touch any of their belongings!” G’d meant that if anyone sought to save the money that the rebels would forfeit for themselves they would share the fate of Korach, Datan and Aviram.    When the Torah describes Datan and Aviram as keeping an arrogant upright posture in front of their respective tents when Moses and the elders approached them, the sages of the Midrash understand this as a euphemism for insults hurled at Moses by these two individuals (Tanchuma Korach 3). They base this on the similarity of expressions used by Samuel I 17,4 describing Goliath’s haughty and insulting posture and the language used here. We know that Goliath was insulting vis-a-vis G’d and that David only agreed to fight him in order to teach him not to defy the G’d of Israel (Samuel I 17,45). Moses said that the proof that the death of these people would be because of their defiance of G’d and their curses would be the extraordinary way in which they would die. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  . בזאת תדעון כי ה' שלחני לעשות את כל המעשים האלה, “By this you shall know that it was the Lord who sent me to do all these things.” He referred to the exchanging of the functions formerly performed by the firstborn to be performed by the Levites. The firstborn had disqualified themselves from acting as priests as they had participated in the sin of the golden calf as  described in Exodus 32,6: “they offered burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (in honour of the golden calf),” as opposed to the Levites who had remained loyal to G’d and had acted as executioners of the people publicly worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 30,28). The Levites were sanctified in place of the firstborn and chosen to perform sacrificial services. Anyone who did not believe in the selection of the Levites to replace the firstborn indicated thereby that the guilt of the golden calf episode had not yet been expunged and that the people who now challenged Moses and Aaron did not consider these parts of the written Torah as authentic.
  
  Verse 29
  
   אם כמות כל האדם ימותו אלה, “if these people die like any other human being, etc.” Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 8) illustrate this by a parable. The bridal attendants of the king’s daughter who held proof of that daughter’s virginity at her wedding in their hands were challenged by one of the wedding guests who claimed that the evidence they claimed to possess was forged. Thereupon these bridal attendants demanded from the king that he personally confirm that what they held in their hands was proof of his daughter’s virginity, and that if the king would refuse to do so they themselves would have to conclude that the accusation was true and that they had been furnished with forged evidence. The king responded by saying that it was better to execute the guest than to have the loyal attendants spread lies about the chastity his daughter. This is what motivated Moses to demand such an unusual penalty for Korach and his fellow-rebels. He argued that if these rebels were allowed to die in bed like most mortals, and the physicians would check on them prior to their deaths as they do with most sick people, then he Moses, would also deny that he had ever been appointed by G’d to lead the Jewish people and that he had arrogated all this authority to himself without divine appointment. Korach would then be considered as having a valid complaint.    We have a similar incident in Jewish history which is described in Kings I 22,28 where Michaya (the true prophet) said to Tzekekiah (the false prophet): “if you ever come home safe, then I will also admit that the Lord has not spoken to me.” Something similar occurred at Mount Carmel (Kings I 18,36-37) when the prophet Elijah proclaimed: “let it be known today that You are the G’d in Israel and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that You, O Lord are G’d; for You have turned their hearts backward.” What Elijah meant  with this postscript was ”if You do not respond to my request I myself will say that You have turned their hearts backward.”    It is a well known fact that the quarrel initiated by Korach at that time has become the root cause for the neglect or worse of the entire Torah seeing that each individual nowadays reserves the right for himself to reject a part of the Torah as not being divinely decreed. The moment one begins to challenge even a minute part of the Torah as being “man-made,” the flood gates have been opened to reject Torah as a whole. Eventually, the challenger will declare that the entire Torah is man’s invention and that the lawgiver perpetrated a colossal fraud relying on the gullibility of his people. In order to head off such events in the future the punishment for Korach and his fellow rebels had to be especially severe. They had brought this upon themselves seeing that we have a principle that anyone who challenges the words of Moses is considered as having challenged the word of the Lord Himself (Sanhedrin 110). 
      One may raise a very serious question in connection with this whole episode. Firstly, how can we explain that Moses, the loyal shepherd of the people, who had repeatedly interceded on their behalf when the people had sinned, such as at the golden calf, the spies, etc., in this instance instead of interceding on their behalf actually demanded an extreme penalty for the instigators? Why did he not spend his energy instead to get these people to repent their error? After all, there is no sin so severe that it cannot be expiated through sincere repentance by the sinner! Even people whose sin was inspired by a rebellious attitude and a desire to affront G’d deliberately is subject to such repentance as we do not fail to mention on Yom Kippur!    If these people had entertained serious doubts about Moses’ claim to be only the spokesman of G’d-given instructions and that he had distributed positions of influence based on his personal choices, Moses could have called for some miracle by G’d which would have confirmed that what he had claimed was divinely inspired and approved and this would have made the doubters repent their error!    Furthermore, granted that the people who had challenged Moses’ authority had brought such a punishment upon themselves, why would their children, their babies, be mentioned as part of their sin (verse 27)? Surely any minor children of Datan and Aviram could not be held responsible for their parents’ action? Surely G’d who is righteous would not punish the innocent! 
  If we were to address what is written in this paragraph only based on the plain text, i.e. the פשט, the question raised would be very difficult indeed. In order to do justice to these verses we must fall back on a kabbalistic approach involving the doctrine of transmigration of souls, סוד הגלגול. Let me acquaint you with several verses in the Torah where the subject is alluded to. In Genesis 11,4 the Torah reports the people of the generation of the tower as saying: הבה נבנה לנו עיר ומגדל וראשו בשמים ונעשה לנו שם, “now then let us build a city and a tower whose top will be in the heaven so that we will make a name for ourselves.” Concerning that generation G’d is on record in Genesis 11,6 as: “and this is what they have begun to do!” As a result, we read that G’d scattered these people all over the earth and confused their language. In Genesis 19,4 the Torah, speaking of the people of Sodom, writes: “and the men of the city, the men of Sodom surrounded the house;” the Torah found it necessary to explain that the people previously referred to as “the people of the city” were in fact identical with the people of Sodom! Later the Torah continues describing that Lot’s guests, the angels smote these men with a temporary kind of blindness (Genesis 19,11). Here in connection with the assembly of rebels who had joined Korach, the Torah writes: ויקומו לפני משה,”they arose (in a confrontational posture) before Moses.” the Torah should have written על משה, “against Moses,” instead of לפני משה, “in front of” or “in the presence of Moses.” However the Torah clearly wanted us to realize that this occurred “before (the generation of) Moses," i.e. historically long before Moses.    The people referred to there were the same as the  אנשי שם men who had made a name for themselves,” (16,3) because they were reincarnates of the people who had made a name for themselves when they began to build the city and the tower hundreds of years ago during the 10th generation after the deluge. They were the reincarnates of the people referred to in connection with the men of Sodom as אנשי העיר, the people who had planned the city and tower already at that time [maybe 80 years later than the report of what happened in Genesis chapter 11. Ed]. When Onkelos translated the opening words of our paragraph ויקח קרח as ואתפליג, he hinted at the connection between Korach and the generation known a דור הפלגה, the generation when G’d destroyed the unity of mankind by mixing up their languages and scattering them all over the globe. We must understand what happened in terms of a parable. A father had a son who became a delinquent when he grew up. At first the father contented himself with reprimanding his son. When the son persisted in his errant behavior the father punished him physically. When this did not help either the father gave up on the son and rejected him absolutely. When the people described as “making a name for themselves” displayed rebellious tendencies for the first time, G’d scattered them all over the earth (as a warning Genesis 11,8). When a group of reincarnates conducted themselves in similar amoral fashion in Sodom, G’d struck them with blindness as a further warning before giving them a third opportunity to mend their ways in different bodies. When, during the generation of Moses, these people repeated their gross disobedience to G’d a third time, G’d gave up on them, destroyed them so that they would not again be reincarnated in order to expiate sins committed in a former life on earth. Now when the punishment is first referred to and Datan and Aviram defiantly say that even if Moses would deprive them of their eyesight (as had happened to the people of Sodom) they would not alter their opposition to him, we find another allusion to the fact that history repeated itself here and that what Moses faced now had already happened “before Moses.” Although, basically, G’d performs deeds of loving kindness with the children of the pious, the ones who love Him, (Exodus 20,6) they no longer qualified for the benefits that accrue from that attribute of G’d.   Concerning the mystical dimension of this whole subject of reincarnation, Solomon says (Kohelet 4,9 and 4,12 respectively) “two are better than one;” he continues a little later: “and the threefold thread is not easily broken.” What he means is that here are occasions when even a threefold thread tears asunder, i.e. the example we just described. However, this is a rare occurrence and that is why Solomon mentions it as a remote possibility. 
  We find these thoughts expressed clearly in the Sefer Habahir (item 121-122), (the question being what is meant in Psalms 146,10 ימלוך ה' אלו-היך ציון לדור ודור), whereas in Chronicles I 11,1 Zion is described as ציון עיר דוד, as if the city belongs exclusively to David (who lived only for one generation). Rabbi Akiva said that when Kohelet writes: דור הולך ודור בא, the meaning is [not the generally accepted one that a generation appears on the stage of history only to be replaced by the next generation, Ed.] “a generation follows a generation which has already left the stage of history, i.e. “it reappears on the stage of history.” We can describe this in terms of a parable of a king who had many servants and who outfitted them in all kinds of exotic uniforms in accordance with his means. When the servants were found soiling their uniforms the king stripped them of these fancy uniforms and dismissed them. The king then laundered all these uniforms carefully until no trace of their stains and dirt remained. He hung them up for storage; in the meantime the king acquired other servants whom he provided with the uniforms previously worn by the first set of servants who had not displayed much care about their outfits. At that time the king did not yet know if the new servants would prove worthier of their uniforms than the ones he had dismissed. Nonetheless, these new servants were recipients of uniforms which had been worn before them. Thus far the comment in the Sefer Habahir. 
      Now you can understand our verse here very easily and the question of why Moses did not engage in prayer on behalf of these people becomes pointless. Also the question of why G’d included the children of the sinners in our paragraph disappears. [There is a limit to the opportunities granted to people in the form of reincarnation. This limit is reached with the third transmigration. If at that time the soul does not make use of its body to rehabilitate itself for sins committed in its previous appearance on earth, it is not entitled to another life, i.e. to biological offspring. Ed.].   Perhaps this is what our sages in Midrash Tehillim 46 had in mind when they commented on psalm 46,1 למנצח לבני קרח על עלמות שיר, “a psalm for the sons of Korach on the mysteries of song.” The Midrash understands the opening words as the sons of Korach singing a hymn to G’d although they did not understand the workings of the Lord in order to appreciate it. In other words, עלמות שיר, “although the workings of G’d in history are sometimes obscure, beyond our ability to fathom, He deserves to be praised for what He does.” [The word עלמות is understood by the author of the Midrash as meaning “something hidden,” נעלם].
      We have another Midrash in Tanchuma Korach 3 which draws our attention to the extraordinary seriousness with which G’d viewed this quarrel. Whereas normally, culpability for sins commences with the age of 13 for sins judged by a human tribunal and does not commence before the sinner is twenty years of age for sins subject to be judged by a celestial tribune, in this instance G’d “punished” even the infants suckling on their mothers’ breasts by wiping out the entire families of the sinners. This is the meaning of Numbers 16,32: “the earth swallowed them, their houses, and every person belonging to Korach as well as all his tangible property. All of them descended to sheol.” The word אותם in our verse refers to Datan and Aviram mentioned previously in verse 26 as well as their wives and children who all had assumed a defiant posture, adults and children alike.
  
  Verse 30
  
  'ואם בריאה יברא ה', “But if the Lord will display a totally new phenomenon, etc.” The reason Moses used the term בריאה, which reminds us of the creation of the universe out of no pre-existing raw materials was that he wanted to emphasize that the miracle about to occur was equal in dimension to that which was required to bring the universe into existence. It appears that the Torah should really have written: ואם בריאה יברא אלו-הים, using the attribute of G’d which He employed when starting the creative process, instead of the attribute י-ה-ו-ה which Moses employed here. After all, Moses threatened that the attribute of Justice was poised to strike these people. It was this attribute which orchestrated the sinking into the earth of Korach and associates in verse 32. However, it was not Moses’ style to invoke the attribute of Justice against the people, even against rebels of the type of Korach and cohorts. The reason he never did so was that his entire prophetic mission was under the aegis of the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, the attribute of Mercy. This is why he had said earlier (verse 28) “through this you will know that Hashem has sent me.” He meant that the attribute זאת would inform the people that Moses’ mission was at the behest of Hashem. (compare our author on Genesis 49,28 and Exodus 6,3). The sin of these men had been extraordinary in its undermining the whole basis of Moses as G’d’s delegate and faithful communicator of G’d’s words at the people’s own request as we know from Deut. 5,22. In Exodus 34,10 G’d had already allowed for the possible demon-stration of miracles which parallel those performed at the outset of creation when He had said: “in the presence of the entire people I will perform wonderful deeds the likes of which have not been created anywhere on earth, etc.” Moses considered that the time had arrived for G’d to demonstrate such a miracle. This was a practical demonstration of the principle עת לעשות ה' הפרו תורתך, “at a time when something has to be done to demonstrate the power of the Lord, when they have breached Your Torah.” (Psalms 119,126). At this juncture it was not enough to orchestrate the punishment of these people through one of G’d’s agents, intermediaries such as angels, but He Himself had to be involved in that demonstration. The situation was similar to that prevailing prior to the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn by G’d Himself when the Torah had written (Exodus 12,23) “and י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. G’d’s essence will traverse the land of Egypt to smite Egypt, etc.” Our sages (Haggadah shel Pessach) interpreted these words to mean that no angel of whatever rank would orchestrate that plague but that G’d Himself, personally, would do this. Moses concluded his prediction here with the words: “then you will know that these men had provoked Hashem.” You will note that Moses employs the expression תדעון, וידעתם, “i.e. “definitive knowledge” both at the beginning and at the end of his prediction. He hinted that just as if the people had not been redeemed after the plague of the slaying of the firstborn that would have been a desecration of the Lord’s name, so non-occurrence of the phenomenon which Moses now predicted would also be a desecration of the Lord’s, name by him, Moses. (Compare what author wrote on Exodus 11,4).
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם, ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אותם, “The ground which was beneath them split open and the earth opened its ‘mouth’ and swallowed them.”  Nachmanides explains why the Torah had to mention both אדמה and ארץ as “opening” in this verse. Had the Torah only written that the ground split open, the phenomenon could have been considered as an ordinary earthquake, although Moses had predicted the time and the place.  This is why the Torah added the words “the earth opened its mouth” to tell us that a great miracle, unparalleled, happened here. This is why the miracle had been predicted as a בריאה, a new creation. The place where this took place returned to its original appearance as distinct from an earthquake which leaves behind clear evidence that there had been an upheaval.
     ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח, “and every human being belonging to Korach.” This refers to the members of his household and all the rebels accepting his leadership. Korach’s sons were also “swallowed” by the earth but they did not die as a result; this is the meaning of Numbers 26,11: “and the sons of Korach did not die.” Our sages (Megillah 14) explain that a “fortified” place was reserved for them in purgatory where they stayed. [I suppose the meaning is a site safe from the fires of purgatory but inside it. Ed.]    It is possible to explain the verse differently by understanding the words ואת כל האנשים, “and all the men,” as including only the people previously described in verse 30 as כי נאצו האנשים האלה את ה', “for these men had provoked Hashem.” The reason that the Torah called the people who were swallowed as אדם is because they were swallowed by the אדמה, i.e. they returned to the place they originally came from [as in “dust thou art and to dust thou shall return.” Ed.]
     ואת כל הרכוש, “and all the property.” The Torah informed us that not only the people but their belongings including their tents, their money, etc., were all swallowed up as part of this great act of retribution. Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,1 states that even a needle of theirs which had been temporarily in the possession of some other unrelated Israelite would be swept away down into the abyss into which these people disappeared. The reason the Torah writes the words אשר לקרח, “which belonged to Korach,” without specifying that Korach personally was also swallowed by the earth in so many words, is because there was no need for this. Seeing that the Torah had written that Datan and Aviram, and their families as well as Korach’s families and more distant followers had all been swallowed it is clear that he himself as the instigator of the whole rebellion did not escape such a fate. At any rate, even though Korach’s descent into the bowels of the earth is not spelled out, we find it spelled out in Numbers 26,10 where the Torah writes: “it swallowed them, together with Korach.” We find a parallel example when the Torah described the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea of Reeds where the Torah writes (Exodus 15,4) “the chariots of Pharaoh together with his army were drowned in the sea,” although the Torah does not specifically mention that Pharaoh himself was also drowned at the same time. Nevertheless, David explains in Psalms 136,15: “He flung Pharaoh and his army into the sea of Reeds.”    Our sages (Sanhedrin 106) believe that Korach was not only swallowed by the earth but that his body was also burned; seeing that he was the root cause of the sin he was afflicted with two penalties. They derive this from the words in 26,10: “it swallowed them as well as Korach when the assembly died as the fire consumed the 250 men.” This teaches first of all that Korach was swallowed; he was also consumed by the fire as the words באכול האש refer to Korach as the first one to be burned. The reason that the Torah did not spell out his name specifically as a victim of the fire is that simple logic teaches us that fact. All the people who offered incense were burned together with the incense in their censers. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that Korach would survive his attempt to offer this incense. The other two hundred and fifty men were punished on account of Korach; why would he escape such a penalty? Alternatively, we need simply view the extra word את before the expression החמישים איש as the clue that Korach was included as the word את always means something or someone additional, as we know from Pesachim 22.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   וירדו הם וכל אשר להם חיים שאולה, “They and all which belonged to them descended into Sheol while alive.” “Sheol” is the lowest recess of purgatory. There  are a total of seven regions in purgatory [parallel to the seven regions or layers of heaven, Ed.]. The seven regions are named in Eiruvin 19, Sheol being the lowest. David also appears to describe it as such in Psalms 9,18. The reason that David uses the expression ישובו when referring to the wicked whom he wants consigned to that place instead of writing: וירדו, “let them descend,” is that the word ישובו is an allusion to the tortures experienced in that region, unending tortures, something final from which there is no recovery. The word ישובו suggests that although these souls have undergone searing fire, they will be subjected to such treatment again and again. 
  I have seen a comment in Midrash Sidduro shel Olam that Sheol is the seventh layer, consisting partly of fire and partly of hail (ice). The wicked jump from the fire into the ice to cool off and from the ice into the fire to warm themselves, a continuous process. The angel supervising what goes on in purgatory keeps hounding them and prodding them just as a shepherd prods his flock from hill to hill to mountain. The Midrash bases itself on Psalms 49,15: “Sheeplike they head for Sheol, with death as their shepherd.”
     ויאבדו מתוך הקהל, “they were lost from amidst the congregation.” This is the source for the sages telling us that anyone who attacks the Torah and wants to undermine its principles has no share in the hereafter. This is the true meaning of the words: “from among the community.” Basically, the whole community of Israel has a share in the hereafter. These people who descended into the bowels of the earth thereby lost their claim to the hereafter. This is what our sages explained in Sanhedrin 109 that Rabbi Akiva interpreted the words ותכס עליהם הארץ to mean that they died in this world whereas the additional words ויאבדו מתוך הקהל refer to their losing their share in the hereafter. 
  Normally, we would have expected the Torah to write: ויאבדו מתוך ישראל, “they were lost from Israel.” The expression: מתוך הקהל means that they lost their share in the hereafter. Do not raise the point that seeing these people had been punished so harshly already in this world, surely their share in the world to come would therefore be preserved for them! Did we not find that Achan ben Carmi who had also been punished severely in this world had been assured by Joshua that he would not forfeit his share in the hereafter? (Joshua 7,28) The men who associated with Korach were guilty of a far greater crime than had been Achan who had basically only been a thief (and who had confessed at the end). Nonetheless, although the people of this uprising had forfeited their share in the afterlife of the souls, they did not forfeit their entitlement to the resurrection of the bodies when the time comes (Sanhedrin 108 according to Rabbi Eliezer), based on Samuel I 2,6 ה' ממית ומחיה מוריד שאול ויעל, “The Lord kills and revives, consigns to Sheol and raises them even from there.”
  
  Verse 34
  
  . נסו לקולם, “they fled when they heard their sound.”  This appears to mean that as Korach and companions descended into the bowels of the earth they called out in repentance: “Moses is true and his Torah is true,” as our sages reported Rabbi bar Chanah as hearing over a site reputedly the point where all of this took place (Baba Batra 74). According to the report of the Talmud, an Arab guide took Rabbi bar Chanah to a site at which thin smoke emerged from the earth on top of two small cracks in the surface of the earth. The Arab placed some wet wool on top of the site, ignited it, and told the Rabbi to listen carefully. When Rabbi  bar Chanah put his ear to it he could hear the confession of Korach that Moses and his Torah are true whereas he and his crowd were liars. According to that Arab this phenomenon could be observed every thirty days. This was a demonstration of the justice meted out in purgatory, i.e. to make the guilty confess their erstwhile sins.
  
  Verse 35
  
  . ואש יצאה מאת ה', “fire had come forth from the Lord, etc.” G’d matches the punishment to the crime. Seeing that Korach had demanded to be elevated to a position in life which he did not deserve he was punished by being relegated instead to a position below the earth. This corresponds to what our sages  said on Numbers 21,20: ומבמות הגי, “and from the heights to the valley.” Here, in the matter of the fire described, this was also a demonstration of the principle of “measure for measure,” seeing the 250 men who were firstborn came to offer incense, i.e. a fire-offering on their fire-pans. Seeing that they aspired to a privilege which they had not earned this very fire became the instrument causing their death, i.e. their punishment. Concerning these people David said in Psalms 106,18: ”a fire blazed among their party, a flame that consumed the wicked.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . את מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם, “the fire-pans of these people who sinned at the cost of their lives.” The reason the Torah added the word “against their souls” was to reinforce the point that they forfeited the lives of their souls in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו, “and so that they not become like Korach and his congregation.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 110 derive from this verse that if one participates in and reinforces a quarrel one is guilty of infringing on a negative commandment. The meaning of the whole verse is: “one should not become like Korach and his congregation who had been swallowed by the earth and had been burned but one should prefer to be afflicted with tzoraat.” This is an allusion to people who merely quarrel against the “exclusive hereditary nature of the priesthood” such as King Uzziah who arrogated to himself the privilege reserved for priests. He was punished by becoming a צרוע for the remainder of his days (Chronicles II 26,21). He did not die and did not forfeit his afterlife. [I believe the author uses the words: “a negative commandment” as an example of something not carrying the death penalty. Korach did not merely quarrel but made a “federal case” out of his complaint. Hence his special punishment. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 6
  
   וילונו כל עדת בני ישראל, “The entire community of the Children of Israel complained.” Seeing that already two different acts of retribution had occurred (to prove the authenticity of the leadership of Moses and Aaron), what was there possibly left for them to challenge, to complain about? 
  Nachmanides writes that whereas after the burning to death of the people offering the incense the people did believe in the authenticity of Aaron as the High Priest, they still wanted that the firstborn perform the functions of the priests instead of the Levites. They still opposed the exchange of the firstborn in favour of the Levites. Their motivation was that they wanted that every tribe should have representatives who would perform the sacrificial service in the Tabernacle.   אתם המיתם את עם ה', “you have brought about the death of the nation of the Lord!” They referred to Moses having advised the rebels to test the validity of their claim to priesthood by offering incense. They still maintained that these rebels (firstborn) had been entitled to perform the duties now assigned to the Levites though they may not have been entitled to perform priestly functions. This is also the meaning of the flowering of the staff of Aaron “from the house of Levi” in verse 23 [for who did not know that Aaron was a Levite? Ed.]. Thus far Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי יצא הקצף לפני ה' החל הנגף, “for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague had commenced.” There is an angel whose name is קצף, whose power is derived from the attribute of Justice. As a result of this angel emerging from its “home” the plague had started to strike the Jewish people. Moses had become familiar with this angel at the time when the Torah had been given to the Jewish people. This is the meaning of Tanchuma Ki Tissa 20 on Exodus 32,2 where G’d had said to Moses: “Go and descend!” The message was that due to the people having committed the sin of the golden calf five destructive forces (angels) had been unleashed; they were the angels known as: אף, חמה, קצף, השמד, חרון. As soon as Moses mentioned the three patriarchs three of these angels were neutralized. This left the two angels אף and חמה who were still active, pursuing their destructive activities. This is what Moses had in mind in Deut. 9,19 when he said כי יגורתי מפני האף והחמה, “for I was afraid of Af and Chemah. In answer to Moses’ “fear,” G’d said to him: “you stand up against one of them!” [G’d meant that Moses’ personal merit was sufficient to neutralize at least one of these two angels. Ed.] “whereas I will deal with the second one.” This is the meaning of Psalms 7,7 קומה ה' באפך, “arise O Lord against Your אף,” [i.e. the angel known as אף. Ed.]. Moses himself was going to confront the other angel known as חמה, and this is the meaning of Psalms 106,23: לולא משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו להשיב חמתו מהשחית, “if not Moses His choice one had stood in the breach to confront His angel Chemah preventing him from his destructive activities.”
     When the Torah here reports Aaron as ויעמוד בין המתים ובין החיים, “standing between the dead and between the living” (verse 13), the additional word ובין is very crucial. Had the Torah only written בין המתים והחיים, this would have indicated that the “dead” were in front of him whereas no living people were amongst that group. All the living were only behind Aaron. Now that the Torah added the word ובין this indicates that amongst the people in front and behind Aaron there were both living and dead. Aaron was truly in “the middle.” This is the meaning of the incense arresting the plague, i.e. that the effect of the incense was that the situation remained as it was; no additional people died. Any of the living who had been among the dead, surrounded by them did not die as a result.    We learn from this verse that originally, before Aaron intervened with his incense, the destructive angel חמה had wreaked death without exception whenever he had struck a person. He was killing the living and uprooting the dead [depriving them of their share in the hereafter. Ed.] Now, even the dead that were found among the living were no longer subject to having their hereafter denied them. 
  You find this thought echoed in Tanchuma Tetzaveh 15  where the Midrash examines the word החל, “commenced” in our verse and concludes that not only is the angel described as destroying systematically just as the reaper reaps in the field systematically, but the confrontation even with G’d is described. [It appears to me that  when the Midrash speaks of the angel Chemah “uprooting” amongst the already dead, i.e. not skipping anyone in his destructive activity, this  can only mean that he had power over the hereafter of those already slain. Ed.]
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . וישב אהרן אל משה אל פסח אהל מועד והמגפה נעצרה, “Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and the plague had been arrested.” Seeing that the Torah had already reported in verse 13 that as soon as Aaron put incense in his censer and stood between the living and the dead the plague stopped, why did the Torah have to repeat the fact that the plague had been arrested? The Torah teaches us here that Aaron forced the angel to come to the entrance of the Tabernacle where Moses stood. This is part of what is described in Tanchuma Tetzaveh 15, excerpts of which we have quoted already. When the angel had challenged Aaron’s interference saying that he was an agent of G’d, Aaron had countered that he was an agent of Moses. The angel ridiculed this saying that Aaron was only the messenger of a mortal human being whereas he was the messenger of eternal G’d. Aaron challenged the angel to accompany him to the entrance of the Tabernacle where both G’d and Moses could be found. The angel refused to accompany Aaron until the latter took hold of his loins and dragged him along. The Torah alludes to all this when it reports about Moses’ last day on earth in Deut. 33,11 when he blesses each of the tribes and writes ברך ה' חילו ופועל ידיו תרצה, “may the Lord bless his (Aaron’s) resources and may the work of his hands be pleasing (in the eyes of the Almighty).” This was a veiled reference to Aaron’s performance in our paragraph. Moses wished that future High Priests from the tribe of Levi be similarly successful in their efforts to intercede on behalf of the Jewish people when the need would arise to do so. The whole passage teaches how beloved the offering of incense is in the eyes of the Lord. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   כי מטה אחד לראש בית אבותם, “for there shall be one staff for each head of an ancestral house.” The Torah emphasizes this point seeing that the tribe of Levi had been divided in its functions between “ordinary” Levites and the priests, (descendants of Aaron).
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   והיה האיש אשר אבחר בו מטהו יפרח והשיכותי מעלי  את תלונות בני ישראל, “it will be that the staff of the man whom I choose will sprout, and I will rid Myself, etc.” This verse teaches that there were still some people who complained and challenged the established hierarchy even though G’d had already employed three different methods of punishments for the people challenging same, i.e. “swallowing by the earth, burning by fire and now death through the plague.” G’d now felt the time had come to make Aaron’s staff sprout seeing that the swallowing of Korach had proven that the firstborn had been disqualified in the eyes of the Lord as priests and the burning of the non-priests who had dared offer incense had proven that Aaron was the High Priest; the plague had shown that the people’s demand to have the firstborn officiate as Levites if not as priests was not acceptable. However, there were still people complaining as we know from G’d saying that He hoped the new measure, i.e. demonstrating which of the staffs of the tribes would sprout and produce fruit would settle the matter. If it would be the staff of Aaron (the Levite) this should finally put to rest any lingering doubt about the role of the tribe of Levi in the hierarchy of the Jewish people. The fact that the staff of Levi sprouted something positive, i.e. blossoms and fruit, was in contrast to the challengers whose actions had produced negative fallout for themselves on three occasions. The Torah stresses the words: “the house of Levi,” to show that it was not merely Aaron’s appointment that was confirmed thereby but the appointment of the entire tribe of Levi for its respective task as outlined in Numbers chapter eight.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ומטה אהרן בתוך מטותם, “and Aaron’s staff among their staffs.” [בתוך מטותם can be translated "in the middle of their staffs." The other tribes’ staffs were placed surrounding that of Aaron] so that it could not be argued that this miracle occurred because only his staff had been deposited near the Shechinah.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   והנה פרח מטה אהרן לבית לוי, “and behold! The staff of Aaron, representing the ancestral house of Levi, sprouted, etc.”  It did so because Aaron was part of the ancestral house of Levi.
     ויוצא פרח ויצץ ציץ, “it had brought forth sprouts, produced blossoms, and borne almonds.” The reason the staff produced almonds instead of some other fruit [seeing the almond is not one of the fruit for which the land of Israel is famous, Ed.] is because not only are almonds highly regarded but they are the first to mature after winter. The word שקד suggests a kind of eagerness such as the prophet Jeremiah describing  G’d as “eager” to carry out His promise/threat [having shown Jeremiah an almond tree in a vision, Jeremiah 1,11-12. Ed.]. In that particular instance the almond tree symbolized the bitter taste of some almonds and G’d used it as a threat of the Jewish people tasting the bitterness of exile. We have other examples of similar meanings of the simile of almonds. The people of Israel were to learn from this that if someone challenges the hierarchy as established by the Torah not only would he be punished but his punishment would be swift. The attribute of Justice would be activated against such a person. King Uzziah was a case in point; he was punished immediately he offered incense, his forehead becoming afflicted with tzoraat, the dreaded skin disease (Chronicles II 26,19).
  
  Verse 24
  
  . ויראו ויקח איש מטהו, “when they saw, each (tribal representative) took his own staff.” Each one knew which was his staff as they had inscribed their names on it.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   הן גוענו, אבדנו, כולנו אבדנו, “behold we perish, we are lost, we are all lost.” They meant that they were all lost as anyone approaching the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle would die. The reason the Torah repeats the expression קריבה, “approaching” in verse 28 is that if anyone who approaches the Tabernacle more closely than his neighbor is subject to death just like the 250 men who had been burned they wished they would die now [seeing they had nothing to look forward to except death in the desert. Ed.]. The question: “will we ever stop perishing?” (verse 28) suggested that the Israelites viewed the Levites as the cause of their deaths. This is why G’d told Aaron in his capacity as the tribal head of the tribe of Levi to take care that the Levites should not become the cause of Israelites dying through any error they would commit (compare Ibn Ezra on verse 27).
      There is also another approach to these words הן גוענו אבדנו כלנו אבדנו; this statement by the Israelites was a reference to the three penalties that had struck the people who had challenged the existing order in Jewish society. The words הן גוענו, “here we have perished,” refer to the people who suffered death by being burned; the word אבדנו, “we are lost,” refers to the people who had been swallowed up by the earth. The final expression: כלנו אבדנו, “we have all perished,” referred to the plague which had cost 14,700 victims. (verse 14). Onkelos reflects this approach in his translation. He writes: הא מננא קטלת חרבא הא מננא בלעת ארעא, והא מננא דמיתו במותנא, i.e. he mentions the three kinds of death which struck these three groups of people by name instead of speaking in generalities as does our verse in its original. The translation of גוענו as קטלת חרבא, “death by the sword,” is quite appropriate for a description of the attribute of Justice as it is found in Isaiah 27,1.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . תשאו את עון כהונתכם, “you shall bear any guilt connected  with your priesthood.” The meaning of the verse is: “if you do not carefully guard the priesthood any guilt arising from negligence will be borne by you. The reason the Torah adds: “you and your sons with you in front of the Tent of Testimony” (verse 2), is that both you and your sons are always perceived as being in My (G’d’s) presence all the time. Sifri Korach 116 explains that the priests are responsible for what occurs inside the Sanctuary whereas the Levites are responsible for what occurs around it outside in the sacred precincts. Each group was expected to mount guards at night, etc.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם, “so that not both you and they will die.” This is the source for the halachah that the functions of the Levites are not interchangeable, that a priest may not perform functions designated for the Levite, nor the Levite functions reserved for the priest (Erchin 11, Maimonides Hilchot Kley Hamikdash 3,10). Not only this, but even priests who have been assigned certain tasks must not exchange their duties with priests who have been assigned different priestly assignments, nor must Levites exchange duties within the framework of what is their exclusive domain. If a Levite was assigned the duty  to play an instrument or participate in the songs the Levites sing, he must not instead engage in washing the hands of the priests, for instance! This is why the Torah writes (Numbers 4,49) איש איש על עבודתו, “each man to his designated task.” This is the way these words have been defined in Sifri 116. The words: “but to the holy vessels and to the Altar they shall not approach,” are a warning, whereas the words following “so that they will not die,” are the Torah’s way of spelling out the penalty for non-observance of the warning. The words גם הם, “they also,” are the source for the inadmissibility of exchanging duties either by mutual consent or willful pre-empting the duties assigned to a colleague. It occurred once that Rabbi Joshua ben Chanayah wished to assist a colleague in closing the doors and he was stopped from doing so by Rabban Yochanan who told him that seeing he was one of the singers he had not business to concern himself with the duties of those who were in charge of the gates (Erchin 11).
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ושמרו את משמרת אהל מועד, “and they are to safeguard the duties pertaining to the Tent of Meeting.” The purpose of this שמירה, supervision, is to enhance the reputation of the Tabernacle as it is a well known fact that any building surrounded by guards of honour is considered as of greater importance by people seeing the guards than even a palace not surrounded by guards.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם, “I make your priesthood a service of dedication.” The performance of the sacrificial duties which I (G’d) impose on the priests are not to be viewed as menial tasks but as a major service and a gift from Me to you. Apart from the fact that you derive your livelihood from the performance of these duties you are to consider it as an honor and glory bestowed upon you.    The reason that the Torah repeats here once more that “the stranger who approaches (unauthorized) shall die,” is because this time it is not addressed to members of other tribes but to priests who for one reason or another have become disqualified. Even Levites are subject to this warning. If we find that the prophet Samuel (a Levite, not a priest) offered a burnt-offering (Samuel I 7,9) this was an exception dictated by special circumstances. It was similar to Gideon (a member of the tribe of Menashe) who is also reported as offering a sacrifice (Judges 6,25-27). Moreover, seeing that this paragraph deals with the situation in the desert and the period when the Tabernacle had recently been erected and the firstborn had been replaced by the Levites, there is ample reason to repeat the warning once more. (Rabbi Chavell points out that the sacrifice offered by Samuel on a private altar after the destruction of he Tabernacle in Shiloh was perfectly permissible for any Israelite and that there is nothing strange about what Samuel did there although he was the first one to do so. Compare Avodah Zarah 24. According to the Talmud Temurah 28 the night on which Gideon offered a sacrifice was historically important as no fewer than eight prohibitions were waived on that night).
  
  Verse 8
  
   וידבר ה' אל אהרן ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומותי, “The Lord said to Aaron: “here I have entrusted to you the minding of My gifts, etc.” At this juncture G’d reconfirms Aaron’s status as High Priest after his position had previously been challenged. You may understand why the Torah found it necessary to do this by means of a parable. A king had given a present of a field to a close friend of his without bothering to draw up a deed confirming the gift. After a while, people seeing the king’s friend treat the field as his challenged him. The king told the friend who was somewhat upset: “let whoever wants to challenge My gift challenge it.” However, I will provide you with a deed proving that you have title to the field and I will put my royal seal on it. Here we have written proof of the 24 different kinds of gifts the king (G’d) bestowed on the priests, most of which came from the pockets of the Israelites (compare Sifri 119). Chulin 133 confirms this stating: “there are 24 different kinds of gifts called מתנות כהונה, ‘gifts that the priests are entitled to.’” They are equivalent to what is called a ברית מלח, a “covenant based on salt.” Just as salt is of an enduring quality so anyone who observes this covenant is highly regarded, whereas anyone who breaches any part of this covenant (withholds any of these items from the priests) is considered as if he had violated all parts of this covenant. The reason for this is that the covenant is spelled out both in general terms, i.e. לכל קדשי בני ישראל לך נתתים, “of all the sacred donations of the Israelites I give them to you,” and is subsequently listed in detail once more.   These twenty-four gifts are divided into three distinct categories. Ten of them apply to sacrificial offerings presented in the Temple and to be consumed only within the sacred precincts of the Temple Mount. Ten more apply to other parts of the Holy Land, i.e. they are to given to the priests anywhere within the Holy Land. The last four are gifts to be given to the priests within the (whole) confines of the city of Jerusalem.     The ten gifts to be consumed within the confines of the sacred grounds of the Temple are: meat from sin-offerings of four-legged animals; meat from a sin-offering consisting of a bird; meat from the guilt-offering for a sin definitely performed, meat from a similar guilt offering when the sinner is not certain he has become guilty of that sin; parts of the meat of public peace-offerings,  the log of oil to be offered by a person cured from the skin disease tzoraat; the two show-breads offered in the Temple each Sabbath; the breads offered on Shavuot each year (new wheat harvest); remainders of all “gift-offerings” consisting of flour and oil. The part of the Omer (annual new barley offering) not consigned to the Altar. The four gifts given to the priests for use within the confines of the city of Jerusalem are: the firstborn male animal fit for the altar; the respective first fruit (of the seven kinds of produce the land of Israel is famous for). The remains of the ram brought by the Nazarene at the end his term, and lastly, the hides of the various animals which are offered on the altar. The ten gifts which are applicable and usable by the priest throughout the Land of Israel are: a gift by the farmer before he separates the tithe from his grain harvest. Terumat-Maasser, a corres-ponding gift to the priest by the Levite of the tithe he has received from the Israelite. Challah, the first part of the dough (discussed in Numbers chapter 15,17-21); the wool of the first shearing of the sheep. The stomach, forearm and cheekbones of the average animal offered as a freely donated offering by the ordinary Israelite. The five shekel the father needs to give to the priest to redeem his son if he is the firstborn of his wife by natural birth. The lamb or money in lieu of the lamb traded in order to redeem the fistborn of a farmer’s donkey. Certain lands which belonged to proselytes who died intestate. Fields donated to the Temple Treasury and not subject to the Jubilee legislation. Property stolen from a proselyte who died without heirs before the stolen property could be returned by the thief.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   בקדש הקדשים תאכלו, “you shall eat it in the most holy.” Seeing that the Inner Sanctuary, known generally as קדש הקדשים, is not an area in which one may consume any part of the offerings since even the High Priest may only enter there on Yom Kippur when eating is altogether forbidden, the meaning of this word must be something different. The term does not apply to a location but to a state of ritual purity, i.e. the highest state of ritual purity the priest can attain. He is not allowed to eat the parts of the sacrificial meat described in the previous verse unless he is in that state of purity. Alternatively, the term here is relative, i.e. compared to the outer courtyard of the Tabernacle, the area of the Sanctuary including the עזרה, is considered “the holy of holies” (compare Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה, “Every segregated property (proscribed) to the Israelites shall be yours.” When an Israelite vows a property of his as out of bounds to himself it becomes out of bounds both to himself as well as to the other Israelites and becomes the property of the priests of the roster who perform service in the Temple at that time. Elsewhere, in Leviticus 27,21, this legislation is couched in the words: כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחזתו, “as land proscribed; it becomes the priest’s holding.” In the event that the donor had intended his property to be used to make repairs to the Temple, for instance, then it is used for that purpose instead of being given to the priests to become their personal property. Our sages (Midrash Tehillim 1) derive this rule from a propaganda tale used by Korach to incite the people: A certain woman owned a female sheep and when the time came to shear its wool, the local priest asked her to give him the wool. When the same sheep birthed her first young male lamb the priest took it. When she saw all this she slaughtered the animal. When the priest found out he came to claim his portion of the meat. When frustrated at this state of affairs the woman decided to rather declare the whole animal as חרם, hoping thereby to deprive the priest, she found to her dismay that the priest now claimed the entire animal.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ופדויו מבן חודש ומעלה, “those that have to be redeemed must be at least one month old.” The subject of the word ופדויו is the male human firstborn.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   'ברית מלח עולם היא לפני ה’, “It is an eternal salt-like covenant before Hashem.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that the covenant is “cut off,” absolute, final, just like salt is cut off from the mine in which is it detached from the mother lode. The word means that something is final, irreversible. We find the word used in this sense in Jeremiah 17,6 ארץ מלחה ולא תשב, “a land so full of salt that it will never be habitable again.” 
      A kabbalistic approach: the words “it is an eternal covenant” mean that the covenant described as a “salt-like covenant” is an eternal covenant. Just as salt preserves the meat indefinitely, so this type of covenant endures indefinitely.     The major ingredient of salt is water. Due to the power of the sun which shone upon it it turns into salt. In other words, salt represents a fusion of the elements fire and water. Similarly, the covenant is a combination of the attributes Mercy and Justice. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 36,39 בת מי זהב, (compare author’s comment on page 544 our translation on the meaning of the word בת). The whole verse explains to us that this covenant is the “salt of the universe.” it ensures that the universe endures, or, G’d forbid, will be destroyed if the covenant is breached. We have proof of this from Deut. 29,22 where the earth around Sodom and Gomorah which had undergone a rain of sulfur and salt some 500 years earlier is described as still unfit to produce vegetation. At first glance, describing salt as a destructive agent and using it as an example of an enduring covenant, i.e. something positive, appears contradictory. However, this is not so. The two statements are merely two halves of the same coin. 
  You should realize that in these two paragraphs  which have been written consecutively the gifts which have been allocated to both the priests and the Levites have been spelled out. In both paragraphs G’d addressed only Aaron using both the term וידבר and the term ויאמר (verses 8 and 20 respectively). The details of the 24 gifts that the priests are entitled to were told Aaron under the heading of וידבר, whereas the gifts the Israelites were to give to the Levites were introduced with the words ויאמר ה’ אל אהרן. You are already aware that the attribute which applies to the priests is primarily the attribute which characterizes the written Torah, whereas the attribute which applies to the Levites is predominantly that which is characterized by the oral Torah (our author elaborated on this in Exodus 13,1 in the kabbalistic part of his commentary). ...
  In connection with the Levites you encounter the wording 'על פי ה’, an expression you do not encounter in connection with covenantal instructions issued to the Israelites (non-Levites). Our sages in Gittin 60 have said that “G’d only concluded a covenant with the Jewish people for the sake of the oral Torah.” When you open the “eyes” of your heart and look carefully you will observe that the heritage allocated to the priests is associated with G’d’s attribute אני, i.e. אני חלקך ונחלתך, “I am your share and your heritage among the Children of Israel” in verse 20 of our chapter. In this instance the word אני undoubtedly describes the attribute of Mercy. Other examples of where the wordאני  clearly describes G’d in His capacity as the attribute of Mercy are found in Exodus 6,5: וגם אני שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל, “and I have also heard the groaning of the Children of Israel, etc.”    The share of the Levites is the tithe which in itself is an allusion to the עשירית, the tenth emanation. This is why the Torah phrases this as ולבני לוי הנה נתתי כל מעשר בישראל לנחלה, “and as to the members of the tribe of Levi: “here I have given every tithe in Israel as a heritage, etc.”    You will find that Yaakov treated his son Levi as the tenth amongst his sons (compare what the author wrote on page 418 our translation in connection with Genesis 27,19). Yaakov took the vow to tithe everything G’d would give him so seriously that he even tithed his children.    When a shepherd wants to tithe every tenth of his flock as prescribed by the Torah, he first leads all the sheep into the fold and then counts them individually, one by one. The last one in then becomes the first one out. Similarly, when Yaakov, a shepherd set out to tithe one of his children he first brought them into the fold commencing with his eldest Reuven and concluding with his youngest Binyamin. When he counted them subsequently, commencing this time with Binyamin, Levi was the tenth and therefore became sanctified. 
  We find this idea in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 37 where the author writes specifically that Yaakov tithed in reverse order, i.e. in the order we just described. According to that statement he commenced with Binyamin while he latter was still in the womb of his mother. The Midrash goes on to describe the archangel Michael presenting Levi before G’d and saying: Lord Almighty this one is Your lot, the share of Your tithes. G’d stretched out His hand and blessed Levi saying that all the sons of Levi should become holy forthwith and perform service to the Lord on earth similar to what the ministering angels do in the celestial regions. The archangel Michael  continued saying: “do not the king’s servants receive their livelihood from the king as compensation for their services?” Therefore G’d allocated the tithes of the Children of Israel to the Levites. This is the meaning of Deut. 18,1: “the fire-offerings of Hashem and His inheritance shall they eat” (the latter part applies to the Levites). Thus far Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer. 
      While it is true that every Levite has been sanctified, the priest has been accorded an even greater level of holiness. The Levite himself publicizes the additional sanctity of the priest seeing he has to tithe the tithe he has received from the Israelite and give it to the priest. This is the meaning of Numbers 8,19: “and from among the Israelites I formally assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons, to perform the service for the Israelite in the Tent of Meeting, etc.”
      If you will look closely at our verse (18,19) you will note that the Torah applies the feminine pronoun היא to the tasks performed by the priests, i.e. the ברית מלח, whereas in connection with the Levites (verse 23) the Torah employs the pronoun הוא, i.e. the masculine pronoun. What this proves is that the attributes are not totally separate from one another and that each attribute contains elements from the other. When something is defined as “feminine,” this does not mean that it is exclusively feminine, but that the feminine ingredients in that attribute dominate; the same applies to instances when we encounter the masculine attribute, i.e. the masculine aspect is the dominant one. We already explained repeatedly that the same concept applies to attributes such as “Justice” and “Mercy” respectively. In the instance quoted the word היא means that although we said previously that the dominating attribute associated with the priests is the attribute of Mercy, the Torah wants us to realize that this attribute is not exclusive; neither is the attribute of Justice which we described as predominant in connection with the Levites exclusive; hence the masculine pronoun הוא is here (23) associated with the Levites. [A construction such as found in verses 23, i.e. ועבד הלוי הוא את עבודת אהל מועד, is most unusual as the word הוא appears totally superfluous in the sentence. Ed.] We find similar examples of apparently inverted associations with the “wrong” attribute in connection with both Yaakov and David. The most famous example is Micah 7,20 תתן אמת ליעקב, as we would never have expected the harsh attribute אמת to be applied to Yaakov. Similarly, when David (Psalms 23,1) describes the attribute “Elohim” i.e. the attribute of Justice as being the one which looks after him as a protective shepherd, this seems at first glance similarly innocuous. The lesson from that wording is that the attribute of Justice contains elements of the attribute of Mercy. David uses the subject of פרנסה, livelihood, to demonstrate that both of these attributes are involved on their respective levels in ensuring man’s livelihood.
  
  Verse 20
  
   בארצם לא תנחל, “in their land you shall have no heritage.” Our sages apply this verse (only) to the time when the land parcels will be distributed to the various tribes (Sifri Korach 119).   וחלק לא יהיה לך בתוכם, “and you will not have a share among them.” This refers to booty captured in war.   אני חלקך, “I am your share.” You will eat at My table (altar). The portions of the offerings assigned to you (the priests) are portions from G’d’s table.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ולבני לוי, “to the sons of Levi, etc.” Seeing that in connection with the priests the Torah had spoken of “Pinchas and his descendants after him,” (Numbers 25,13), i.e. that the priesthood would be hereditary in character, the Torah had to teach us that the same principle applied to the duties and privileges associated with the Levites. The Torah chose the word: “sons of” seeing that it had not previously used the word “after him” as it had in connection with the priesthood bestowed on Pinchas. The letter ו in ולבני, is an additive, adding something to the original i.e. the subject discussed previously, the priesthood. Just as the term “an eternal salt-like covenant” applies to the priests and the priesthood, so the same term applies to the Levites and their duties and privileges.   These portions which we conclude here describe that after the various challenges to the already prevailing hierarchy had been disposed of, the staff of Aaron had to sprout not only as symbol of his personal status but as symbol once and for all that the functions of both the Levites and the Priests had been ordained from on high not just for this generation but on an ongoing hereditary basis. As mentioned previously, the sprouting of Aaron’s staff contained not only the message of Aaron’s “superiority,” but the whole phenomenon was to serve as warning to any future challengers of the system that G’d’s punishment would be swift, just as the almond tree develops swiftly. We find strong allusions to this concept in Psalms 92,8, in Isaiah 35,2, in Hoseah 14,6 and in Proverbs 11,28. In all of the verses mentioned the verb פרח does not only describe development, growth as such,  but swift development. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
     בני שמור אמרי ומצותי תצפון אתך. מצותי וחיה ותורתי כאישון עיניך  “My son, heed my words treasure my commandments within you. Keep my commandments and live; and my teachings as the apple of your eyes” (Proverbs 7,1-2).
   Throughout the Book of Proverbs Solomon always speaks in the name of the attribute (or emanation) חכמה, wisdom; he refers to all the 613 commandments in the Torah as either אמרים , “words” or מצות, “commandments.” His father David before him already referred to the commandments as אמרים, as we know from Psalms 12,7: אמרות ה’ אמרות טהורות, “the Lord’s commandments are pure commandments.”    The commandments of the Torah are subdivided into three groups. They are known as 1) מצות מקובלות, 2) מצות מושכלות, and 3)  מצות שאין טעמם נגלה ומבואר 1) Commandments which are based on historical precedents; 2) commandments which appeal to our minds and which are easy to understand and appreciate. 3) Commandments the reason for which and the usefulness of which are completely outside our ability to comprehend. The first group which includes such laws as making and wearing phylacteries or putting fringes on our four-cornered garments as well as the commandment to circumcise our male babies, etc., have a common denominator in that they are associated with the history of our people and our special protection by the Almighty. When we perform any of these commandments we testify to the fact that we belong to the chosen people and that we as well as our forefathers have accepted His covenant and are loyal to it, bound by it. None of these commandments would have been invented by man as only G’d can legislate what are suitable symbolic acts to recall events in our history. This is why many of our sages also call these commandments עדות, “testimony.” They are all of Divine origin. The Torah describes the second generation of Israelites as inquiring after what they perceive to be these “testimonial laws” in Deut. 6,20. Some of these laws testify to the fact that G’d created the universe out of no tangible material, others testify to the selection of the Jewish people as His special nation; still others testify to the manner in which G’d provided for us in the desert, etc. David (Psalms 119,24) is on record as viewing even these commandments as שעשעי, “my delights.”    The second group of commandments, even if not always in their details, are the ones which the human mind would have had to invent and legislate if the Torah had not done so; this is why they are called מושכלות, “rational” in essence. Examples are how we are to deal with the crimes of theft, robbery, murder, unfair business practices, etc., etc. The term applied to these kinds of commandments in the Torah is משפטים.   The third group of commandments, the ones which completely baffle us, are the legislation not to mix certain seeds, wear clothes combining wool and linen, mixing of meat and milk (though they are part of the same animal), the dispatch of the scape-goat to the Azazel, and the laws involving the red heifer. The Torah’s appellation for all of these types of laws is חקים, “statutes.” This is also one of the groups of laws referred to as the subject of the inquiry by second generation Israelites (and later generations) in Deut. 6,20-21. The answer suggested by the Torah to such inquiries is prefaced with the words: “we used to be slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt who maltreated us in a cruel manner until the Lord our G’d redeemed us from there ad brought us to this land of Israel.” The Torah emphasises “the Lord our G’d did all this,” i.e. that as of that point in time the reputation of the Lord as our national G’d was greatly enhanced. It is therefore appropriate that we loyally accept all three groups of commandments. The passage in Deuteronomy we quoted refers to three groups of commandments, עדות, משפטים, חקים. In the verse quoted above from Proverbs, Solomon merely paraphrases the words of the Torah by speaking of the עדות as אמרי; he refers to the משפטים as שמור מצותי וחיה, “observe My commandments so that you may live (a civilian and secure life).” Finally, when Solomon says: ומצותי תצפון אתך, “treasure My commandments with you,” he refers to the חקים statutes, which, though not understood by you, should be treasured nonetheless. G’d in His capacity as our king has the right to legislate statutes such as the one of the red heifer without revealing His motive.
  זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה’ לאמור, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה תמימה וגו’, “this is the statute of the Torah which the Lord has commanded to say: ‘tell the Children of Israel that they shall take an unblemished red cow, etc.’” The paragraph dealing with the red heifer has been appended to the one detailing the gifts the Israelites have to give to the priests because the red heifer is the “instrument which purifies the Jewish people.”  The paragraph teaches that the priests are not only the recipients of gifts from the Israelites but that they are the ones who can confer ritual purity on the Israelites.
     חקת התורה, “a statute of the Torah.” The various commentators understand the word as meaning: ‘statute; royal decree.’ In other words, a law which defies understanding by the subject to whom it is applied. People asked to obey it constantly wonder why they have to obey such a law. The details of the red heifer legislation are not only devoid of logic but appear to defy logic in that contact with that cow defiles the ritually pure while purifying the ritually impure.     The truth is that the red heifer is one of the statutes which defies our understanding. Still, the principal meaning of the word חק is derived from the word חקיקה, something that is “indelibly engraved in a rock.” like a picture. G’d hinted to the Children of Israel that their image is indelibly engraved in the celestial regions. In other words, seeing there are no rocks to inscribe things on in the celestial regions, the word חקיקה is a simile for immutable concepts, as basic to G’d’s legislation as if their counterpart had been engraved in rock in our terrestrial universe (compare author’s comment on Leviticus 19,19). This is why a certain group of the commandments is known under the heading of חקים. It is significant that the expression חקת התורה appears in connection with our legislation here, whereas in connection with the legislation involving the scape-goat the Torah defines this as חקת עולם, whereas in connection with kilayim, the prohibition to mix species which G’d wanted to keep separate, the Torah simply writes את חקותי תשמורו, “observe My statutes.” Whenever the Torah refers to a commandment as having an aspect of חוק, this is its way of reminding us of the immutability of such a commandment.   Another reason why the term חק is applied to certain laws is that the word means גבול, “limitation,” such as when the prophet Jeremiah 15,22 describes the sand on the beaches of the sea as the limit to the ocean’s power of expanding into the area designated as “the dry land.” The wording there is: אשר שמתי גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו, “who set the sand as a boundary for the sea as a limit for all time not to be transgressed.” Other examples of the meaning of the word חק being “boundary,” are Jeremiah 31,35: חקות ירח וכוכבים לאור לילה, “the laws of moon and stars for light by night.” In other words, sun and moon respectively serve as boundaries of day and night respectively (compare the whole verse in Jeremiah).   The philosophical aspect of the meaning of “boundary” for the word חק in connection with this legislation is that there are limits, boundaries, to the extent to which we may employ our investigative faculties in probing its meaning. We have to discipline ourselves in acknowledging that G’d clearly did not want us to probe beyond a certain point.
      You need to appreciate that there is a difference in meaning between the word חק and the word חקה. Any commandment described as חק has its origin in the attribute זכור. [The author refers to the two aspects of Sabbath legislation described by the Torah as זכור and שמור respectively, Ed.]. The former refers to an emanation on the right side of the diagram of the emanations, whereas the latter is part of the left side of that diagram. We find in connection with the laws of Passover (Exodus 12,25) that the Torah categorises that legislation as לחק לך ולבניך, “as a statute for you and your children.” A חק is something definitive, decisive. We find the word in the benedictions recited at the circumcision, i.e. חק בשארו שם, “He set a חק (seal) on the flesh of his offspring.” In our prayers on New Year’s Day we speak of the requirement to blow the shofar on that day as being חק לישראל, (Psalms 81,5) a very definitive requirement. This point is also made in the Sefer Yetzirah 2,1 where the author writes כי חק הוא מכריע, that the word חק reconciles conflicting concepts [between the right and the left side of the emanations. Ed.].    A commandment described as חקה, is derived from the attribute שמור. Examples are such statements as Leviticus 19,19 את חוקותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My statutes.” The statutes referred to are not to mix certain species, not to marry the wife of a brother while the brother is alive (The word שמירה is used in connection with that commandment). Here too the Torah couches the legislation in the word חקה rather than חק, similar to the wording in Leviticus 20,22 summing up the legislation involving forbidden sexual unions. [The difference between the two words used for these various legislations may perhaps be defined as the difference between positive and negative commandments. The former are described as חק, the latter as חקה. Ed.].
     אשר צוה ה', “which the Lord  has commanded.” The Torah really should have written: “which I commanded.” However our syntax here is comparable to Exodus 24,1 where the Torah wrote: ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה',  instead of עלה אלי, ascend to Me.”
     דבר אל בני ישראל, speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” Although the paragraph commences with G’d addressing both Moses and Aaron, He uses the singular דבר, instead of דברו when formulating what precisely it is that the Children of Israel are to be told. The reason is that even when G’d addresses Moses and Aaron simultaneously, Moses is considered the principal.
     ויקחו אליך, “and they shall take to you.” The reason for the additional word “to you” at this point is to teach that the commandment was of immediate importance at this time in the desert, whereas later on (verse 10) G’d gives instructions as to future applicability of this commandment. We find a similar pattern in the legislation of the oil for anointing (Exodus 27,20) as I commented there.
     פרה אדומה תמימה, “a completely red cow without a blemish.” The word תמימה refers to the colour, not to the size or other features of the cow. If this cow had been undersized compared to other cows of similar age this would not disqualify the animal from serving the purpose described by the Torah. Two black hairs or two white hairs in its coat would disqualify the cow from being used for the procedure described here. It is not surprising therefore that the price of such a cow would be very high (compare Kidushin 31).
      Maimonides writes in Hilchot Parah Adumah that this cow was generally either three of four years old. If it happened to be older this did not disqualify her. One does not generally purchase such an animal when it is still a calf and raises it in the care of the Temple treasury. In the event the need arises for such a cow to be purchased and none is available that meets the required criteria age-wise, it is acceptable to put the money for an animal which is younger at that time in escrow and the animal remains under the care of its owners until it is old enough and only then is ownership transferred to the Temple treasury. This rule is derived from the wording: “take to you a red cow” [as opposed to a red calf, Ed.].    It is permissible to buy such a cow from a Gentile, (idolater) and we do not worry that its owner had previously used it in mating practices which are forbidden under Torah law. The reason we do not worry about this is that no one in his right mind puts such an expensive animal at risk, seeing that if such a ritually forbidden mating had taken place the owner would forfeit all the money he had stood to gain from selling this animal to the Israelites.  All the blemishes that normally disqualify an animal as a potential sacrificial offering also disqualify the red cow [although it is not destined for the altar. Ed.]. We derive this from the words: אשר אין בה מום, “ which is unblemished.” The Torah refers to this animal as a חטאת, “(normally translated as “sin offering”) although it is not slaughtered in sacred precincts. This cow is subject to additional restrictions not applicable to animals destined for the altar, as the Torah demands אשר לא עלה עליה עול, “which has never worn a yoke.” Other animals may have served such profane uses prior to being sanctified to became sacrificial offerings.    We have a similar requirement in connection with the עגלה ערופה, “a heifer (calf) which will die by having its neck broken” (Compare Deut. 21,3) where the wording is אשר לא עובד בה אשר לא משכה בעול, “with which no work has been performed, which has not pulled with a yoke.” Just as in the case of the עגלה ערופה such a calf is disqualified if it has performed work for an owner even without the device known as “yoke,” so the red cow too must not have performed any chore even if it had not worn a yoke while doing so. In other words, the “yoke” disqualifies the red cow even if it had never been put to its customary use. Similarly, work performed disqualifies the animal even if it had never worn a yoke. To illustrate: if the animal was connected to a ploughshare even if it had not pulled the plough it would be disqualified; on the other hand if it had been brought to a threshing-ground without having started to thresh it would be fit to serve as a red cow. If someone had used the cow to ride on, to lean on, or had hung something on its tail, or had even covered it merely with a cloth etc., it is disqualified. If the cloth was of a protective nature, i.e. to ward off flies, it is in order. If restraints had been put on the animal because it had behaved rebelliously this does not disqualify the red cow from being used for its designated purpose. If the animal had not first demonstrated unruly behavior making restraints necessary, putting restraints on it merely as a precautionary measure is not permissible. If the cow had performed a useful task without the owner or any other person urging it to do so, it depends on whether the owner approved and meant to benefit by such work. If yes, the animal can no longer serve for its ritual purpose, if the owner did not approve or intend to make use of the result of the animal’s labor the animal is not disqualified. This is the meaning of the formula אשר לא עובד בה, “that the labor had not been performed with it by design.” Approval after the event is equated by halachah as if it had been intended already prior to the event. Therefore, if, for instance, a bird had made the animal’s back its regular seat, this does not impede the animal’s use as a red cow. If a bull had mounted the cow this does disqualify her; if she is pregnant she is also disqualified, of course. The rule governing all this is simple: if the work performed with the animal is for the good of the animal or its well-being it is all right. If its serves the owner or his agent it disqualifies the animal as a potential red cow as described in the Torah.    If an animal which had been designated as a red cow dies before it could be used, or it developed some blemish which prevents it from being used as intended, it may be redeemed. As a result its hide may be used for profane purposes though its meat may not be eaten, or in the case of death being due to natural causes rather than ritual slaughter, its meat must not be fed to the dogs as this would be degrading (even after it has been redeemed for money to the Temple treasury).    If, when the red cow was slaughtered, it was slaughtered for profane purposes instead of with a view to the remains being burned as ashes of the red cow, it will not have the effect of achieving atonement for people being sprinkled with its ash and the water from a living well. If the Temple  treasury had bought a red cow and subsequently found an animal of better appearance, the original one may be redeemed and the proceeds applied to the purchase of the second animal even though the original red cow had not developed any blemish disqualifying it.     An ordinary priest is fully qualified to perform the procedure with the red cow. This is derived from verse 3: “and you shall hand it to Eleazar the Priest.” As a general rule the procedure was performed by the High Priest’s substitute, second in command. At the time this legislation was revealed Aaron was still alive. Therefore, when the Torah writes that the procedure is to be performed by his son Eleazar who was his successor, it is clear that not only the High Priest could perform this procedure. The priest performing this procedure is to wear the four priestly garments which an ordinary priest wears when performing sacrificial service within the confines of the Temple and its courtyard.   The flesh of the cow must not be burned on the sacred grounds of the Temple Mount as we know from verse 3: והוציא אותה אל מחוץ למחנה, “he is to take it outside the camp.” This means outside both the camp of the priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. Usually, the red cow was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives. [There were only a total of 9 such cows during the entire 830 years that the two Temples stood. Ed.]. The words: ושחט אותה לפניו, “he shall slaughter it in his presence,” mean that even a non-priest could perform the slaughtering provided the priest stood beside him and watched his every action. Sifri 123 and Yuma 42 state that indeed a lay Israelite slaughtered the cow while Eleazar was watching. Sifri adds that only this animal could be slaughtered at that time. The slaughterer was not allowed to slaughter another animal immediately before or after. The slaughterer must not be involved at that time in any other chore. We derive this from verse 5: ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “he is to burn the cow in front of his eyes,” i.e. he must not take his eyes off it during the entire procedure until it has become ash. The words in verse 4: “and Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger,” mean that as opposed to sacrificial animals whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, no special vessel was designated for the blood to be put into prior to its being sprinkled on the altar, or in this instance in the direction of the Temple (or Tabernacle). The priest must watch what he is doing while sprinkling as the Torah uses the words: “in the direction of.” The slaughtering is done with the right hand whereas the blood is “caught” with the left and then sprinkled with the fingers of the right hand.    After each of the seven sprinklings the priest wipes his hand on the body of the cow as residue of the blood must not be used again; at the conclusion of the sprinkling he descends from the woodpile upon which the animal’s body is lying and lights the fire.  The priest stands some distance away watching until the fire has enveloped most of the cow’s body and its belly has split open. After that the priest takes the cedar-wood and the hyssop, not shorter than one handbreadth, and some wool dyed red (crimson)  weighing five selaim and he says to the people standing around him: “this is the cedar-wood” (prescribed by the Torah) three times. After that he points to the hyssop, again saying three times: “this is the hyssop.” Those around him confirm having heard what the priest said by saying הן, “yes,” in response to each of the priest’s statements. Why was all this elaborate ritual necessary? There are seven different varieties of cedars; there are four varieties of hyssop; different artisans use different dyes to achieve the color called תולעת שני, “crimson;” therefore the priest wanted to make sure that all the people around him had confirmed that what he had done was the correct procedure by consensus. According to Maimonides the color crimson can be obtained from the seeds of a plant known as puah, closely resembling the seeds of the carobs, etc.; the priest wanted confirmation that the color of the wool he used corresponded to what the Torah demanded.    The kind of hyssop described by the Torah is the kind eaten by ordinary householders and used to provide flavouring for cooked dishes. The hyssop is sandwiched together with the cedar-wood inside the crimson coloured wool and the priest throws it inside the belly of the cow after it has split open. This is the meaning of the words in verse 6: “into the burnt part of the cow.” He must not add this to the burning cow until the fire has taken hold of most of the animal, neither must he delay this part of the procedure until after the cow has turned to ash.    When the burning has been completed one hits the remains with sticks together with all the wood from the woodpile upon which the cow was burned. After that the whole remains are sieved and anything black (not yet ash) which one comes across whether remains of wood or animal tissue, is beaten so much that it is reduced to ash.    The water into which the ash of the red cow is poured must have been filled into a vessel directly from a spring or well of water as the Torah wrote in verse 17: “they shall put it on (the ash) spring water in a vessel.” The “pouring” of the ash into the vessel filled with water from a spring or river is what is described as “holy,” and as soon as the ash is added this mixture of water and ash is described by the Talmud as מי חטאת, (water with the capacity to bring about atonement or purification or both). The Torah (verse 13) describes this mix of water and ash from the red cow as מי נדה, “waters of sprinkling.”    The sages imposed additional strictures in connection with who is allowed to perform these procedures. Even a person (priest) who has immersed himself in a ritual bath so that he is ritually pure enough to perform service on the altar is not automatically pure enough to perform the procedures outlined in our chapter. He is neither qualified to burn the cow nor to fill the vessel containing the water which will be mixed with the ash and used in sprinkling on the ritually impure person to be purified. Unless the immersion in a ritual bath was for the express purpose of qualifying for the tasks associated with the procedures of the red cow such immersion is not sufficient ritual preparation.    The sages imposed similarly harsh conditions concerning the vessel fit to contain this mixture of spring-water and the ash from the red cow. For example, even the basins in the courtyard of the Temple which were used to catch the blood from sacrificial animals after these were slaughtered in preparation of their blood being sprinkled on the altar, was not considered as of a high enough degree of sanctity to serve for holding the water-ash mixture unless such a basin had previously been immersed for this express purpose.  Maimonides relates in Hilchot Parah Adumah 13,2 that the kerchief of a man of the piety of Yochanan ben Gudgodah who maintained a personal level of ritual purity which would have enabled him to consume sacrificial meat all his life, was considered as if suffering from a level of ritual impurity known as tumat medress of someone suffering from involuntary seminal emissions, when compared to the degree of ritual purity required to perform the procedures of the red cow.  What were the details of purifying people suffering from contamination through contact with the dead by using these waters known as מי נדה? A ritually pure person takes three stalks of the hyssop plant ties them together each little branch wound with a small stalk. He proceeds to dip the heads of the small stalks in the מי נדה of the vessel containing same. While doing so he concentrates on his intention to use the water-ash mixture to sprinkle it on the person to be purified. This procedure occurs on the third and the seventh day of the seven days of purification after sunrise; the mixture of ash and water is sprinkled on the exposed part of the body of the person concerned. It does not matter how little of it hits the skin. If it only hits the tongue this does not help as the tongue is not considered an external part of the body for the purpose of this procedure. If vessels other than earthenware vessels have become contaminated through contact with the dead, the mixture is sprinkled on those vessels. They are purified without any waiting period afterwards. Thus far excerpts from Maimonides on the subject. 
      A Midrashic approach as presented by Rashi:  Concerning the words: “they shall take to you a red cow.” The words: “to you” mean that the people have to pay for this red cow. Just as when the people had divested themselves of their golden jewelry in order to enable Aaron to make the golden calf (Exodus 32,3), they now have to pay for the instruments which will secure them purification and forgiveness for the ritual contamination they had caused themselves thereby. The matter is best illustrated by a parable. The son of the king’s maidservant had dirtied the palace. Thereupon the king ordered the maid to clean up the filth her son had left lying about. Similarly, the red cow is to atone for the whole episode of the golden calf. The reason that the cow is to be red is understood by the Midrash as natural, seeing that sins are generally associated with the colour red, i.e. blood guilt. We know this from Isaiah 1,18: “if your sins are crimson, they will become white as snow (after expiation).”   The word תמימה, unblemished, is understood by the Midrash as a reference to the unblemished state of the Jewish nation prior to the sin of the golden calf. Due to their participation in that sin in varying degrees they had all became spiritually blemished. The function of the red cow and the procedure of sprinkling the Israelites with its ash and holy water would remove these blemishes. The words: “which has not borne a yoke,” are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to the yoke of the Torah which the Israelites had shaken off by their participation in the sin of the golden calf. They had rejected the yoke of accepting G’d as king. The words: “to Eleazar the priest,” are understood as an oblique reference to Aaron’s share in that sin. The red cow ritual could not be performed by Aaron as the participant in the guilt cannot reverse himself to act as advocate for the guilty. [Aaron could, of course, perform the ritual of future red cows if needed. Ed.] The words: “he shall burn the cow” are an allusion to the golden calf which Moses had burned immediately after his return from the mountain (Exodus 32,20).    The words: “cedar-wood, hyssop, and crimson-red wool,” are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to the 3,000 active participants in the worship of the golden calf whom the Levites had executed. The cedar is the tallest of the trees, whereas hyssop is the smallest. It symbolizes that the tall become haughty, sin as a result, and in the end wind up as the lowest, the most insignificant. The worm, תולעת, (source of the red color crimson) also symbolizes the human being after he has become guilty.  The word למשמרת, “as a safekeeping,” (verse 9) is a reminder that the sin of the golden calf will never be forgotten as every time the Israelites become guilty of a sin and punishment, some of the unexpiated guilt of the golden calf episode will be added to their punishment throughout the generations. This is based on Exodus 32,34: “and on the day when I make an accounting, I shall bring their sin to account against them.” In this way the sin will be remembered for all times.   The golden calf had brought defilement and ritual impurity on all who had any dealings with it, (Psalms 106,28) “they attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices offered to the dead.” [The reference to the “dead” is to compare the impurity conferred by idolatry to that conferred by contact or association with the dead. Ed.]. We also have a verse in Isaiah 30,22 comparing idolatry to associating with a menstruous woman “You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. ‘Out! you will call to them’” The red cow causes similar defilement to all who busy themselves with it. Just as the purification of the Israelites from that sin at the time came about by their being sprinkled with the ash of the golden calf and water (Exodus 32,20), so the red cow procedure will parallel what Moses had done at the time in order to rehabilitate the Israelites who had become defiled.
      Midrash Pessikta d’Rav Kahana  (volume I page 75 edition by Dov Mandelbaum) comments as follows: The word פרה, cow, is a reference to Egypt, compare Jeremiah 46,20: “Egypt is a handsome heifer.” The word אדומה, red, is a reference to Babylon, compare Daniel 2,38: “you are the head of gold (red).” The word תמימה, unblemished, is a reference to the kingdom of the Medes as we know from Rabbi Chiyah bar Aba who described the kings of that kingdom as תמימים, unblemished. The only complaint G’d had against these kings was that they practiced idolatry, a tradition they had carried on from their forefathers. The words: “which does not have a blemish,” refer to Alexander the great. When Alexander came face to face with the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik he got off his horse and stood at attention in greeting him. He said: “blessed be the G’d of Shimon Hatzadik.” His adjutants asked him why he showed such deference to a mere Jew? He explained to them that before every victorious battle the image of this man had appeared to him. The words: "“which has not worn a yoke,” refer to the kingdom of Edom (Rome). This kingdom completely rejected obeisance to G’d even blaspheming Him, as we know from Psalms 73,25: “Whom else have I in heaven? And having you I want no one else on earth.” [This Midrash attributes these blasphemous words quoted by the psalmist to the kingdom of Edom. Ed.]. The words: “and you shall give her to Eleazar the priest and he will take it outside the camp, etc.,” are an allusion to the future when the protective angel of that kingdom will be expelled from the celestial regions. G’d will slaughter this angel representing Edom. We know this from Isaiah 34,6: “for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” Rabbi Berechyah commented on that verse and on our verse (5) “he shall burn the cow in front of his eyes,” that this corresponds to Daniel 7,11: “I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed, and consigned to the fire’s burning.” The words: “its skin, its flesh  and its blood  with its dung shall he burn,” are an allusion to what we read in Ezekiel 27,27: “your wealth, your wares, your merchandise, your sailors and your pilots, the men who made your repairs those who carried on your traffic, and all the fighting men within you, all the multitude within you, shall go down into the depths of the sea on the day of your downfall.” Thus far Midrash Pessikta d’Rav Kahana.
      Tanchuma on Chukat 8 comments as follows on the words: “they shall take a red cow to you.” The words “a cow to you,” mean that I, G’d, will reveal the meaning of this legislation to you, but for everyone else it will remain in the realm of a חוקה, a statute, beyond their understanding. This interpretation is based on an illuminating comment by Rav Huna on two verses (Psalms 75,3 and Zecharyah 14,6). In the former verse the psalmist writes: At the time I choose I will give judgment equitably.” [At that time the justice of My ways will become revealed to everyone, seeing G’d did not mean to imply that up until that time His justice had been inequitable. Ed.]. In the other verse the prophet quotes G’d as saying: “in that day there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight, but there shall be a continuous day -only the Lord knows when- of neither day or night, and there shall be light at eventide.” The meaning of the verse is that there will remain matters which while they are not revealed to you in this world will be revealed to you in that future, such as the blind man who gains his sight, of whom Isaiah 42,16 writes: “I will guide the blind by a road they did not know, and I will make them walk by paths they never knew I will turn darkness before them to light.....these are the things which I have done and I will not abandon them.” The crucial word in that verse is the word עשיתים, instead of אעשה אותם, i.e. “I have done them,” instead of “I am going to do them” (as we would have expected). This means (according to Tanchuma) that what is described here as a view of the future G’d has already shown to Rabbi Akiva and his companions (who descended into the Pardess).   A different approach to the same verse: Even matters which have not been revealed to Moses will be revealed to Rabbi Akiva. This is based on Job 28,10: “his eyes behold every precious thing.” These words which describe someone as seeing “every precious thing” refer to Rabbi Akiva. Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought to myself that I would become wise, but it is beyond me.” The words: “I would become wise,” are a reference to the testimony in Kings I 5,9: “the Lord had given wisdom to Solomon and discernment in great measure....and his wisdom was greater than that of all the Kedemites and all the wisdom of Egypt.” What precisely did the wisdom of the Kedemites consist of? They knew how to interpret zodiac signs, were experts in astrology; they were also familiar with the tiar, a bird  (raven?) based on Kohelet 10,20: “for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter.”   Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel used to say that he liked three customs of the Orientals. They do not kiss on the mouth but on the hand; when they cut meat they always employ a knife; when they ask someone’s advice on a matter they invariably do this in the field (where they cannot be overheard). This latter practice is based on Yaakov consulting with his wives in the field on his decision to leave Lavan (compare Genesis  31,4). What did the wisdom of the Egyptians which Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel praised consist of? You will find that when Solomon was about to build the Temple he sent word to Pharaoh Necho asking him to supply him with artisans on loan to help him in the construction. How did Pharaoh answer this request? He consulted his astrologers to determine which of his artisans would not live out the year and he then dispatched these artisans to Solomon. When Solomon saw these people he realized with the aid of Holy Spirit that they were all going to die during that year. He provided each one with a shroud and sent them back to Pharaoh with a note reading: “were you short of shrouds in Egypt? Here I send you your artisans back with a gift of shrouds.” When the Book of Kings wrote that Solomon was wiser than “כל האדם, “any man” (or “Adam,”) what precisely did the unique wisdom of Adam consist of? You will find a discussion in the Midrash that when G’d was about to create Adam He consulted with the ministering angels about His plan saying: “let us make Adam in our image and in our likeness.” The angels countered: “what is so special about Adam that You want to bother with him?” G’d responded that the Adam He intended to create would be wiser than they. How did G’d proceed to prove His point? He assembled all the beasts, the birds, etc., and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do this. After G’d had created Adam, He paraded all the animals in front of him and asked him: “what is the name of this animal, etc.?” Adam replied: “this one is called “lion,” this one is called “giraffe,” this one is called “sheep,“ etc.; etc. This is the meaning of Genesis 2,20: “Adam called the names of all the beasts.”‘ All these names Adam gave the beasts were not merely arbitrary names he chose to call them by, but they reflected the essence of each animal respectively. I have already discussed this in greater detail in my commentary on Genesis 2,19. When G’d asked Adam what his own name was, he answered: “Adam.” He explained that he said this seeing he had been created out of אדמה, raw material taken from the soil. Thereupon G’d asked Adam what His name was. Adam answered that G’d’s name was the tetragram. When G’d wanted to know what had given him this idea, (seeing he had not been told)  he answered: for You are the Master of all creatures. We know that Adam was correct from Isaiah 42,8  אני י-ה-ו-ה הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name.” G’d meant that He adopted (or retained this name) seeing the first human being Adam had bestowed it upon Him. This was a pact between Adam and G’d that G’d would henceforth be known by the name bestowed upon him by His first intelligent creature.    When we read in Kings I 5,11 that Solomon was wiser than Eytan the Ezrachi, whom did Jeremiah (author of that Book) have in mind when he wrote these words? It was a reference to Avraham. Psalm 89 is attributed to Avraham as the word האזרחי, at the beginning of that psalm is a reference to the “East” according to our sages in Baba Batra 15. Heyman is understood to be Moses (ibid). The philological connection is established by the word נאמן in Numbers 12,7 that G’d said of Moses בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in My entire House.” כלכל, another of the wise men mentioned in the chapter of the Book of Kings extolling Solomon’s wisdom is a reference to Joseph (who “provided” for all of Egypt economically with his wisdom). The Egyptians recognized that the only reason a man whom they considered a slave was able to rule over them was the extreme wisdom of Joseph which enabled him to maintain himself in that position. The Egyptians who had been suspicious of Joseph and his ability brought him seventy different pieces of paper, each in a different language, asking him to explain what was written thereon. Joseph was able to read each in its respective language. Not only that; Joseph also knew Hebrew, a tongue which the Egyptians did not understand. We base this on Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו, i.e. an allusion that Joseph knew something in addition to what anyone else knew. The word דרדע, another person named as very wise in Kings 5,11 is a reference to the generation of Israelites who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai in the desert and who had been granted insights exceeding that of any other generation. They were known as the דור דעה, “the generation imbued with knowledge.” The בני מחול who are also listed in the Book of Kings as possessing outstanding wisdom are an allusion to the people of the period of the golden calf whom G’d had forgiven their participation in that sin, hence they were called בני מחול, “people who had been pardoned.”     The Book of Kings there continues in quantifying Solomon’s wisdom by attributing to him no fewer than three thousand parables (proverbs) and over one thousand poems. Concerning this enigmatic statement Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni opines that he made a search of the entire Bible and could not come up with more than approximately 800 verses in which Solomon is mentioned as saying anything of significance. We are therefore forced to interpret these numbers mentioned in the Book of Kings not as original sayings recorded in the Bible but as the number of interpretations offered by Solomon on a far smaller number of texts. When Kings I 5,13 speaks about Solomon “speaking about trees,” one such example may be that Solomon examined the phenomenon of a person afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat requiring some of the wood from the tallest tree (cedar) and some of the wood from the most lowly tree (hyssop) to effect his purification. Solomon suggested that the cause of the affliction was that the person so stricken was guilty of arrogance, considering himself superior to his contemporaries. In order to be cured of this psychological defect he had to “lower” himself (even in his own eyes) to the level of the hyssop, the lowest of the trees in order to be fit to rejoin society. The Book of Kings goes on to describe part of Solomon’s wisdom as his ability to speak על הבהמה ועל העוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, “on the mammals, the birds, the creeping creatures and the fish.” He defined the reason why mammals, if fit to eat, require the severing of both the gullet and the windpipe, whereas birds require the severing of only one of these organs. He explained that this was related to the raw material these creatures were made of, i.e. the mammals were created from the soil (Genesis 1,24), whereas the birds were created from a mixture of water and soil, i.e. from mud (Genesis 1,20).    When Solomon is reported as speaking about the creeping things, the meaning is that he explained why eight of these species confer ritual impurity on contact with their carcass, etc. He also explained why people who hunt or injure these species on the Sabbath are guilty of a major infraction of the Sabbath legislation, whereas other related creeping creatures are not treated in that way by halachah, i.e. because these eight species are covered by skin (Shabbat 107). Concerning the statement in Kings that Solomon spoke about the fish, he explained why they do not require ritual slaughter in order to make them fit to eat for Israelites, as we know from Numbers 11,22 where Moses speaks of slaughter for mammals and fowl, but implies that the mere gathering in of fish make them fit to be eaten. In short, Solomon declares that whereas he was able to figure out satisfactory reasons for all the legislations of the Torah concerning these creatures, the reason for the red cow legislation had escaped him. It is interesting that the numerical value of the words והיא רחוקה, which Solomon uses to describe his inability to fathom the meaning of something, is the same as that of פרה אדומה, “red cow” (341). 
      When perusing the Bible and the Talmud we find that there have been a total of 9 red cows (view of the sages in Parah 3,5). The first one was burnt during Moses’ life time.; the second one was burnt during the period of Ezra in the early years of the second Temple. Shimon Hatzadik, as well as Yochanan the High Priest (early Hasmonean period), each burnt 2 such red cows. The seventh was burnt by Elihueyni, the eighth by Chanamel the “Egyptian”, whereas the ninth and last was burnt by Ishmael ben Pabi. The tenth and final one will be burned by the Messiah (according to Maimonides).    The meaning of Kohelet 8,1: מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר, חכמת אדם תאיר פניו ועז פניו ישנא, ”Who is like the wise? Who knows what things mean? A man’s wisdom lights up his face, and the boldness of his face is transformed” is as follows: the words: “Who is like the wise?” refer to G’d of Whom it is written: “the Lord founded earth with wisdom.” (Proverbs 3,19). The words: “who knows what things mean?” are also a reference to G’d who explained the Torah to Moses. Concerning the words:  ”a man’s wisdom lights up his face,” Rabbi Yudan said that the power of the prophets is great as they are able to draw relevant comparisons between the manifestation of power in the celestial regions and the appearance of man. Rabbi Yudan bases this on Daniel 8,16: “and I heard a human voice in the midst of Ulai.” Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Seymon derives this point from Ezekiel 1,26: ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה,  “on top of this semblance of a throne, there was a semblance of a human form.” Concerning the words: “and the boldness of his face is transformed,” this is understood to refer to G’d’s ability to switch from His manifestation as attribute of Justice to manifesting Himself as attribute of Mercy when dealing with the Jewish people. Compare Tanchuma Chukat end of verse 6.
      Tanchuma goes on (on verse 7) that there are four pieces of Torah legislation which are targeted by the evil urge especially, all of which have been defined by the Torah as חקה, statute. They are: 1) the prohibition of marrying the wife of one’s brother (as a divorcee or widow with children, whereas she is to become the wife of that same brother-in-law if her husband had not sired children). 2) the prohibition of wearing wool and linen in one garment or sowing different species of seed in the same field. Seeing that it is permitted to make a talit of linen and attach woolen tzitziyot, the evil urge targets this legislation presenting it to us as illogical. 3) the law of the scapegoat which apparently carries the sins of the people as a gift to Satan. The Torah demands that the person accompanying said scape-goat purifies himself (as if the sins of these people “carried” by the beast had contaminated him whereas the scapegoat itself is killed while conferring life (forgiveness) on the sinners whose sins the beast “carries” (Leviticus 16,26). 4) The legislation of the red cow. What arouses the ire of the evil urge is the fact that all those who are involved in the ritual of the red cow, though of superior degree of ritual purity, are contaminated by it, whereas the ash of the same beast sprinkled on a ritually impure person has the power to purify such a person. According to that Midrash, Job 14,4 had this legislation in mind when he said: “Who can produce a clean thing out of an unclean one? No One!” (only G’d). Examples of G’d being able to produce the clean out of the unclean are 1) Avraham sired by an arch idolater such as his father Terach. 2) The king Chizkiyah of Yehudah whose father Achaz was a confirmed heretic. 3) Mordechai who was descended from Shimi of the tribe of Binyamin who had cursed David in the vilest terms. The people of Israel who emerged from amongst all the idolatrous Gentile nations are another example of the seemingly impossible becoming reality. So is the promise of the world of the future which will be the outcome of a transformation of this present world of lies and deceit. Job meant that the only one able to orchestrate such totally unlikely phenomena is the Unique One, the Lord! The Midrash adds the fact that the minimum size which makes an afflicted person subject to the tzoraat disease and contamination being the size of half a bean, while if the entire surface of the skin is covered by the eczema the person thus afflicted remains ritually pure.
      The Midrash just quoted explained to us the remarkable and illogical aspects of these four pieces of legislation the Torah introduces under the heading of “statute,” and in particular the totally incomprehensible fact that a little of the red cow’s ash can reverse the most severe kind of ritual impurity known as אבי אבות הטומאה, i.e. the sword which has killed a person. No wonder that the evil urge at the instigation of Satan tries to seduce us into refusing to accept such statutes which defy our intellect!. The Midrash cites the verse in Job to postulate that indeed what is legislated here could never be ordained by mortal man but had to be reserved for G’d the Creator Who alone can legislate this having demonstrated in life, (the examples of Avraham emerging from Terach, etc.) that it is not as far-fetched as meets the eye.   The Midrash implies that if we can accept that a skin disorder involving a patch of skin less than the size of a bean can result in a person being completely ostracized from society whereas someone whose skin is completely covered with the same disease remains pure,  we can also accept the four examples of legislation which form the specific target of the evil urge.
      The Talmud (Niddah 9) points out that the verse from Job 4,14 also may be applied to the Creator Who saw fit to convert woman’s menstrual blood into milk, i.e. something symbolizing a wasted opportunity (not becoming pregnant) turns into a life-giving nutrient for babies. Such phenomena seen in nature surely make it easier to observe legislation of the Torah even if we do not understand it. Using such reasoning Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir (the famous liturgical poet) pointed out in his poem siluk before the kedushah recited on the Sabbath we read this portion that if the dead body remains inside the house the house itself has not yet become ritually unclean. As soon as the dead body (the source of the ritual impurity) has been removed, the house itself has become ritually impure. On the face of it, this is halachically quite untenable. However, Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir uses the term “house” as a simile for a woman’s womb. His comments describe the halachah we learned in Chulin 71 that  if an embryo dies within the womb of the mother and the midwife touches it upon examining the mother internally, such a dead fetus does communicate severe ritual impurity on said midwife though the mother of that fetus is not affected. As soon as the dead fetus exits from the mother she herself becomes ritually impure for seven days without touching the fetus. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met chapter 25,12). [I believe the Midrash also wants to imply that in the event anyone accuses Moses of having invented this kind of legislation this is totally impossible as a human mind could not come up with such illogical-appearing legislation. Ed.]
      A kabbalistic approach to our paragraph: The red cow is an allusion to the oral Torah, the attribute of Justice in its most severe form. This attribute is the source of ritual impurity. The reason why this chore was given to Eleazar to perform was in order that he should address the attribute of Justice in its most concentrated form. Such thoughts would not be held against him [seeing the author had stated repeatedly that all offerings are addressed to Hashem, the attribute of Mercy, Ed.] as it was slaughtered outside holy precincts and was not considered as a sacrificial offering. This is also the reason this legislation was prefaced with the words זאת חקת התורה, as if to say: “this new kind of legislation that the Torah has seen fit to reveal here as something to be performed outside the precincts of the Temple is not meant to convey the impression that it is addressed to someone other than G’d, G’d forbid.” It is anchored, i.e. embedded, נחקקת in the Torah itself. However, its origin is the oral Torah, which is the sixth of the emanations (counting from מלכות upward). Even though a full comprehension of the mystical dimension of this statute is way beyond our ability to understand,  it is important to understand that the concept of ritual impurity is allowed to spread no further (upward) than the sixth emanation, that of גבורה. This is the emanation, attribute, which characterized Yitzchak who lay on the altar bound by the attribute of Mercy on the outside. If the attribute of Mercy would not have been present and active and the attribute of Justice would be allowed full reign the world would face destruction immediately. This is why the Master of Mercy provided us through this procedure with a method of turning the attribute of Justice at its fiercest into a milder form of itself. This is the meaning of the words: “they shall take to you a cow, one that is red, an unblemished specimen, an animal which has not been tainted by having been subservient to any (other) master such as the emanations (attributes) on the lower rungs of that diagram.” We know that even the next lower emanation was not saved from having a “master” impose a yoke upon it as that emanation, תפארת, harmony, has been associated with the Holy Temple which has been destroyed and therefore has been "mastered” by impure forces on earth. (Compare Isaiah 64,10 בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, and Psalms 78,61: ויתן לשבי עזו ותפארתו ביד צר, “He delivered into captivity His power and glory into the hand of the oppressor.”) The cherubs (on the cover of the Holy Ark) were exiled together with the other furnishings of the Temple and we do not find that they had been hidden, as had the Holy Ark itself as well as the Menorah, the lampstand. The emanations which are “higher” than that of תפארת, are described as בתי גנזי, “the houses of My hidden (treasure)” in Beytzah 16. I have already discussed this in connection with Genesis 6,6 (see our translation there).    The reason that this red cow was slaughtered outside the holy precincts of the Temple was in order for it to be able to chase away, to diffuse the spirit of impurity. This is why the remains of the cow (ash) together with water from an original source, מים חיים, would effect purification by means of the vessel within which it was contained (verse 17). Purity is derived from an influence exerted by the attribute of Mercy, an emanation higher than that of גבורה, i.e. the attribute (emanation) of Justice, the emanation responsible for every kind of impurity. 
      You will need to appreciate that some Kabbalists are in doubt whether the fact that the procedure involving the red cow was carried out completely outside the confines of the Temple meant that it represented a higher degree of sanctity than that which pervaded the Sanctuary. In other words, everything connected with the red cow would have represented “holy of holies,” whereas only a small portion of the Sanctuary itself was designated as “holy of holies.” If so, the level of sanctity represented by the red cow as well as its remains would have been superior to that of the sacrificial animals offered on the Altar inside the precincts of the Temple so that there was really no comparison between the red cow and its counterparts inside the Holy Temple.  On the other hand, some Kabbalists think that the reason the procedure of the red cow was conducted outside holy precincts points to the fact that its sanctity was below that of even the lowest level of sanctity inside the holy precincts and that this is the reason that no part of it was processed inside those confines. These people then raised the following question: assuming that the red cow was of such a high level of sanctity that it surpassed the levels of sanctity in the Temple, how could it possibly confer impurity on its (uncontaminated) handlers? On the other hand, if it was of such inferior sanctity that it had to be slaughtered and its remains kept outside sacred ground, how was it capable of conferring purity on the previously impure?    Some Kabbalists answered these questions by saying that indeed the entire red cow was “holy of holies” and that the reason it conferred impurity on its handlers was that any pure person on earth will automatically become impure through contact with extra-terrestrial purity (which is of far higher degree). Seeing the red cow represented extra-terrestrial i.e. celestial purity (or sanctity) we do not have a problem. This concept is reflected in the Torah writing (Exodus 29,37) “anyone touching the Altar will become holy,” i.e. will be burnt (as had happened to the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu). Total terrestrial sanctity is relegated when it confronts celestial sanctity. What applies to relative sanctity, i.e. terrestrial sanctity versus celestial sanctity, also applies to terrestrial purity as opposed to celestial purity. This may be the meaning of Yuma 21 that אש דוחה אש, אש אוכלת אש, “one category of fire displaces, relegates, another category of fire.” The “fire” of the Shechinah displaces or relegates terrestrial fire.    The Talmud there describes the penalty incurred by the angels who had opposed the creation of Adam by saying that he did not deserve G’d’s consideration. G’d is reported as having stretched out His finger at these angels and burning them. If differences in the quality of fire exist among the angels in the celestial regions it is easy to understand why terrestrial fire should be inferior to even the lowest of the celestial fires.    We are told in a Midrash that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai he reached a certain spot where the angel Matniel barred his way. This angel instructed Moses to proceed further and meet the angel Sandalfon. Moses answered that he was afraid to do so as that angel (angel of fire) would likely burn him. Thus far the Midrash. [Our author’s point in quoting this excerpt is simply to draw our attention to “fires” in celestial regions. Ed.]   According to some Kabbalists the red cow was entirely in the category of holy of holies. Personally, I feel that in some respects it was holy whereas in other respects it was totally secular in status. Seeing that the red cow transmits a spirit of ritual impurity it contains a purely secular element. Seeing, however, that the Torah refers to it as חטאת, i.e. acting as a means to expiate, it must also contain an element of holiness. Because of the fact that it is composed of two opposite elements the Torah applied stricter rules to it than apply to the animals which serve as sacrificial offerings on the Altar, seeing no one is in doubt about their status.    The reason that the Torah writes here about the rules of purification for people contaminated by impurity conferred by contact with the bodies of human beings who have died, is that the ash of the red cow is so crucial in the purification process of such people. The root cause of living creatures contracting spiritual impurity dates back to the original cause of death, the serpent in Gan Eden. This root cause is known as כח המושל, or הר הגדול, (Compare Kohelet 10,4 and Zecharyah 4,7 respectively). Nachmanides writes that the bodies of people whose death is due to נשיקה, a “kiss” by G’d, do not become ritually impure. The prophet Zecharyah in that verse describes the elimination of death, the angel of death, etc., in the future. He employs the simile of the “great mountain which will be flattened at that time” as the simile describing the overcoming of the greatest obstacle in our lives on this earth prior to the coming of the Messiah. This is what Maimonides had in mind when he stipulates that the red cow which will be burned by the Messiah will be the tenth and final one as with the absence of death there will be no need for further such means of purification.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   הנוגע במת, הוא יתחטא בו, “whoever touches the corpse of a human being...he shall purify himself with it , etc.” The word בו refers to the mixture of the ash of the red cow and the spring-water from its respective container. This verse is the origin of the widely accepted practice that when we leave after  a visit to the cemetery we wash our hands as a symbolic gesture. It is merely an allusion to the ritual (nowadays impossible to fulfill) of the purification through the red cow. At the same time the practice is also an allusion to the resurrection of the dead seeing the prophet (Ezekiel 36,5) described this resurrection in the following words: “I will sprinkle upon you pure waters and you will become pure.” The practice of plucking some blades of grass from the cemetery is also an allusion to the concept of the resurrection of the dead as the grass which wilts at night and resurrects itself in the morning is referred to by the psalmist (Psalms 72,16) “let men sprout up in towns like country grass.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ולא יתחטא, את משכן ה' טמא, “if he fails to purify himself, he has contaminated the Tabernacle of the Lord.” The warning contained in this verse applies if the individual in question enters the courtyard of the Temple (Tabernacle) even if he had immersed himself in a ritual bath without having undergone the ritual of sprinkling the holy water with the ash upon himself on the third and seventh day of the purification process. The meaning of the word את in front of the word משכן is the same as if the Torah had written שמשכן ה' טמא. We have a similar construction in Psalms 71,18 where the psalmist writes לכל יבא גבורתך,  where the meaning of the words is לכל שיבא גבורתך, “so that I can tell everyone (of the next generation) of Your mighty acts.” There are many other examples in the Bible where the letter ש has not been written but is implied.    In verse 20 of our chapter the Torah changes its syntax writing: כי את מקדש ה' טמא, “for he has contaminated the Sanctuary of the Lord.” Why did the Torah once refer to the Sanctuary as משכן and once as מקדש? The reason the Torah uses both expressions is to tell us that although the Tabernacle was only a temporary structure to be replaced by a permanent one and I would have thought its sanctity is inferior to that of the Temple, this is not so. On the other hand, I could have thought that the Tabernacle was holier seeing it had been anointed with the holy oil of anointing as opposed to the Temple which was not so anointed. By writing both expressions the Torah equates both structures in their levels of sanctity.
      Nachmanides writes that in our verse (13) where the person who had failed to purify himself has entered the holy precincts he is guilty of the karet penalty even if he had immersed himself in a ritual bath beforehand seeing he had failed to apply the ritual involving the ash of the red cow. When the Torah appears to repeat itself in verse 20 the subject is not the entering of holy precincts before purification but the consuming of sacred food, meat from the offerings before one has completed the purification process involving the ash of the red cow. The difficulty is that the Torah did not need to tell us this as we know it already from Leviticus 7,20 where the karet penalty is spelled out for anyone eating sacred meat while in a state of ritual impurity [even a lesser degree than impurity caused through contact with a corpse. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore understands the word מקדש in verse 20 as similar to מ-קדשי, “the sacred things of,” similar to Numbers 18,29 את מקדשו ממנו,“sacred parts of it.” The portion here would then include both kinds of impurities resulting in the karet penalty for the person remaining in that state and becoming guilty of either transgression while contaminated.
      It is possible to understand the word משכן in verse 13 as a reference to the Tabernacle on earth, whereas the word מקדש is a reference to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions and the Torah teaches us that both Tabernacle and the eventual Temple were parallel in their function to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions. All of this is based on Exodus 15,17 מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש ד' כוננו ידיך, “the foundation of Your dwelling place that You Hashem have made, the Sanctuary my Lord which Your hands established.” You find משכן and מקדש equated in that verse. When someone introduces impurity into the Sanctuary or Tabernacle on earth he simultaneously defiles the Sanctuary, i.e. Tabernacle in the celestial regions. Ezekiel 45,4 speaks of מקדש למקדש, Nachmanides understands verse 20 as a reference to the concept expressed by the prophet, i.e. that the כנסת ישראל lends sanctity to the Temple in the terrestrial regions by taking up residence there. It is also possible that it relates to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions whose sanctity is enhanced through the כנסת ישראל, so that it will serve as Sanctuary for the highest attribute of the Lord, a concept expressed by Solomon in Kings I 8,14 when he said: בנה בניתי בית זבול לך, “I have surely built a residence for Your celestial region known as zevul.” This whole idea is expressed even more directly by Psalms 122,3 and explained in Taanit 5 ירושלים הבנויה כעיר שחוברה לה יחדו, “Jerusalem derives its sanctity because it is a city joined with its counterpart, i.e. celestial Jerusalem.” This is the mystical dimension of the very word ירושלים which, because of its plural ending, points at a dual city, one terrestrial the other celestial. It is similar to the word עינים, meaning “two eyes,” רגלים, meaning “two feet,“ and many other similar examples. Whenever the word ירושלם is spelled without the letter י it means that the missing letter is the reference to the celestial Jerusalem seeing that on the five occasions the word is spelled in the Bible with this letter this is a reminder that seeing the letter ה, “five,” is the last letter in the tetragrammaton, that in due course Jerusalem on earth and Jerusalem in the heaven will be joined in a real sense. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  . אדם כי ימות באהל, “when a person dies in a tent (or house), etc.” although the legislation which follows applies equally to people dying inside a house or other roofed structure, the Torah chose the example of “tent” since at the time the Israelites in the desert lived in tents. Legislation mentioned here is valid both at the time it was written and for all future generations. We learn from here that contamination caused by being in the same enclosed airspace with a corpse results only from the corpse of a Jew as only Jews qualify for the title “אדם.” (compare Ezekiel 34,31 “for you My flock are אדם”). Although there are verses scattered throughout the Bible in which the Gentiles are referred to by the same “title” (Numbers 31,11), the sages have already answered this apparent contradiction in Yevamot 61, namely the word had to be used there in order to distinguish Gentiles from beasts which were also numbered as part of the booty. A similar explanation applies to the verse in Jonah 4,11 where אדם is contrasted with the beasts. In other words, the only time the term אדם is used for Gentiles is when it is in contradistinction to בהמה, beast. We are still faced with the word אדם referring clearly to Gentiles in Psalms 124,2. Megillah 11 explains that in that verse the word אדם means “ordinary human,” not a “king.” Another instance which appears to bestow the title אדם on Gentiles is found in Isaiah 43,4. The Talmud Berachot 62 suggests that the word in Isaiah be read as אדום instead of as אדם, i.e. that the “people” G’d will give as ransom  for the Jewish people will be the Edomites. A more problematic text involving the word אדם is Leviticus 18,5 on which Sanhedrin 59 suggests that even a Gentile who studies the laws of sexual chastity and observes them attains the level of purity reserved for the High Priest. It is pointed out that in the relevant verse the word for the Gentile is האדם as distinct from אדם. Whenever the Torah speaks of האדם, Gentiles are not excluded. This leaves us with Jeremiah 32,20: where G’d speaks of miracles performed “before Israelites and אדם,” which appears to imply that both peoples merited the miracles, i.e. were on similar ethical levels. The problem is answered by pointing out that whereas these miracles were beneficial for the Israelites, they were at the same time extremely damaging to the Egyptians who are referred to in that verse as אדם. It is clear therefore that far from equating the Israelites and the אדם, i.e. Egyptians as on a similar moral level the prophet wanted to contrast the levels of Israelites with that of people characterised as אדם.
     כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent, etc.” is contaminated as a result. If someone carries the corpse or touches it he is most certainly no less contaminated than someone merely sharing the same airspace with the corpse. Seeing that we have legislation decreeing ritual impurity on anyone carrying dead beasts which had died by natural causes as opposed to ritual slaughter although such impurity lasts only for a day, it is clear that carrying a human corpse would be at least as much a cause for contracting severe ritual impurity as if one merely shared the same airspace with it. This is why the Torah did not have to bother to spell out this detail in connection with contact with a corpse through carrying it. We find a similar silence of the Torah on the prohibition of a father sleeping with his daughter seeing the Torah had already forbidden sexual relations between the same man with his granddaughter (Leviticus 18,10). Another example of the Torah remaining silent on a law that can be derived by simple logic (קל וחומר) is the prohibition to eat meat and milk together. If the Torah had already forbidden for milk and meat to be cooked together, it is clear that it must not be eaten together either after it has been cooked.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   בחלל חרב או במת, “someone slain by the sword or one that died naturally;” if the Torah had wanted to equate the two examples of corpses it should have used the expression: בחלל או במת, “someone slain or dead of natural causes.”  Why did the Torah mention חרב, “sword?” The Torah chose an example of most victims who die a violent death. Although the Torah chose the example of the “sword” as the cause of death, the same contamination occurs when the victim was killed by a stone or a wooden arrow, for instance (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met 1,2).    Our sages in Shabbat 101 point out, however, that the example חרב, i.e. a metal tool, means that the metal weapon contracts the same degree of impurity אבי אבות הטומאה, the absolute primary cause of ritual contamination, as does the corpse itself. The reason is that the sword, by definition, is a means for causing death, is designed to cause death and therefore ritual impurity. The sword, while halachically contracting a degree of impurity equaling that of its victim, the corpse, in that the impurity it confers upon those touching it lasts for seven days, and requires the same purification rites as does the one who became defiled through contact with the corpse itself, does not  confer such impurity by the person being merely in the same airspace with it. We derive this from the words אדם כי ימות באהל, “i.e. when a human being dies inside a tent, etc.” the corpse can confer ritual impurity upon such a person, the sword by which he was killed, however, cannot confer that particular type of impurity. The truth of this statement is guaranteed, as if such a sword could confer impurity by a survivor being in the same tent with it, all the priests would be forbidden to enter their own houses seeing each of them contains a sword or metal tool such as a nail which by its very presence would confer impurity on the priest concerned.   This concept has been illustrated by Rabbi Chayim from Germany who sent the following inquiry to Rabbeinu Tam (grandson of Rashi): Seeing that every house at one time or another contains a corpse, and it also has metal nails which are an integral part of its construction, what house can one build in order to avoid ritual contamination by these factors? (The Rabbi quoted Isaiah 66,1 “which is the kind of house that you (man) can build for Me (G’d)” as the gist of his question.) Clearly, Rabbi Chayim understood the reference to חרב in our verse as including all kinds of objects made of iron, otherwise his question does not make sense. [this is in contrast to some authorities who understand the word חרב as applying only to the murder weapon or other weapons made of the same material]. The question therefore presupposes that Rabbi Chayim applied the term חרב to mean that any metal object would confer the status of absolute prime cause of ritual contamination on anyone in the same airspace as it. This understanding of the halachah is based on a statement in Shabbat 101 where Samuel said that a ship (and contents) which lay at anchor and was connected to the harbor by means of iron chains will incur ritual impurity of primary severity (אב הטומאה) if the chain touched such a source of ritual impurity on the quay. Samuel’s statement was meant to apply to degrees of ritual impurity which are of Biblical force, as opposed to ritual impurity due to Rabbinic decree. At any rate it is clear from what he said that he did not distinguish between a sword and some other tool made of metal.    In Pesachim 14, where mixing oil of the Menorah which has been disqualified by differing degrees ritual impurity is discussed, the Talmud states  that the words בחלל חרב in our verse mean that a metal lampstand which has become contaminated by a primary cause of impurity has the same degree of impurity as the corpse which made it impure in the first place. This is beyond dispute where the lampstand was in direct contact with the corpse (after death) as opposed to it having been the cause of death of the person who contaminated it.    We have learned in Keylim 1,1: “primary causes of ritual impurity are: 1) a dead unclean reptile; 2) semen which is still virile; 3)  a person who became ritually unclean through a corpse. Seeing the person who was in some kind of contact with a corpse becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, it is clear that the source of that impurity, i.e. the corpse itself must be of a higher degree of impurity, i.e. the one known as אבי אבות הטומאה, “the root cause of impurity.” It is well known that derivatives of such a root cause of impurity have the ability to confer descending degrees of impurity to a sixth level (generation) not further. [In other words, anyone more than six persons or objects removed from the root cause cannot be negatively affected by such a root cause. Ed.] The six levels of ritual impurity are known in descending order of severity as: 1) אבי אבות הטומאה, 2) אב הטומאה, 3) ראשון לטומאה, 4) שני לטומאה, 5) שלישי לטומאה, (applicable only to תרומה, produce imbued with a low level of holiness. 6) רביעי לטומאה, (applicable only to matters imbued with high levels of sanctity such as sacrificial meat). We do not encounter a further 7th level of impurity as permanent purity is attached to anything that far removed from a primary cause of impurity. These waters are known as מים טהורים, “pure waters,” as we know from Ezekiel 36,25: “I will sprinkle upon you (the people of Israel) pure waters.” During periods of exile, these waters are known as שערי דמעה, “the gates of tears,” seeing that tears are a derivative of the power reposing in water. Our sages in Baba Metzia 59 are on record that even when all other “gates” (such as the gate of prayer) are locked, the gates of tears always remain open, i.e. our prayers when accompanied by tears always can reach heaven. This seventh level of purity [i.e. a level beyond possible contamination, Ed.] is known as the מים העליונים, the waters of the upper regions (Chagigah 15). This is another name for the attribute (emanation) of חסד which is the seventh emanation counting from the lowest one, מלכות. In the Torah these waters are described as מים חיים, “waters which retain the quality of life.” They are the waters which the prophet Zecharyah refers to as emanating from Jerusalem on the day heralding the redemption (compare Zecharyah 14,8). When the prophet describes these waters as coming forth from Jerusalem, he refers to celestial Jerusalem. When you peruse the Torah’s report of the creation you will find the word מים mentioned 5 times in connection with the second day of creation and 2 more times in connection with the third day of creation. These seven occasions when מים is mentioned on those two days allude to the fact that the work of the second day was not really complete until the third day. [This is also why the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” are absent in the Torah’s report of what was created on the second day. Ed.].    Our sages in Tractate Machshirim 6,4 speak of the existence of seven different kinds of liquids and the potential ability or otherwise of these liquids to contract and confer ritual impurity. The liquids in question are 1) dew; 2) water; 3) wine; 4) oil; 5) blood; 6) milk; 7) bees’ honey. The first time the word מים appears in the Torah in the report of G’d’s creative activity on the second day corresponds to the basic concept of water, a regular liquid. The other six times when the Torah refers to מים in its report of G’d’s activity on the second and third day what are meant are the derivatives of the basic element water, i.e. the six additional liquids (something fit to drink) mentioned in Machshirim. All the six other liquids listed in the Mishnah in Machshirim appear in the Bible as “drinks” employing either the term שתיה or השקאה. In Exodus 17,6 the Torah writes: “some water emerged (from the rock) and the people drank.” In Genesis 24,43 Eliezer asks Rivkah to let him drink some water. In Leviticus 10,9 the Torah forbids the priests to drink wine or liquor on certain occasions. In Jeremiah 35,2 G’d told the prophet to go to the house of the Rechabites and to give them wine to drink. The term used there is והשקית. Oil is used as a liquid used for drinking in Isaiah 25,6: “the Lord will make on this mount for all the peoples a banquet, משתה, containing rich oils.” Blood is mentioned in the Torah as a drink in Numbers 23,24: “Israel will drink the blood of the slain” (Balak’s prophecy/blessing). Another verse mentioning blood as a drink is found in Ezekiel 39,17  where G’d tells the prophet to address the birds promising them: “assemble and gather from all around for the sacrificial feast I am preparing for you;..... eat flesh and drink blood.”  Dew is referred to as water, מים, in Judges 6,38 where Gideon is described as “squeezing the dew from the fleece, a bowlful of water.” Bees’ honey is mentioned as a drink in Deut. 32,13: “He made him suck honey from a rock.” Finally, milk is described as a drink in Judges 4,19: “she (Yael) opened a skin-bottle of milk and gave him some to drink.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . והזה הטהור על הטמא, “the ritually clean person is to sprinkle on the ritually impure person, etc.” Rabbi Akiva derived from the words על הטמא instead of simply עליו, “on him,” that the extra word teaches that if the ritually impure person was sprinkled with the ash/water mixture he would be purified by it, whereas if accidentally a ritually pure person was sprinkled with the same ash/water mixture such a person would become ritually impure as a result (compare Yuma 14). This is why Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “I said I want to acquire wisdom, but it has remained still far from me.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו, “the one who administers the ash/water mixture has to wash his clothes.” Seeing that he himself is ritually pure and he administers the ash/water mixture to a ritually impure person why should he be required to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath? The reason is that in the process of sprinkling the ash/water mixture on the ritually impure person some of it may have splashed his clothing. This is what I have heard as an explanation of this halachah. However, the collective opinion of the sages in Yuma 14 is that the person concerned does not need to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath at all. The sages there understand the word מזה in our verse to mean נושא, “carries.” The reason why the Torah chooses the unusual word מזה to describe carrying is that the amount of water needed to wash the clothes in question is no larger than the amount of the ash/water mixture needed to sprinkle on the ritually impure person, just enough water as is absorbed by dipping the tips of the hyssop stalks in the mixture.
  
  Verse 22
  
  . וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, והנפש הנוגעת תטמא, “Anything which the contaminated person will touch shall become contaminated, and the person who touches him will become contaminated.” The meaning of the words והנפש הנוגעת is: “a person who touches another who has been contaminated by direct contact with the corpse will also be contaminated.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . כל העדה מדבר צן, “the entire congregation to the desert of Tzin.” The reason the Torah speaks of כל העדה, “the whole congregation,” is because in the interval all the people who had to die in the desert had already died and the congregation was “whole” again. Now, in the first month of the fortieth year since the Exodus the new generation was about to enter the land of the Canaanites. You should remember that the Torah basically reports only what had transpired during the first year and during the last year of the Israelites’ wanderings.
     וישב העם בקדש, ‘the people settled in Kadesh.”  Kadesh is the name of a town. The desert Tzin mentioned in our verse is also referred to in the list of all the points where the Israelites made camp in Parshat Massey. (33,36). The “Kadesh” mentioned here is not the same as the “Kadesh-Barneiah” mentioned there. We must not confuse the desert of Tzin with the desert Sin, a word spelled with the letter ס. That wilderness is situated between Eylim and Mount Sinai. Psalms 29,8 mentions יחיל ה' מדבר קדש, “the Lord convulses the wilderness of Kadesh.” Numbers 33,11-15 enumerates 5 way stations between the desert of Sin and the desert of Sinai.
      The Jewish people remained in the town called Kadesh  for many years as we know from Deut. 1,46.  Our sages (Tanchuma Vayeshev 1) have stated that whenever the Torah speaks of וישב, “he settled,” this is an introduction to the people concerned experiencing something painful. This is why the Torah follows the report of the Israelites settling in Kadesh with the report of the death of Miriam. Her death and its ramifications became the direct cause of Moses and Aaron not being allowed to enter the Holy Land.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ולא היה מים לעדה, “The congregation had no water.” As soon as Miriam died, the well which had traveled with the Israelites all these years ceased providing water. The water which the people had enjoyed all these years was due to the merit of Miriam who had stood by watching what would happen to her infant brother when he was in a basket in the reeds at the edge of the river (Exodus 2,4). G’d had rewarded her for that act of kindness by making her the provider of water for Moses’ people. The people had not appreciated this until the well ceased with Miriam’s death.
  Our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 20 claim that the song Israel sang in Numbers 21,17, i.e. אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת, “then Israel would sing this song, etc.,” was sung at the end of the forty years whereas the well had been provided for them at the beginning of the forty years.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ולו גוענו בגוע אחינו, “if only we had died as our brethren died, etc.;” they referred to the older generation who had died in the desert.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויפלו על פניהם, “They prostrated themselves” in an attitude of prayer.   וירא כבוד ה' אליהם, “The Lord’s attribute of kavod appeared to them.” To Moses and Aaron but not to the people.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם, “you shall provide water for the congregation and for their beasts.” This verse proves G’d’s concern for the Israelites’ possessions. (Tanchuma Chukat 9).
     ודברתם אל הסלע לעיניהם, “You will speak to the rock in their presence, etc.” the rock called סלע in our verse here is identical with the one called צור at Mount Chorev. It is also identical with the well of Miriam. This is the opinion of our sages in Taanit 9. We find that this rock appears under four different names סלע, באר עין משפט, צור,. In Genesis 14,7 it is called עין משפט, (the well of judgment) seeing the Torah reports the four kings as returning from a battle to a place known (to the reader) as עין משפט, identical with Kadesh. The former name derived from the fact that Moses was judged there. It was also called צור, seeing that in Exodus 17,6 G’d had told Moses that when he would stand at that rock at Chorev he should strike it with his staff and it would produce water. The name צור, a name for G’d, [instead of סלע, Ed.] was given to this rock as it was a site at which G’d revealed Himself. Seeing that here at Kadesh G’d did not reveal Himself, it is referred to merely as סלע, seeing that G’d instructed Moses and Aaron: “you shall speak to the סלע.” It is also referred to simply as באר, seeing the Torah says (Numbers 21,16) “it is the same באר where G’d had said to Moses: ‘assemble the people so that I can give them water.’” [If, at that point the rock had already been a well as suggested by the word באר, G’d’s instructions would not have made sense. The point was to convert the rock into a well. Ed.].   Seeing that at the death of Miriam this well had ceased providing water, G’d wanted it to resume to function as a well by means of the merit of Moses. The fact that this rock is referred to as הסלע instead of merely as סלע, shows that it had previously functioned as a well.
      You should know that there are many different opinions concerning the precise nature of Moses’ sin in this portion. Rashi holds that Moses had not been commanded to hit the rock at all but only to speak to it, and to instruct it in the name of the Lord to produce water. He bases himself on the words: “you shall speak to the rock.” If we were to ask what was the point of his being told to take his staff if not in order to strike the rock, this is no argument seeing that practically all the miracles Moses had performed involved his staff although not necessarily that he used the staff to strike something with. For instance, we find in Exodus 4,17 that G’d told Moses to take his staff in order to perform the miracles with it but no mention is made of his using the staff to strike something or somebody. His sin therefore (according to Rashi) consisted in his striking the rock without having been commanded to do so. The penalty was applied to both Moses and Aaron as apparently they had agreed to use the staff to hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock. By doing so they minimised the impact of the miracle, seeing that G’d had wanted to demonstrate that the rock would respond to G’d’s command even if merely spoken to. Had Moses carried out G’d’s instructions  the people would have said to themselves that if a mere rock responds to verbal instructions by G’d to completely change its nature by turning into a well, how much more must intelligent people like themselves heed all instructions given to them by the Lord! Now that that they saw that the rock responded only to Moses’ physical force as a result of being struck, this gave some of them a chance to use this as an argument that Moses had achieved his objective by superior wisdom and machinations but that there was no question of the rock having responded to a command from its Creator. The people’s faith in G’d’s ability had been undermined by Moses’ hitting the rock. This is why G’d said to both Moses and Aaron: “because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel” (verse 12). Had they only spoken to the rock this would have resulted in a great sanctification of the Lord’s name.
      Maimonides, in the fourth chapter of his introduction to tractate Avot, views Moses’ sin as being that he addressed the people as מורים, “rebellious” (verse 10). Had he not been angry at the people which caused him to use such an unflattering description of them he would not have forgotten the instruction that he was to speak to the rock. When a man of the stature of Moses allows himself to become angry the result is liable to be a desecration of the Lord’s name. Even the bodily motions of a man of Moses’ caliber normally inspire people who see him, give them confidence of their progress towards a better world, the hereafter. When people observe that their leader reveals frustration such confidence is undermined. Public display of frustration displays an internal conflict in man. This in turn reduces his disciples’ confidence in him. The people were very intelligent as they had experienced visions which even a great prophet such as Ezekiel had not experienced (Mechilta Shirata 50). When the people observed Moses being angry they assumed that Moses’ anger at them reflected G’d’s anger at them for having demanded water. This was an erroneous conclusion as the Torah does not indicate with a single syllable that G’d considered their request as inappropriate. When G’d said (verse 24) מריתם את פי, “you defied My word,” He referred to the mistaken image of G’d’s reaction to their request conveyed to them through Moses’ demeanour.
      Rabbeinu Chananel  believes that Moses’ sin consisted of the word נוציא, “we shall extract,” or: “shall we extract?” By using the first person plural Moses created the impression that it was his and Aaron’s task to extract water from the rock. He should have said יוציא, “He, G’d, will extract water for the people from the rock” (verse 10). The moment Moses said: “we shall extract water,” some of the people thought that whereas on the first occasion when Moses had struck the rock this had been a miracle, a demonstration of G’d revealing His power (Exodus 17,5-7), this time there would not be a similar intervention by G’d in their fortunes. These people simply thought that Moses and Aaron used their own devices in order to produce water from the rock. This is reflected in the Torah writing: “because you have missed an opportunity להקדישני, “to demonstrate My Holiness before the eyes of the Children of Israel” (verse 12). According to Rabbeinu Chananel the expression להקדישני is reflexive, i.e. to cause G’d to appear as Holy, whereas the words לא האמנתם בי are to be understood as transitive, i.e. “you have failed (to exploit the opportunity) to instill in the people an additional dimension of faith in Me.”
      The verses in front of us all support parts of the opinions expressed by Rashi, Maimonides, and Rabbeinu Chananel. But the overall meaning of the subject discussed in our paragraph is not explained satisfactorily by either one of these illustrious Rabbis. Rashi’s approach would be acceptable if the speaking to the rock would be the only miracle at issue and not the striking of the rock. However, how can we ignore the fact that if water emerges from a rock after the rock has been struck that this is by itself a powerful miracle? Is there then a qualitative difference between the two kinds of miracle? Seeing G’d had instructed Moses to take his staff (instead of leaving it in his tent) surely he was meant to use it to strike the rock!  Also the words of Maimonides do not clarify all the problems raised by the text. He was himself aware of this as he said that he clarified one of the problems in our paragraph by his comments. His comments would be acceptable if indeed there were proof that Moses was angry and displayed anger during this episode. However, the  words: שמעו נא המורים, do not necessarily reflect anger on Moses’ part but mean that he addressed the people as a group which needed to be admonished. Aaron, who stood beside him, certainly had never been angry during his career. He was known as always pursuing peaceful means. Had he permitted himself to become angry and display anger he would not have qualified for the title רודף שלום. Why would he suffer the same fate as Moses if he had not been angry, had not displayed anger, had not said anything inappropriate?    Also the words of Rabbeinu Chananel are not totally convincing. If Moses had said: מן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “we will produce water for you from this rock,” he would be correct. However, this is not what Moses said. He said המן הסלע וגו', “shall we produce water from this rock?” Moses implied that they themselves most certainly did not have the power to produce water from that rock. Moses made it clear that only G’d could orchestrate such a miracle. Still, his words are the most plausible of all the commentators.
      A kabbalistic approach: The sin is connected to the word פעמים, “twice” (verse 11). This solves all the problems which have been raised previously. The mystical dimension of the whole episode is as follows: The Lord, the Unique One, Who had descended to the mountain, i.e. Mount Sinai at the time He gave the Ten Commandments, was the same attribute that had revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 17,6 where Mount Chorev is identified with the צור, the site also known (Psalms 132,5) as משכנות לאביר יעקב, “an abode for the Mighty One of Yaakov.” The expression צור in connection with G’d revealing Himself to Moses occurs again in Exodus 32,21 where G’d tells Moses to take up a position “next” to Him describing that place as על הצור, “next to the Rock” (the Lord). When G’d had instructed Moses to hit the rock in Exodus 17,6, He had first described His presence in the words הנני, i.e. הנה אני עומד לפניך שם על הצור, “Here I am standing in front of you by the rock at Chorev and when you strike the rock water will emerge, etc.” The attribute of י-ה-ו-ה appears frequently in the guise of the word אני. Moses had struck the rock only a single time, seeing he had been receiving his instructions from a single attribute of Hashem. Here at Kadesh G’d had not spelled out which attribute of His had issued the instructions as He had not said הנני וגו', “here is My attribute אני, etc.” There had not been a manifestation of the glory (attribute) of G’d such as there had been in Exodus. As a result of doubt as to which attribute had issued the instruction Moses and Aaron both agreed to hit the rock twice, i.e. once in respect of each attribute which could have issued such an instruction, i.e. either the attribute צור or the attribute Hashem. They considered it quite likely that the Shechinah was angry at the people [for having blamed Moses for the shortage of water, Ed.]. The people, who had all been privy to manifestations of the Shechinah on the previous occasions associated with the phenomenon described as צור, were aware that this time there had not been such a manifestation of G’d’s glory. In view of all of these considerations Moses and Aaron felt the need to attract the attribute of Hashem, attribute of Mercy, hence they struck the rock twice (instead of merely once). It is important to realise that neither Moses nor Aaron entertained any wrongful thoughts in any of this. Their sin resulted exclusively from the fact that by their action they missed an opportunity presented to them by G’d to aggrandise His name, i.e. להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל.    When Moses, in referring to this incident in Deut. 3,26 as well as in Deut. 1,37 says once ויתעבר ה' בי למענכם, or גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם, he meant in both instances that the attribute of Hashem had become angry at him for having missed an opportunity למענכם, or בגללכם, “for your sakes,” to strengthen your faith in the Lord. Although their intentions had been good, striking the rock twice could have led the people to believe that Moses’ powers [and by extension G’d’s power, Ed.] had waned and that this was why he had to strike the rock twice instead of merely once. His sin was inadequate faith in G’d. He should have had faith enough not to hit the rock twice. This is why the Torah writes in verse 12: לא האמנתם בי, “because you did not plant sufficient faith in Me.” G’d referred to His attribute אל-הים, which is usually referred to as שם. This is the G’d known as אלו-ה יעקב ההפכי הצור אגם מים, “the G’d of Yaakov who coverts the rock into a pool of water” (Psalms 114,7-8). The expression מריתם פי also means: “you rebelled against that attribute פי, an alternative name for אלו-הים. We find support in the Midrash (Eicha Rabbati 1,61) for the statement that the word פי is a name for G’d’s attribute אלו-הים. The prophet (Jeremiah in Eycha 1,18) speaks of “Hashem is righteous for I  disobeyed His attribute פי” (i.e. אלו-הים). It is as if the prophet described Israel as disobeying G’d’s essence as well as His attributes, i.e. agents. We can understand this better by means of the parable in Bereshit Rabbah 27,6 (described by the author in the latter half of his commentary on Genesis 6,6). In Deut. 32,51 on the other hand, the Torah describes the sin of Moses and Aaron as מעלתם בי, “you have committed a trespass against Me,” meaning: “you have denied My name.” In either event, it appears to us based on all these different expressions that the sin was primarily an indirect one, i.e. that Moses’ and Aaron’s actions resulted in some undesirable fallout in the minds of the people who observed their actions. Sifri Haazinu comments in the same vein. 
      We should reflect on the fact that at the burning bush the miracles which occurred were performed by the attribute of Justice, to wit that Moses’ staff turned into a serpent (as a punishment for his making an inappropriate remark about the faith of the Jewish people). Moses’ hand turned white as a result of his suffering the skin affliction known as tzoraat surely also a miracle orchestrated by the attribute of Justice. Water turning into blood was certainly also a manifestation of the attribute of Justice at work. Our sages in the Midrash and the Talmud (Shemot Rabbah 3,19) are on record that originally “the sela dripped blood,” i.e. that when Moses hit the rock it first produced blood instead of water. This may also be the source of Psalms 78,20 speaking of ”here he struck the rock and water flowed.” The word ויזובו used by the psalmist to describe the flow is one that does not usually describe water flowing but blood flowing (compare Leviticus 15,25).    Although Moses himself did not even hint at such a thing in his various references to this episode, we do find allusions to it in the writings of the prophets a well as in the hagiographa. Assaph alluded to it in Psalms 78,20. Isaiah 48,21 hinted at it when he wrote both the word הזיל and the word ויזובו מים in the same verse referring to the same event. (“He made water flow for them from the rock, He cleaved the rock and water gushed forth”). Psalms 114,8 also suggests that the blood turned into water (the word אגם, “a pond,” has the same numerical value as דם, blood). Seeing that the sin of Moses and Aaron involved the צור, another term for the word הארץ in Genesis, their punishment was denial of entry into the ארץ. [Compare our translation to Genesis 6,6 about the kabbalistic approach to G’d being saddened at the need to bring on the deluge. Ed.].
     ונתן מימיו, “it will yield its waters.” The Torah should have simply written ונתן מים, “it will yield water.” What is the meaning of the suffix “its?” Had the Torah not written the suffix we might have concluded that there was water beneath the rock which had been freed through Moses’ addressing it, moving it by giving it an order to move. This would not have been a special miracle. The Torah therefore reports that Moses was instructed to release water from the rock itself merely by giving such a command in the name of Hashem. Another way of looking at this suffix  is that the potential of this rock producing water goes back to the six days of creation. Now G’d had seen fit to activate this potential. Our sages in Avot 5,6 already mentioned that the well of Miriam was one of the things created at dusk on the sixth day to be activated when the occasion would arise. Seeing that the word מימיו, “its waters,” allows people to think that perhaps the waters of this rock were natural, the Torah had to emphasize “you will produce waters for them out of the rock.” The Torah also chose the expression הוצאה because it is usually associated with supernatural events. When G’d told Avraham that He had taken him out of the fire of the Chaldeans (Genesis 15,7) saying אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים,  He referred to the miracle of saving him from the furnace of Nimrod. When G’d referred to having taken Israel out of Egypt, He also used the expression הוצאתיך (Exodus 20,2). He referred to the miracles associated with the Exodus. Isaiah 48,21 is similar in nature where the prophet referred to צור to stress the miraculous nature of what occurred. The words והוצאת להם מים indicate that whole rivers of water flowed from the rock seeing that otherwise it would have been impossible for several million Israelites to drink water from that rock as well as to water their beasts. Psalms 78,16  makes this point clear when referring to the event in a second verse: “He brought forth streams from a rock and made them flow down like a river.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . לכן לא תביאו, “therefore you will not bring, etc.” Our sages in Pessikta Zutra claim that the expression לכן always denotes a statement equal in force to that of an oath. We find this word introducing G’d’s oath to punish the descendants of the house of Eli in Samuel I 3,14: “Therefore I have sworn, etc.” In our verse it means that G’d swore that neither Moses nor Aaron would enter the Holy Land. This is the reason why the paragraph is followed immediately by Moses sending messengers to the King of the Edomites to let the Israelites pass his country on their way to the Holy Land. In Kadesh Moses had forfeited his right to enter Eretz Yisrael and it was from there that he sent emissaries. 
  
  Verse 13
  
   המה מי מריבה, “They are the waters of strife, etc.” According to Tanchuma Chukat 11 this is proof that the location Kadesh was instrumental in G’d associating Moses’ punishment with water. We read in Genesis 14,7: “they turned around and came to the well of judgment which is Kadesh.” It was called thus as it had been predestined to serve as a place to sanctify the Lord’s name.
     ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them,” (Moses and Aaron). G’d’s characteristic is to make the punishment fit the crime. Seeing that Moses and Aaron had been the cause that G’d’s name was not sanctified there by them, it had to be sanctified through them. Just as G’d’s name was sanctified through exacting judgment from Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu through killing them, and the Torah describes this as an example of בקרובי אקדש, “I will be sanctified through those who are near Me,” (Leviticus 10,3) so He was sanctified here through the decree not to let Moses and Aaron go unpunished. Seeing the sin began through the Israelites, they were the cause that Moses and Aaron committed an unintentional trespass. Psalms 106,32 makes it plain that G’d was angry at Moses and Aaron on “their account,” i.e. on account of the Israelites. It was they who were the root cause of this tragic episode.    The matter may be understood by means of a parable: There were two women both of whom were sentenced to corporal punishment by their king, one for unchaste behavior, the other for eating unripe figs of the shemittah year (a minor offense). The latter woman asked the King to make public the cause of her punishment so that people should not think that she was guilty of a serious crime such as that of her companion. Similarly, Moses himself asked G’d to make public the sin for which he had been condemned to die outside the Holy Land so that people would not speculate that he was guilty of a far greater sin than he had actually been punished for. Moses’ downfall was the indirect result of G’d’s anger with His people in first withholding water from them. Seeing that the tribe of Levi was not included in the decree issued against the people on account of the spies, Moses too would not have had to die in the desert had it not been for his error at the rock. Numbers 14,29 speaks of כל פקודיכם למספרכם, ”of all of you who were recorded in your various lists from the age of twenty and up, etc.” In other words, only the men of military age who would have had to form part of the invading armies were doomed to die in the desert, not the Levites who 1) were counted from one month and up, 2) would not have served in the army. The Levites had been counted as if they were a separate people.
  
  Verse 14
  
   מקדש אל מלך אדום, “from Kadesh to the king of Edom.” The Torah means the town Kadesh, as opposed to Kadesh-Barneya. The latter is not a town but a desert as we know from Psalms 28,8 יחיל ה' מדבר קדש, “the Lord convulses the wilderness of Kadesh.” I have already mentioned this previously
     כה אמר אחיך ישראל, “thus said your brother Israel, etc.” Moses referred to the time when Esau and Yaakov were brothers, described as the sons of Avraham. Seeing that in Genesis 15,13 G’d had told Avraham: “your descendants will be strangers, etc.,” it is clear that Esau too was included in that prediction. It had therefore been Esau’s fate to share this status of being strangers and being enslaved. אתה ידעת את כל התלאה אשר מצאתנו “You know of all the hardship that has befallen us” This is why Esau parted ways with his brother Jacob, so as to avoid sharing in the predicted difficulties. The least he could do to help his erstwhile brother complete his redemption was to allow the Israelites passage. Moses’ argument was that seeing that the Israelites, i.e. a single member of Avraham’s offspring had paid the whole price of the prediction at the covenant of the pieces, the least the Edomites could do was to let them pass through their land.
  
  Verse 15
  
  . ולאבותנו, “and to our forefathers,” this was a reference to the Israelites who, though enslaved in Egypt, had not lived long enough to experience the redemption. According to our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 12, the word is a direct reference to the patriarchs, all of whom are described as participating in the pain of the enslavement their offspring had endured in Egypt even in their graves.
  
  Verse 16
  
   וישמע את קולנו, “He listened  to our voice (prayer).” This was a reference to the power of prayer i.e. הקול קול יעקב, “the voice is the voice of Yaakov,” bequeathed by Yitzchak to  his son Yaakov (Genesis 27,22). 
     וישלח מלאך, “He dispatched an angel, etc.” A supernatural being, not an emissary such as Moses (Ibn Ezra). This is based on Isaiah 63,9 ומלאך פניו הושיעם, “and the angel of His Presence delivered them.” It is also possible to see in the word מלאך a reference by Moses to himself (Rashi) as we find in Chagai 1,13:  ויאמר חגי מלאך ה', “and Chagai, the Lord’s messenger said to the people.” In the eyes of the people Moses enjoyed the status of an angel in that he was so totally devoid of preoccupation with matters pertaining to the body. We have proof that this is how the people had viewed him as at the time when they thought he would not come back from Mount Sinai they said: “this man Moses who has taken us out of Egypt we do not know what happened to him.” Apparently, until Moses’ failure to return on time the thought that Moses could be an ordinary mortal had not occurred to them (compare Exodus 32,1). [As soon as Moses did return they clearly thought of him as an angel even more, seeing he went without food or drink for 40 days. Ed.].
  
  Verse 17
  
   נעברה נא בארצך, “let us pass through your land.”  This is a hint to Edom not to challenge Yaakov’s inheritance of the land of the Canaanites seeing the Edomites had not fulfilled the other half of the condition, i.e. to endure being strangers and being enslaved in a foreign land.
     לא נעבור בשדה או כרם, “we will not traverse field or vineyard.” We will not cause any damage.  לא נשתה מי באר, “we will not drink water from wells.” According to the plain meaning this means that Moses undertook not to drink from sources of water belonging to the Edomites. According to Tanchuma Chukat 12, Moses made a more far-reaching promise saying that while on their march through the land of the Edomites the Israelites would not even drink from their own well. They would buy water from the Edomites instead.
     דרך המלך נלך, “we will only travel along the King’s highway.” This may mean that they would only make use of the road used by the King himself; or it could mean that they would only travel a route allocated to them by the King of Edom.
     עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we have traversed the far side of your borders.” Moses did not  say: “until we come to the land G’d has promised us, etc.,” although this is what he had in mind. He felt it was better not to mention that land altogether so as not to annoy the King who might reopen the subject of Yaakov having stolen Esau’s birthright. You will note that later on when Moses asks similar permission to pass through the land of Sichon, Moses was not shy to spell out his intention (Deut. 2,29).
  
  Verse 18
  
  . לא תעבור בי, “You will not pass through me!” He meant his country (political entity). The King referred to the direct route to the land of Canaan. Neither he nor his people made any attempt to hinder the progress of the Israelites when they straddled his country marching around it through the region known as Mount Seir. This is why Moses referred to this in a positive sense when he said in Deut. 2,29: “as did for me the sons of Esau who dwell in the Mountain of Seir.” When the Israelites asked permission from Sichon, King of the Emorites, to pass through his land they meant “in the same way as we passed through the land of Edom.” I will elaborate on this theme when we discuss that passage.
  
  Verse 19
  
   במסלה נעלה, “we shall go up on the highway.” Originally, Moses had asked permission to travel through their cities, assuring them that they would not cause any damage. After being denied permission to traverse any urban areas of the country, Moses tried once more to obtain permission to travel on what was the equivalent of an international highway, away from urban areas, a highway used by different nationalities freely without the need to obtain special travel permits. According to Nachmanides the words אין דבר mean that no possible inconvenience or negative political fallout could be caused to the king by the Israelites taking such a route (for which they did not even need to ask permission). Only when the king refused this too and assumed a threatening posture did the Israelites accept his decision.
     ברגלי אעברה, “let me pass through on foot!” Clearly, the word ברגלי means “with my troops.” This expression at this point also enables us to understand the meaning of Zecharyah 14,4: ועמדו רגליו על הר הזיתים, “His legs stood on Mount Olives.” The word רגליו is a simile for “His Hosts.” All those like Onkelos who are careful not to translate anthropomorphic expressions literally will interpret the word in this vein. You might counter that there is no comparison as the armies of mortals march literally on their feet, something not applicable to G’d’s “armies.” The fact is that when we speak of celestial phenomena we apply the term רגלים “feet”, to the lowest part of the manifestation and the word ראש, head, to the highest part of such a manifestation. The word does not have to be understood literally as we do here in our terrestrial spheres. Seeing that the Creator is always the highest form of celestial manifestations it is clear that all manifestations of a lower level are automatically described as רגליו, as compared to the ראש, i.e. G’d Himself, they are like “feet.”    Alternatively, we can understand the word רגליו in Zecharyah to refer to the results of G’d’s planning, something described as סבותיו, For instance, the words: ויברך ה' אותך לרגלי, (which Yaakov said to Lavan (Genesis 30,30) do not mean: “the Lord blessed you at my feet,” but “the Lord blessed you on my account.” I have already dealt with this whole problem in Genesis 6,6 on the words ויתעצב אל לבו, (the commentary of “the plain meaning”).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כל העדה, the entire congregation.” Seeing that we had been told that the King of Edom confronted the Israelites with all his military might, the Torah wanted to tell us that the people’s arrival at Hor Hahar found all of them intact. They had not suffered a single casualty.
      According to Tanchuma Chukat 14 the meaning of the word הר ההר is: “a small mountain atop a bigger mountain.” Aaron was buried in the part referred to by our text as הר. We derive this from the words: “Aaron died there at the top of the mountain.” Even though the cloud which traveled in front of the Israelites was in the habit of leveling all mountains and valleys, three mountains remained in the desert which the Israelites traversed. They are: Mount Sinai (in order to give the Torah to the people), Mount Hor Hahar as the burial place of Aaron, and Mount Nevo as burial site for Moses.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” The Torah employs the same term it had employed when Aaron was appointed as High Priest where G’d had also said to Moses: “take Aaron” (Leviticus 8,2).
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
    ויפשט משה את אהרון את בגדיו, “Moses stripped Aaron’s garments from him;” he removed the garments he wore in his capacity of High Priest and gave them to Eleazar his son in his presence. At this point Moses took back what he had given Aaron, i.e. the clothes, as we know from Leviticus 8,7, and G’d took back what He had given Aaron, i.e. his soul. Moses instructed Aaron to enter a cave in that mountain and Aaron entered it. He saw that a bed stood all prepared with fresh linen and that a light was burning beside it. Moses told Aaron to lie on the bed and Aaron complied. He then told him to stretch out his hands and Aaron did so. He told him to close his mouth and Aaron did so. He then told Aaron to close his eyes. Aaron complied. At that point Moses became desirous of dying in the same manner that he observed his brother dying. This is the meaning of G’d saying to him in Deut. 32,3: “just like your brother Aaron died,” i.e. the kind of death you wished for yourself.    The sages in Torat Kohanim (96,130) explain that some miraculous events took place with Aaron’s priestly garments. Under normal circumstances outer garments remain outer garments and underwear remains underwear. Moses undressed Aaron in the same order in which he had originally dressed him (compare similarities in the wording here and in Leviticus 8,7) in a miraculous manner to show G-d's honor of Aaron in death even more than during his lifetime.
      The location where Aaron was buried, i.e. on a mountain facing south, near the boundary of Edom was especially suitable for him as he represented the “right” attribute, [חסד, an emanation on the right side of the diagram, Ed.] i.e. “south.” It was equally appropriate for Miriam to have been buried at Kadesh, a location midway between south and north. Moses’ grave on Mount Nevo was situated between Kadesh and Hor Hahar so that from Moses’ grave (if its exact location were known) one could have easily reached either one of the other two graves. This is the reason that Mount Nevo is also known as הר העברים, “the mountain of passage”, i.e. it was open for passage in either direction. The reason that the three were not buried in the same location was to make their grave site fit their dominating attributes. An additional reason was to enable their graves to serve as some kind of protection for the Jewish people and to afford them some atonement for the sins which had been committed nearby. [Compare all this in Zohar Chukat, Sulam edition page 23. Ed.].    According to Tanchuma Chukat 14 the reason why the paragraph dealing with the death of Aaron was written adjoining that of the refusal of the king of Edom to allow the Israelites passage reflects  a criticism by the Torah of the attempt made by Moses to establish friendly relations with this wicked King by obtaining his permission to rub shoulders with his people on their way through his land. As a result, the Jewish people lost one of their leaders, i.e. Aaron. The Midrash quotes Chronicles II 20,37 “as you have made partnership with Achazziah (King Jehoshaphat of Yehudah) the Lord will break up your work,” as support for its view.
     וימת אהרן שם בראש ההר, “Aaron died there at the top of the mountain.” We have a tradition that three people died by the divine “kiss”: Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. In connection with Aaron and Moses the Torah spells this out when it wrote that they died על פי ה', literally: “by the mouth of the Lord.” In connection with Miriam this is not spelled out, (seeing she was female, and the Lord is perceived as male) it would not be appropriate to write this explicitly). 
  It is somewhat puzzling that in our verse the Torah does not write the words על פי ה' in connection with Aaron’s death although in Numbers 33,38 we do find this expression in connection with Aaron’s death. Presumably, the Torah did not want to write it in our paragraph as this paragraph had dealt with the sin causing his death; it would have sounded almost like a reward for his sin if the Torah had described his death as a kiss from G’d so shortly after reporting his fatal error. Seeing the Torah had omitted this vital detail of Aaron’s death at this point, it was necessary to make mention of it in 33,38.
  
  Verse 29
  
  . ויבכו את אהרן שלשים יום כל בית ישראל, “the entire house of Israel wept for the passing of Aaron for thirty days.”  The expression בית ישראל includes men and women. When the Torah reports the mourning of Moses the word בית is absent, as the Torah writes ויבכו בני ישראל את משה, “the Children of Israel wept for the passing of Moses in the fields of Moav for thirty days” (Deut. 34,8). The difference was that Aaron, in his capacity of striving always to restore harmonious relations between people patched up many marriages. This is why men and women alike wept for his passing (compare Rashi).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד יושב הנגב, The Canaanite, i.e. the King of Arad who dwelled in the south heard, etc.”  Actually, this was not a Canaanite tribe but Amalek (Tanchuma Chukat 18). The King is described as a Canaanite as he decided to speak the Canaanite dialect in order to deceive the people about his identity. He hoped to thereby make the Israelites pray for deliverance from the Canaanite attack whereas they had not been attacked by Canaanites at all. If G’d would deliver them from the Canaanites he, Amalek, would remain unscathed. Israel were not taking chances as they appealed to G’d to be delivered from the attacker without specifying his nationality. They simply said: “if You will deliver us from this nation, etc.” (verse 2).
     דרך האתרים, “by the route of the spies.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this expression is “the spies.” The Torah means that the Amalekites had heard that the Israelites now were moving along the same route that the spies had traveled 38 years earlier. This is also Onkelos’ understanding of these words.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Chukat 18: the word האתרים is an allusion to the “great traveler (spy),” i.e. the Holy Ark which was in the habit of traveling three days’ march ahead of the main body of the people in order to spy out (find a location) for the people to make camp (Numbers 10,33).   Some commentators feel that the king described here as the King of Arad was in fact Sichon the King of the Emorites and the reason he is referred to here as “the Canaanite” is that that every Emorite is also a Canaanite by definition.     Our sages  in Rosh Hashanah 3 say that the news which the Canaanites had heard was that Aaron had died and that the protective clouds above the camp of the Israelites had disappeared. This is the meaning of 20,29: “the whole congregation saw that Aaron had died.” How could they all have seen it? They had not climbed Hor Hahar! They noticed that the cloud had disappeared and they realized that its presence had been due to Aaron’s merit. Up until that time the encampment of the Israelites had not been visible to the other nations at all. Rabbi Avohu said that instead of reading the word ויראו, “they saw,” it could be read וַיֵרָאוּ with the vowels tzeyre and kametz, and the meaning would be: “they had become visible.” Tanchuma also writes in that vein, i.e. the Jewish people now looked like a woman whose head-covering had been removed.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויסעו מהר ההר דרך ים סוף לסבב את ארץ אדם, “They journeyed away from Hor Hahar in the direction of the Sea of Reeds to commence their trip around the land of Edom.” Seeing that the King of Edom did not permit them to cross his territory they were forced to backtrack seven way stations before taking the route around the land of Edom. Our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 18 link this to Deut. 10,6: “the Children of Israel had traveled from Be'erot Yaakon to Mosserot where Aaron died. We know that Aaron had died at Hor Hahar. The meaning therefore is that they backtracked and only eulogized Aaron at Mosserot so that it appeared to them as if Aaron had died then.
  
  Verse 5
  
   כי אין לחם ואין מים, “for there was neither bread nor water.” The statement that there was no bread seems incomprehensible seeing they received the manna daily! They also must have had plenty of the water which had gushed forth from the rock in great quantities!    We must understand the people’s complaint as being a rebellion against their unnatural state of existence. Other nations had abundant supplies of bread and water both of which could be stored whereas the Jewish people wondered from day to day if they would have bread and water on the morrow. Seeing that the continued existence of the people appeared to hinge on immediate reward and punishment they felt themselves in a uniquely disadvantaged position when compared to the Gentiles.    Moreover, they claimed, “even the daily manna we receive is an inferior kind of bread as instead of giving our stomachs the feeling that it is full after having eaten it, our stomachs feel quite light, i.e. empty.” They expressed themselves as being fed up with that kind of existence. They knew of no other creature born of a mother that continuously imbibed food without having to excrete any of it (based on Yuma 75). G’d had intended that the daily dependence of the people on that day’s manna would teach them to put their faith in Him so that their dependence on Him should be like that of the slave on his master. He had related to the people as if they were on the level of angels.   They now had become guilty of a terrible slander against the heavenly manna. The people now used this fact as something negative, found fault with the heavenly food! Seeing their sin consisted of slander, G’d sent against them the creatures which had invented slander, i.e. snakes. Tanchuma Chukat 19 describes the punishment as fitting the crime seeing that however many different kinds of creature a snake devours they all taste like dust to it, as it had been cursed with: “dust you shall eat all the days of your life!” (Genesis 3,14). The Israelites by comparison had been given a single type of food, which however assumed all kinds of different tastes in accordance with the owner’s wishes. Another reason they were being punished through snake bites was that during the entire 40 years G’d had ensured that the snakes whose natural habitat is the desert would not attack any Israelite. Seeing that the Israelites had not appreciated this G’d simply did not continue to work this miracle and the snakes which now bit the people were not a plague, but merely the inhabitants of that desert.    The reason why the Torah does not write: “G’d sent snakes against the people,” i.e. seraphim, but it writes: ”the snakes which are the seraphim,” underlines that these snakes were not a new or different phenomenon at all. When Moses had told Pharaoh that G’d would punish him with an invasion of wild beasts (Exodus 8,17), he did not say הנני משליח בך ערוב, “here I am about to sent against you wild beasts,” but he said את הערוב. By this he meant that the wild beasts which are normally content to stay in their habitat will change their nature and invade the urban areas. Similarly here; the snakes which had suppressed their lifestyle by not harming the Jewish people though biting Gentiles, would now not practice any restraint whatsoever in their habitual confrontation with human beings, Israelite or not. The term לחם הקלוקל, is an insult, as if the Torah had written that the manna was the לחם קל שבקלים, “the least valuable kind of bread there was.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמרו חטאנו כי דברנו בה' ובך, “they said: ‘we have sinned in that we spoke out against G’d and against you.’” They asked forgiveness from Moses and admitted their guilt. Moses then prayed on their behalf as it says: “Moses prayed on behalf of the people” (verse 7). This episode teaches that if someone asks a person’s forgiveness for insults committed against him the injured party should not be cruel and refuse to accept the apology (compare Tanchuma Chukat 19). We find, for instance that Avraham prayed on behalf of Avimelech who had wronged both him and Sarah (Genesis 20,17); also Job had prayed on behalf of his friends (Job 42,10). If someone refuses to pray on behalf of his fellow when called upon to do so he is called “a sinner.” Samuel explained this to the people when he explained to them why he was prepared to pray on their behalf (Samuel I 12,23).
     ויסר מעלינו את הנחש “so that He will remove the snake (plague of) from us.” Actually, we would have expected the word הנחשים, “the snakes” (pl.), instead of the word הנחש, “snake” (sing.). The reason the Torah uses the singular is to allude to the lethal power of the snake, serpent, mentioned earlier. The Torah refers to the spiritual representative of the snakes whose residence is in the desert. When the Jewish people said מעלינו, instead of ממנו, they meant “the one who is above us,” instead of merely “away from us.” We find a similar expression in Numbers 14,9 where Calev described that the protective force of the Canaanites had already been withdrawn from them as: סר צלם מעליהם, “their protective shadow has departed from above them.” This will also enable you to understand a verse in Zecharyah 6,1 וההרים הרי נחשת, “and the mountains are mountains made of copper” [a comment which appears irrelevant at first glance. Ed.]. The word נחשת is understood as derived from השחתה, “destruction.” Although the mountains mentioned by the prophet are destructible,  the four chariots representing the glory of the Lord mentioned in that same verse are indestructible (based on Maimonides  Moreh Nevuchim section two 10th chapter). It is a reference to the “great mountain” which features in the vision of Zerubabel as an insurmountable obstacle but which G’d promises will be reduced to level ground  (vision of Yehoshua High Priest, Zecharyah 4,7)
  
  Verse 8
  
  . עשה לך שרף, “construct for yourself a type of snake called seraph.”  In response to this instruction the Torah writes that instead of a seraph, Moses made a נחש נחשת, “a snake of copper.” Moses had understood that what G’d had in mind was that he should make a snake of copper. He did not mean to countermand G’d’s instruction. G’d had refrained from referring to this snake by its proper name so as not to mention the creature (original serpent) by name which had brought mortality into the world. By speaking of seraph, G’d referred only to the adjective associated with the serpent, the result of its bite. When G’d added the word לך, i.e. that Moses should make the seraph for himself, instead of saying simply: make a seraph,” He meant  that He had accepted Moses’ prayer on behalf of the people to the extent that He forgave them their trespass against Himself; however Moses had to do something for himself in order for the people’s insult against him, Moses, to be forgiven, in order to demonstrate to the people how seriously G’d takes an insult against His chosen instrument, i.e. Moses. 
  
  Verse 9
  
   והביט אל נחש הנחשת וחי, “if he looked up to the copper snake he would live.” The cure was the opposite of the natural process. If the person who had been bitten would look at the snake which bit him he would endanger himself. [The author explains the cure in the same way as the working of inoculation, i.e. injection of the ingredient causing the disease, except that when we use inoculation this is done before the disease has struck. Ed.]. King Chizkiyah (Kings II 20,7) was cured by applying dried figs to the area infected by boils (a procedure which normally intensifies the skin rash he suffered from); the bitter waters at Marah (Exodus 15,25 compare Mechilta) were sweetened by throwing bitter (not sweet) wood into it. Here too, instead of an antidote to the snake and what it looks like the people had to look at an even more deadly looking snake. Red copper, the material Moses’ snake was made of symbolizes the planet Mars associated with war and death. In this instance by looking at “death” the people were cured. In other words, there occurred what our sages describe as “a miracle within a miracle.” It is a well known fact that if someone who has been bitten by a rabid dog subsequently looks into water and sees a reflection of a dog he will surely die. The Talmud Yuma 84 also discusses antidotes for bites by a rabid dog including the need to drink water only from copper vessels. The danger continues for 12 months during which time an appearance of the reflection of the dog may be lethal to the victim of the bite. Physicians warn people not even to mention the word “dog” or “rabid dog” to the victim of such a bite as it brings to mind associations which may prove fatal for the victim. Such people have been known to imagine seeing the image of such a dog even in their urine. At any rate, the reason we mention this is to demonstrate that here the requirement to look at the very symbol of what bit them had therapeutic effects for the victims instead of the reverse. This demonstrates the magnitude of the miracle. G’d’s purpose in commanding Moses to make a snake and for the people to focus on it was to show them that it was not the snake that causes death but the sin (compare Berachot 33).
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויסעו בני ישראל ויחנו באובות, “The Children of Israel journeyed and camped at Ovot.” Tanchuma Chukat 19 proceeds to comment on the significance of these various way-stations mentioned in the verses following, seeing in each of them an allusion to what occurred there. The word אובות is related to אויב, “enemy,” i.e. that the people still suffered from a display of G’d’s anger at that place. The next location mentioned, i.e. עיי העברים, is an allusion to anger, עברה, i.e. G‘d remained angry at the people for 38 years. The name “river זרד,” which is mentioned next as a resting place, is understood to describe such a narrow body of water (זרת, the distance from thumb to the little finger when the hand is extended) that the idea that it took 38 years before the people could cross it was also a source of frustration for them. Moses repeated this theme in Deut. 2,13 where he recalls that G’d finally gave the instruction to the people to cross this “river.” The point is reinforced when the Torah writes in Deut. 2,14 that it took 38 years for the people to travel the distance from Kadesh Barnea to the river zered. When the Torah continues in verse 13 of our chapter to describe that משם נסעו ויחנו מעבר ארנון, “from there they journeyed and camped “beyond” Arnon, the word מעבר is understood by Tanchuma as signifying that finally G’d’s anger at the people i.e. עברה, had passed and they were in G’d’s good graces again. The normal construction in that verse should have been ויחנו ב-עבר ארנון, “they camped on the far side of the river Arnon.” The change from בעבר, to מעבר gave rise to the Midrash’s insight on that verse. We find that immediately after the people crossed the river Arnon G’d addressed Moses once again. [There had been a silence of verbal communication from G’d ever since the decree that the generation of the spies had to die. Ed.]. (Compare Deut. 2,24, that G’d spoke to Moses immediately after the people  reached the river Arnon).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  'על כן יאמר בספר מלחמות ה', “therefore it is said in the Book of the wars of Hashem.” The verse refers to the encampment and the miracles which took place at that place. The words: “in the Book of the wars of the Lord,” is a separate verse not connected to that which preceded it. It is a reference to a Book in which the Israelites had recorded all the wars G’d fought on behalf of those who revere Him. It is entirely possible that this Book as well as many others were lost in the course of our long history and wanderings. The Book’s first entry may well have been Avraham’s campaign to rescue his nephew Lot (Genesis 14,14-24). It is likely that the "Prophecies of Nathan and Ido" (II Chronicles 9,29) and the "Chronicles of the Jewish kings" (II Kings 15,11) and the "songs and parables of King Solomon" (I Kings 5,12) are further examples of historical records which have been lost in the course of time. This is the view of Ibn Ezra on Kings I 5,12.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת, “Then Israel sang this song:” According to the plain meaning of the text the principal content of this song is the reference to the Emorites who drowned in the river Arnon and whose blood mingled with the waters from the well which accompanied the Israelites on their journeys (compare Rashi). This might account  for the mention of ואת והב בסופה ואת הנחלים ארנון, “and the gift of [the Sea of Reeds and the rivers of Arnon”] (verse 14).    Personally, I believe the meaning  of the verse is that what occurred there was also recorded in the Book of the wars G’d fought on behalf of the Israelites, and the word בספר in verse 14 does not mean “book” so much as “enumeration;” i.e. this “war” which the Israelites only learned about after they saw all the blood in the river Arnon was accounted another one of the wars recorded for posterity. G’d had destroyed a town known as והב by means of a tornado or something like it, סופה being a reference to a great storm. The tributaries of the river Arnon were also destroyed by that storm.   A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Chukat 20: the words את והב בסופה mean “what He had given to them (the miracles G’d performed, i.e. the assistance He had given) at the Sea of Reeds.” The words ואת הנחלים ארנון mean “and the rivers and the miracles He performed for them at the river Arnon and its tributaries.” What precisely were the miracles performed at Arnon?  Answer: אשד נחלים “so much blood was poured into these rivers that they looked red.” Onkelos uses the word שפך here for the spilling of the blood of the Emorites, a similar expression he used in Leviticus 4,12 on the words אל שפך הדשן,  which he renders as מישד קיטמא, a place for shedding blood.    The background to all this is the tradition that the Emorites were hiding in the clefts of these high rocks on either side of the river Arnon. The river was narrow but deep, its banks forming a deep canyon. The opposite sides of the rocks were so close together that people on one side could converse with those on the opposite side. However, the only way they could get across to one another was by first descending to the river and then climbing the cliffs on the opposite bank. The Emorites planned to exploit this phenomenon to ambush the Israelites when the latter would attempt to cross the river by bombarding them from above with a hail of all kinds of missives, rocks, burning torches, etc. G’d brought about a storm or earthquake which banged together the two opposing sides of these cliffs squashing he Emorites who had been hiding inside them. The blood of these people drenched the river so that the Israelites did not even become aware of their miraculous escape until hey saw that the river had become red with blood. This was the comparison with what happened at the Sea of Reeds that our verses alluded to in poetical form. The words אשר נטה, “when it veered,” in verse 15, describes the motion of the cliff in the opposite direction toward Moav during this happening. The cliff then stuck to its opposite number across the river.
     ומשם בארה, “and from there to the well;” from there (the river Arnon) the stream of blood flowed all the way to the well which was the source of drinking water for the Israelites. When the people realized their miraculous escape upon seeing this blood, they immediately composed the song of thanksgiving described in verses 17-20.
  
  Verse 18
  
  . באר חפרוה שרים, “a well dug by princes.” A reference to Moses and Aaron. The reason the Torah calls them by the title שרים and נדיבי העם, is because they used their staffs to dig the well. Seeing that the Torah (or the authors of the words of the song) equated Moses and Aaron by referring to them by the same titles, the Torah had to add the word במחקק, “through a lawgiver” (sing.) to teach us that after the death of Miriam the well became reactivated only through the merit of the lawgiver, i.e. Moses.
     וממדבר מתנה, “and from a desert, an inhospitable place to a great gift.” The gift of the well was considered an historic gift. From there the people proceeded to the rivers and tributaries of Arnon where the great miracle we just described took place. All the words of the song relate in one form or another to acts of kindness G’d performed for His people. From the rivers of Arnon the people traveled to Bamot, the land of the mighty Kings Sichon and Og who qualified for such a title. From the Bamot Hagay as far as the field of Moav there was no other river that could have provided water for them except the well of Miriam/Moses.
      A Midrashic approach: The introductory words אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת, “then Israel sang this song,” appear deficient. Surely we would have expected the additional words: “to the Lord” as we have in Exodus 15,1 where Moses composed the song. The appropriate wording would have mentioned first the name of G’d and afterwards the name of Moses or it should have described Moses as the composer of this song also. The reason this was not done was that this very well was the cause of Moses having to abort his mission of leading the people to the Holy Land, the reason he had to die and be buried on foreign soil. It would therefore not have been fitting to mention his name in a song of thanksgiving for that well. Since Moses is not mentioned, G-d's name is omitted as well in deference to Moses. We can understand this by means of a parable: A king was invited to a festive meal somewhere. He responded to the invitation by saying that he would only attend if a certain friend of his would be there also. 
  
  Verse 19
  
   וממתנה נחליאל, ומנחליאל במות, “from Matanah to Nachaliel, and from Nachaliel to Bamot.” Rabbi Yehudah (Midrash Tehillim 5) said that the Jewish people merited receiving the Torah as a result of their being in the desert (last word in verse 18). Unfortunately, at Matanah [the very site where they received this gift. Ed.] they acquired idolatry by saying: “these are your gods O Israel, etc.” (Exodus 32,4). The word מתנה referred to Moses giving the Torah to Israel (Exodus 31,18). The same Rabbi Yehudah reads the word במות not as “heights,” but as ב-מות, death; i.e. after having received the Torah (נחליאל a heritage from G’d) they became subject to death for violating this gift, this heritage, i.e. the Torah. He quotes Numbers 14,35: “in this desert they shall perish, they will die.” The words ובמות הגיא he understands as a reference to Moses having to die in the valley (compare Deut. 34,6: “He buried him there in the valley”).
      A different Midrashic approach to the allusions contained in this song of the Israelites involving their well: The words וממדבר מתנה imply that when a person abandons himself totally to the toil of studying Torah, i.e. he is as devoid of other claims upon him as is a desert, then the Torah (insights) will be granted to him as a gift, מתנה. Seeing that Torah was given to such a Jew as a gift, נחל אל,”a G’d given inheritance,” as we know from the word נחליאל, he will ascend to spiritual greatness במות, heights. Should he allow this to fill him with pride, arrogance, G’d will bring him down from such eminence, i.e. ומבמות הגיא, “and from lofty heights down to the valley.” If he will learn the lesson to become humble, G’d will elevate him once again, i.e. כל גיא ינשא, “every valley (humble person) will become elevated.”
      A kabbalistic approach to this paragraph (song). The song  just as the prayer draws celestial lofty thoughts and preoccupation earthward into our domain. Seeing that this is so both the individual as well as the community who recite such songs in praise of the Lord will draw G’d’s blessings down to earth. 
  Remember that the numerical value of the word שירה is the same as that of תפלה, i.e. 515. Both words appear in the same verse and are compared to one another, to wit: יומם יצוה ה' חסדו ובלילה שירה, עמי תפלה לאל חי, ”By day may the Lord vouchsafe His fanciful care, so that at night a song to Him may be with me, a prayer to G’d my life” (Psalms 42,9). In this verse the psalmist speaks of שירה, (noun) when in fact he should have spoken of שירו, an imperative of the verb “to sing.” When the Torah writes in our paragraph that the Israelites sang את השירה הזאת, you are already aware of the meaning of the word זאת, that in kabbalistic terms it is a reference to the emanation מלכות, the link between the עולם העשיה, our terrestrial world and the next higher kind of “world” the emanation יסוד, lowest level of the עולם היצירה. The terrestrial world we live in is directly “inspired,” נאצלת, from this emanation known as מלכות or זאת. The mystical dimension of Lamentations 2,19: קומי רני בלילה לראש אשמורות שפכי כמים לבך, is that the prophet does not speak of בראש אשמורות, which would mean that the supplication discussed in that verse takes place during the early part of morning, but he said לראש אשמורות, “to the head of these watches of the night”. The speaker addresses celestial forces of the emanations. He appeals to the ראש, the head, i.e. the highest of these forces, the tenth emanation, to Hashem Himself. In the song offered by the people of Israel here, the words עלי באר ענו לה are also an appeal in the first instance to the באר, the well, the lowest of the emanations. By saying עלי באר, they encourage that force to rise up to the highest emanation, the source of all blessing whence their prayers will be answered, i.e. ענו לה. The reason they called the emanation זאת or מלכות by the name באר, well, is that a well collects water, the essence of all blessings on earth. This lowest emanation is the receptacle of G’d’s outpourings of blessing. The simile of באר as a vessel collecting G’d’s bounty recurs again and again in the Sefer Habahir of Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah. In his book the terms באר and כסא represent the lowest and the highest (כתר) emanations respectively. [The author proceeds to trace the journey of such prayers (songs) through the various emanations until they reach the highest emanation as represented by similes in our text. I have contented myself with providing you, the reader, with an outline of his approach. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  . כי עז גבול בני עמון, ”for the border (territory) of the Children of Bney Ammon was powerful.” The verse is a simile. It is a reference  to G’d’s instructions to the Israelites not to harass either the Bney Ammon or the Moabites (Deut. 2,19). This instruction made the territory of the Bney Ammon inviolate against any assault by the army of the Israelites. When the Torah mentions in verse 26 that Cheshbon was the capital of Sichon who had conquered it from the first king of Moav, this indicates that the reason Israel was allowed to conquer the lands of Sichon was that it was not included in the part of the territory concerning which G’d had warned the Israelites. This is also the meaning of the somewhat enigmatic statement in Chulin 60  עמון ומואב טהרו בסיחון, that “Ammon and Moav were purified through Sichon.” The conquest by Sichon of some of their territories invalidated the injunction to the Jewish people not to harass them. If the Torah saw fit to mention poetry by the local Emorites (verse 28) in which the victory over Moav is celebrated, our sages have reported to us details of the bravery and mighty deeds of Sichon and the power of the city Cheshbon by saying that even if Chesbon had been filled with only flies no ordinary army could have conquered it. They added that even if Sichon had been in the valley (without the added advantage of being on a mountain) no one could have overcome him (Tanchuma Chukat 23). They claim that even his name Sichon meant that his personal strength was tabletalk all over the country (the word סיחון sounding like שיחה). They deduce from the fact that the Torah makes special mention of the Israelites also killing Sichon’s son, [something which is included in the statement that no one escaped. Ed.] that this son was a mighty warrior in his own right already at that time. Possibly this is deduced from the fact that in Deut. 2,32 the Torah writes בנו instead of בניו as here when describing the fate of Sichon’s sons (son). According to Bamidbar Rabbah 19,29 although both Og and Sichon were Emorites they were so sure of themselves that they did not come to each other’s assistance in their fight against Israel. According to Tanchuma end of Chukat, Sichon’s son was even tougher than his father.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   על כן אמרו המושלים, “this is what prompted the poets to say, etc.” According Ibn Ezra this is a reference to Bileam and Be-or his father, seeing both of them made pronouncements regarding future events in poetic language. According to Tanchuma Chukat 24, when Sichon at the time had been unable to conquer Cheshbon he had called on the services of Bileam to curse the inhabitants. This is why Balak had said to him (via his messengers): ”for I know if you curse someone he will be cursed” (Numbers 22,6).  תבנה ותכונן, “let it be built and firmly established.” They meant that it would serve Sichon as his capital.
      Our sages in Baba Batra 78 see in the word מושלים a reference to people who have control of their evil urges, people who weigh the loss they would sustain by failing to carry out certain commandments in order to garner profit in this terrestrial world. They interpret the words תבנה ותכונן to mean that such people will be built up in this world and will acquire a firm footing in the hereafter as the result of their way of life. In the words עיר סיחון they see an allusion to the עיר - a donkey, and explain that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey (עיר) that follows after pleasant talk (סיחה), i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, then תצא אש מחשבון a fire will go out from those who calculate the effect of their deeds in the world, and will consume those who do not calculate and examine their ways but instead do as they please.  The word להבה, “flame,” is a continuation of the previous thought, i.e. from the city of Sichon, a city symbolizing the righteous, flames will come forth devouring Moav, i.e. people who exercise no restraint  over their biological urges. The words בעלי במות ארנון are understood by the Talmud there to mean “the arrogant ones.” The word ונירם (beginning of verse 30) is understood as  paraphrasing the wicked who deny the existence of an all-seeing power in heaven, i.e. אין רם. Such people claim אבד חשבון, “there is no accounting to be rendered for the way we behave while alive on earth.” The words עד מידבא, describe the response by G’d to people who question the success of the wicked in this terrestrial world. The answer is that G’d has to reward them for the good they did before He can destroy their souls and deny them the hereafter [literally until they will be lost forever. Ed.].
  
  Verse 28
  
   כי אש יצאה מחשבון, ”for a fire has come forth from Cheshbon.”  This is an allusion to Moabites who had dwelled in Chesbon and commenced a revolution against the local king. 
     אכלה ער מואב, “it consumed Ar of Moav.” Ar is the name of a place in Moab, just as (Ruth 1,1) מבית לחם יהודה is the name of a place within Judah.
  
  Verse 29
  
   אוי לך מואב, “woe unto you Moav (the people)!” He cursed it that it should fall into the hands of Sichon. כמוש, a reference to the favorite god of the Moabites. נתן בניו, this is an appeal to the power that be to make fugitives and prisoners out of the Moabites (part of Bileam’s curse at the time).   Alternatively, the words may refer to Kemosh, Moav’s deity. The verse would then tell us that the people of Moav who served the deity Kemosh, built altars for it and had more faith in that deity than any other nation (as we know from Isaiah 16,12), paid the price for their misplaced faith, and the poet writing these lines ridicules the people for having put their trust in that deity. Their deity is the reason that the believers now have to either flee or become prisoners. Malachi 2,11 speaks about the worshippers of idols as his sons and daughters. This is the way Nachmanides explains our verse.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ונירם, “When we overthrew them.” Moses describes that as soon as we overthrew the Emorites in Cheshbon and thereabouts the country was lost, first as far as from Chesbon to Divon, eventually destroying whole country including Nofach-Meydva. Alternatively, ונירם is from the root ניר meaning "their kingdom", i.e. the kingdom of Cheshbon was lost.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
    אל תירא אותו, “do not fear him!” Since it was not appropriate for Moses to be in awe and trepidation of any human being seeing he always had the power of the Shechinah at his side, why did G’d have to tell him not to be afraid of Og? Do we not have the prophet telling even lesser individuals than Moses “who are you (Israel) that you should be afraid of mortal man?” (Isaiah 51,12). The prophet means that if the righteous display (or feel) fear of mortal man this undermines the well-being of his soul, his personality. Even Moses personally warns the people in Deut. 1,29 and 31,6 not to be afraid of  the Canaanites.   The reason Moses did fear Og was because he had earned some merits when he told Avraham of Lot’s being captured. [The fact that this man had survived all these years plus at least 300 years prior to Avraham when he rode out the deluge on the roof of the ark, made Moses worry (compare Niddah 61)].    Seeing we have a tradition that Og and Sichon were brothers, why was Moses afraid of Og whereas he is not reported as being afraid of Sichon? [G’d’s telling Moses not to be afraid of Og makes it clear that he must have been afraid]. Og’s longevity and size made Moses wonder if his merits had been used up. This is why he was afraid and needed reassurance.
      Some of our sages do not agree that this Og was the same as the one who had told Avraham about Lot being captured. However, even this Og was a descendant of the person described as the פליט in Genesis 14.13. Moses was still afraid that this Og should not still be a beneficiary of merits accumulated by his ancestor. If the sages describe Og and Sichon as brothers and they mean “biological brothers sharing the same father and mother,” Moses should have been afraid of both of them as the merit of their ancestor would protect both of them. We must assume therefore that they were half-brothers sharing only the same mother so that Sichon who was not fathered by a direct descendant of the original Og would not be able to count on the merit from the original Og.  At any rate, we have only one authentic source concerning the genealogy of this Og, our sages, i.e. that we are dealing with the original Og. 
  A glance at Tanchuma Chukat 25 will show you that Moses erred in believing that Og’s telling Avraham of Lot’s capture had been a meritorious deed. On the contrary, Og’s intention had been to involve Avraham in a war he could not possibly win and that when he would be killed Og would claim Sarah as his wife. G’d allowed Og to live this long, i.e. He rewarded him for the effort he had made with his feet to inform Avraham. He punished him for the evil intent he harboured when telling Avraham by killing him through Avraham’s descendants. He who had meant for Avraham to be killed was killed by one of Avraham’s  descendants. The punishment was fitted to the crime. Moses’ original concern was that seeing he was only 120 years old, how was he going to defeat a man who had already lived over 500 years! [I make this over 800 years seeing the deluge occurred in 1656 and the Israelites left Egypt in 2448 and another 40 years had passed since. Ed.] G’d answered Moses not only not to be afraid of Og but that Moses would slay him with his own hands. This is the meaning of: “I have delivered him into your hand and you will do unto him  just as you have done to Sichon.” Thus far Tanchuma.
      The problem with this Midrash is that seeing that Sichon and Og were brothers and only Og had survived the deluge and we have a tradition that only eight people survived the deluge, i.e. Noach, his three sons and his wife and their respective wives, where did Sichon originate? How could he have been a brother of an antediluvian Og?
      I have found a Midrash that both Og and Sichon were sons of Mechazael, who was one of the people described in Genesis 6,2  as בני האלו-הים (compare Niddah 61). According to this Midrash Mechazael had sexual relations with the wife of Cham shortly before they entered the ark and Sichon was born while Noach and family were in the ark. This would explain why Cham had intercourse with his wife while in the ark (although it had been forbidden) so as to clear his wife from suspicion of infidelity. [This does not solve the problem of Og being the ninth survivor of the deluge, something which contradicts other Midrashim. Ed.]  According to the opinion of our sages that Og and Sichon were biological brothers we must assume that Sichon was also extraordinarily old at that time. G’d had a special reason why He granted both these individuals such a long life. Who can fathom what G’d had had in mind? We are told in Berachot 54 that Moses who was 10 cubits tall (one cubit taller than Og) took a ten cubit-long axe and jumped ten cubits into the air and killed Og with it. The wording in the Talmud appears to be an allusion to Moses having countered the merit of Og and the reward he had received for making an effort with his feet at the time when he informed Avraham of Lot’s capture. The author credits his teacher the Rashba with the following aggadic explanation: The Talmud writes this passage (in Berachot) only so that we should not think that Moses’ fear of Og concerned Og’s physique, his prowess as a warrior. Enjoying G’d’s grace is totally independent of one’s physique and physical strength. G’d relates to people in relation to the merits they have accumulated. We have this on the authority of Psalms 147, 10-11: “He does not prize the strength of horses, nor value the fleetness of men; but the Lord values those who fear Him, those who depend on His faithful care.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
     ברב עם הדרת מלך ובאפס לאום מחתת רזון, “When there is a multitude of people, this is the king’s honor; when the people are absent a ruler is ruined” (Proverbs 14,28).
   In this verse Solomon explains that a multitude of subjects and their presence constitute a king’s honor and pride. The reason that this is so is because among his subjects there may be individuals who can match or even surpass the king in wisdom, in prowess, in wealth or in other characteristics. The king’s  superiority over all these people who can compete with him in individual attributes comes to the fore only in his commanding a multitude and in the size of the kingdom he controls. If, for some reason, the people abandon him, this spells the ruin of his glory.   The word רזון comes from רוזנים, rulers. Seeing Solomon had commenced his sentence with the words הדרת מלך, he should by rights have continued the contrast by writing מחתת מלך, instead of מחתת רוזנים. However, Solomon wanted to convey the idea that the absence of the usual multitude so affects the king that even the title מלך can no longer be applied to him. He will be merely like any other “ruler” whose sole distinction consists in the fact that he can impose his will on a number of inferiors. The title מלך is simply not appropriate for someone who does not have a (willing) people at his disposal. It follows that the self-confidence of a king, i.e. his faith is bound up with the people at his command. This is the reason that G’d did not really want that the Jewish people should have a king. If his faith would be placed in the people under him, how could he be faithful to the Lord above him and make Him the focus of his trust?! Not only that! The people too would place their trust and faith in the visible king instead of in the Lord (who remains invisible).   We, the people who are the recipients of the Torah, have been commanded  את ה' אלו-היך תירא, “fear the Lord your G’d” (Deut. 6,13). We have also been commanded not to fear the Canaanites (both in Deut. 7,18 and elsewhere). Seeing the Torah has forbidden us to fear mortal man and has commanded each one of us to place our trust and faith exclusively in the Lord it follows that if  we truly keep this commandment not only do we have no need for a mortal king, but we will be far better off than if we did have a king of flesh and blood.   However, seeing that G’d foresaw in His wisdom that the time would come when even the Jewish people would demand to be governed by a mortal king just as is the norm among the Gentiles, the Torah forestalled some of the negative fallout of such a phenomenon by stipulating rules both for who could become such a king and how such a king would have to conduct himself. This is the reason for Deut. 17,14-16 writing: “when you will say: ‘I wish to appoint a king for myself similar to the nations around me, you shall certainly appoint a king over yourself.’” Actually, the very demand for a mortal king should have been considered a sin by the people seeing that when G’d took the people out of Egypt He had demonstrated that He could do so much more for the people than any king of flesh and blood.    It would seem logical that He who controls the whole universe should be king. This is especially so when this king has seen fit to manifest His presence among the people in the Temple. No wonder that G’d considered the very demand of the people as an insult directed at Him rather than at the previous leader Samuel (Samuel I 8,7). What could possibly prompt the people to “trade” G’d’s benevolent leadership for a mortal king? The fact that King Shaul eventually fell in battle was a demonstration to the people that they had not done well in demanding a king of flesh and blood as their political leader. Based on such considerations Solomon said in the verse we quoted above that the glory of a king is in the multitude who willingly pay homage to him.     A righteous person who places all his faith in the Lord is on safer ground than if he were to rely on his king, as the king who places his faith in the loyalty of his people will sometimes fall into the hands of his enemies and all his soldiers will not then be able to save him.   Sichon and Og, mighty kings, placed their trust in their armies and it did not help them. They did not realize that in the last analysis success in life does not depend on numbers but on G’d’s decrees. David expressed this clearly in Psalms 33,16: “kings are not delivered by a large force, warriors are not saved by great strength; horses are a false hope for deliverance; for all their great power they provide no escape.” Seeing some of the mightiest kings of their time all fell victim to Moses it is not surprising that Balak was terrified at the approach of the Israelites who had defeated nations far stronger than his own. This is why our portion commences with the words:
   וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי, “Balak son of Tzippor saw all that the Israelites had done to the Emorite.”  This Balak was the king of Moav as the Torah reveals almost immediately (verse 4). Why did the Torah describe his kingship in such a peculiar fashion, i.e. “he was a king over the Moabites at that time?” Why did it not simply write: “Balak, king of Moav, saw what the Israelites had done, etc.?” Perhaps the Torah wanted to contrast the attitude to Sichon and Og to the Israelites to that of Balak. The former had been full of self-confidence, arrogance, even. Not so Balak. As soon as Balak realised the fate that had befallen Sichon and Og he no longer considered himself as a king. Kings are arrogant by definition. Balak had learned בעת ההיא, “at that time,” i.e. at the time of the defeat of Sichon and Og, that kings with mighty armies were no match for the Jewish people who did not even have a crowned head at their helm.    The fact that Sichon and Og were not just “average” kings amongst the Canaanites is pointed out by G’d Himself who, whenever He speaks about His defeating the Canaanites cites the Emorites as the ones whom He humbled, i.e. they (compare Amos 2,13); represented the mightiest tribe of the Canaanite nation. Balak had previously considered the proximity of Sichon and Og as his insurance policy against being invaded by the Israelites. When he saw that his paid “protectors” had themselves proved inadequate he suddenly became filled with fear.
      A Midrashic approach, based on Tanchuma Balak 2: The word וירא, he “saw,” means he foresaw some kind of disaster. We have a rule that whenever wicked people are described by the Bible as having “seen” something, the “something” is invariably some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 9,22, (where Cham “saw” his father’s nudity, resulting in his offspring being condemned to be slaves). Compare also Genesis 6,2 where the elite of mankind is described as seeing the daughters of man and violating them, resulting eventually in the inevitability of the deluge. Compare also Genesis 12,15 where the Egyptians saw the physical beauty of Sarah and this resulted in her being abducted to Pharaoh’s palace. Still another example is that of Shechem, son of Chamor “seeing” Dinah, which resulted in his raping her and in the whole city of Shechem being destroyed (Genesis 34,2 and subsequent verses).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
    ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין, “Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.” The sudden consultation between two peoples whom we know as enemies of one another (Genesis 36,35) is remarkable. Fear of the Israelites drove these two people into each other’s arms. When two dogs which were fighting one another perceive themselves as being threatened by a wolf, they suddenly start to cooperate. Here too the survival instinct drove Midian and Moav to bury their hatchets. Why did the Moabites choose the Midianites to consult with? [There were other nations in the region. Ed.]. They had realized that Moses’ success was due to supernatural forces. Having learned that the leader of the Israelites, Moses, had spent many decades in Midian they wanted to find out more about his personality and abilities. The Midianites explained to their Moabite neighbors that Moses’ power was not of a military nature but lay only in his mouth. Thereupon the Moabites (Balak) decided to fight Moses by means of someone (Bileam) whose power was also in his mouth (Tanchuma Balak 3). They were under the impression that Moses was simply a superior astrologer.
  
  Verse 5
  
   פתורה, “to Petor;” according to the plain meaning of the text this was the name of a place. Deut. 23,5 describes  Bileam as “son of  Beor, from Petor of Aram Naharayim.”
      Tanchuma Balak 5 sees in the word פתורה an allusion to the word פתרון, “solution (to problems).” Bileam started his career as an interpreter of dreams, promoting himself to became a magician. Eventually, he was even granted Holy Spirit.
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מברך ואת אשר תאור יואר, “for I am aware that those whom you bless are blessed and those whom you curse are cursed.” This verse teaches that Bileam had established a reputation as someone whose curses always came true. This confirms a saying of our sages: “do not relate disdainfully to even the curses of ordinary people” (Baba Kama 93).
   Ibn Ezra thought that Bileam was an astrologer who, when he observed the horoscope of a person being at a low ebb, used this knowledge of curse him so that when misfortune struck such a person he could take the credit for it, i.e. attributing it to his having cursed him. Seeing this was so he had to tell the emissaries of Balak that he would be unable to transgress the command of the Lord and do anything on his own (verse 18). He did not foresee misfortune for the Jewish people in the stars, hence his curse if it did not materialize would ruin his reputation. Our sages do not agree and attribute real powers to Bileam. However, G’d in His mercy, thwarted Bileam who had thought that he saw reason for G’d expressing anger at the Jewish people (Compare Berachot 7).
  
  Verse 7
  
   וקסמים בידם, “with charms in their hands.” This proves that Bileam was a magician employing charms. The emissaries brought along charms so that Bileam would not be able to stall them by saying that he did not have any charms available at that time. An alternative explanation [seeing it is most unlikely that a man whose trade depends on charms should not have the tools of his trade available. Ed.]: They brought money to pay Bileam for using his own charms on their behalf. (Compare both Rashi, for the former view and Ibn Ezra quoting Rabbi Shmuel Hanaggid for the latter view).
  
  Verse 8
  
  . לינו פה הלילה, “stay here overnight!” Bileam’s great arrogance made him view Balak’s emissaries as people not deserving especial consideration; this is why his invitation was of the grossest variety. Instead of inviting them graciously as he did the second set of emissaries to whom he said: שבו נא בזה, “please stay here,” he said: “spent the night here.” There is no mention of food, making them comfortable, etc. The word שבו by contrast implies a longer stay such as in Deut.1,15 “they stayed in Kadesh, וישבו, for many years.” Also, the word נא, used by Bileam to the second set of emissaries indicates that he urged them to stay, pleaded with them.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויבא אלו-הים אל בלעם, “G’d came to Bileam, etc.” The only reason that Bileam was granted a divine vision at this point was in honour of the Israelites. This situation was similar to G’d revealing Himself in a nocturnal vision to Lavan to prevent him from harming Yaakov (Genesis 34,24). Something similar occurred in Genesis 20,3 where G’d revealed Himself to Avimelech, King of the Philistines, for the sake of Avraham.
     ויאמר מי האנשים האלה עמך, He said: “who are these men with you?” We do not find anywhere throughout the Bible that G’d asks (as if He did not know) except when the people whom G’d asked are wicked and G’d gives them a chance to incriminate themselves by giving untrue answers. This would provide G’d with the excuse to execute His judgment on them. This is what Job 12,23 had in mind when he said: משגיא לגוים ויאבדם, “He exalts nations then destroys them.” [They initially feel complimented by being found worthy of a divine revelation. Ed.] G’d had asked Kayin at the time (Genesis 4,9) “where is Hevel your brother?” Kayin (instead of expressing remorse) had answered defiantly: “am I my brother’s keeper?” Seeing Kayin had thereby denied that he believed that G’d knew what goes on in His universe and holds people accountable was punished. G’d had misled Kayin as if He really did not know what had happened to Hevel and by whom. Here too, G’d asked Bileam a rhetorical question to see if Bileam would try to deceive Him.” He gave Bileam the impression that whereas at certain times He knew everything, at other times He did not.
      Tanchuma Balak 5 quotes Proverbs 28,10: “he who misleads the upright into an evil course will fall into his own pit, but the blameless will prosper,” as applying to our situation. According to the Midrash, in earlier times people observed sexual mores, respecting laws laid down by G’d. They base this on Genesis 29,9 “and Rachel came with the flocks which belonged to her father.” [Her father did not need to worry that the male shepherds would molest her. Ed.]. We have a similar statement concerning the seven daughters of Yitro who were not scared of encountering male shepherds when watering their father’s flocks (Exodus 2,16). Then there arose Bileam who misled people into practicing sexual permissiveness. He would therefore fall victim to being misled himself. This is the reason G’d asked him the question: “who are these men with you?” Bileam jumped to the conclusion that there are times when G’d can be deceived and decided to accept the mission to curse the Jewish people looking for a point in time when G’d’s “blind side” would be turned in his direction.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . לא תלך עמהם, “do not go with them!”  G’d offered as His reason that even if Bileam would go with Balak’s emissaries he would not be able to curse the Jewish people seeing He Himself had already blessed them.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Balak 6), (describing how Bileam wriggled out of this prohibition). G’d said: “do not go with them.” Bileam therefore decided to curse the people while he was at home. G’d then added: “do not curse them,” to which Bileam replied: “O.K. then I will bless them.” G’d told him not to bless them as He had already blessed them so here was no point in Bileam duplicating G’d’s work. The whole episode recalls the popular saying applied to hornets: “spare me your sting and I will gladly forego your honey.”
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “he said to Balak’s princes, etc.” He did not make mention of the elders of Midian at all. The reason was that they were merely secondary as the delegation had been initiated by Balak.
     כי מאן ה' לתתי להלוך עמכם, “The Lord has refused me permission to go with you.”  Bileam implied that G’d was totally opposed to such a mission. He could not imagine that G’d would permit him to go at all, even if more princes of a higher rank than the original ones would be sent to him.
   Balak suspected Bileam of having made up this refusal in order to blackmail him into paying a higher price for his services. This is why he sent a larger  delegation composed of even more prominent emissaries. He wanted to show Bileam that cost was no obstacle as long as Bileam would perform the services for which he was being hired. Bileam therefore had to tell him that he was mistaken, that money was not the issue at all, but that he Bileam was a tool in G’d’s hands and could not contravene His instructions.
      A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Balak 6) to the words: “G’d has refused to let me go with you.” His emphasis was on the word “you.” Bileam implied that if a larger and more prominent delegation would come to him G’d might give him permission to accompany them. Bileam’s hint teaches us three things about him: 1) he had the evil eye, 2) he was arrogant; 3) he was greedy. We learn that he had the evil eye seeing the Torah specially mentions his negative feelings against Israel when he saw them camped “according to their tribes,” orderly, peacefully (24,2). This irked “his eyes.” We know that he was arrogant from his emphasis on not being willing “to go with you,” i.e. the lower level emissaries. We know that he was greedy from his reference to Balak giving him a houseful of silver and gold.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ואמר אל עבדי בלק, אם יתן לי בלק, “He said to Balak’s servants: even if Balak were to give me, etc.” Earlier the first group of emissaries had been described as שרי בלק; the new delegation is described by Bileam as עבדי בלק. The first delegation who had behaved towards Bileam with deference had been rewarded by him in that he considered them as שרי בלק, Balak’s princes. The second group who related to Bileam in a peremptory manner, saying: “Balak said not to refuse to come to me,” he treated with disdain seeing they had been arrogant towards him. Hence he treated them as merely  עבדי בלק “Balak’s servants.” He also wanted to allude to the fact that they who were merely the servants of a mortal king and not allowed to disobey their ruler, must surely understand that he as a servant of an immortal King, G’d, could most certainly not disobey His instructions. 
  
  Verse 19
  
    ועתה שבו נא בזה, “and now, please stay here, etc.”  The word בזה refers to “this place.”   גם אתם הלילה, “also you, for the night.” [According to the cantillation there is a comma between “also you” and “night.” Ed.] Our sages claim that G’d punished Moav for this “night” which its emissaries spent with Bileam. They derive this from Isaiah 15,1 in which the prophet deals with G’d’s judgment of Moav. The prophet writes: “Ah, in the night Ar was sacked (a capital of Moav), Moav was ruined; Ah, in the night Kir was sacked, Moav was ruined.” The two nights which two delegations of Moav spent with Bileam attempting to get him to curse the Jewish people proved ultimately to boomerang on them. [This writer believes that the dropping of an atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans also boomeranged, i.e. the men the U.S. lost in Korea and in Vietnam. Ed.].
  
  Verse 20
  
    אם לקרא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם, “if these men came to call you, arise and go with them.” Seeing G’d had previously told Bileam: “you must not go with them (עמהם)”, how could G’d reverse Himself? You may compare this to G’d saying to Moses: “send for yourself men, etc.,” (the spies in Numbers 13,2). G’d said to Moses: “send according to your considerations.” G’d meant: “I do not command you to dispatch spies seeing I already told the Jewish people: ‘I will bring you up from the poverty of Egypt to a good and generous land (Exodus 3,17).’” However, when I told them (Deut. 1,21) “go up and take possession,” they did not believe Me but said: “let us (first) send men (spies), etc.” G’d therefore consented to let the people do what they wanted. Here, on an individual basis, we face a similar situation. Although G’d had told Bileam previously (in his own interest) “do not go,” now that He saw that Bileam was bent on going he did not restrict his freedom of choice. This is an illustration of the Rabbinic dictum  (Tanchuma Balak 8) that G’d allows a person to pursue the lifestyle he chooses for himself.
      Nachmanides approaches our verse differently, understanding the words: “you must not go with them (verse 12) as merely prohibiting Bileam from going with the intention of cursing the Jewish people.” G’d never meant to issue travel restrictions to Bileam. This is why this time G’d added the introductory remark: “if these people merely came to call you (invite you) you may accept their invitation.” The understanding was that whereas Bileam would go with them he would not do so for the purpose of cursing the Jewish people. 
     ואך את הדבר אשר אדבר אליך, “but only the word which I will speak to you, etc.” G’d meant that that even if G’d would tell him to bless the Jewish people Bileam would agree to do so (as the price for being allowed to go). He was not to be afraid of Balak’s anger, etc.
      At this point we may well ask if Bileam possessed the power to either curse or bless at all. You might well ask how it is possible for a mere mortal to countermand decrees which issued from G’d? If G’d blessed a people, as we know from verse 12 כי ברוך הוא, what possible point was there in anyone attempting to turn such a blessing into a curse? If you were to answer that indeed, Bileam’s curse would have been totally ineffective, then why did G’d bother to dissuade or even prevent Bileam from going? Why did He say to him: “do not curse the people!?” Let Bileam curse all day long, as long as the people enjoyed G’d’s blessing what did it matter? After all we have a verse on this subject in Psalms 109,28: “let them curse, but You bless.”     The answer is that indeed Bileam neither possessed independent power to bless nor to curse. If we want to look for proof that his curses were ineffective we only need to look at the ineffectiveness of his blessings. If he himself had believed that his curses or his blessings were effective, seeing that he was prevented from cursing Israel, a nation which already enjoyed a blessing, why did he not simply bless Balak and his people, a people concerning which he had neither been forbidden to curse nor to bless? If Balak was so afraid of the Jewish people, why did Bileam not extend the protection of his prophetic blessing to Balak? Moreover, if Bileam thought of himself as powerful by means of his words, why would he demean himself by earning his livelihood through handouts from Balak and the like, instead of blessing himself by bestowing material riches on himself? In fact, we find that he did bless himself when he said (23,10) “may my soul die the death of the righteous!” If he could do this, why did he not bless himself with silver and gold, something he sorely desired? We know that even the wish to die the death of the righteous was not fulfilled as the Torah tells us that Bileam died by the sword in battle, hardly the death “of the righteous?” (Joshua 13,22) Job 11,20 also makes it plain that Bileam’s hereafter (if he had any) was certainly not that of the righteous.    What we learn from the above is that Bileam’s power most certainly did not reside in his mouth, his pronouncements. However, any power he had emanated from his wisdom. Seeing that he was able to divine when G’d was angry and at whom, and whom G’d was favorably disposed at at a given moment in time, he would exploit  that knowledge making it appear as if he had originated those people’s good fortune of misfortune. Even allowing for this fact, the question remains that seeing that at the time Balak hired Bileam G’d was not angry at the Jewish people (Berachot 7), what chance would Bileam have to even appear to curse the people effectively when he would be shown up as a charlatan in short order? Neither his pronouncements nor his insight into G’d’s “moods” would produce any results at all? Seeing that at this time Bileam would be totally ineffective why did G’d bother to restrain him in any way? Why not let him discredit himself instead? The answer is that it was known to G’d that there would shortly occur a pestilence among the Jewish people (Numbers 25,1-9). G’d did not want anyone to assume that the reason for this pestilence was Bileam’s curse. This is why He warned Bileam not even to open his mouth by mouthing any curses, however ineffective He knew those curses to be. The fact that we must remember is that Bileam was certainly unable to effect the fortunes of the Jewish people by his pronouncements.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויחר אף אלו-הים, “G’d’s anger was kindled.” G’d was angry because He realized Bileam had gone in order to curse.   ויתיצב מלאך ה' בדרך לשטן לו, ”an angel of Hashem positioned himself on the way in such a manner as to obstruct him.” Bileam had tried to appropriate to himself a vocation which was meant to be exclusively that of the Jewish people, i.e. הקול קול יעקב, “the use of the voice is a use reserved for Yaakov” (Genesis 27,2). In retaliation for this trespass, the angel also made use of a weapon which is not really his own, i.e. the sword, the weapon allocated to Esau, as he was an angel dispatched by the attribute of Mercy. [Had it been an angel dispatched by the attribute of Justice he would have killed Bileam instead of preventing him from carrying out his sinful intent. Ed.]. We find here another demonstration of the principle מדה כנגד מדה, measure for measure.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ותרא האתון את מלאך ה' נצב בדרך, “When the she-ass saw the angel of Hashem standing in the way, etc.” The word “saw” in this instance does not mean “saw with its eyes,” but “she realised, she had a distinct feeling of a dangerous obstruction in front of her.” Seeing that as a rule angels do not appear in such guise in front of human beings, the likelihood for them to reveal themselves in such a fashion to animals is nil. We do not have to stress that this was not a mental vision, something originating in the brain seeing that animals do not possess such a brain, i.e. intelligence. All the ass knew was that if faced a frightening phenomenon and therefore she tried to dodge the obstacle she perceived. Had the ass had a clearer perception of precisely who it was that blocked her way, she would have said to Bileam: “an angel of G’d with drawn sword is facing me and therefore I had to deviate from the path.” This is Nachmanides’ view of the incident (page 290 Chavell edition).
     ותט האתון מן הדרך ותלך  בשדה, “the she-ass turned from the path and walked in the field.” Bileam’s desire to curse the Israelites was so strong that he was blind to any indications which were designed to deflect him from his purpose. Anyone else in his place would have noticed if not the first sign then the second sign or at least the third sign. Bileam, the “seer” was so blind on this occasion that he ignored even the clearest indications that his mission was not to be crowned with success. It is almost inconceivable that an individual whose profession was the interpretation of all unusual phenomena, who interpreted every inconsistency in nature, should not have realized that he was being given the grossest possible hints of G’d’s displeasure. Even the power of speech which the she-ass suddenly displayed did not stun him into realising the error of his ways. He should have realized what Moses was told in Exodus 4,11 when he used his speech impediment as an excuse not to accept the position of leader of the people that G’d can grant the power of speech to whomsoever He wants to just as He can withhold it from those who possessed it. The fact that Bileam did not display the slightest amazement at the ass talking is his greatest indictment. This is why eventually the angel had to reveal his presence to him and had to address him directly telling him that as of this time, he had to continue on his way but could only say what he was told to say. The reason Bileam had offered to abandon his journey and to return home was that once he had seen that even his ass could talk, he realized that his so-called power of speech was quite meaningless. He could no longer boast of his power of speech.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויפתח ה' את פי האתון, “Hashem opened the mouth of the she-ass.” If we look at the plain meaning of the text, the fact that the ass could suddenly speak intelligently was a great miracle. The performance of this miracle has to be construed as a compliment to the Jewish people for whose sake G’d performed this miracle. G’d made even the animal kingdom realize that any mission undertaken in order to curse G’d’s chosen nation was totally inadmissible. Such an undertaking would be equivalent to telling the mountains “to bury us” under them or for the hills to fall upon us” (compare Hoseah 10,8). There was no need to tell intelligent human beings that cursing the Jewish people was both forbidden and futile if even the animals understood this.
      If we approach the mystical dimension of our paragraph you will find that there is a similarity between the original serpent speaking to Chavah (the only previous time the Torah mentions animals as speaking) and the she-ass speaking to Bileam. Neither the serpent nor the she-ass said what they said of their own free volition, seeing that they did not possess the kind of soul necessary to formulate their own thoughts and then express them verbally. The serpent’s words had been inspired by Satan.    You will note the sequence of “the Lord opened the mouth of the she ass,” etc., followed in verse 31 by: “G’d uncovered Bileam’s eyes so that he saw the angel of Hashem.” As soon as the she-ass had said what G’d wanted her to say she died. Only then did an angel of Hashem appear to Bileam. The reason the she-ass is described as having seen an angel three times is that she saw three different angels in the guise of men. When the angel, on the fourth occasion, challenged Bileam why he had struck his she-ass three times, he referred to three separate signs G’d had sent him to realise that he should not proceed with his evil plan. 
  The angel used the same words as had the she-ass when he said על מה הכית את אתונך שלוש רגלים, “why did you strike your ass three times?” whereas the she-ass had also employed the expression שלוש רגלים to signify “on three separate occasions.” When the angels used the word יצאתי, “ I have come forth” (now) he meant that prior to this the she-ass had experienced other angels in the guise of men. 
  
  Verse 29
  
   כי התעללת בי, “because you mocked me!” As we pointed out already Bileam should have expressed his amazement at the ass’s sudden ability to speak to him. However, Bileam was so intent on reaching his destination and accomplishing his evil intent that he related to the ass’s speaking with utter naivity, taking the phenomenon for granted, and conversing with the ass as if with an equal. If the Torah does not report any reaction by the Moabite members of the delegation or of Bileam’s personal valet, perhaps they had not been privy to this conversation having walked some distance ahead (compare Nachmanides). This great miracle may have occurred when Bileam remained alone with the ass. Alternately, no one else had become privy to the miracle just as the prophets who were disciples of Elijah had not seen him ascend to heaven except for Elisha, or just as Daniel’s companions had not experienced Daniel’s visions even while walking alongside him, (Daniel 10,7).
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   וחרבו שלופה בידו, “with a drawn sword in his hand.” This was a hint to Bileam that he would ultimately die by the sword. It presages Joshua 13,22: “and Bileam the magician they killed by the sword.”
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   אולי נטתה מפני, “if she had not turned aside on my account, etc.” The word אולי which often means: “maybe, perchance,” here means “if not.” The words “instead of killing her” clearly demonstrate that after the she-ass spoke the angel killed her. He now told her that the she-ass’s very speaking had been the reason he had spared her master, Bileam.   The Midrash cites another possible reason for the ass being killed, namely to prevent the Emorites deifying an ass that was able to speak like a human being (Tanchuma Balak 9). A third reason is simply that the ass had performed the function it had been created for and kept in limbo since dusk on the sixth day of creation (Avot 5,8). We observe a similar phenomenon with the fish whose purpose on earth (in water) had been to swallow and subsequently spit out Jonah. We read in the Book of Jonah 2,2: “G’d appointed a large fish, דג גדול, to swallow Jonah.” The reason that fish was described as גדול “large,” is “great in years,” i.e.very old. Although there were many fish in the sea with bodies larger than that which swallowed Jonah, there was none that was as old, i.e. which had been assigned this particular task since the days of creation.The intention of the author of the Book of Jonah in writing the word וימן is to tell us that this fish and none other had been appointed for this specific task already during the dawn of history. This thought is also reflected in the word לבלוע, “in order to swallow,” instead of the simple ויבלע, “it swallowed,” when the Book of Jonah describes this fish. The peculiar wording alerts us to the fact that the sole purpose of G’d creating this fish when He did was to swallow Jonah. It is also peculiar that initially the fish is described as דג, fish (masculine) whereas in the course of the narrative the author changes to describe it as דגה, fish (feminine). Jonah is described as praying from the entrails of the דגה (Jonah 2,2) after he had first spent three days inside the דג. The term דגה repeatedly occurs as describing dead fish such as in Exodus 7,21 when the fish of the river Nile which had died due to the plague of blood are described as והדגה אשר ביאור מתו. [Perhaps the fact that the fish had died was the catalyst which caused Jonah to pray. Ed.]. When he said: מבטן שאול שועתי, “I have cried out from the belly of Sheol,” he meant that the fish had become his grave (Jonah 2,3).
  
  Verse 34
  
  . ויאמר בלעם אל מלאך ה' חטאתי, ”Bileam said to the angel of the Lord: ‘I sinned;’” our sages in Tanchuma Balak 10 state that this verse is proof that if someone confesses his guilt by saying “I have sinned,” the angel no longer has permission to touch him.
     כי לא ידעתי, “for I had been unaware, etc.” He, who had boasted that he was יודע מחשבות עליון, “aware of the thoughts of the Supreme One,” now had to humble himself by admitting that he did not know anything.
  
  Verse 35
  
  . אותו תדבר, “it you shall say.” Previously (verse 20)  G’d had said to him in the dream: “it you shall do.” Clearly, the angel warned Bileam specifically about what to say. G’d’s permission for Bileam to accompany the delegation extended precisely to that, not one iota more. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   במות בעל, “the heights of Baal.” Bileam (Balak) built a total of 21 altars in three different locations, seven in each. He built the first seven altars in the place described as במות בעל, the next seven in a place known as שדה צופים ראש הפסגה, “the field of the lookouts, the top of  the height” (verse 14), whereas he built the last seven altars at ראש הפעור, “the summit of the height” which looks down on the face of ישימון (23,28). On each of these altars he sacrificed a bull and a ram, i.e. a total of 42 burnt-offerings. If verse 40 speaks of בקר וצאן, cattle and flocks, the meaning is that he offered only one of each species (Rashi). 
  Our author wonders what prompted Rashi to interpret the words בקר וצאן in this fashion as elsewhere this is always a reference to something more comprehensive. His reason may have been that these animals which were meat-offerings intended for the consumption of the entourage of Balak as well as for Bileam should be kept to a minimum so as not to delay the principal part of the mission, i.e. to find a place from where G’d might let Bileam curse the Jewish people. The normal meaning of the expression בקר וצאן or צאן ובקר certainly does not imply a minimal number of specimens of each.
     וירא משם את קצה העם, “He could see from there a portion of the people.” He could not see all of them. The reason was that their encampment extended in all four directions of the globe. Balak was very eager to lead Bileam to heights from which he could see them and focus his eye on them as he believed Bileam’s power to curse to repose in his evil eye. The eye, or the manner in which it sees, reflects the inner soul. Our sages in Baba Kama 117 comment on this: (in connection with a story involving Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Kahane where a stare from Rabbi Yochanan who mistakenly thought that Rabbi Kahane had made fun of him killed Rabbi Kahane). Rabbi Yochanan had used his eyes as conveying a curse. The reason that such stares from great Torah scholars can have such lethal effect is that these scholars  cannot stand being deflected from thoughts of Torah even momentarily. When they encounter persons who cause them to be deflected from Torah thoughts they resent this strongly and when they look at the person causing this their look reflects their anger. They view the person having caused them to become deflected from pure Torah thoughts as if guilty of heresy, deserving to be cursed. This may be the meaning of Kohelet 10,9 ”He who splits logs, עצים, will be endangered by them.” If someone becomes the cause of the עץ החיים, i.e. Torah, to be “split,” to be interrupted, he endangers his life by doing so.    It is true, of course, that we find many times that the words or stares of great Torah scholars, pious individuals, do not appear to have any harmful effects at all; the matter is something which is subject to the individual. The makeup of the personality of the individual scholar determines if his stare can be potentially lethal. One requires this particular gift in addition to great Torah knowledge in order for one’s stare prompted by one’s anger to have such harmful effects as reported in the Talmud of certain outstanding personalities.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וילך שפי, “he went alone.” Onkelos translates it in this manner. The word does not occur elsewhere in the Bible. 
  Ibn Ezra believes that it is derived from שפיים, meaning “a high place.” The word אל was omitted. We have a parallel construction in Numbers 11,35 נסעו העם חצרות, “the people journeyed to Chatzerot,” where the word אל is also absent.     The Torah reveals that Bileam made desperate efforts to find a spot from which he could see at one and the same time the entire Jewish camp; the fact that they were arranged in different directions made this impossible. He moved in the manner of someone trying to find clues on the ground. The word שפי would indicate the fact that the people were scattered (מפוזרות) in different directions. שפ"י is thus an acronym for שה פזורה ישראל "Israel is like scattered sheep" (Jeremiah 50,17).    A Midrashic approach (Sotah 10): Bileam was lame on one foot and could not walk upright, dragging one foot behind, his posture making him appear as constantly being at a slant. Samson was lame on both feet, as evidenced by the fact that he is described as שפיפון (Genesis 49,17), while Bileam is described here as שפי. 
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויקר אלו-הים אל בלעם, “G’d ‘chanced’ upon Bileam.”  According to the plain meaning of the text the fact that G’d arranged to appear to Bileam was a compliment to the people of Israel. Not only is this expression unusual but the expression ויבא אלו-הים אל בלעם (22,20) is equally strange, never occurring in connection with G’d communicating with any other prophet. This expression only occurs when G’d appeared to people below the level of prophet, such as Avimelech and Lavan (Genesis 20,3 and 31,24). The word ויקר suggests that Bileam experienced a type of inspiration normally only granted to real prophets who enjoy Holy Spirit at the time when they isolate themselves from society, deliberately seek solitude, and are trembling at the thought of being in the Lord’s presence (compare Nachmanides).     Later on you will find (verse 16) that ויקר ה' אל בלעם, that Bileam even experienced a vision from Hashem, a higher attribute than אלו-הים. This occurred as a result of Bileam’s visions already having elevated him to a status where he could receive prophetic inspirations from the same celestial source as did Moses. It was then that he realised that the notion of cursing Israel was quite absurd seeing Israel was under the protective wings of the attribute of Mercy.    As long as Bileam had been “visited” only by the attribute of Justice he had dared hope  that he would somewhere find a weak spot in Israel’s spiritual armor enabling him to curse them so that the attribute of Justice would be arraigned ready to pounce on the people. As soon as G’d addressed him in His capacity as Hashem,  Bileam realised that he had hoped in vain. This great “spiritual promotion” which Bileam experienced when he was addressed by the attribute of Hashem did not last long as it had only occurred for the sake of the Jewish people not because of Bileam’s own spiritual achievements. G’d did not want the nations of the world to argue that if they had been granted the caliber of prophet of a Moses they themselves would have become spiritually uplifted similar to the Jewish people. By giving Bileam powers and insights similar to those of Moses, G’d demonstrated to the nations of the world that in spite of having at their disposal a spiritually outstandingly gifted individual such as Bileam this had had no impact on their moral/ethical modes of behavior. This also gave the Jewish people an argument in favor of their preferred standing vis-a-vis G’d when they could point to the fact that the prophet and spiritual leader of all these nations had conceded the spiritual superiority of the Jewish people in that he sang their praises.    As soon as Bileam had concluded singing the praises of the Jewish people, i.e. their moral superiority over the other nations, G’d removed this spirit of prophecy from him. He reverted to relying on charms and that is why he wound up being killed by the sword instead of securing for himself the death of the righteous which he had wished himself.
      A Midrashic approach, based on Vayikra Rabbah 1,12 commenting on the words ויקר אלו-הים אל בלעם. The difference between Jewish prophets and Gentiles who experienced revelations by G’d or visions is 1) the former experience these visions by day whereas Gentiles do so only at night. In connection with Moses’ prophetic experiences the Torah speaks of: “it was on the day that Hashem spoke with Moses,” (Exodus 6,3) whereas in connection with communications by G’d to Gentiles the Torah writes: “G’d came to Avimelech in a dream at night;” (Genesis 20,3); G’d came to Lavan in a dream at night (Genesis 31,24);” G’d appeared to Bileam at night (Numbers 22,20).” The whole matter may be illustrated by a parable. A king had both a wife and a mistress. Whenever he would visit his wife he was not ashamed to do so by day in view of all the people. When he felt the need to visit his mistress he did so only at night, feeling embarrassed to be seen. Something similar occurs when G’d communicates with the prophets of the Jewish people. He has no need to hide the fact and does so by day and He speaks to them outright. This is documented by Leviticus 1,1 “G’d called to Moses.” When He communicates with the prophets of the Gentile nations He does so only in a חצי דבור, “half a communication,” that is why the Torah did not introduce this vision with the word ויקרא, but with the incomplete word ויקר.    2) When G’d addresses the Jewish prophets He uses language which is pure and holy, the word ויקרא brings to mind וקרא זה אל זה ואמר קדוש. When He addresses the prophets of other nations  He uses words reminding us of ritual impurity  (ויקר suggests קרי, nocturnal seminal emission).    3) A third difference, explained in the form of a parable. A king has two friends both of whom want to have an audience. One is healthy, the other is leprous. Whereas the king grants interviews to both friends he invites the healthy one into his palace while leaving his palace to interview to leprous friend outside. The words ויקר אלו-הים אל בלעם, suggest that “G’d went out to encounter Bileam.”
     את שבעת המזבחות ערכתי, “I have prepared the seven altars (Bileam speaking).” According to the plain meaning of the text Bileam spoke of the seven altars which Balak had built, on which he, Bileam, had offered sacrifices to the Lord. These offerings were supposed to ensure that G’d would look upon Bileam with favour. 
  According to the Midrash, The reason he used the letter ה when referring to the altars, was to allude to the fact that prior to him seven people had similarly built altars for the Lord and had found grace. The people were: Adam, Kayin, Hevel, Noach, Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov. Each one of these people had built only one altar for the Lord whereas he, Bileam, had built seven altars. [There are other versions of this Midrash omitting mention of Kayin’s altar seeing his offering had been rejected and substituting Moses as building an altar. Ed.].
      An approach based on astrology: The reason the Torah speaks about Bileam favouring the number seven is because it represents the medium between four different kinds of cycles, the cycle represented by the day, the cycle described by the week, the cycle described by the month, and the cycle described by the year. The cycle represented by the day is a reference to the orbit described by the sun around earth each day in an east-west direction (remember the author lived in an era prior to Copernicus, Ed.). The “weekly cycle” is a reference to another cycle which repeats itself constantly but at weekly intervals. Similarly, we have the monthly cycle and the annual cycle, all the cycles repeating themselves at regular and predetermined intervals. The cycle which is the medium between the daily cycle and the monthly cycle is the weekly cycle consisting of seven days, i.e. featuring the number seven. It is viewed as something in between the lunar and the solar cycles, the month representing a lunar cycle whereas the day represents a solar cycle. (Compare Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 3,43). Seeing that all matters related to nature are governed by this medium cycle and Torah always approximates nature, many commandments reflect this number seven which represents the “happy medium” between the solar and the lunar cycles, both pillars of the system we call “laws of nature.” The number seven also symbolizes the seven planets whose orbits dominate nature in a very recognizable manner.    If, say Passover would extend for an entire year, i.e. corresponding to the fourth of the cycles we mentioned, it would not be recognized for what it is and represents. On the other hand, if Passover would be observed for only a single day, corresponding to the first of the cycles, it would be too short to be meaningful.  If it were to be observed for a whole month it would be too long and it would lose its meaning and impact on the people observing it. This is why the Torah legislated that it be observed for seven days, corresponding to the second cycle we mentioned. Bileam took his cue from studying the Torah and its relationship to natural events and this is why he chose to build seven altars, not 30, or not one. This is the opinion of Maimonides.
      A kabbalistic approach: The number seven, the use of the definitive article, i.e. the letter ה when referring to the altars was all carefully calculated by Bileam. He realised that there was a seven-fold connection, link, between G’d and Israel and he wanted to sever each one of them by first matching Israel’s attachment to G’d through building seven altars in G’d’s honour (compare Zohar Balak Sullam edition page 164). Israel is directly connected to G’d on all seven lower emanations. Bileam hoped to draw down to him divine emanations of goodwill not only from these seven emanations but also from the three higher emanations. In this way he would excel what the Jewish people had achieved. His 42 sacrifices rose heavenward from three separate locations. 
      It is possible that the seven altars represented the seven days of the week and the seven lights on the lampstand, מנורה, which are also known as צרור החיים, “a bundle of life.” These represent seven sources of life which are channeled from heaven to earth according to the degree of concentration with which man longs for them. [If I understand it correctly Bileam assumed a reciprocal action and interaction between the offerings he sent to heaven and the inspiration he would receive from heaven in return. Ed.] All of this is alluded to in the letter ה before the word מזבחות, i.e. he meant that his seven altars corresponded to the seven altars in the celestial spheres he was aware of. When he used the word ואעל, “I made rise up,” to describe the offerings he presented instead of the word הקרבתי, this was not accidental. He alluded to the interaction between heaven and earth or vice versa.
      According to Ibn Ezra who refers to Job 42,8 the mystical dimension of what Bileam did is concealed in the words of that verse, i.e. that G’d commanded Job’s friends who had been guilty of misrepresenting G’d’s attributes and ways of judgment, to offer seven bulls and seven rams after bringing them to Job. Job would then pray for them to receive a pardon for their trespass against the Lord. Bileam realized the mystical power which reposed in the offering of these seven bulls and seven rams in each location. Just as G’d is perceived as שלם, complete, the number seven represents the concept of a complete cycle. By offering a complete cycle to the Complete One, Bileam hoped to attain the בינה  input from the eighth emanation called בינה.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   מן ארם ינחני בלק...מהררי קדם, “from Aram, Balak...led me, from the mountains of the east;” The word קדם here means “east.” When Bileam quoted Balak as asking him: ארה לי יעקב, “curse Yaakov for me,” he ridiculed Balak for even imagining that it would be possible to curse a nation of whom G’d had said that they were “part of Hashem” (Deut. 32,9). If it had not been for Yaakov, i.e. the Jewish people, i.e. Avraham who had saved Lot the ancestor of Moav, Balak’s nation would not even exist at all. Lot had been saved from the destruction of Sodom only by an act of kindness G’d performed on account of Avraham as we know from Genesis 19,29: “when G’d destroyed the towns of the valley, He remembered Avraham and sent Lot away from there.” Bileam also conceded that he himself was only on earth due to Yaakov who had served Lavan who had admitted that his blessings were due to Yaakov’s presence (Genesis 30,27). The Torah speaks of the sons of Lavan in Genesis 31,1. He, Bileam, was one of the direct descendants of Lavan. In view of the above, how could either he or Balak be so ungrateful as to curse the very people responsible for their existence on earth?
     לכה ארה לי יעקב, “come curse Yaakov on my behalf!” In this verse Bileam mentions both names of Israel, i.e. Yaakov and Israel. This is proof that when one curses one must mention all the names of the person to be cursed in order for the curse to have any effect. Also, one needs to use the two attributes of the name of G’d representing the attribute of night and the attribute of day. This is why Bileam mentioned both the attribute י-ה-ו-ה and the attribute א-ל in verse 8. [Bileam would not have needed to change the name of G’d’s attribute and could have said: מה אקוב לא קבה א-ל ומה אזעם לא זעם א-ל. You will note that in Psalms 7,12 David does combine זעם with the attribute א-ל, i.e. the problem is not with the type of curse but with the attributes of G’d invoked. Ed.].   In fact, Job did something similar when he cursed the day he was born and said (Job 3,8) יקבהו אררי יום. He had already cursed both the day and the night separately in the earlier verses of that chapter. According to our traditional sources the separate mention of day and night in verse 3 of that chapter was heretical, suggesting that separate powers are in charge of day and night respectively. Concerning that statement our sages in Shemot Rabbah 30,8 claim that this was heresy, (although Nachmanides points out that Jeremiah (20,14) appears to have been guilty of the same offense and no one accused him of heresy).    It is also necessary to see the intended victim of one’s curse with one’s own eyes as the curse will then be far more effective. This is why Balak went out of his way to take Bileam to the tops of surrounding hills and mountains. The same principle applies to blessings. In order for blessings to be fully effective the person to be blessed must be within an area that the one bestowing the blessing can see with his eyes. All his names should be mentioned just as Bileam did in 24,5 when he spoke of the goodness of the tents of Yaakov and the dwellings of Israel.   When Balak is quoted as having said to Bileam: “curse Yaakov for me,” the question is why he did not simply say: “curse Yaakov?” Actually Balak had not added the word לי “for me.” Bileam had added it to point to the incongruity of Balak’s request. By adding the word לי, Bileam hinted that Balak’s request to curse the Jewish people was equivalent to Balak asking that he himself be cursed seeing he could not have existed but for the Jewish people. We find support for this in Tanchuma Balak 12 where the Midrash says: “whoever curses these people curses himself seeing G’d had told Avraham that anyone cursing him or his descendants would be himself be cursed by G’d” (Genesis 12,3). Every type of curse Balak mentioned in connection with his attempt to have Israel cursed (22,11; 23,13; 23,27) always is accompanied by the word לי, the Torah’s way of saying that such a curse would boomerang on himself.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . מה אקב לא קבה א-ל, “what point is there in my cursing when G’d has not cursed (the same people) first?” Bileam refers to the fact that even when the Jewish people had deserved to be cursed after their disloyal acts committed during the episode of the golden calf, G’d still did not cease to love them. How did Bileam know? The protective clouds did not cease to envelop the people, the manna did not cease to descend from heaven every day, the water from the traveling well did not stop flowing. This was not merely Bileam’s surmise; we have an explicit verse in Nechemyah 9, 18-20: “Even though they made themselves a molten calf and said: ‘this is your God who brought you out of Egypt,’ thus committing great impieties, You, in Your abundant compassion, did not abandon them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud did not depart from them to lead them on the way by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to give them light in the way they were to go. You endowed them with Your good spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold Your manna from their mouth; You gave them water when they were thirsty.”
      It is possible to explain the choice of Bileam’s words מה אקב לא קבה א-ל as a reference to Yaakov who had been called א-ל by G’d Himself (Genesis 33,20). How could one curse someone who was characterised by G’d Himself as possessing divine attributes? Even when Yaakov had been angry (at his sons Shimon and Levi) and he had cursed (Genesis 49,7), he did not curse the two sons but only their anger, אפם. When Bileam continued: “how can I be wrathful when Hashem has not been wrathful?” He meant that during all these 40 years G’d had not been sufficiently angry at them. His own wisdom was only effective if G’d had first been sufficiently angry at the people (Berachot 7).
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי מראש צורים אראנו, “for from the top of rocks I behold it.” According to the plain meaning of the text this is a reference to a place of high altitude which the Torah already alluded to when it described Bileam as climbing a solitary top in verse 3.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma 12: The word צורים is a simile for the patriarchs; the word מגבעות, “from elevated hills,” is a simile for the twelve founding fathers of the nations, Yaakov’s sons. The reason Bileam referred to the patriarchs as צורים is because they towered spiritually like mountains tower physically. They have been compared to mountains elsewhere such as in Micah 6,2: “Hearken, you mountains to the case (argument) of the Lord;” The same prophet also calls on these same “mountains” to hear what the Lord is saying when he portrays G’d as submitting His claims against the Jewish people. At the same time the prophet also portrays G’d as appealing to the hills. What is the point of mentioning the hills after the mountain? Clearly both words are similes. Seeing Avraham was the original rock of faith in G’d, his faith, etc., is compared to the leading rock, ראש צורים. The reason the twelve sons of Yaakov are described as hills is that they were on a lower spiritual level than the patriarchs, just as hills are lower than mountains. Having thus referred to the founders of the nation, Bileam now addresses the people at large by saying:   הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב, “they are a nation that dwells in splendid isolation, do not consider themselves as belonging to the nations.” The entire sequence of the verses 8-9 is to be understood as: “how can I curse or even express wrath when the nation I am looking at has such an outstanding past and to uproot such a nation is no easy matter both because of their past and because of the future in store for them Their past makes cursing them impossible as towering individuals such as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov cannot be uprooted by mere mortals. The merits accumulated by the mountains and the hill, i.e. the patriarchs and the twelve sons of Yaakov are more powerful than physical mountains and hills. They (their descendants) will ultimately inherit the earth. When all the other idol-worshipping nations will perish this people alone will survive; this is the deeper meaning of the words: “they will dwell in solitude.”   The word לבדד is similar to the word לבד, alone, or the word בדד as we have it in Lamentations 1,1. A hermit is described as בדד, as he isolates himself מתבודד, whereas the word לבדד conveys a double meaning. 1) the people are unique, no other people is like it. 2) They reside in freely chosen solitude, similar to the statement Moses made about G’d in Deut. 32,12 ה' בדד ינחנו “the Lord alone (unaided) guided it (the Jewish nation).“ Seeing Bileam wanted to convey both meanings of the word he did not simply describe the Jewish people as בדד ישכון, dwelling alone, but added the letter ל. The uniqueness of the Jewish people consists both of its sets of laws, the Torah, and of its religion, faith in the invisible Creator not in any intermediaries. Just as the G’d of Israel is unique among the deities of the nations so His people are not an integral part of the family of nations. 
  Moses also alluded to this in his parting address to the people when he said (Deut. 33,29) about the people אשריך ישראל מי כמוך, “hail you Israel, who is like you? He continued extolling the uniqueness of Israel’s G’d saying אין כאל ישורון, “there is none like the G’d of Yeshurun.    We find that Daniel foretold the destruction of the other nations  whereas the Jewish nation would survive forever (Daniel 7,11), a prediction aimed especially at the Roman Empire which though given a prolongation of life will utterly perish. [The Roman Empire had not even begun during Daniel’s life time. Ed.]. In verses 13-14 of the same chapter Daniel contrasts the eternal survival of the Jewish nation under the kingship of the Messiah with what he had predicted about the fourth kingdom (exile of the Jewish people).
      An investigative/astrological approach: When Bileam speaks about the צורים, the “rocks,” he refers to the seven planets which form the “bottom line,” or “bedrock” of the world view held by the philosophers of his time. The “hills”, גבעות refer to the 12 zodiac constellations.  Bileam drew a comparison between the signs of the zodiac which are affixed to the planetary system in space and to the fixed stars which were perceived as anchored in the earth (read: ‘matter’). Bileam was able to recognize that whereas the people whose world-view, religious orientation, was matter-bound would ultimately perish whereas the Jewish people whose entire orientation was dictated by considerations linking earth to celestial phenomena would survive the collapse of the terrestrial universe when the time comes for this. [The author discussed the time and the meaning of the word עולם, לעולם ועד and יובל as well as יובל הגדול in connection with that legislation in Leviticus 25,8 and elsewhere. Ed.]. The compliment Bileam paid the Jewish people at this time was that they would not have to change their world outlook and their faith when these cataclysmic events would occur as opposed to all other nations who would then recognize the error of their ways [freely translated. Ed.]. 
  
  Verse 10
  
   מי מנה עפר יעקב, “Who has counted the dust of Yaakov?” According to the plain meaning of the text Bileam asks a rhetorical question: “who can possibly count all the Israelites, they are far too numerous to be counted.” When he said ומספר רובע ישראל, this is a continuation of the same thought, i.e. “who can count even a quarter of the Jewish people?” The word Rova may be a reference to one of the flags, seeing the four camps of the Jewish people each had a flag signifying which group they belonged to.   תמות נפשי מות ישרים, “may my (own) soul die the death of the upright.” At this time Bileam wishes for death provided that his own death would also be an entrance to the future in store for the Israelites after the death of their bodies. Just as they have an eternal future seeing they are an integral part of Hashem, so Bileam wished himself a similar future. The reason he gave expression to such a wish at this time was that he had foreseen quite a different death for himself, i.e. a violent death by the sword (according to Ibn Ezra).
      A Midrashic approach to these verses (based on Tanchuma Balak 12). The words: “who counted,” or “who can count the dust of Yaakov,” is a rhetorical question describing all the commandments which the Jewish people perform involving dust, i.e. the dust of red cow (Numbers 19,9), the dust of the parchment containing a portion of the Torah which a Sotah has to drink to clear her name from suspicion of infidelity to her husband (Numbers 5,17). Thus far the Midrash. Seeing that there are only very few commandments involving the use of earth, dust, the meaning of the Midrash must be that the reward for performance of the commandments involving dust is viewed as especially great, unlimited in fact.   Another Midrashic approach views the word עפר as עופר, “young male offspring of the hind.” Bileam acknowledges in an oblique reference the piety of  young men (Israelites) who have a powerful sexual urge but conquer their urge to make sure they do not become guilty of indulging it with partners forbidden to them.
      A scientific/astrological approach: “counting the dust of Yaakov” is an allusion to resurrection of the dead in the future. Seeing that Bileam has already mused about how Israel will survive the destruction of the earth in the distant future whereas the nations of the world will perish, he now muses on the innumerable Jews who will be resurrected from their graves at that time and who will join their brethren who have survived the cataclysm. We know that this will be so from Daniel 12,2: “and many of those who have been asleep in the earth will wake up.”   Bileam referred to these people with two different words, מנין and מספר, both meaning “number of.” The reason may be that Israel has been compared to the stars and the psalmist employs the root מנה as well as the root ספר to describe G’d counting stars (Psalms 147,4) מונה מספר לכוכבים, “He counts the number of the stars.” Bileam also refers to Israel both as Israel and as Yaakov in the same verse. We have already explained that Yaakov is the term used to describe the Jewish people in the context of their physical functions whereas the name Israel is applied when their spiritual functions are mentioned. The prophet Isaiah 43,1 speaks of בוראך יעקב ויוצרך ישראל, “the One who created you as Yaakov and fashioned you as Israel.” The second stage of Yaakov’s development is described as resulting in ישראל. The same prophet draws similar distinctions when he describes G’d’s creation of darkness as opposed to His fashioning light, i.e. something superior to darkness. Negative phenomena in this world qualify only for the elementary part of creation בריאה, as opposed to יצירה (compare Isaiah 45,7). By associating עפר with Yaakov, and רובע with Israel, Bileam hints that the soul upon leaving the body returns the four constituent parts of the body to the earth, the dust. The soul is immortal by definition. When Bileam spoke about his נפש dying this was an inaccuracy seeing the soul cannot “die.” [The assumption being that “death” means dissolution of matter which had previously been amalgamated to form a functioning whole. Ed.]. Bileam referred to his body dying. This is not the only time the word נפש means “body.” When the Torah speaks about a נפש כי תחטא what is meant is “the soul in a body which sins,” seeing that a soul without a body is incapable of committing a sin. Similarly, when Leviticus 7,18 speaks of הנפש האוכלת, “the soul which eats,” clearly the meaning is the body inhabited by a soul which eats, as disembodied souls cannot eat. The reason we often find the word נפש when a whole personality, a functioning human being is meant is simply that the body without a soul is nothing; it would hardly do to refer to a human being merely as a “body.” When the Torah wants to include every type of human being, i.e. male, female, minor, senior, priest or layman, the word  נפש includes them all.    Bileam revealed in these verses that there is a world (after death of the body) consisting of disembodied souls only, and that there is also a resurrection at a later stage when these disembodied souls will be reunited with their former bodies. This latter world is the ultimate purpose of man and his having been created to first live in this terrestrial universe.    It is presumed to be generally known that immediately upon death of the body the soul enters the domain of disembodied spirits. Bileam had expressed the hope that when he would die he (his soul) would qualify for immediate transfer to that world (not the region in which the soul is being judged which precedes it). When he added the word ותהי אחריתי כמוהו, he meant: ”may my ultimate destiny be like that of the Jewish people,” i.e. may I enjoy the delights of life in a perfect world after my soul has been reunited with my body. All of this is included in what Bileam termed מות ישרים, ‘the death of the upright.’ The very fact that Bileam wished himself this kind of death and this kind of afterlife is proof that he paid the Jewish people the greatest compliment possible. He thereby acknowledged that Israel would inherit the physical world of the future also. If we had been paid a similar compliment by a Jewish prophet it would have been far less meaningful as Jewish prophets are naturally prejudiced in favour of their own people. When a Gentile, by definition one of our accusers, is forced to affirm our superiority, i.e. to say “Amen” to  G’d’s praises of His people, this is of special significance.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . התיצב כה על עלתך ואנכי אקרה כה, “stand here by your burnt-offering and I will seek a manifestation (of G’d) thus.” Bileam had reasoned that the Israelites had relied on G’d’s promise to Avraham (after the former had been taught to offer sacrifices in Genesis 15) כה יהיה זרעך, “thus will be your descendants.” They also relied on the merit of receiving the priestly blessing which G’d had introduced by telling the priests כה תברכו את בני ישראל, “thus you shall bless the Children of Israel” (Numbers 6,23). Moses, when requesting permission to traverse the land of Edom had also quoted his own people, Edom’s “brother” as saying: כה אמר אחיך ישראל, “thus said your brother Israel.” Seeing that the formula כה appears to be an appropriate formula for people to gain their objectives, Bileam used the formula כה when “inviting” divine inspiration or grace. He hoped to achieve with his wisdom what Balak would accomplish with his offerings. This is why he used the word כה both when telling Balak to stand by his sacrifices and when referring to his own part in the proceedings.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא איש אל ויכזב, “G’d is not a man that He should deceive.”  Bileam meant: “with words.” Seeing G’d had told him not to curse the people, the idea that Balak would instruct Bileam to curse the Jewish people from a certain lookout point and that G’d would agree was quite absurd.
     ההוא אמר לא יעשה, “Would He say and not carry out (what He said)?” If the word הוא refers to G’d the whole line is a question. If Bileam merely meant to explain something based on his wisdom, the word הוא refers to a human being who has second thoughts about an oral undertaking on his part who now will not carry out such an undertaking, someone who promises but does not keep his promise.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Massey 7: Bileam who foresaw that there would arise a man in the future who would proclaim himself as god (the founder of Christianity) exclaimed how can it be that a mere mortal so deceives his peers? He predicted that this individual would have to regret what he said seeing he would not be able to demonstrate the truth of it [seeing he was executed. Who can execute a god? Even men who had not claimed to be god were saved from fiery furnaces, etc. Should the god not be able to take care of himself if he really were god? Ed.].     However, of G’d it is to be expected that when He promises something good that He will invariably fulfill this promise, i.e. לא איש אל ויכזב, “G’d is not like man who promises without delivering.” On the other hand, when G’d threatens something harmful, such a threat need not come true (as it is merely a warning for the intended victim to change his ways). This is expressed here in the words ההוא אמר ולא יעשה, “He may say something (and is not bound by it) to carry it out.” Example: G’d told Avraham (Genesis 15,5) to count the stars and to see if he could count them, meaning that his descendants would be equally numerous. The promise was fulfilled as Moses told the people in Deut. 1,10: “here you are today as numerous as the stars in heaven” [no one challenged that statement. Ed.]. This was an illustration of the words: “G’d is not man that He deceives.” On the other hand, although we find the prophet Hoseah 1,9 telling the people (in the name of G’d) “you are not My people,” in Hoseah 2,25 the same prophet assures the people “I will say to Lo-Ammi,“ [the people who had previously been told that they were not G’d’s people. Ed.] “you are My people.” This is an illustration of what Bileam meant when he said about G’d: “He may say, but need not do.” This is the way Tanchuma  understands the verse.
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה ברך לקחתי, “here I have received instructions to bless.” This is an introductory comment similar to Genesis 27,39: “here from the fat parts of the earth, etc.” Bileam meant to say that he received the blessings from above, seeing G’d had put the words in his mouth.   וברך לא אשיבנה, “whom He has blessed I will not contradict. it.” Seeing that the power of speech is G’d’s monopoly (as we know from Exodus 3,11).
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא הביט און ביעקב, “He has not seen iniquity in Yaakov.” According to the plain meaning of the text Bileam meant that the people are not guilty of any iniquity. If they were guilty of iniquities the good they experience at this time would not endure long seeing that G’d’s promises are all linked to the condition of the recipients of blessing remaining worthy of them. Seeing that at this point in time they are not guilty of any iniquity ה' אלו-היו עמו, “the Lord G’d is with it (the nation).” Not only that, but they enjoy the privilege of blowing the teruah, i.e. the sound of the shofar of the King (G’d Who blew it at Mount Sinai) signifying His approval. 
      I have heard that the reason why Bileam had to refer to G’d as “King” in the course of his blessings was because G’d made him reverse his intended curse. We know that if a blessing is reversed for some reason, the person concerned would be wiped out instantly through the power of G’d’s curse. In Hebrew such destruction would spell כלם. The letters in the word כלם are the same as in the word מלך, “king”, only rearranged. Bileam surreptitiously chose the word כלם, anticipating a moment  when G’d angers and would reverse the blessings the Jewish people enjoyed at that moment. By mentioning the word מלך, the Torah indicated that any curse Bileam had had in mind was already converted into the opposite, a blessing, just as the word כלם reversed means King instead of destruction. This was what Moses referred to in Deut. 23,6 when he reminded the people [who, of course had been unaware of all this seeing none of it had been witnessed by a single Israelite. Ed.] that G’d in His great mercy had turned all of Bileam’s intended curses into blessings.  
      Some commentators  understand these words as: “when is the Lord G’d with the people? When they blow the teruah of the King, i.e. when they demonstrate that they journey at G’d’s command as indicated by the pillar of cloud moving from the Tabernacle.” [The reason that this sound is blown, compare Numbers 10,6]. According to this interpretation the word תרועה is related to רעות, companionship, i.e. the people seek out the Shechinah, G’d’s companionship.
      A kabbalistic approach: The expression ה' אלו-היו is a reference to the mighty hand of G’d employed during His orchestration of the Exodus. Moses had described this in the following words: אשר הוצאת מארץ מצרים בכח גדול וביד חזקה, “who took you out of Egypt with great force and a strong hand” (Exodus 32,11). Bileam paraphrased these attributes of G’d when describing the assistance Israel received from above. He acknowledged that the attribute Hashem was indeed Israel’s national G’d. This is the כח גדול Moses had spoken of.
     ותרועת מלך בו, “and their King’s acclaim is in their midst.” This is a reference to the “strong hand” we mentioned earlier. To make sure we understand this Bileam added immediately: ”the G’d who took them out of Egypt.” This is also why Onkelos renders this as “the Presence of their King is among them.” The word תרועה is related to רעיא, the כלה described in Song of Songs [chapter 4,8 where the Targum understands the word as the “Jewish people, the companion of G’d.”]
  
  Verse 22
  
  . אל מוציאם ממצרים, “the G’d who takes them out of Egypt.” Bileam counters Balak’s statement that the people of Israel had left Egypt under their own power, without Divine assistance (compare 22,5). He explains that G’d performed outstanding miracles overcoming horoscopic forces according to which the Israelites should have remained in Egypt much longer. Seeing he had already referred to תרועת מלך (in the sense of their being the King’s companion) he now describes that their companionship is the result of His taking them out of Egypt.
     כתועפות ראם לו, “is for them like the horns of an aggressive ox.” In this simile Bileam compares G’d’s power to that of a wild ox just as elsewhere Hoseah had compared Him to a roaring lion (Hoseah 11,10). These two animals are the most powerful ones in creation; seeing that the Torah employs syntax which is understandable in terms of our use of the language it is not a downgrading of G’d’s greatness to employ such similes. The Torah endeavours to make its message understandable to our ears (Tanchuma Yitro 13 et al).
      A Midrashic approach: the word תועפות is derived from עוף, bird. When the Israelites sin even marginally, G’d reduces their loftiness like a bird descending; on the other hand, when they perform G’d’s commandments they soar like birds (Tanchuma Balak 14). The Midrash derives this thought from Isaiah 60,8: “who are these who fly like heavy clouds?”
  
  Verse 23
  
  . כי לא נחש ביעקב, “for there is no divination in Yaakov,” seeing the people are close companions of the Lord and cleave to Him they have no need for divination, magic, etc. Israel can have prophetic revelation about what G’d is going to do at any time it chooses. All G’d’s activities have been decreed in advance.
      A Midrashic approach: The words כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל א-ל, mean that this is a reference to the arch-angel Michael of whom Daniel said (Daniel 12,1) “at that time there will stand Michael, the great heavenly prince, who  stands in support of the children of your people, etc.,” The words יאמר ליעקב ולישראל  refer to times when the Israelites experience G’d’s goodness seeing they qualify for the title of יראיך, “the ones who revere You.” We have another verse in Isaiah 23,18 where the prophet assures G’d’s manifest support for those who revere Him i.e. “for those who sit before the Lord will have adequate food and clothing.”
  
  Verse 24
  
   הן עם כלביא יקום, “behold they are a people who will arise like a lion.” This was a hint that Israel would defeat the kings of Canaan (according to Ibn Ezra). I think it is more likely that it is an allusion to the war against Midian (the punitive expedition in Numbers 31,49) an unheard of miracle as it was a war in which Israel did not suffer a single casualty. Five Midianite kings were slain in that war. There were no fewer than 32,000 young women who had still retained their virginity (31,35); we can therefore imagine the total number of warriors that the 12,000 Israelites must have faced in that campaign. ודם חללים ישתה “and drink the blood of the corpses.” This is a reference to the booty that was seized.
      A Midrashic view: The comment about Israel rising like a lion is a simile about Jews getting out of bed in the morning and devoting themselves to the performance of G’d’s commandments, such as the wearing of tzitzit, wearing phylacteries, and reciting the kriyat shema. The comment about “lying down only after consuming the prey,” is also a simile. Even when lying down to sleep at night they do not go to sleep without first consigning their souls to G’d in heaven. He prophesied that Moses would not die until after Israel had avenged itself from the Midianites. We know this from Numbers 31,2: “take vengeance for the people of Israel from Midian; after that you will be gathered in.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ולא הלך כפעם בפעם לקראת נחשים, “and he did not go as every other time towards divinations. The reason was that he had been told: “divinations are useless in connection with Yaakov” (23,23). As a result of abandoning this venue Bileam was granted a measure of Holy Spirit (verse 2).
     וישת אל המדבר פניו, “he set his face toward the desert.” Israel was encamped there in the wilderness of Moav. Bileam faced them to that he could see them, concentrate on what he was going to say, and make sure that his blessings would take full effect.    Rashi explains the words in accordance with Onkelos, who says ושוי לקבל עגלא דעבדו למדברא אפוהי, “to the calf which they had made in the desert.” According to Rashi, Bileam hoped to be able to curse the people. The author queries if Rashi had an accurate text of the Targum, seeing he only quotes two words from the Targum, i.e. ושוי למדברא, These words need not mean that Bileam addressed the spirit of impurity which resides in the desert and which caused the Israelites to fall victim to the sin of the golden calf.  Whenever Bileam wanted to receive inspiration from Hashem, the Torah first mentions that he offered an ox and a ram as burnt-offering (23,2). The reason Bileam requested Balak’s assistance in these sacrificial procedures was because he, Bileam, addressed the attribute of Mercy, whereas Balak was to address the attribute of Justice. This is the meaning of “he set his face toward the desert,” and on this occasion we do not read about Balak assisting in the procedures at all. [Our author considers Bileam alone the subject of the word ויעל פר ואיל במזבח, he did not want the attribute of Justice to be addressed at all as this would interfere with his train of thought. It is difficult to read this into the text. Ed.].
  
  Verse 2
  
  . וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו, “He saw Israel dwelling according to its tribes.” He saw the flags arranged in proper order. He noted that the entrances of the tents did not face each other so as to preserve a maximum of privacy for each family at all times. This would prevent an evil eye damaging the air-space of one’s neighbour. As soon as he realised the purpose of this arrangement, he exclaimed: “how goodly are your tents O Yaakov” (Baba Batra 60).
     נאם הגבר, “the words of the man, etc.” Bileam referred to himself as גבר, “man,” in the masculine sense of the word, seeing that the masculine rooster has intuitive knowledge of the moment dawn breaks. Bileam claimed similar knowledge of the “moods” of the Lord, as we pointed out earlier (compare Berachot 7 which states that he was the only human being able to do this). The rooster is the only one of the birds which possesses this talent. The rooster is credited with calling out seven times during the night. We also find that Bileam raised his voice i.e. וישא משלו, on seven different occasions during his visit to Balak. Just as the rooster is the sexually most promiscuous animal amongst the birds, mating with innumerable hens, so Bileam was stooped in sexual licentiousness, sleeping with any female he could get hold of. The reason that the rooster is not acceptable as an offering on the altar is precisely because of its sexual mores. Bileam is reputed to have slept even with his ass, and it is not surprising therefore that he tried to seduce the Israelites into becoming similarly indiscriminate in their sex life (compare Sanhedrin 105).
  
  Verse 3
  
  שתם העין, “with the open eye.” The word שתם is the opposite of סתום, i.e. “closed, shut.” A similar expression appears in Avodah Zarah 69 "כדי שישתום ויסתום", and the expression denotes the time it takes for a Gentile to open and reseal a casket of wine, i.e. if the wine was unsupervised for this length of time it is no longer fit for consumption by a Jew.    It is a well known fact that there are three types of knowledge and the way it can be acquired: 1) by means of seeing things and comprehending their nature. 2) by means of hearing things and understanding their nature. 3) perceptions other than by means of these two organs. The latter are called simply ידיעה, “knowledge.” In our verse Bileam refers to these three ways of acquiring knowledge as 1) שתום העין, 2) שומע אמרי א-ל; 3) יודע דעת עליון.  We find all these three ways of acquiring knowledge also applied to G’d Himself in a single verse in Exodus 3,7 where G’d describes His knowledge of the pitiful state the Jewish people are in with these words: ראה ראיתי את עני עמי....את צעקתם שמעתי...כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “I have certainly seen the troubles of My people...and I have heard their outcries...for I know their pain.” Seeing that the terms “seeing” and “hearing” do not really apply to G’d who has no eyes or ears, it is clear that the word ידעתי, “I know,” applies to all three ways of acquiring knowledge.
  
  Verse 4
  
   אשר מחזה שדי יחזה, “who sees the vision of Shaddai.” This verse clearly shows that Bileam did not achieve the level of prophetic insight achieved by our patriarchs. It most certainly did not even approximate the level of prophetic insight achieved by Moses. It was at least two levels below that of Moses. Whereas the level of the patriarchs was of the level described as א-ל שדי, that of Bileam was only that of the level of מחזה של שדי. 
  According to Nachmanides, this is why Bileam described himself as גלוי עינים, a level of prophetic insights characteristic of the בני הנביאים, “the disciples of the prophets” that we read about frequently in the Book of Prophets. In Kings II 6,17 for instance, we read of Elisha praying for G’d to open the eyes of his disciple. In our portion, chapter 22,31 we have a similar statement applied to Bileam when the Torah reports that G’d opened his eyes and he saw the angel.   When the sages in Sifri Vezot Habrachah comment on Deut. 34,10 where the Torah reports that “there never again arose a prophet of the level of Moses among the Jewish people who knew G’d face to face,” that there did arise a prophet among the Gentiles who was of similar stature, i.e. Bileam, the meaning is not that Bileam equalled Moses as a prophet. Rather, the author of Sifri compares the aspect of ידיעה, which Moses had of G’d’s ways to the clarity with which Bileam perceived that which he did perceive. He did not see fragmentary visions, unclear visions like other prophets, but had a perfectly clear understanding of what G’d conveyed to him — in honor of the people of Israel — (not because of his personal merit). This is the way Nachmanides understands the Sifri we quoted.   There is another way of understanding the words of the Sifri who writes: ‘but among the nations of the world there did arise such a prophet;” Sifri means when Bileam bestowed blessings, i.e. addressed exclusively the attribute of Mercy, his stature as a prophet equaled that of Moses, his blessings were just as powerful. Had it not been for the blessings of Bileam which he addressed to the attribute of Mercy exclusively, the Jewish people’s future would have been questionable at best. But seeing that Bileam reverted to the use of magic after bestowing his blessings, his power as a prophet evaporated completely.  נופל,  the word is to be understood as analogous to Genesis 15,12: ותרדמה נפלה על אברם, “and a deep sleep overcame Avram.”   וגלוי עינים, “with his eyes open.” The meaning is: “he sees even while being asleep.” We have a similar verse by Solomon in Song of Songs 5,2: “I am asleep but my heart is awake.”
  
  Verse 5
  
   מה טובו אוהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראל, “how goodly are your tents O Yaakov, your dwellings O Israel.” According to the plain meaning of the text Bileam now prophesies about the future of the Israelites in the land of Canaan.
      According to Midrash (Talmud Baba Batra 60a) Bileam speaks of the tents in the desert, seeing that there the Israelites dwelled in tents. When he saw how the entrances of these tents were so arranged that they did not face each other, Bileam was inspired to compliment the people on this.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words אהליך are a reference to the tents of the Jewish people in the celestial regions, whereas the word משכנותיך refers to their terrestrial dwellings. The former is a reference to the name of Yaakov being engraved on G’d’s throne (Bereshit Rabbah 68,18 ). The word טובו is understood as meaning the same as בהטיבו את הנרות, “purifying, cleaning” the lamps of the Menorah (Exodus 30,7). The word אהליך is a composite of בהלו נרו, “when His lamp shone” (Job 29,3), the latter א having been added. It symbolises the word אור, light. Bileam perceives the משכנות, “terrestrial dwellings of the Israelites,” as deriving their input from the purity of the celestial light  this nation commands in those regions. Note how  the verse is constructed in such a way that the word טוב we referred to covers both the term אהליך and משכנותיך. Immediately following is   כנחלים נטיו; “stretching like brooks;” the word נטיה is always applied to manifestations in our terrestrial world; in this instance it refers to the משכנות mentioned in the previous verse.
  
  Verse 6
  
  כנחלים נטיו, “stretching like brooks;” Our verse uses four separate expressions describing the dwellings of the Jewish people. The four expressions correspond to the four flags of each of the four camps of the people in the desert. Each expression symbolizes another type of enjoyment, delight. Our sages in Taanit 20 consider the curse with which the prophet Achiah Hashiloni cursed Israel as better than the blessing bestowed on the Jewish people by Bileam [Compare Kings I 14,15: “The Lord will strike Israel (the ten tribes) until it sways like a reed in water.”] You will note that reeds have a habit of bending with the wind without breaking, not being uprooted by the most powerful winds, whereas the cedars which Bileam used as similes for Israel in his blessings are prone to being uprooted by the wind. When that happens the trunk will not rehabilitate itself.
  
  Verse 7
  
   יזל מים מדליו, “water shall drip from its boughs.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word דליות means “boughs, branches.”
      A Midrashic approach: The verse contains a warning to be careful in one’s treatment of the poor as they are the ones from which Torah emanates in great concentrations. We know this from Isaiah 55,1 who urges the thirsty to come for “water,” the word “water” being a simile for Torah. Accordingly the word מדליו is understood by the Midrash as מדלים שבהם, as “from the poor among them.”
     וזרעו במים רבים, “their roots have abundant water.” They get irrigated by abundant water supplies and continue to grow and develop day after day. It is similar to Isaiah 17,11: “on the day that you plant, you see it grow; on the morning you sow you see it bud.”
     וירום מאגג מלכו, “and may its kingdom be exalted over Agag.” A reference to King Shaul who captured Agag, the  King of Amalek.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . מברכיך ברוך “the ones who bless you, may they be blessed.” Although Bileam combines plural and singular in this verse, we encounter something similar in both Genesis 49,22 and Proverbs 28,1.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ועתה ברח לך אל מקומך, “and now, flee to your place!” According to the father of R. David Kimchi this is not a flight in the conventional sense of the word but means the same as “go quickly!” The word is used in a similar meaning in Isaiah 48,20: ברחו מכשדים, “flee from Chaldea! Declare with loud shouting, Announce this, bring out the word to the end of the earth!” It may describe that Israel departed from Egypt with great fanfare. When the prophet Jonah is described as לברוח תרשישה, “hiring a ship to escape to Tarshish” (Jonah 1,3) this must not be taken to mean that he imagined he could escape from the Lord; it means that he meant to travel to Tarshish quickly. This is also the meaning of the words מלפני ה' that we find there which means “away from the presence of the Lord” and not מפני ה', “on account of the Lord,” as we find in Psalms 139,7 where David makes plain that it is impossible to flee from G’d using the words: “Where can I escape from Your spirit (presence)?”   The reason that Bileam was anxious to leave was to forestall G’d giving him a sign such as He did to the people of Nineveh (in later years) which would prompt them to do repentance, resulting eventually and indirectly in the destruction of the Northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Jonah himself told G’d that the reason that he was in such a rush to embark for Tarshish was to forestall that demise of the Jewish kingdom, not to escape from the Lord (Jonah 4,2). The “sign” to the people of Nineveh which prompted them to take Jonah’s prediction of their doom seriously and to repent their evil ways was undoubtedly that they had heard what had happened on the boat to Tarshish, how Jonah despite being thrown overboard had miraculously remained alive, etc., etc. This is a beautiful explanation although it clashes with that of our sages at the beginning of Mechilta 21 who do understand Jonah’s flight to Tarshish as an attempt to escape G’d in order not to be burdened with Holy Spirit, something he thought is not imposed when away from the Holy Land.  
     אמרתי כבד אכבדך, “I had said that I would honor you greatly;”  the reason Balak used the word כבד, “honor,” twice in succession is that it refers to the two locations to which Balak had taken Bileam, hoping each time that he would curse the Jewish people. Now that he had taken him to a third location he no longer even planned to honor Bileam since he had acquired a reputation of blessing the Israelites instead. As soon as Bileam had declared that those who curse the Israelites will themselves be cursed whereas those who bless them will be blessed, Balak had lost all hope of a successful confrontation with that people and he told him “to get lost.” He blamed his inability to reward Bileam on G’d, saying that “G’d has prevented me from honoring you.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ועתה הנני הולך לעמי לכה איעצך, “and now that I am about to go to my people, let me give you some advice.” He meant that he was going to give Balak advice how to trip up the Jewish people, to deflect them from their pious ways. He should encourage the Moabite women to make themselves sexually available to the Israelites. He, Bileam, knew that the G’d of the Jews hated sexual promiscuity. Although in our verse Bileam did not spell out precisely what he advised, it becomes clear in Numbers 31,16 where Moses tells the returning warriors that the Midianite women whom they failed to kill were the seductresses who, at the instigation of Bileam, were responsible for the thousands of Jewish lives lost in the pestilence.
     אשר יעשה, “what is going to do.” The complete sentence is: “I will hereby advise you of what this nation is going to do to your people in the distant future.” Later on in verse 17 he goes into detail saying: “it will pierce the nobles of Moav.” Bileam implied that at this point in history Balak had no cause for worry.
      Nachmanides understands the word איעצך as revealing to Balak a message Bileam had received from G’d telling him that the people of Moav would not fall into the hands of the Jewish people until the end of the pre-messianic period. We find that Bileam announced four separate prophecies. 1) The first prophecy described the Jewish people as part of G’d and His heritage; they would dwell in splendid isolation and not be considered as part of the community of nations. 2) He foretold that the Israelites would conquer the land of Canaan and kill the mighty kings of that country. This was the meaning of verse 24 that they are a people who arise like a lion  and do not rest until they have devoured their prey. 3) In the third of his prophecies Bileam saw a vision of the Jewish people firmly established in their homeland dwelling in security and having a king who would vanquish their first adversary after the Exodus, the Amalekites under the kingship of Agag. He foresaw King David rising to a still more powerful position than Sha-ul, and he knew that G’d had already planned for David to become king. David himself testifies to this in Samuel II 5,12. 4) In his fourth vision Bileam concentrated on the messianic future of the Jewish people, a period which he introduced with the words: “I see it but it will not happen now, I can foresee it but it will not come to pass in the near future” (verse 17). During all his previous prophecies Bileam had not tempered them by relegating them to the distant future. The true knowledge that G’d had given him concerned the messianic period.  He himself referred to himself as “the one who knows the mind of the Supreme One.” Anyone making such a statement about himself infers that he is familiar with G’d’s long-term planning of the history of mankind. It is something similar to Isaiah 63,4 saying: “For I had planned a day of vengeance.”     Our sages in Kohelet Rabbah 12,10 comment that if someone were to claim to know when the messiah would come we are not to believe him. G’d did not reveal to anyone by word of mouth when the final redemption would occur. They derive this from the verse in Isaiah we quoted that G’d keeps the date of when He will take vengeance as a secret in His heart.
      Seeing the matter is secret, G’d did not reveal it to His angels who in turn serve as His mouth(piece) revealing to the prophets what they are to say, in effect making the prophets their mouth(piece). The words of the Midrash לבא לפומא לא גלי, “He did not even reveal it to those who serve as mouthpiece,” mean that G’d did not reveal the timing of the arrival of the messiah even to the angels. He most certainly did not reveal it to the prophets and Daniel was told specifically (Daniel 12,9) that “these words are secret and sealed to the time of the end.” A “hidden” (secret) name for G’d is לב, heart, as the heart is where secrets are kept; this is the meaning of Psalms 73,26: “but G’d is the stay of my heart, my portion forever.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אראנו ולא עתה, “I can see it — but not now.” The prophecy being introduced refers to David who four hundred years from this date would smash the nobles of Moav. The words וקרקר כל בני שת, “and undermine the children of Sheth,“ is a reference to mankind as such which is descended in the main from the descendants of Sheth, Adam’s third son Noach being one of them. (Compare Samuel II 8,2 where David’s victory over Moav is documented.)  Another way of understanding the reference by Bileam to the “descendants of Sheth.” The word שת may not refer to a human being but to “foundation.” We find the word שתין meaning “the foundations of the earth” in Talmudic language, a reference to the “navel” of the earth under the Holy Temple. Bileam foresaw that David’s victories would create havoc among the existing world order in the countries surrounding the land of Israel. The words “and Edom will become a conquest” also apply to that period as we know from Kings I 11,16 that Edom”s males were wiped out by David’s general Yoav. The words (verse 19) וירד מיעקב mean that someone descended from Yaakov will arise and destroy the remnants of all the cities of Edom. This may be a veiled reference to Rome. Finally, the words וירד מיעקב also mean that the messiah will be descended from Israel. The words ולא יהיה שריד לבית עשו, “no remnant will remain of Esau,” in Ovadiah 18 are the logical conclusion of Bileam’s prophecy here.
      A Midrashic approach: the words “I will see but not now,” refer to David, whereas the subsequent words: “I can see it but not in the near future,” refer to the messiah. The words: a star comes forth from Yaakov” refer to David, whereas the words וקם שבט מישראל, “a scepter-bearer emerges from Israel,” is a reference to King Messiah. The words ומחץ פעמי מואב again refer to David, of whom it is written in Samuel II 8,2 that “he defeated the Moabites and made them lie down on the ground and measured them with a rope.” The words וקרקר כל בני שת again refer to the King Messiah of whom it is written (Psalms 72,8) that וירד מים עד ים, “he will rule from sea to sea.” The words: והיה אדם ירשה again refer to David seeing the Edomites all became slaves to David (Samuel II 8,14) whereas the words וישראל עושה חיל, “and Israel will perform deeds of valour” refer to King Messiah of whom we have read (Ovadiah 1,21) “For the liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau, and Dominion shall be the Lord’s.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  . וירא את עמלק, “he saw Amalek;” (in a prophetic vision, seeing that nation was hundreds of miles distant). The reason this prophecy commences with Amalek is that this nation is both a descendant of Esau and was the first to engage Israel in military combat after the Exodus. It will also be the last nation to do so prior to its utter destruction. In our days Amalek is represented by the Roman Empire. This is the reason Bileam concluded his prophecy with predicting the destruction of the Kingdom of the Kittim, another name for the Roman Empire. Bileam predicts utter destruction for these kingdoms, using the word עדי אובד as something parallel to G’d’s prediction in Exodus 17,14 where the words are מחה אמחה.
  
  Verse 21
  
  . וירא את הקיני, “when he saw the Kenite, etc.” This is the family of Yitro. They are described as Kenites in Chronicles I 20,25 (according to Ibn Ezra there). In Judges 4,11 they also appear under that name when Yael slew Siserah. Bileam uses a play on words when describing that these people have set their “nest” in a lofty rock. The word קן, meaning “nest” in Hebrew is employed by Bileam to contrast the advantages gained by that family which converted to Judaism and will share the glorious future of that nation with that of the enemies of the Jewish people. Bileam exclaims “sarcastically?” that even if the Amalekites had made their home in lofty rocks this would not help them against the wrath of G’d and Israel in the future he describes. They would be brought down even from such lofty heights.
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי אם יהיה לבער קין עד מה אשור תשבך, “yet shall Kayin be consumed when Ashur takes you captive.” According to Ibn Ezra, Bileam uses the word Kayin to describe the Kenite, saying: “how long can Ashur keep you captive, i.e. the exile of the Ten Tribes of the Jewish people by the Assyrians is of limited duration, whereas the other captives of Assyria would never regain their freedom. The reason the word Assyria is used in the feminine gender is that Bileam relates to the camp of Assyria, similar to Job 1,15 referring to Sheba in the feminine gender. The same feminine form is used to describe Israel in verse Samuel I 17,21.
  
  Verse 23
  
   אוי מי יחיה משומו אל, “who will survive unless G’d has willed it!” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of the verse is that no one can escape the decree of G’d in the world to be executed by the King of Ashur, seeing that that kingdom defeated every nation that stood in its way (Rashi as well as Ibn Ezra). 
      A Midrashic approach based on Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 30: the word קין refers to the descendants of Yitro who are, however, referred to as descendants of Kayin, Adam’s oldest son as in Judges 4,11 they are described as residing in the area to which Kayin moved after having been forgiven by G’d for killing his brother. At the time Bileam pronounced the blessing the Kenites were descendants of Ishmael, i.e. the word מי שומו אל should be read as מישמעאל, “from Ishmael.” This immediately raises the problem that all the descendants of the original Kayin had perished during the deluge, so how could there be any identifiable offspring of his be left alive? The answer clearly must be that people who resided in the part of the world where the descendants of Kayin lived prior to the deluge are called בני קין, “descendants of Kayin.” They too would be taken captive by the Assyrians. Seeing that G’d had made the name of Avraham’s oldest son Ishmael sound so similar to the name Israel, Bileam exclaims: “woe to those who survive bearing the name Ishmael in the days when these events will occur.” Thus far the comment in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer.
      If you will analyze this you will find that the accuser of Israel on earth, i.e. Bileam, alludes with these words to the great accuser of Israel in the celestial regions.” We refer to the celestial force Satan, the master of the desert. He is like a Seraph which flies all over, representing the planet Mars. Bileam, the terrestrial Satanic force who had been thwarted in all his efforts to attack the Jewish people on a spiritual level, not succeeding to make an impact on the attribute of Justice or the attribute of Mercy, now addresses himself to the desert in order to obtain some relief of his frustration from a spiritually negative celestial force.    The comparison between the names of ישראל and ישמעאל, both G’d-given names that we referred to in the commentary of Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer, refers to the ending with the letters א-ל, i.e. that both these names contain the name of G’d. None of the seventy nations enumerated after the confusion by G’d of the languages and the nations (Genesis 10,5-29) contains the name of G’d. The word משומו אל is understood by the author as if it had been written with two letters ו, a common theory for whenever the dot on the letter ש is moved from right to left. The word really should have been משמו אל, i.e. “who bears the name of G’d.” By changing the dot it is as if an additional letter ו had been added. The anti-G’d, Satanic forces, are perceived to have at their disposal 12 “princes” just as the people of Yeshurun (Israel as a pro-G’d force) have at their disposal 12 princes. [The latest commentary, I believe, can best be understood by seeing even in the reformed Bileam someone containing a residue of his former self, much as Rashi viewed the words ויחד יתרו in Exodus 18,9 where Yitro is described as rejoicing over the salvation of the Jewish people, as containing an element of his former self, i.e. he was upset at what happened to the Egyptians. Ed].
  
  Verse 24
  
   וצים מיד כתים, “and great ships from the coast of Kittim.” After Bileam had predicted that Ashur had taken the Kenites captive, Bileam continues prophesying that Ashur itself will suffer affliction by the Kittim who will oppress both Ashur and Ever. It is possible that the word צים is a plural of צי which appears in Isaiah as צי אדיר, “a large ship.” The reason that Bileam describes the עברים i.e. בני עבר as being captives also is that they had oppressed the Kenites. According to some opinions the Kittim  were the Greeks. 
  According to Nachmanides it is a reference to the Romans, the fourth kingdom, Edom, or, in terms of Daniel’s vision the fourth of the chayot. It is fitting that Bileam concluded his prophecies with the prediction of Rome’s downfall (see Daniel 7,11).
  
  Verse 25
  
  . ויקם בלעם, “Bileam rose up.” As soon as Bileam concluded his prophecies he rose on his feet as he had not been standing when making all these predictions. He had described himself as נופל וגלוי עינים, “fallen and with uncovered eyes (24,5).”
     וישב אל מקומו, “he returned to his place.” This means he reverted to relying on charms, etc., instead of on Divine inspiration. He found that he had become privy to Holy Spirit only temporarily for the benefit of the Jewish people as I mentioned earlier.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישב ישראל בשטים, “Israel settled in Shittim.” This is the meaning of the words in Numbers 33,49: “they encamped by the Jordan, from Bet Yeshimot until the plains of Shittim, in the plains of Moav.” All of these events including the dispatch by Joshua of spies occurred during the encampment of the Israelites in the wilderness of Moav.
      A Midrashic interpretation based on Tanchuma Balak 17:  The words “Israel settled in Shittim” indicate that there was a fountain at Shittim which caused people who drank from it to develop into adulterers, just as we know that there are fountains the waters of which cause the people drinking it either to become physically strong or weak, or to influence their characters in various ways. The waters of that well were the ones the people of Sodom had been drinking from (in former times). This is the meaning of Genesis 19,5: “Where are the men who came to you this night, take them out to us so that we can indulge our libido with them.” Seeing that this fountain had such spiritually negative effects on the people drinking from it, G’d cursed it and made it stop flowing. We know from the prophecy in Yoel 4,18 that in the future this fountain will re-emerge: “On that day the mountains shall drip with wine, the hills shall flow with milk; and all the watercourses of Yehudah shall flow with water; a spring shall issue forth from the House of the Lord and shall water the wadi of Shittim.”
     ויחל העם, “the people profaned themselves.” The word ויחל means to profane something which previously was sacred, holy. We encounter the same word in connection with Noach (Genesis 9,2), when Noach planted a vineyard and became drunk. Judaism describes people who are meticulous in their sexual mores as ”holy,” whereas those that are not are considered as “profane.” Whenever the Torah refers to the Israelites simply as העם, this term implies a criticism of their spiritual level (at that time). The Following are some examples of the Torah using this terminology: Numbers 11,1: “the people were looking for something to complain about.” Numbers 20,3: “the people quarrelled.” Numbers 21,5: “the people spoke out against G’d.” On the other hand, whenever the people of Israel are referred to as עמי, this is to be taken as a complimentary term; examples are: Psalms 81,14: “if only My people would listen to Me.” Exodus 7,4: “I will take out the hosts of My people.” Isaiah 40,1: “comfort, comfort My people.”
     לזנות את בני מואב, “to whore with the daughters of  Moav.” This reminds us of the popular proverb: “When one throws a stick into the air it always lands on its broad side.” The reference is to the fact that the people of Moav had their origin in Lot’s older daughter who had devised the plan that she and her younger sister sleep with their father (Genesis 19,31).  The fact that she had had the audacity to call her son מאב, alluding to the fact that he was born “from my father” speaks for itself, although originally, the Torah had not faulted the scheme itself seeing it was based on an innocent assessment of their chances to perpetuate the family or even mankind. Similarly, the daughters (also married women) of Moav lured the Israelites to their tents after having made themselves alluring.
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלוהיהן, “the people ate and prostrated themselves in front of their deities.” The mixture of the use of feminine and masculine pronoun endings means that both the Israelites and the Moabites prostrated themselves to these deities.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור, “Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor.” The word ויצמד is from the same root as צמד בקר, “a yoke of oxen.” The meaning of the expression is that man and woman coupled together. There is a difference in meaning between the expression הצמדה and דבקות, although both express a state of togetherness, union, almost. הצמדה is a less intimate relationship, a looser coupling than דבקות. If the Torah had written here וידבק ישראל לבעל פעור, G’d forbid, this would have been such a grave sin that it could not have been repaired. This consideration is also reflected in the sages saying in Sanhedrin 64 that whereas the attachment of the Israelites to the deity בעל פעור was comparable to a lid over a pot, the attachment of the Israelites to their G’d (Deut. 4,4) is described as ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם, “you who cleave to the Lord your G’d,” i.e. a far closer attachment than that of the lid to the pot. The term דבקות when applied to two entities implies that they are so alike and clinging to each other as to be interchangeable. According to a Baraita the term ויצמד is related to צמידים —  a bracelet worn by a woman (worn loosely but not attached to the body), while ואתם הדבקים indicates a tight bond.
  
  Verse 4
  
    קח את כל ראשי העם והוקע אותם, “take all the heads of the people and hang them!” This is not to be understood as a command to kill the leaders of the people by hanging. It meant that the leaders of the people should convict the guilty people, those who had worshipped the Baal-peor, of the death penalty. This is what Onkelos meant when he translated ”judge those guilty of death and execute them.” He did not translate: “kill the leaders of the people.” We find that during the episode of the golden calf Moses also told the judges of the people: “kill each his men (Exodus 32,27),” and the judges of the people mentioned there were identical with the people here described as ראשי העם, the leaders of the people. Although the Torah does not report that this command was carried out, the fact that G’d commanded Moses and he in turn commanded the judges makes it plausible to assume that these orders were carried out. Alternatively, they did not have a chance to complete their assignment before Pinchas killed Zimri without the benefit of a trial. Pinchas’s deed arrested the spread of the pestilence.
     'לה', “for G’d;” i.e. for the glorification of His name.  נגד השמש, “facing the sun;” this means “in public.” Just as they had desecrated G’d’s name in public, it now had to be sanctified in public.   It is also possible to understand the words נגד השמש to mean that since the Israelites had sinned at Baal-peor against Yaakov who had also been known as “sun,” (compare the Midrash: Bereshit Rabbah 84,10 that Yaakov said: “who told this one that my name was שמש”), the Torah now had to write the words נגד השמש as if to say that their punishment also had to correspond to the manner in which they sinned.    Another reason for these words may be connected to the commandment that a person who was executed by hanging must be lowered to the ground by evening and buried (Deut. 21,23). G’d meant that as long as the sun is in the sky the guilty have to remain visible, on the gallows; once the sun has set they may be buried, seeing the Torah wrote: “you must not allow his carcass to remain hanging overnight.”
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Balak 19: Moses asked G’d: ”who will tell me who has been guilty of prostrating himself to the Baal-peor“ [seeing that by the nature of this offense it occurred in the bedroom of the Moabite women; Ed.]. G’d answered him: “I will make their sin public.” The cloud would double over and the sun would shine on all those who were guilty. They would then hang such a person immediately.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית, “He brought the Midianite woman near to his brethren;” the Torah really should have written: “a man by the name of Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, went and brought the Midianite woman whose name was Cozbi bat Tzur near his brethren.” However, the Torah could not bring itself to reveal name of the wicked person who had become the reason for the raging pestilence until he had been dealt with, i.e. until Pinchas had killed him and until Pinchas had received his reward. Only then does the Torah mention the names of both the man and the woman involved (verses 14-15). All of this is to tell us the praises of Pinchas who displayed fearlessness. Although the people in question were a prince and a king’s daughter respectively, he did not let this stop him from killing them (Rashi).
     לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת ישראל, “in the presence of Moses and the assembled community of Israel.” He (Zimri) accorded no respect to either heaven or G’d’s creatures. 
     והמה בוכים, “and they were crying.” The Israelites were crying on account of the pestilence which had begun to claim victims amongst them indicating G’d’s anger at the people. Our sages in Tanchuma Balak 20 say that they were crying because a religious decision, הלכה, had apparently escaped Moses and had made this pestilence possible. Zimri had asked Cozbi to sleep with him to which Cozbi had replied: I will not agree to sleep with any one of you unless it is Moses or Eleazar the High Priest seeing I am a king’s daughter. To this Zimri had replied: “I am just as high ranking as they are. I will bring you before them in public.” He took Cozbi by her plait and dragged her before Moses, saying: “Ben Amram, is this woman permitted for me to sleep with or not? If you say that she is not permitted for me to sleep with, who gave you permission to sleep with the daughter of Yitro (a Midianite)?” When Moses heard this he could not remember what should be done to punish Zimri. At that point all the people started crying. This is the meaning of: “they were crying at the entrance to the Tent of Testimony.”   Why precisely did the people cry? Did they really think that Moses, a man who had many times been able to stand up to 600,000 fellow Israelites, such as when he burned the golden calf the people had danced around, was now too weak to hold his own against a single Zimri? G’d prevented Moses from remembering the correct procedure at that time in order to enable Pinchas to reap the reward for his initiative. Concerning this incident Solomon says in Proverbs 30,31: “the greyhound, a male goat, and a king who is senile.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 82 apply this verse to Moses (the senile king) and Pinchas the greyhound, the eager beaver. Seeing that Moses forgot the correct response to Zimri he was compared to a senile old king.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וירא פינחס, “Pinchas saw, etc.” When he saw a certain deed he remembered the halachah pertaining to it. He said to Moses: “did you not teach us  when you descended from Mount Sinai that if someone has sexual intercourse with a pagan woman one may kill such a person in a fit of religious fervor?” To this Moses replied: “he who reads the letter may deliver it to the addressee.” Upon hearing this,  ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רומח בידיו, “he arose from amongst the congregation and took a short sword in his hand.” As a reward for this action he was granted the priestly portions (the foreleg, the cheekbones and the stomach of all animals slaughtered by the Israelites as food compare Chulin 134). [The meaning of this line is that he was accorded the status of a priest, a status he had not possessed previously. All the priests are entitled to these parts of the animal.] He was awarded the foreleg for seizing a sword with his hands, the cheekbones corresponding to “Pinchas stepped forth and intervened” (Psalms 106,30), and he was awarded the stomach corresponding to Numbers 25,8 “and the woman into her stomach.” The performance of this commandment helped Pinchas both in this world and in the hereafter (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 47). In this world Pinchas merited the gifts granted to the priests. Moreover, he lived for many hundreds of years on terrestrial earth. We have proof of this in Judges 11,26 when Yiftach told the Ammonites that Israel had dwelled in Hebron and other towns claimed by the Ammonites already for over 300 years. We also find over a hundred years later that  Pinchas was still alive in Judges 20,28. The prophet states this explicitly.   As to the benefits Pinchas received in his hereafter as a result of his courageous and purely motivated deed in killing Zimri and Cozbi, he was granted the dimension of peace, a wonderful attribute. He was ushered in to eternal life.    In the course of his deed, he experienced no fewer than 12 miracles without which he could not have succeeded (based on Tanchuma Balak 21) 1) It is customary for a couple who have engaged in sexual intercourse to separate their bodies from one another afterward. In this instance an angel ensured that Zimri and Cozbi’s bodies were sticking together to enable Pinchas to pierce both with one and the same stroke of the spear. 2) The angel closed their mouths to prevent them from crying out and alerting neighbors who would have attacked Pinchas. 3) The angel directed the spear of Pinchas (who was outside the tent) to aim at precisely the private parts of both Zimri and Cozbi. 4) He miraculously lengthened the metal blade of Pinchas’ spear so that it could reach both the sinners. 5) He raised the lintel of the door to their tent so that the people could all see how these two were strung up on it. 6) He arranged the position of these two in such a way that they were head down and feet up so that everyone could see that they had been killed during the performance of the sexual act. This was to prevent people from arguing that Zimri had entered the tent merely to relieve himself. 7) He lent extra strength to Pinchas’ arm to lift both of them simultaneously so that they would be suspended from the wooden post. 8) He strengthened the wooden post on which they were hung to support the combined weight of the two. 9) He insured that they would not slide off that wooden post. 10) He protected Pinchas so that the blood of his victims did not splash upon him. 11) He enabled Pinchas to hang the two in full view of the people. Halachically speaking, (under normal circumstances), Pinchas, through contact of his spear with the bodies would have become ritually impure. Seeing Pinchas performed his deed with a flat wooden spear, an instrument which is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, he was saved from becoming ritually contaminated in contrast with Numbers 19,22 according to which anyone in contact with a corpse becomes ritually unclean for at least seven days (compare details in Avodah Zarah 37 and Chulin 28).    It is also possible, based on Tanchuma Balak 21, that G’d miraculously kept both Zimri and Cozbi alive for the few moments it took for Pinchas to let go of the spear after stabbing them. This then would be the twelfth miracle Pinchas experienced in connection with his deed. If we accept the Tanchuma we need not posit that Pinchas’ spear was a wooden tool or that it was flat. The question of Pinchas becoming ritually unclean would not even have arisen.   After all these miracles had happened to Pinchas and he took the two outside to display them hanging, the entire tribe of Shimon surrounded the tent in a threatening posture wanting to kill Pinchas. At that moment the pestilence began which killed twenty-four thousand  Israelites, all of them members of the tribe of Shimon (Tanchuma Vayechi 13). It is relatively simple to confirm this when we consider the number of men from the tribe of Shimon counted in Numbers 1,17, i.e. 59,300, and the number of men from that same tribe counted in Numbers 26,14, i.e. 22,000. We note that the tribe had lost over 37,000 men of military age.   When we consider that during the episode of the golden calf only 3,000 Israelites were killed whereas here 24,000 lost their lives this teaches that the sin of idolatry alone was far less catastrophic than the combination of idolatry and sexual licentiousness involving pagan partners displayed on this occasion at Shittim.     By displaying jealousy on behalf of G’d who had described Himself as a “jealous G’d,” (Exodus 20,5) Pinchas turned away G’d’s wrath and saved untold thousands from being consumed by the pestilence through having put his life on the line. He had simply been unable to witness this public desecration of the Lord’s name. He totally ignored accepted rules of conduct which required showing respect for his superiors, in this case the prince of the tribe of Shimon and a daughter of the King of Midian. He meant to show the world that the only One who is entitled to honor and respect is the Lord. This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,7: “all who are linked to My name, whom I have created, formed and made for My glory.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
     מגדל עוז שם ה' בו ירוץ צדיק ונשגב, “The name of the Lord is a tower of strength, the righteous runs towards it and is elevated” (Proverbs 18,10). 
  In this verse Solomon is teaching us a lesson in faith. The plain meaning of the verse is: “a person who puts his trust in the Lord may be compared to someone who is within a formidable tower, serene, unafraid of any potential aggressor.” It is similar to Psalms 118,6: “when the Lord is with me what can a mortal human being possibly do to me.    The words: “the righteous runs towards it and is elevated,” refer to his being rescued from troubles. (Compare Rabbeinu Yonah’s understanding of the word נשגב as being equivalent to נושע). We find that word used in that context in Proverbs 29,25: ובוטח בה' ישוגב, “and he who puts his trust in the Lord will be safeguarded.” In that verse too Solomon refers to man being safeguarded from threatening troubles and enemies. The word בו in the verse above does not refer to the word מגדל, “tower,” but to שם ה' i.e. he  who puts his trust not in the tower but in the name of the Lord. Clearly, a man does not run inside a strong tower, but he runs around proclaiming the name of the Lord and his trust in Him. He who does this will be saved as if he were inside a fortress although he does not appear to be protected by visible man-made shields. Whereas human beings who run are liable to stumble and fall, not so he who runs proclaiming his faith in the Lord. We find this idea expressed in Proverbs 4,12: “when you run you will not stumble.”  The reason Solomon chose “a tower of strength” as his simile in our heading instead of a high mountain or something similarly impregnable,  is because fortified towers are an essential need for people in trouble, being pursued, etc. We have an example of this in Judges 9,51 “there was a tower of strength inside the city to which they fled.” This is why Solomon chose an example of the kind of man-made structure that ordinary people put their trust in. This is also why David writes in Psalms 20,2: “may the Lord answer you in time of trouble, the name of Yaakov’s G’d keep you safe.” In other words: “G’d is the Tower of strength who will elevate people when they are in trouble and distress.” David used the same verb when he prayed to G’d to save him from the pursuit of king Shaul (Psalms 59,2) where he said ממתקוממי תשגבני. He also employed this verb when he faced the giant Goliath. In Samuel I 17,45 David says to Goliath: “you come against me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come against you in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the G’d of the ranks of Israel, etc.” Clearly, the words: “the name of the Lord” are of the essence in that verse. Whereas Solomon used the simile of a fortified tower to describe a feeling of security and therefore applied this simile to the name of the Lord, Isaiah used the simile of a room where a person when he closes the door feels relatively secure. Compare Isaiah 26,20: “Go, My people enter your chambers, and lock your doors behind you.” We find in many verses throughout the Bible that G’d Himself is being compared to a “refuge” (Psalms 90,1) or to a “rock,” (Samuel II 22,2). Our sages have described G’d or “the name of G’d” as מקום, “place,” seeing He comprises all “places” and He is the “place” or “site” of the universe. There is no “place” without Him.   No human being is called righteous unless he has faith in the Lord (compare Proverbs 28,1: ‘the righteous are confident like a lion’). Our author lists many more verses from Scripture, all reflecting the same theme that faith in the Lord (and in the righteousness of one’s actions) are the source of confidence of the righteous. Pinchas personified such faith. If he merited to have so many miracles performed for him to help him succeed it was because of the faith he had displayed.
  פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי, “Pinchas, son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, deflected My wrath, etc.” Some commentators understand the word השיב here as meaning the same as בשובה ונחת, in Isaiah 30,15: “through calm and serenity.” While G’d displayed His jealousy He had allowed the attribute of Justice free reign, such as Exodus 33,14, והניחותי לך, “I will provide you rest.”   I feel, however, that the more likely meaning of the word השיב is simply that the wrath of G’d which was about to advance against the people of Israel was “turned back” by Pinchas completely. 
  One may question this statement seeing that 24,000 Israelites died during the pestilence, so how could Pinchas be credited with having totally prevented G’d’s wrath claiming victims amongst the people? In fact, the very fact that only people from the tribe of Shimon died is the proof that Pinchas succeeded in halting G’d’s wrath claiming victims from the בני ישראל, i.e. the attribute of Justice was active only among that single tribe. This is the meaning of the words: “and I did not completely wipe out the Children of Israel during My jealousy.” Clearly, turning back G’d’s wrath resulted in the continued existence of the Jewish nation. It follows that Pinchas was the source of the Jewish people as a nation enjoying long life, i.e. continued existence from then on until the end of time. As a reward commensurate with his deed he was granted continuous life in that he became in due course Elijah the prophet as we know from Zohar 215 based on Maleachi 2,5: “My covenant was with him, Life (ongoing) and peace.” When the Torah speaks here about Pinchas being granted בריתי, “My covenant,” the meaning is the same as in Maleachi.
     בקנאו את קנאתי, “when he displayed My jealousy.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that Pinchas acted in G’d’s place when he displayed religious fervour.
      A Midrashic approach: the fact that the word קנאה appears twice in succession proves that the Torah refers to two separate jealousies. The first display of Pinchas being jealous occurred here, the second in the days of Achav when the prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel gave a repeat performance and killed 400 priests of the idol Baal, and he fled to Mount Chorev after that occurrence to escape the wrath of Achav and Izzevel. When he arrived there and G’d asked him why he had come there (Kings I 19,9-10) he answered: “I have worked with zeal for the Lord, the G’d of Hosts for they have abandoned Your covenant with the Children of Israel.” Pinchas was also involved in another act of religious zeal on behalf of G’d during the period known as Pilegesh beGivah in Judges 20,28 and Chronicles I 9,20. 
      According to the view of the sages in Baba Metzia 114 Pinchas and Elijah were identical. The Talmud relates that a scholar by the name of Rabbah bar Avuhah met Elijah in a cemetery where idolaters were buried. He was surprised at this and asked him: “are you not a priest?” (priests are not allowed in cemeteries) Elijah answered that the bodies of Gentiles do not confer ritual impurity if one merely is under the same roof with them without physical contact. He quoted Numbers 19,14 אדם כי ימות באהל וגו', “when someone qualifying for the description אדם dies in a tent, etc., plus Ezekiel 34,31: ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, “and you My flock, flock that I tend, are אדם", as proof that only Jews qualify for the complimentary description אדם. This also explains why he was allowed to lie down in the form of a tent over the son of the woman from Tzorfat as her son was a Gentile (compare Kings I 17,21). [The text there appears to imply close bodily contact between Elijah and the boy. Rabbi Chavell quotes some halachic sources that even such contact with the body of a dead Gentile is permitted. Ed.]. 
  
  Verse 12
  
   לכן אמור, “therefore say:” this wording serves as an allusion to the blessing of the priests which is introduced by a call to them from a congregant to begin to chant the blessing. [The meaning could be that whereas a priest guilty of killing a human being is prevented thereby from performing this blessing (Berachot 32), Pinchas was allowed to be an exception to this rule.]
     הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I herewith grant him My covenant ‘peace.’” According to the plain meaning of the text G’d meant that he need not fear the vengeance of members of Zimri’s family who would want to avenge his death. Pinchas’ reward would be that both he and his descendants would be priests.
      A Midrashic approach: the letter ו in the word שלום is broken to teach us that the covenant with the priests is contingent upon the priests being whole in body and mind. A blemished priest may not perform priestly functions in the Temple (Kidushin 66). 
  I have heard that the word שלום may be understood as an acrostic of the words: שלא למות, ‘not to die;” this would reinforce the tradition of our sages that Pinchas became immortal, i.e. that he was identical with the prophet Elijah. In fact, we find Elijah as saying to G’d: (Kings I 19,4) “please take my soul from me for I am no better than my forefathers;” he referred to the forefathers who had died as opposed to him who had remained alive all these many hundreds of years. Seeing that Pinchas (Elijah) had expressed his disgust with life on terrestrial earth he was granted eternal life in the celestial regions and he departed this earth in a storm riding heavenwards (Kings II 2,11).
      A kabbalistic approach to the words: “Herewith I grant you My covenant peace.” G’d assured him of the attribute known as ברית which is identical with the concept of כנסת ישראל. This is a variation of the attribute of Justice. We find this attribute mentioned by our sages who stated that Avraham had a daughter (in explaining the words וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “the Lord had blessed Avraham in all respects,” (Genesis 24,2) see Baba Batra 16). This is why in our verse the wording is והיתה לו ...ברית, meaning that the covenant with this attribute of Justice will be his. G’d assured Pinchas that the peace He promised would be an adjunct to this covenant. It is similar to Leviticus 26,6 where G’d promises that as a consequence of observance of His commandments ונתתי שלום בארץ, “I will grant peace in the land” [as opposed to peace merely between people. Maybe the author means that the very fact that man has to die, the body to return to earth, is symbolic of a constant state of war between the living and the dead. Ed.].   All of this implies that Pinchas deserved to be granted eternal life. This is the justification of the verse in Maleachi 25, we quoted earlier that “My covenant was with him, the life and the peace.” “Life” is an outgrowth of the attribute of Mercy. This is reflected in the Torah describing Pinchas as קנא לאלו-היו “he was jealous for the sake of his G’d (in the sense of the attribute of Justice). If I understand our author correctly, when Pinchas observed a joining together of bodies which represented opposing philosophies which had no business to be joined together he tried to restore the state of affairs in which matters which belong together are joined together. In the celestial regions צדק ושלום נשקו, “righteousness and peace kissed” (Psalms 85,11), i.e. the emanations of מלכות and the adjoining one ofיסוד  are perceived as a natural fit. When they are close together the universe can continue to exist. In our terrestrial part of the universe the continued existence of this world is also dependent on matters that belong together being joined together, not matters or people who have no business to indulge in physical union. Basically, Pinchas tried to restore the world’s (Jewish) equilibrium by his deed. If he was granted “peace” as the reward for his deed this was precisely a case of the reward fitting the merit attained. “Peace”, after all, is joining together, creating harmony.
      It may be appropriate to understand the very name of אליהו as combining elements of both the attribute of Justice, i.e. א-ל, and the attribute of Mercy i.e. י-ה-ו. The attribute of Mercy and the attribute peace can be viewed as being interchangeable, whereas the attribute of Justice and the attribute ברית, covenant may also be viewed as interchangeable. When we keep these facts in mind we can understand some of Elijah’s actions reported in the Book of Kings. When he called down fire from heaven to kill the captain of fifty soldiers and his men who had been dispatched by King Achaziah to capture him, he activated the part of his personality which represented the attribute of Justice (Kings II 1,8-12); when he resurrected the dead he activated the part of his personality which represented the attribute of Mercy (Kings I 17,22). Interestingly, the numerical value of the name אליהו is 52, i.e. twice the numerical value of the name י-ה-ו-ה. Also Pinchas was the seventh generation after Yaakov the founder of the Jewish nation, just as Chanoch (who left earth heavenward alive) was the seventh generation counting from Adam, the first human being. The number seven symbolises the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, a day of rest, of harmony, serenity and therefore devoted to life.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “it will be for both him and his descendants after him, etc.” From this wording it appears as if but for Pinchas’ deed his priesthood would not have been permanent and hereditary. However, this seems extremely implausible, seeing that the priesthood was granted to Aaron and his sons on an ongoing hereditary basis. All of Aaron’s sons had already been anointed with the holy oil of anointing so that all their offspring would automatically have been priests.   However, the fact is that Pinchas had been born prior to the anointing of Aaron and his sons as priests, so that as a grandson he did not automatically qualify under the heading under which Aaron and his sons (exclusive of existing grandsons if any) had  been appointed as priests. As of that point only sons born to Aaron’s children after their being anointed qualified for automatic priesthood status at birth. In view of all this, had Pinchas not performed the deed of killing Zimri under the circumstances described, he would never have become a priest, to say nothing of retaining such status in perpetuity. This is why the Torah had to stress that his elevation to the priesthood was לעולם. This is also why our sages (Zevachim 101) said that Pinchas was not made a priest until after he killed Zimri. [This disposes of the need for special legislation to allow Pinchas to perform the blessing of the people. Ed.].
   According to Ibn Ezra the words ולזרעו אחריו “and for his descendants after him” indicate that Pinchas's descendants succeeded him as High Priest and he himself eventually died, and is therefore not the same person as Elijah. But the author feels that the view of our Sages identifying Pinchas with Elijah is correct, and the word אחריו in our verse may refer to Pinchas/Elijah’s disappearance from earth, i.e. his “departure.”
     ברית כהונת עולם, “a covenant of everlasting priesthood.” In this instance the word מלח, “salt,” normally associated with the wordברית  is absent although it appears in 18,19  when Aaron and all his offspring are mentioned seeing they have been assured of two worlds, the terrestrial world when the covenant is effective to provide the priests with their sustenance from “G’d’s” table, i.e. the gifts listed as being given to the priests in Parshat Korach. Secondly, as recorded in 18,20, G’d uses two separate terms describing Himself as bothחלקך  and נחלתך. The former word refers to the priests being G’d’s share in the terrestrial world, the latter word to His being the priest’s share in the hereafter. Seeing that in Korach the subject is both worlds, the word מלח symbolizing something enduring is used whereas in connection with Pinchas and his covenant  there is no need to reinforce the promise of G’d that he is assured of an eternal future by adding the word מלח. Pinchas merited his promotion from the attribute of Mercy which, as opposed to the attribute of Justice, does not envisage death, i.e. impermanence. The priesthood and what it stands for is an emanation of the attribute of חסד, an attribute over which death has no control.
     ויכפר על בני ישראל, “he obtained atonement for the Children of Israel.” This verse teaches that he who spills the blood of the wicked is considered as if he had offered a sacrifice. The idea is reflected in Exodus 21,14: “from My altar you shall remove him to die.” The meaning of the verse is that even if the party concerned is a priest involved in performing his priestly duties on the altar, he must be removed and executed (Yuma 85). 
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ושם איש ישראל המוכה, “and the name of the slain Israelite man, etc.” Just as the Torah mentioned the name of the righteous person in order to bestow compliments on him, it now mentions the name of the wicked party to teach that if one brings disgrace upon oneself one simultaneously disgraces one’s family (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).
     נשיא בית אב לשמעוני, “prince of a father’s house of the Shimonites.” He was one of five such princes of the tribe of Shimon (Ibn Ezra). Concerning him Solomon said in Kohelet 10,8: “he who breaks down a wall will be bitten by a snake.” The ancestral father, Shimon, had killed the people of Shechem for treating his sister like a whore (Genesis 34,31) and now one of his descendants had himself become guilty of tearing down the wall of chaste sexual mores established and defended by his forebear (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).
  
  Verse 15
  
   כזבי בת צור, “Cozbi daughter of Tzur.” She was the daughter of a king, seeing that Tzur was one of the five Midianite kings killed by the Israelites in the punitive expedition (Numbers 31,8). The Midianites harbored so much hatred against the Israelites that one of their kings demeaned his own daughter to the status of a whore in order to lure the Israelites into sin (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites.” After the Torah had administered the reward for the righteous, G’d commanded the people to punish the guilty. The reason the punitive campaign was directed only against the Midianites and not against the Moabites was in order to enable Ruth the Moabite, ancestral great-grandmother of David to be born in due course. 
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Pinchas 2: the meaning of “harass the Midianites for they (are preparing to) harass you,” is that when you know that someone harbours aggressive hostile intentions against you pre-empt him and kill him before he can carry out his intention.
  
  Verse 18
  
  . בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם, “by their trickery they practiced against you.”  This verse is proof that it was the elders of Midian who advised their Moabite partners to trick the Israelites into committing sexual promiscuity with their daughters. The allure of the Moabite women was to be the tool by which to get the Israelites to commit idolatry by prostrating themselves before the Baal-peor.
     ועל דבר כזבי בת נשיא מדין, “and because of the affair of Cozbi daughter of a Midianite prince.” The Torah could have written: “daughter of Tzur” as it had done in verse 15. In this verse the Torah wanted to place the emphasis on the word “Midianite,” seeing that it was the advice of the elders of Midian to send one of their princesses to lure the Israelites to commit harlotry with her.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . שאו את ראש, “take a census.” Our sages (Tanchuma Pinchas 4) explained the reason for this census at this time by means of a parable. A shepherd whose flock had been attacked by wolves which had killed many of his sheep counted the surviving sheep in order to assess his losses. Furthermore, seeing that Moses had counted the people shortly after the Exodus, now that he was close to the end of his career he wanted to prove that he had the same number of people at his command to hand over to his successor.
     לבית אבותם, “according to their ancestral houses.” Tribal membership was based on the father and not on the mother (Rashi).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . חנוך משפחת החנוכי, “Chanoch the clan of the Chanochites.” According to Rashi, the reason for such detailed emphasis on the certainty of the Israelites’ paternity was necessary to counter the sneering comments by the Gentiles who ridiculed the claim that the Egyptians during their control of the Jewish people had not been able to sleep with their wives. The Torah therefore testifies by the manner these descendants are attributed to their respective fathers that there was never a doubt about an Israelite’s paternity, i.e. his being fathered by an Israelite. By appending the two letters of the Lord’s name ה and י respectively to the front and end of the respective names of these people, G’d testified that the people mentioned were sired by Jews. David proclaims this even more clearly when he speaks about the tribes of Israel being שבטי י-ה, “the tribes of G’d” (Psalms 122,4). The extra letters are absent only in the name ימנה of the tribe of Asher as the name as it is without prefix or suffix already features the letters י and ה, respectively (verse 44).
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ותבלע אותם ואת קרח במות העדה באכול האש, “it (the earth) swallowed them and Korach when the congregation died when the fire consumed them;” the verse introduces the name Korach between the words “it swallowed” and the words “when the fire consumed,” in order to teach us that Korach was both swallowed by the earth and burned by the fire. (I already mentioned this in Numbers 16,30).
     ויהיו לנס, “they remained as an example.” Their fate was a warning for the Israelites not to question the institution of the hereditary priesthood  (Rashi). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  .ובני קרח לא מתו , “and Korach’s sons did not die.” Our sages in Megillah 14 explain these words to mean that there was a special place reserved for them in Gehinom where they remained. The site where the swallowing occurred and where judgment of these individuals occurs is known as Gehinom. Alternatively, the sages meant the real purgatory the entrance to which is close to the point where Korach and company were swallowed. (According to Eyruvin 19 there are a total of three such portals to purgatory). We find that sons (or descendants) of Korach sang hymns in the Holy Temple as we know from Psalms 47,1 and 48,1 and others.
  
  Verse 12
  
   בני שמעון למשפחותם, “the descendants of Shimon according to their families.” They are followed by the tribe of Gad, Yehudah, Issachar, Zevulun, Joseph. When the Torah comes to Ephrayim (one half of the tribe of Joseph) it adds the word אלה, “the following, these.” The same word אלה occurs before the Torah lists the descendants of the tribe of Dan. Why did the Torah add these words only with these two tribes? it is possible that the word אלה is an allusion to idolatry. The fact is that Jerobam, the first king of the Northern Kingdom who erected two golden calves to prevent the people under his rule from making the pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem was guilty of gross idolatry on many counts (compare kings I 12,29). The second of these golden calves was positioned in the territory of the tribe of Dan. The word אלה then is a reminder of the words אלה אלוהיך ישראל spoken by the Jewish people (or some of them) in Exodus 32,4.    It is also interesting to note that among the families of these two tribes of the tribe of Ephrayim and Dan we find the names שותלח and שוחם, the first letters in these names are an allusion to the word שור, a simile for the golden calf. Moreover, the letter ש is reminiscent of the attribute of Justice based on what is written in the Sefer Yetzirah 6,1 according to which the letter n represents silence, whereas the letter ש symbolizes “calling out, yelling.” 
  In order to demonstrate that the sin of the golden calf had finally been forgiven and all the tribes are included in the שבטי י-ה, tribes of G’d,” all of these tribes deserve that the Shechinah provide a benevolent presence in their midst. On the other hand, the words: לאלה תחלק הארץ, mean that all these who had sinned and died in the desert. [Although they were originally slated to each have a share in the land, that share in various forms would now be given to their offspring, the next generation.] In verse 64 the Torah makes clear by again using the word אלה, that none of the people participating in this census had participated in the original census listed at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. Here the word אלה clearly means that these people had not had a share in the sin of the golden calf just as the Levites to whom the word אלה is applied in verse 57 had not had a part in the sin of the golden calf. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
   שש מאות אלף ואלף שבע מאות ושלושים, “six hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty.” Remember that both this number and the number 603,550 given in Numbers 1,47 is not the total number of Israelites; their total number was beyond the ability of the enumerators to determine. On both occasions of the census only men over the age of twenty who were potentially soldiers in the army were counted. No doubt the total number of Israelites comprised many sick people, many who were physically weak and not fit to serve in the army, and many old  people all of whom were not included in the count given by the Torah. As a result of all this the total number of the Jewish people was never revealed in Scripture. Ever since the family of Yaakov descended to Egypt they became the recipients of the Divine blessing which resulted in over 600,000 males leaving Egypt, not counting the children. The number reported in Exodus 12,37 remained the same throughout the revelation at Mount Sinai when a renewed blessing was bestowed on the people as per Numbers 1,1. 
      From all the above we learn that when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai the people already knew the precise number of males over 20. During the short ten months until the count in the desert of Sinai their number climbed to one that was beyond counting. The truth is that the number of Jews is beyond determination by means of a census. There has never been a time in Jewish history when the total number of Jews was known. G’d had already foretold Avraham that the number of his descendants would exceed the ability of people to count them (Genesis 15,5). Moses too said to the people shortly before his death (Deut. 1,10) “and here, as of this day, you are as numerous as the stars in heaven,” i.e. beyond counting. Even Bileam, our perennial opponent and sworn enemy, testified that ”the dust of Yaakov has defied the ability to be counted, neither have even a quarter of the Jewish nation been counted” (Numbers 23,10).     We find that when David gave instructions (which were only partially carried out) to take a census of Israel’s fighting men that the number Yoav reported as having been counted was 1,3 million people (Samuel II 24,9). If this was the number of active, arms-bearing male Israelites at that time, the total number of Jews must have been several times that number. The verses in Scripture are even more convincing than extrapolations arrived at by our intelligence. Concerning the future, the prophet Isaiah states clearly that at that time the Jewish people will be more numerous than any (or all) the nations of the earth (as per Isaiah 54,1): “for the children of the forlorn wife shall outnumber those of the espoused, says the Lord.” Once the great ingathering of the Jews in exile will be in progress the number of Jews will be seen to be even far greater still. This is the meaning of Isaiah 49,12: “Look these are coming from afar, these from the north and the west and these from the land of Sinnim.” The prophet continues in verse 21 of that chapter: “and you will say to yourself, ‘who bore these for me when I was bereaved and barren, exiled and disdained; by whom then were these raised? I was left all alone and where have these been?’” You will note that the prophet mentioned the word “these”, אלה, three times in each of these verses! This is an allusion to the fact that the Shechinah will return with the exiles at the time of the redemption. This Shechinah which consists of the six extremities of the globe is alluded to by David who used the word שמר, “to guard, to protect” six times in connection with the G’d of Israel protecting His people (Psalm 121).
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  . לרב תרבה נחלתו, “to the numerous you will increase his (share of the) inheritance.” A tribe which was more populous (than average) was given a larger piece of land (Rashi).
  
  Verse 55
  
  . אך בגורל יחלק את הארץ, “however, only by the lot shall the land be (divided) distributed.” The reason the lot had to determine who received what was that the land was not uniformly good. He who drew a lot allocating to him good quality land did not enjoy a financial advantage as he whose lot allocated to him a less fertile piece of land  was  compensated financially.
      The distribution of the land proceeded according to the following method. Eleazar (High Priest) wore his priestly garments including the breast plate containing the urim vetumim, and the whole people of Israel stood around him (Baba Batra 122). The pieces of wood inscribed with the names of the various tribes as well as the pieces of wood inscribed with the different sections of the land would be placed in front of Eleazar. He would be inspired with Holy Spirit and announce (example): “the tribe of Zevulun has been assigned section such and such including the town of Acco.” When later on, he would withdraw one piece of wood from the box containing the names of the sections of land and one piece of wood containing the names of the tribes, it would be found that what he withdrew matched what he had previously announced. He would repeat the same procedure with all the other tribes except the tribe of Levi for whom no pieces of wood had been prepared. The elders of the tribe would then proceed to divide up their parcel of the land between the heads of the major families of that tribe, the ראשי בית אב. Any tribe who comprised a large number of such families at the time of the Exodus would receive numerous parcels, whereas the tribe which at that time comprised only a small number of families would receive a relatively larger parcel of land. The distribution would be based on the size and number of the families of males of military age at the time of the Exodus seeing that the Torah writes: לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, that they “will inherit according to the names of their  fathers’ tribes  they shall inherit.” This includes the adults who left Egypt and excludes proselytes.
  
  Verse 56
  
   על פי הגורל תחלק נחלתו , “each portion shall be assigned by lot.” Our verse expresses what is stated in Proverbs 18,18: “the lot puts an end to strife, it separates between the mighty.” Solomon comes out in favor of determining distribution of properties, etc., with multiple claimants by lottery as it prevents strife and bad feeling. it is a cause for preventing coveting something belonging to others. If we assume that the other person has gained his property through the casting of lots no one can begrudge it claiming unfairness by human authority. Solomon illustrates this further in Proverbs 16,33: “a lot is cast into the lap, but one’s judgment depends on G’d.”
  
  Verse 57
  
    ואלה פקודי הלוי למשפחותם לגרשון, “and these are the enrollments of the Levites according to their clans.  Of Gershon, etc.” The Torah first mentions the oldest of Levi’s sons followed by Livni, Levis’s grandson but omitting Shimi (Exodus 6,17) as he had no sons, or they died during his life time leaving no male offspring (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  . ויהיו פקודיהם שלשה ועשרים אלף כל זכר מבן חדש ומעלה, “and the  number of enrolled ones comprising all those from one month and up was 23,000.” I have explained on Numbers 4,49 why the Levites were counted from one month and up.
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
    כי אם כלב בן יפונה, “except for Calev son of Yefuneh.” The reason the Torah (Hashem) mentioned Calev’s name first is that G’d Himself always mentions his name before that of Joshua (Numbers 13,30) seeing the Torah had reported Calev as being the first one to speak up against the other spies and had displayed more jealousy on behalf of the Lord than had his companion Joshua. Furthermore, G’d had described Calev as עבדי, “My servant,” the highest type of compliment accorded to mortals. Moses, on the other hand, always mentioned Joshua first to indicate that Joshua possessed more wisdom (Ibn Ezra).  The words: “for not a one had remained except for Calev and Joshua,” which are almost impossible to understand, have been interpreted by our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 7 as stressing the word איש; of the men of military age none survived; many women did survive. The verse teaches that the decree that the generation of the Exodus had to die in the desert applied only to men, not to women. Our sages in the above-mentioned Tanchuma state that “the men hated the land of Israel, not the women.” It was the men who had demanded to appoint a leader to take the people back to Egypt (Numbers 14,4). The women, by contrast, (the daughters of Tzelofchod) demanded to be given a share in the Holy Land. [We have pointed out already in Genesis 46,7 that there is a clear inference that Yaakov’s womenfolk did not move to Egypt of their own free volition. The women had always displayed greater fondness of the land of Israel. Ed.]. Seeing the Jewish women were fond of the land of Israel, the Torah wrote the chapter about the claim of the daughters of Tzelofchod at this juncture.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף, “of the family of Menashe, son of Joseph.” The reason the Torah went out of its way to trace the ancestry of these girls all the way back to Joseph was their fondness of the land of Israel, a fondness which had also characterized their ancestor Joseph who had commanded his surviving brothers to take his remains with them to the Holy Land when the time of the redemption from Egypt would arrive (Genesis 50,28).  Furthermore, this teaches that all the ancestors of the daughters of Tzelofchod were righteous seeing that we have a rule that when the Bible mentions a person to his credit and it mentions his ancestors without reporting anything specific about the deeds of his or her ancestors, both he and his ancestors may be presumed to have been righteous, i.e. a צדיק בן צדיק. If, on the other hand, that person is singled out because of something improper he had done and the Torah also mentions the names of his ancestors without describing them as meritorious, it is clear that not only he but also these ancestors were wicked. The classic example is found in Kings II 25,25: “Yishmael, son of Natanya son of Elishama of royal descent came with ten men and murdered Gedalyah.” You may be certain that not only this Yishmael but also all the forebears of his who are listed were wicked people.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
    אבינו מת במדבר, “our father died in the desert but he had not been,” etc.  According to Nachmanides the reason that these girls pointed out that their father’s death had not had any connection with the death of Korach and his rebels was that Moses should not hate them on account of their father having participated in the rebellion against him. They thought that it was only natural that Moses hated Korach more than any other sinners as those people had denied any of Moses’ accomplishments. If he were to judge their request he might be influenced by such considerations. He might even pray to G’d not to grant any special favors to the offspring of such a rebel. We find such a sentiment in Psalms 109,12 where David prays to G’d not to show kindness to Haman or his sons on account of any kindness Haman had ever performed for anyone in his life. These girls also hinted that their father had not died as the result of the pestilence which had killed thousands of Israelites, but that he had died in the desert in his bed. Thus far Nachmanides’ commentary, described as based on the plain meaning of the text.
     כי בחטאו מת, “rather, he died due to an individual sin committed by him (only).” He was no different from many other people who died on account of individual sins, not connected to some collective misdemeanor. Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi points out that the words כי בחטאו מת ובנים לא היו לו, “for he died on account of his sin and he had no sons,” are linked together by the cantillation and imply that the fact that he had no sons was linked to the sin which caused his death.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  'ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני ה', “Moses presented their judicial claim to the Lord.” Some commentators feel that the reason that Moses disqualified himself from presiding over the court dealing with the claim of the daughters of Tzelofchod was precisely because they had made a point of stating that their father had not been someone who had personally hated, i.e. opposed Moses. If he were to judge their case he might be accused of being prejudiced in their favour as a result of their having made such a statement. I do not believe that this is plausible at all. If this evaluation were correct Moses did not have to turn to G’d but could have let this case be decided by a tribunal from which he personally had excused himself. 
  The truth of the matter is that the reason why Moses turned to G’d is that he himself  had forgotten the law on the subject. If he did not know, the less learned judges most certainly would not know either. Seeing that the problem was not complicated and could have been resolved by simply using one’s intellect, and even the Gentile courts have solved it satisfactorily, Moses is faulted for not having known the law on this point. He, who had once said: “if a matter is to difficult for you, present it to me for a decision” (Deut. 31,17) was now denied knowledge of a relatively simple point in law, one that even women were able to work out for themselves. This is why Moses had to present the case of these daughters of Tzelofchod to G’d for a decision.  The reason that the final letter ן is written especially large in the word משפטן, is a hint to a Torah scholar who is an outstanding scholar and who has studied not only Torah but also other disciplines, not to preside over a case in the presence of a scholar who outranks him in wisdom. Rather, if he is asked to preside over a case, he is to present this case to the authority on the subject. We learn this from Moses who did not sit in judgment of a case when he was not certain of the law but presented the case to the Expert, i.e. to Hashem.    If you accept the premise that Moses did not know the law on this point challenged by the daughters of Tzelofchod, surely we must ask how a person such as Moses who had been described by Hashem as בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is thoroughly at home and trusted in My entire House,” did not know such a simple law as that when there are no sons the daughters have precedence over the brothers of the deceased or his father? This statement surely included the fact that Moses was an expert in all the most difficult laws of the Torah! How could he have failed to know this simple halachah? We must assume that he asked G’d in order to teach the scholars the lesson  that if even he did not presume to preside over legislation which had not been spelled out but had to be arrived at by mere logic, then a scholar of lesser stature than himself must certainly not presume to determine a case on the basis of logic when there is a more  experienced scholar who can decide it on the basis of precedent.
      Still, it is the opinion of our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 9 that Moses had temporarily forgotten this halachah. In that case we may see in the enlarged letter ן at the end of the word  משפטן a hint that the 50th level of insight had been denied Moses and that  this level is so close to G’d Himself that it may be described as לפני ה' and not be included in the compliment that Moses was so familiar in the “House“ of Hashem. This may be the reason that the Torah added the words לפני ה' after the word משפטן. The Torah meant that just as the 50th level of insight was not attained by Moses so he did not know this particular ruling in the field of inheritance.  Even though the reason presented by us for Moses not knowing the halachah in question is not the same (lack of deep knowledge) as saying that the reason it was withheld from him was a punishment for what had sounded a little arrogant at the time, both answers could be derived from the words את משפטן לפני ה'.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Pinchas 9. The daughters of Tzelofchod did not approach Moses, the High Priest and the elders in the first instance, but had first approached judges of lesser stature in order to give them due respect and not make them feel that they had been bypassed. The various levels of judges, i.e. chiefs of fifty, chiefs of a hundred, etc., also displayed their respect for the higher levels by passing the case on, progressively, through the judiciary system. When Moses observed how each layer of the judiciary preserved the honour of the next higher level of their colleagues, he in turn decided to do the same and he paid his respects to the law maker by presenting the case of the daughters of Tzelofchod to G’d Himself for a ruling. This is the only reason we find the Torah reporting that  'ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני ה', “Moses presented their litigation before the Lord.” Our sages in Baba Batra 119 state that although ordinarily this halachah should have been recorded as “written” by Moses, the fact that the daughters of Tzelofchod were careful to preserve the dignity of all the people possibly concerned with this legislation is presented as if it had been “written” by them.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . כן בנות צלפחד דוברות, “the daughters of Tzelofchod speak properly;” the word כן here is in essence the same as באמת, truthfully, correctly. Sifri 134 comments: “hail to the people whose words are applauded by G’d.”
     נתן תתן להם אחוזת נחלה , “you shall certainly give them the permanent possession of an heritage.” The repetition of the word נתן means that they were to receive a double share of hereditary portion of land in the land of Israel. One share would be the one that accrued to their father who was one of the men of military age who had taken part in the Exodus. As such he should have shared with the other sons of Chefer. Chefer’s father had himself died in the desert so that the daughters of Tzelofchod inherited their father’s portion of his share in the land also. This is because the daughter of a son takes the place of non-existent brothers and shares with them in the inheritance (compare Baba Batra 115). The summary arrived at there is: “direct biological offspring takes precedence in the laws of inheritance.”
     והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן, “you are to transfer the hereditary share of their father to them.” The meaning is: “what their father would have inherited had he lived will be given to his daughters.” The reason the Torah here chose the word והעברת “you shall transfer, instead of “you shall give as permanent heritage, ונתת,” the term used when discussing male heirs receiving their portion (compare verses 9, 10,11), is related to their marrying out of the tribe. Here when the legal status of a daughter inheriting her father’s landed property is legislated the Torah uses a term implying a more transient inheritance.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמור, “and to the Children of Israel, you are to say, etc.” The Israelites were commanded this legislation at the instigation of the women. It is possible to explain the reason for this legislation in terms of the whole legislation of inheritance being the result of man’s mortality, which in turn was caused initially by women, i.e. by Chavah eating from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. In other words, women  brought death into the world (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 2). It was therefore appropriate for the section of laws dealing with inheritance, i.e. transferring remnants of the dead to the living, to have been triggered by women. The reason the daughters of Tzelofchod are the women with whom the recording of this legislation is associated is their love of Eretz Yisrael. The land of Israel is also called  the “hereditary land of G’d” in Joshua 22,19 corresponding to the expression ארץ החיים, “the land of the living” (Psalms 142,6). [In other words, women who have caused death are primary causes of salvaging whatever can be salvaged from death, Ed.].
     איש כי ימות ובן אין לו והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, “when a man dies and does not have a son you are to transfer his inheritance to his daughter.” In referring to this wording, our sages in Baba Batra 115 state that if the deceased has a son he has total precedence in all matters of inheritance (does not share with any sisters). By the same token, the daughter of such a son (if she has no brother) precedes any other surviving relative of the deceased in her claim to inheritance from her father down the generations. A surviving daughter of the original owner of the estate in question has a claim to the inheritance from her father only when or after there is no male heir of the original owner even several generations down the line.    The allusion to this halachah is found in the word אין in the words אין לו being spelled with the letter י; our sages in Baba Batra allow for an alternative reading of that word as עיין לו, “make research concerning the existence of such a male descendant.” The word אין spelled without the letter י in the sense of denial, absence, refusal, is found in Deut. 25,7 מאן יבמי, “my brother-in-law refuses, etc” (compare Rashbam there). [This example makes the manner in which the sages derive this law more plausible than at first sight, seeing that in over 800 examples in the Bible the word אין is always spelled with the letter י so that its presence here hardly seems to give rise to any special exegesis. Ed.].
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואם אין לו בת ונתתם את נחלתו לאחיו, “and if he had no daughter either, you will give his inheritance to his surviving brother.”  Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understands the word “his brother” to include either a brother by his father or a brother by his mother, all of whom take precedence in their claim over brothers of the deceased father, and, of course, over the brothers of the deceased’s mother. However, our sages in Baba Batra 110 state that the mother is not included in the term משפחה mentioned in verse 11 so that there cannot be a question of brothers of the mother being in line for this inheritance at all. Whereas a son inherits his mother, his mother does not inherit him (if he predeceases her) under any circumstances (Baba  Batra 108).    A sister inherits her brother if he has neither a surviving father nor brother, just as the daughter inherits when there is no surviving male heir. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Nachalot 1,3). Accordingly, the word לאחיו in our verse includes both brother or sister as the case may be. After the paragraph has informed us that  the son inherits the father, it follows that if the sequence of death of father and son is reversed, the father inherits his son. The Torah did not want to spell this out directly as the fact that a father has to mourn the death of his son is a tragic occurrence. Whereas the Torah delights in mentioning instances of blissful occurrences it shrinks from outright references to tragic occurrences when avoidable. The principle we derive from all this is that anyone who is entitled to inherit from a certain person can also bequeath to such a person as the family relationship is identical in either direction. Seeing this matter is simple logic, the Torah did not have to spell it out as it wanted to avoid the painful emotional associations involved in contemplating fathers inheriting their children. Alternatively, the fact that the Torah did not bother to spell out this aspect of the legislation is a concealed blessing, i.e. in an Eretz Yisrael in which society follows the Torah-oriented way of life fathers will never have occasion to inherit their sons, i.e. make use in practice of this legislation. (Compare Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ונתתם את נחלתו לשארו הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו, “and you will give his inheritance to the closest (surviving) member of his family.” This verse is the source of the sages in Baba Batra 11 ruling that the husband inherits his wife. The  sages use the letter ל in the word ונתתם and the letter ו in the word לשארו to construct a new word, i.e., לו, which is the basis for assigning the wife’s property to the husband upon her death. The word שארו is understood as “his wife.”
     והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפט, “this shall be for the Children of Israel as a statute of Justice.” The term חקת משפט used by the Torah here in connection with the laws governing relative precedence in inheritance is used to show that this will be an eternal statute. Seeing that the Torah wants us to understand that the legislation recorded here does not apply only to the people who were about to enter the land of Israel, the expression חקת משפט was chosen, i.e. it was not a law formulated to govern special circumstances only (compare Nachmanides). 
  Our Sages in Baba Batra 130 derives from the use of the word חוקה in our verse that one cannot bequeath one’s fortune to someone who is not legally designated as a potential heir of the deceased. Neither may one disinherit someone who is potentially entitled to be one’s heir. [The use of the word “bequeath,” etc., always means to make the property in question available after one’s death.  There are no legal restrictions to someone giving away his property to anyone during his life time. Ed.]. The aforesaid restriction to disinheriting potential heirs applies in spite of the rule that in matters connected with money one is at liberty to make conditions which are at variance with Torah norms. To quote an example: according to Torah law the husband is obligated to look after the needs of his wife, providing, shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc. If, prior to betrothing said wife, he made the explicit condition that he would not have to accept this financial burden such a condition is legally valid. When the Torah described the law of inheritance as חקת משפט, this means that a father cannot disinherit his son although the subject matter is money or its equivalent. Even if the father only limits the share of his firstborn son to be equal (instead of double) to that of all his other sons, such a condition is invalid. Man cannot override what the Torah has specifically legislated (Maimonides Hilchot Nachalot 6, 1-2).
     כאשר צוה ה', “as the Lord had commanded.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write; “as I have commanded you,” seeing the whole paragraph is G’d’s dictation. However, we have to use this stylistic change as being similar to Exodus 24,1 “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend to the Lord.’”
  
  Verse 12
  
  . עלה אל הר העברים הזה, “ascend this mountain of Avarim.” The reason this paragraph is appended to the legislation about inheritance is that Moses wanted to know who would inherit his status (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 13
  
  . וראיתה אותה ונאספת אל עמיך גם אתה, “once you have seen it you too will be gathered in to your people.” Why did G’d repeat: “you will see it,” when  He had already told Moses in verse 12 that the purpose of ascending mount Avarim was for Moses to see the land? We need to understand the words וראיתה אותה as a reference to the Eretz Yisrael in the celestial regions which Moses would see as soon as he was gathered in to his people (would die). Perhaps the letter ה at the end of וראיתה is to convey that this “seeing” would be thanks to the power of the attribute ה. The land referred to as the celestial ארץ ישראל is symbolised by the last letter ה in the tetragram, a reference to the attribute כבוד ה' which would do the “gathering in” of Moses. This thought is reinforced by the insertion of the letter י in the word עמיך. Moses, after all, belonged to one people, עמך, not to several. Every time the word עמיך appears in connection with Moses the reason is the same. Examples are; Numbers 27,13, Numbers 31,2, Deut. 32,3.
  
  Verse 14
  
   הם מי מריבת קדש, “they are the waters of strife at Kadesh.” This verse demonstrates that neither Moses nor Aaron had been guilty of any other sin. the word הם, “they,” means “these only and none other.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  . וידבר משה אל ה' לאמור “Moses spoke to the Lord, saying.” What reason was there for Moses to use the word לאמור “to say,” when he spoke directly to G’d? To whom was G’d supposed to tell what Moses had been saying? The Torah uses a form of introduction which fits the great stature of Moses, i.e. compliments him. Just as when G’d addressed Moses we normally find that the formula is לאמור, “to say,” the Torah now chose a stylistically similar formula to compare the student to his master, his teacher. This idea is reflected in a Midrash which says: (quoting G’d) “I have spoken to you using both דבור and אמירה, now when you speak to Me it will also be considered as both דבור and אמירה.
  
  Verse 16
  
   יפקוד ה' אלו-הי הרוחות לכל בשר, “May Hashem, G’d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint, etc.”  “You Who know the spirit of each individual are surely aware of who is appropriate to be appointed as leader for them.”
     אשר יצא לפניהם, “who is to go out ahead of them.” It means: who is to lead them in war.   ואשר יבא לפניהם ואשר יוציאם, “and who shall come in before them and who shall take them out.” The emphasis here is on the fact that the leader personally and not some deputy should always be in front. Whereas among the Gentile nations the king or top general generally remains behind the danger zone in the rear, Moses requests that the kind of leader that would be appointed should emulate him when he had faced Sichon and Og in battle at the head of the army. We know hat Moses had been in the front, why else would G’d have reassured him when He said to him not to be afraid of Og (21,34)? We know that Joshua was at the front of the army, as when the angel with his drawn sword in his hand confronted him he asked: “do you belong to us or to our enemies?” (Joshua 5,13) We also find that David was at the head of his army as reported in Samuel I 18,16: “for he would go out and come in at their head.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . קח לך את יהושע בן נון, “take for yourself Joshua son of Nun.” The word “for you” in this verse means: “the one whom you yourself have already examined minutely, the one whom you know thoroughly.” It is now appropriate that he reap the reward for having been your faithful disciple all these years, never departing from your immediate presence. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 27,18: “he who stands guard over the fig tree will eventually enjoy its fruit.”
     איש אשר רוח בו, “a man in whom there is spirit.” A reference to Holy Spirit. Our sages in Sifri Pinchas 140 understand this to mean that he has the emotional fortitude to brave all opposition.
     וסמכת את ידך עליו, “you are to lean your hand upon him.” This was to demonstrate to all the Israelites that he will replace you. Our sages in Sifri 140 understand this to mean that Moses was to provide Joshua with an interpreter who would announce all he had to say to the people (while Moses was alive) so the people would not say later that Joshua would never have dared speak up while Moses was still alive.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ונתת מהודך עליו, “and you will impart some of your stature to him.” This means that Moses was to display some deference to Joshua. According to Baba Batra 75 the important letter in this verse is the letter מ in front of the word הודך, i.e. that Moses was to impart only part of his majesty to Joshua, not all of it. This also reflects the statement by our sages that Joshua compared to Moses much like the moon compares to the sun. Whereas the latter only reflects light received from an outside source the sun generates light. Nonetheless, we must not forget that the sun too received its original input from G’d as we know from Genesis 1,14 where both the sun and the moon are described as מאורות, “luminaries,” as opposed to אורים, “sources of original light.” Moses too had received his initial spiritual input from Hashem.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ושאל לו במשפט האורים, “He will inquire on his behalf of the Judgment of the Urim.” It is remarkable that the Tumim have not been mentioned here. This appears to prove that the Urim were the principal carriers of the holy names of G’d and that they illuminated the letters on the breastplate of the High Priest from which the latter received the answer to his inquiries from the Lord. The Tumim, apparently only contained the matching letters needed to complete certain words so that the High Priest could make heads or tails of them. Nonetheless, the fact is that the Urim and Tumim always work in tandem. Basically, the two are two sides of the same coin and they reposed inside the folds of the breastplate.    Our sages in Yuma 83 derive from this verse that whereas a decree which issued forth from the mouth of a prophet is reversible, a decree communicated by means of the Urim and Tumim is not reversible. They base this on the expression משפט used in our verse in connection with the Urim. Just as משפט, judgment, is something which cannot be reversed, so an answer provided by means of the Urim and Tumim cannot be reversed.    In our verse G’d tells Moses that Joshua will be in his place and that he and all of Israel shall go out (to war) at his command, i.e. as communicated through the High Priest Eleazar. It is an assurance to Moses that the final authority will not depart from his tribe.
     הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה, “he and all the Children of Israel with him and the whole congregation.” Seeing that the “congregation” is part of the term “the Children of Israel,” what is the point of appending this word? It teaches that even Israelites who disagree with Joshua as their new leader are not thereby excluded from the all-encompassing statement “all the Children of Israel.” This means that the dissidents are not free to opt out from the obligations which already devolved upon them as members of “the Children of Israel.”   Our sages in Yuma 73 understand the words וכל העדה to mean the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court), which acts as the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the “unique, special” people of the congregation. When the Torah commanded that just these people had to be presented before Eleazar the High Priest and before “the entire congregation,” this is proof that the sages in Yuma were correct in their interpretation of the words כל העדה in our verse, i.e. those who represented the entire congregation.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויסמוך את ידיו עליו, “he leaned (both) his hands upon him.” Although G’d had commanded Moses that he needs to place “a hand” upon Joshua, Moses put both his hands on him to indicate that he harbored no ill will over handing over his authority to someone else (compare Rashi). According to Sifri 141 the meaning is that he filled Joshua with wisdom as one fills a container right to the top of its capacity. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . את קרבני לחמי, “My offering, My food for My fires;”  the chapter dealing with the mandatory public sacrifices offered at regular intervals has been introduced here since Moses had already been warned regarding the offerings that the Israelites are to present; now that Moses saw that he was not going to enter the Holy Land together with the people he informed them of all these details (which were not applicable as yet). He commenced with the daily burnt-offering although the details of this offering had already been listed in Exodus 29, 38-41. At that time the reason was to inform us of what sacrifices were being presented during the seven days of inaugural celebrations of the Tabernacle. (compare Rashi). Nachmanides questions this as the Torah had used the expression “for all your generations” already at that point.
      According to the plain meaning of the text: the word קרבני refers to the blood; the word את includes the salt which had to be added to each offering as we know from Leviticus 2,13. The reason we dip bread nowadays in salt before eating it at the beginning of our meal is that the Torah called a sacrificial offering לחם, bread. The word לחמי refers to the fat parts of the sacrificial animal, (or all its flesh as the case might be) which was burned up on the altar. The word לאשי refers to all that is given over to the fire on the altar. The word תשמרו refers to the Israelites standing in attendance during this procedure. The word במועדו, which means “at its appointed time” and seems superfluous seeing that the offering under discussion is presented daily, means that no other sacrifice is to be offered earlier in the day than these daily total-offerings. By the same token, no offering was to be presented after the evening daily burnt-offering. Another meaning of the word במועדו is that the legislation overrides the Sabbath legislation and that even on the Sabbath (Sifri 142) these daily burnt-offerings were offered as usual even if the laws of ritual impurity had to be set aside in order for this offering to be presented (compare Pessachim 76).
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואמרת להם, “you shall say to them.” This is a warning to the Court (Sifri).   זה האשה, “this is the fire offering;” seeing the paragraph had commenced with the words: “My offering, קרבני, why did the Torah now call it אשה? The fact is that the word is the explanation of לחמי לאשי, אשר תקריבו לה', for the requirement of Hashem, i.e. it must not be disqualified by inadmissible thoughts during its presentation, פגול. כבשים, “sheep,” no other animals. בני שנה, ”one year old;” i.e. not a day older than one year old but as young as eight days. תמימים, “unblemished.” This is the corollary of Leviticus 22,21: “it shall not be blemished.” The word תמימם is spelled here with the letter י before the final ם missing. This indicates that both these sheep should be identical. [This is a conjecture in the Talmud Yoma 62b which is ultimately rejected]. There were to be a total of 730 such sheep for the year, assuming the year had 365 days [as opposed to the lunar year which on average has 354 days]. The number 730 is alluded to in the first letters of the words תמימם שנים ליום.   שנים ליום, “two per day.” The two offerings may be viewed as advocates, pleading the case of the Jewish people before a heavenly tribunal; the site where these two sheep were being slaughtered corresponded to the relative motion of earth to sun during the day, the morning sacrifice at the north-west corner of the courtyard, the afternoon sacrifice at the north-east corner.   עולה תמיד, “a permanent burnt-offering.” This offering will always function as advocate on behalf of the Jewish people.   ליום עולה, “for the day a burnt-offering” [This contradicts the cantillation. Ed.]. According to Yuma 10 when the dawn rose the lookout in the Temple would call out ברק ברקאי, “the morning-star is shining.” This is the reason why the expression עולה was not mentioned in what appears to be a parallel passage in Exodus chapter 29.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . את הכבש אחד, “One of the lambs,” we would have expected the Torah to write את הכבש האחד, however the omission of the letter ה here is to alert us to the fact that the word אחד has a numerical value of 13 to teach us that 13 priests were involved in this procedure (Yuma 25). This number is also not accidental but is in itself a reminder that the offering was addressed to the אחד, to the One and Only G’d. In Exodus chapter 29,39 the Torah does write: את הכבש האחד, as is grammatically appropriate when speaking of an animal singled out from its flock as superior.
     תעשה בבוקר, “you are to prepare it in the morning.” The numerical value of these two words is the same as לארבע שעות, i.e. during the first four hours of the day.
     בבוקר, “in the morning.” a period from sunrise until the sun has spread its rays across the horizon. The universe was created during the day as we know from Genesis 2,4: “on the day the Lord G’d made earth and heaven.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   העשויה בהר סיני, “which was instituted at Mount Sinai.” This is a reference to the offerings brought daily during the inaugural procedures of the Tabernacle (Exodus 29). This was a period prior to the attribute of כבוד moving from the top of the mountain to the top of the Tabernacle. The wording here seems to suggest that after their stay around Mount Sinai the Israelites did not continue to offer these burnt-offerings in the desert at all. In Chagigah 6 Rabbi Eleazar understands the words עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני as meaning that the relevant procedures were taught at Mount Sinai whereas the offerings were not offered there at all. Rabbi Akiva, however, understood the verse to mean that this procedure was first introduced at Mount Sinai. [Presumably prior to the building of the Tabernacle, as the Tabernacle was not built till nine months after the sin of the golden calf. A better explanation is that of Tosafot that the disqualification of the Israelites was the sin of the spies. This leaves other problems. Ed.] and never again interrupted. This poses the problem of a verse in Amos 5,25: “the meat-offerings and gift-offerings which you offered to Me during the forty years in the desert.” Why did the prophet not mention the burnt-offerings offered during that period? The answer given is that during those 40 years the daily-burnt-offering represented only the tribe of Levi who had not been guilty of the sin of the golden calf and who therefore were not out of grace. This teaches that even according to the view of Rabbi Akiva who holds that once introduced this procedure was not abandoned even temporarily, the meaning of the offering was different.
  
  Verse 7
  
  'הסך נסך שכר לה', “to be poured as an intoxicating libation for the Lord.”  Wine at least 40 days old is intoxicating. The word שכר in our verse therefore disqualifies wine which has not aged long enough (Rashi). 
  Nachmanides disagrees with Rashi, seeing that the sages in Baba Batra 97 stated that whereas fresh wine is not to be offered as a libation in the first instance, if it had been used by mistake it is acceptable. It follows that such new wine could not have been excluded by a Biblical verse. What the verse here does exclude is wine which has been watered down to make it less potent. Any wine so watered down is unacceptable for the libation mentioned. We find confirmation of Nachmanides’ view in Sifri 143. The repetition of the words הסך נסך is an allusion to a second kind of libation, the water libation offered on Tabernacles (Taanit 3).
      A Midrashic approach, Tanchuma Pinchas 11: The reason that the passage dealing with the daily communal sacrifices adjoins the one in which Moses asked for his successor to be appointed is to show that G’d told Moses: “before you tell Me what to do for My son (the Israelites) tell them what they have to do for Me.” This is also the meaning of Isaiah 45,11: האותיות שאלוני על בני ועל פעל ידי תצוני, “Will you question Me on the destiny of My children, will you instruct Me about the works of My hands?” The matter can best be illustrated by a parable. A king married a certain lady. The king had a friend who, whenever the king was angry at his wife, interceded on her behalf and calmed him down. When this friend was close to death (seeing he was an elderly man) he asked the king to tell him what he really thought of his wife. The king replied: “before I tell you what I think of my wife, i.e. before you tell me how to treat her, you better find out what she thinks of me and warn her not to insult my dignity.”
     את קרבני לחמי, “My offering, My bread.” The words שנים ליום, mean “two sheep per day, one in the morning and one in the evening,” not both at the same time (verse 4).    We find that King Solomon consumed far more than that as is spelled out in Kings 5, 2-3: “Solomon’s daily provisions consisted of 30 kors of semolina, 60 kors of ordinary flour; 10 fattened oxen, 20 pasture-fed oxen, 100 sheep and goats, besides deer, gazelles, roebuck and fatted geese.” The author (of Kings) appears to contrast Proverbs 13,25: “a righteous person eats (enough) to satisfy his soul (life-force), whereas the belly of the wicked will always feel in need.” Eliezer, Avraham’s trusted servant is an example of the righteous mentioned by Solomon, seeing that he asked Rivkah to only let him sip a little water from her jug (Genesis 24,17). Esau, on the other hand, demanded from Yaakov that he let him “gulp down the red stuff” (Genesis 25,30).   We find that in Job 37,23 Elihu tells Job that “Shaddai we cannot attain to Him, He is great in power and Justice,” whereas in Job 36,22 the same Elihu proclaims: “see, G’d is beyond reach in His power; who governs like Him?” [This suggests we can appreciate His greatness. Ed.]. How can these two verses be reconciled? When G’d gives to us He gives according to His power; when He asks of us He asks much less than is due Him, demanding only that we give according to our means. To illustrate: the Torah writes in Exodus 26,1 that the coverings for the Tabernacle be made of ten carpet-like strips of cloth; this is an illustration of the verse in Job 37,23, seeing “we cannot attain to Him, providing Him with His needs.” Similarly, when the Torah asks the Jewish people to provide olive oil for the Menorah in the Tabernacle (Exodus 27,20) the request is one well within the power of the Israelites to fulfill. Similarly, the Torah asks the farmer to present merely the first ripe fruit of his orchard to the Lord (Exodus 23,19). On the other hand, when the Bible describes G’d’s largess to man, such as in Ezekiel 47,12 the wording is: “all kinds of trees for food will grow up on both sides of the river. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fall; they will yield new fruit every month; each tree will produce new ‘first-fruit’ every single month.” This is a perfect illustration of the imbalance of what G’d asks of us and what He is prepared to provide for us. The author quotes a few more verses depicting the generous measure of G’d’s largess.
      A Kabbalistic approach on the words את קרבני לחמי לאשי: every one of these four words reflects the attribute of Justice, seeing the attribute of Justice is speaking. The word את is known as representing the attribute of Justice from Ezekiel 2,2: ואשמע את מדבר אלי, “I heard את speaking to me.” The words קרבני לחמי are both derived from קרב, “battle,” and לוחם, “fighting” as in מלחמה. The word לאשי, is derived from אשה לריח ניחוח. The meaning of these words is that this offering is designed to draw down to “Me” the largesse of the attribute of Hashem. The word תשמרו is a warning that when you the Israelites offer this sacrifice it must be exclusively addressed to Hashem, the attribute of Justice saying that even it  addresses itself to Hashem. When will that occur? When you the Jewish people, offer these two sheep twice daily as a daily burnt-offering. This sacrifice is to be offered twice daily, morning and evening, together with fine flour, etc., and the wine libation  as listed in our paragraph.    The components of this offering, i.e. meat, bread, and wine are the principal ingredients of our diet. Seeing that the earth which provides these food items either directly or indirectly does so under the influence of the two great luminaries, one of which is active by day and the other at night, it is appropriate that when we offer this sacrifice we do so at times which allude to the activities of sun and moon respectively. After all, their orbits determine morning and evening. They have been given authority to rule our terrestrial universe and everything which grows in it or moves on its surface. Seeing that the domains of sun and moon do not overlap, it would not be appropriate to offer both these animals during the same time of the day. We have already explained that even the slaughtering of these two sheep does not take place in the same corner of the Temple’s courtyard. The Talmud Yuma 62 makes clear that the wording שנים ליום means that that both animals are to face in the same direction but on different sides of the “center line,” i.e. north-east and north-west respectively.   The daily morning and evening burnt-offering was an instrument of atonement for the Jewish people, and acted as a shield for the people. The sign that this is so is found in the words of Proverbs 4,9; עתרת תפארת תמגנך, ”a crown of beauty will protect you.” Our sages of the Talmud have incorporated this idea in the benediction recited when welcoming the new moon when we say: שתתחדש עטרת תפארת לעמוסי בטן , “may the crown of glory renew itself for the people burdened (with a destiny since its inception) from the womb.” The offering of this daily communal sacrifice by the Jewish people has been responsible for the continued existence of the world, its sustenance, and the fact that its food-supply is blessed. The source of this blessing resides in the celestial spheres, is transferred to the inner sanctum of the celestial temple to Eden, thence to the garden, thence to the disembodied creatures (angels) and ultimately to our terrestrial universe.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וביום השבת שני כבשים, “and on the Sabbath day,  two male lambs (additionally).” On the holidays including New Moon and New Year and the day of Atonement a total of seven male sheep were part of the day’s communal additional offerings. These were additional to the daily two lambs. On the Sabbath, however, only two additional male lambs were offered. According to the Talmud Yuma we quoted these definitely had to match each other in their size, appearance and value if possible. The word למצוה, “for performance of the commandment,” used in the Talmud when stipulating this means that this was an a priori requirement, i.e. efforts had to be made to find two such matching animals. In the event it was impossible to find such, the next best match was acceptable.    The reason that on the Sabbath only two extra male lambs were required for the Mussaf offering is that the Sabbath, by definition, has a dual significance, i.e. the Torah once wrote the word זכור and once the word שמור in the two versions of the Ten Commandments concerning its observance. In other words, the positive and negative aspects of the Sabbath observance carry equal weight  When the Torah speaks of Sabbath observance, G’d refers to this as את שבתותי תשמרו, “observe My Sabbath days,” i.e. each Sabbath has two aspects to it (Leviticus 26,2). Every piece of legislation in connection with the Sabbath appears in pairs, even the amount of manna which fell on Friday (on account of the Sabbath) comprised two omer instead of one. Warnings of penalties are worded as מות ימות, promises of reward for its observance are similarly expressed in dual form, i.e. the hymn recited on the Sabbath is called both מזמור and שיר. Also the reward promised for its observance is described in such terms, i.e. Isaiah 58,13-14: “then you will enjoy the favour of the Lord, I will set you astride the heights of the earth, and let you enjoy the heritage of your father Yaakov.” According to a Midrash based on the wording of the mussaph prayer on Sabbath, G’d explained the reason why He is content with only two extra male sheep on that day as that He does not want to ask us for more than we ourselves enjoy on the Sabbath, i.e. two extra meals.
     ושני עשרונים “and two tenths, etc.” These correspond to the two loaves of bread over which we recite the benediction on the Sabbath meals. The reason that at this point the Torah omits the words והקרבתם or תקריבו, is that while the Israelites were in the desert these mussaf sacrifices were not offered up. The people had not been commanded concerning them until now, at the end of their wanderings in the desert.
  
  Verse 10
  
   עולת שבת בשבתו, “the Sabbath burnt-offering on its Sabbath.” This means that the procedure is to take place on each Sabbath, as if the Torah had written דבר יום ביומו, “a daily procedure day by day” (Exodus 8,13).   על עולת התמיד, “in addition to (after) the daily total-offering.”
  
  Verse 11
  
   ובראשי חדשיכם, “and on your New Moons, etc.”  The reason the word ובראשי is in the plural instead of ובראש, is to avoid misunderstanding. Had the Torah written the singular ובראש I could have understood this legislation to apply only to the first day of Nissan, a day previously singled out as beginning of the month. This day had been referred to as ראש חדשים in Exodus 12,2. By writing ובראשי חדשים, the Torah made plain that the following mussaf offerings were to be offered on the first of every month. Not only this; every month has two beginnings. In the evening it is recognizable through the appearance of the moon, in the morning through the offering of the requisite sacrifice. The special offering for the New Moon could not be offered at night as no offerings may be offered at night with the exception of the Passover which is offered after the daily evening burnt-offering.
     פרים בני בקר שנים ואיל אחד כבשים בני שנה שבעה תמימים, “two young bulls, one ram, seven male lambs in their first year, unblemished.” Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 13,13 explain that the bulls symbolize the patriarch Avraham of whom the Torah wrote: “he ran to the cattle” (Genesis 18,7); the ram symbolizes Yitzchak, as it was offered in his place by Avraham (Genesis 22,13). The seven sheep symbolize Yaakov of whom it is written that “he separated the sheep” (Genesis 30,40). The male goat mentioned at the end of the paragraph symbolizes the goat the brothers killed and dipped Joseph’s blood therein. 
  It is worthwhile to note that the total number of animals offered on New Moons was 11 as this number corresponds to the 11 hours which the sun is older than the moon. The sun was created (made operational) on the fourth day at  the beginning of the day (night), whereas the moon was made operational 11 hours later. The number 11 also recalls the fact that the solar year is (on average) 11 days longer than the lunar year (12 months), seeing the solar year is 365 days and the lunar year 354 days.   The reason that the bulls were being offered in respect of Avraham (and Sarah) is because Avraham and Sarah originally were like טומטום ואנדרונינוס, hermaphrodite and epicene (people whose sexual organs were underdeveloped preventing them from bearing or siring children). The ram offered in respect of Yitzchak symbolised the uniqueness of the ram Avraham had slaughtered at the time, of which we learned in Avot 5,6 that it had been designated as such an offering since the days of the creation. The seven sheep offered in respect of Yaakov acknowledge symbolically that his features are engraved on the throne of G’d above the seven heavens (Bereshit Rabbah 68,18). The three tenths ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a gift-offering for each of the bulls correspond to the three verses in which G’d is described as appearing to Avraham (Genesis 12,7; 17,1; 18,1). The two tenths ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as gift-offering which accompanied the ram offering were in respect of the two verses in the Torah in which G’d is described as appearing to Yitzchak (Genesis 26,2; 26,24). The reason that only one tenth ephah fine flour mixed with oil was brought as gift-offering alongside the seven sheep is that we have only one verse in which G’d is described as appearing (וירא) to Yaakov (Genesis 35,9).     The reason that the Torah repeats the word עשרון in connection with the single tenth ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as gift-offering in respect of the seven sheep symbolising Yaakov, is that it alludes to both of Yaakov’s names, יעקב and ישראל. It also alludes to the two blessings he received (from his father), one instead of Esau’s blessing, the other prior to his departure to Charan. He also received 10 blessings when he was called Yaakov when his father gave him the first blessing (compare Genesis 27,28-29 and Genesis 32,30 [where the individual blessings are not enumerated; presumably G’d confirmed Yitzchak’s blessing. Ed.]). Yaakov also used the word עשר twice when he promised to tithe (twice) everything G’d would give him (Genesis 28,23). This applied especially to his son Levi as we pointed out in connection with Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 37 why Levi was considered the tenth son (compare author’s comments on Genesis 28,22). It may be worth considering in this connection that Jeremiah 31,8 quotes G’d as saying: “Ephrayim is My firstborn.” When you count backwards from Ephrayim you will find that Levi is the tenth son. When you count from Levi to Aaron in descending order, i.e. Gershon, Kehat, Merari, Livni, Shimi, Amram, Yitzhar Chevron, Uzziel, Aaron you also have Aaron as the tenth (collective) descendant of Levi named by the Torah (compare Chronicles I 6,1-3). This is also why we find in Chronicles I 23,13: “Aaron was set apart, he and his sons, forever to be consecrated most holy, to make burnt-offerings to the Lord, etc.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
    ונסכיהם חצי ההין, “and their libations, half a hin, etc. A half hin equals 6 login seeing the measure hin comprises 12 login.   יהיה לפר, “for each bull.” Seeing that the bulls were in respect of Avraham, and he had entertained and served bulls to the unexpected visitors (who turned out to be angels) during the hottest part of the day six hours after sunrise (compare Genesis 18,1-8).   ושלישית ההין לאיל, “and a third of a hin for the ram, etc.” This was in respect of Yitzchak whose binding occurred four hours after sunrise.  ורביעית ההין, “and a quarter of a hin  with each sheep.” This corresponds to Yaakov who uttered 18 benedictions. When Yaakov encountered sudden sunset (Genesis 28,11), the Torah uses the expression ויפגע במקום. We have a tradition that the term פגיעה in the Bible always refers to prayer (Berachot 26, based on Jeremiah 7,16 אל תפגע בי, “do not plead with Me.”) Yaakov is credited with inventing the daily evening prayer (עמידה) on that occasion.
      It is worth noting that the small quantity of a quarter of a hin wine is used only with a sheep offering, never with a ram or bull offering. There is a mystical dimension to this. I have alluded to this in my commentary on Leviticus 26,42: “I will remember My covenant with Yaakov.”
     זאת עולת חדש בחשדו, “this is the New Moon offering whenever the moon renews itself.” This means that if, for some reason, the day passed without this offering having been presented it cannot be made up for subsequently (Sifri 145).
  
  Verse 15
  
  'ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לה', “and one male goat as a sin-offering for Hashem.” According to the plain meaning of the text he word לה' means the same as in Leviticus 16,8: “one male goat as sin-offering for Hashem.”    Alternatively, the word לה' may mean “in respect of a sin committed against Hashem.” This would be a normal construction in Hebrew where the prefix ל often occurs as not meaning “for” but “against.” Examples are: Genesis 39,9 וחטאתי לאלו-הים and I would commit a sin against G’d.” Or, Genesis 44,32: וחטאתי לאבי, “and I would have committed a sin against my father.”    According to Chulin 60  (one opinion) the meaning here is the reverse of the usual, G’d commanding the offering on His own behalf, “atoning” for having reduced the moon from its original size. This is one of the mysteries of the Torah.
      A Midrashic approach: The words חטאת לה' refers to the kind of sin unknown to anyone except Hashem. This is the way the Talmud in Shevuot 9 understands the expression. Another explanation offered by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish there is that G’d offered to atone for having diminished the size of the moon by means of this offering. [The important thing to remember is that nowhere else does the sin offering in a mussaf sacrifice conclude with the words לה', a peculiar expression seeing all sacrifices are לה' for Hashem and no other deity or even attribute of G’d. Ed].    In Chulin 60 we find a lengthy description of what is meant here. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi raised the point that the Torah appears to contradict itself when it wrote in Genesis 1,16: “G’d made the two large luminaries, the great luminary and the small luminary.” If they both were first described as “large,” how could the verse continue in the same breath describing one as “small” and one as “great?” In answer to this question a dialogue between the moon and G’d is cited. The moon said to G’d: ”how can two kings both wear the same crown?” G’d replied: “reduce yourself in size.” Thereupon the moon countered: “why should I have to reduce myself in size (importance) merely because I asked a legitimate question?” Thereupon G’d said: “O.K. so you shine by day as well as by night.” To this the moon replied: “what good is my light during the day when there is no one to appreciate it?” To this argument G’d replied: “the Jewish people are going to count their days and years according to your orbits.” The moon was not satisfied with this, saying: “they will have to count days in accordance with the seasons, i.e. by relying on solar orbits.” G’d appreciated this argument and reassured the moon by saying: “the righteous will bear names referring to you.” Thus we find Yaakov referred to as יעקב הקטן in Amos 7,2, and Samuel referred to as שמואל הקטן; David is referred to as דוד הקטן in Samuel I 17,14. In spite of all this G’d did not succeed in satisfying the moon. As a last resort, G’d told the Jewish people to offer a male goat as sin-offering on His behalf seeing He had reduced the size of the moon.    In order to understand this strange-sounding dialogue between G’d and the moon we must appreciate that the word הגדולים in Genesis 1,16 means that originally sun and moon were equal in size and power. The moon was reduced in size and this is why the Torah refers to it as the small luminary in the second half of the verse we quoted. The reason that it was reduced was that it had complained. However, we must not view the moon as displaying egotistical motives, [otherwise why would G’d feel guilty? Ed.]. When the moon referred to the inability of two kings wearing the same crown it meant that anything which appeared like power-sharing would reflect negatively on G’d. If two luminaries were to wear the same crown it would appear as if G’d were unable to create two servants each of whom had the ability to generate its own light without relying on an outside force, a companion to assist Him. The nations of the world would be encouraged to say that G’d was unable to supply original light to each of the luminaries as they had to trade “crowns” with one another. The moon’s error was the suggestion that G’d did not know what He had been doing when He created the universe as the moon had found it. One does not second-guess G’d the Creator.    As a result, the moon had to be “punished.” After the moon had been reduced in size and had felt suitably ashamed for its behavior, G’d said to it: “go and govern both by day and by night.” He added that the Jewish people would count their months according to its orbit, and that the righteous would bear names associated with the moon. G’d did all this in order to put the moon’s mind at rest, so much so that He accorded the moon honor in assigning an additional male goat to the mussaf offering commemorating this dialogue for all times. This is the real meaning of the enigmatic words by Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi who portrayed G’d as saying: “bring an atonement on My behalf.” G’d’s major concern in all this was that none of His creatures should have complaints about the way in which He had seen fit to create the universe and to assure its proper functioning. No creature should feel disadvantaged by its creator vis-a-vis any other part of the creation.   It is also possible that the entire episode and the manner it is alluded to in the Torah serves as an encouragement to would be repentant sinners to come forward and change their life styles. They would learn from this episode in the celestial regions that once the guilty party had recognized the error of its ways G’d would go out of His way to compensate such repentant sinners for their having accepted instruction from Him. This also explains why the righteous are actually compared to the sun in Judges 5,31: “and the ones who love Him will emerge like the sun in its might,” seeing that they had to suffer various insults just as the sun had to be the victim of the moon’s complaints.   Rav Yitzchak Alfassi writes in his halachic work at the end of the first chapter of tractate Shevuot that the word עלי in Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s parable הביאו כפרה עלי, “bring an atonement on My behalf,” should really be understood as אלי, “to Me,” not “on My behalf.” Most commentators agree with him.
      A rational approach to our verse: the word לה' “for Hashem” had to be written so that the offering would not be understood as being addressed to the moon. The reason that the male goat was used as such an offering altogether was to uproot the still deep-seated tradition that sacrifices had to be offered to the moon at the moon’s renewal each month.    We do not find the expression חטאת לה' in connection with any other sin-offering presented as part of the mussaf ceremonies on Holidays. The usual expression is simply חטאת, i.e. a sin-offering parts of which were consumed by the priests. Seeing that those sin-offerings were not burned up on the altar the description חטאת לה', “a sin-offering for Hashem,” would have been inappropriate. If, in spite of the fact that this sin-offering was also consumed by the priests the Torah nonetheless chose to describe it as חטאת לה', this was in order to drive home the point that it was not intended to assuage the moon’s feelings in any way. It was to remove any vestige of doubt that this offering as opposed to all the others was addressed to some other deity than Hashem. This is the way that Maimonides understands the wording here (compare Moreh Nevuchim 3,46). 
  If we follow this approach the explanation of the parable quoted by Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi must be understood along the following lines:    Originally, sun and moon were equal in size, i.e. this is the meaning of “the two great luminaries,” the sun completely facing the moon like a mirror so that the moon felt that its own light was not noticeable. The sun shone by day, the moon by night, but the moon only reflected the light of the sun, did not have light of its own. When the Torah describes the moon subsequently as being the “small” luminary, the meaning is that after the dialogue the moon’s size as perceived from the terrestrial perspective would appear smaller, in particular as it would wane towards the end of each month. [It is evident that there would have been no point even originally in the sun and the moon providing equal amounts of light, one by day and one by night, as who would have known when it is night? Ed.]. The basic difference in the moon before and after the dialogue with G’d was that whereas the sun remained in the sky completely unchanged, the moon’s position in the sky was altered so that it appears different; nonetheless, G’d did not change His universe on account of the moon’s complaint. Had He done so, He would have agreed that His universe had been imperfect. The word “crown” used by the moon to describe two kings wearing the same crown, meant that the “light” was the “crown.” The moon argued that seeing it needed to provide light for the terrestrial universe just as did the sun, it should be a source of light of its own just as the sun was such an independent source of light. It did not argue that it wanted to be a light of the same potency as the sun but that the quality of its light, though smaller, should be self-generated and therefore as clear as that of the sun. This, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi, and possibly acknowledged by G’d, was a fair and reasonable request. When G’d said to the Moon: “go and reduce yourself in size,” He meant: “do you think that the light of the sun is self-generated and that therefore it is something to be taken for granted that will endure indefinitely? This is an error on your part. When you will move out of its range you will experience that you will receive even less of its light.” The moon replied that it was unfair that it should be the one to reduce itself further seeing it had made a reasonable statement. To this G’d replied that if He had seen fit to make the moon as a receptacle for light (instead of as a source of light) He had done so for a good reason. There was a need for such reflected light. However, in view of the fact that the moon’s comments had been well-intentioned, G’d’s Children, i.e. the people of Israel, would offer a sin-offering on New Moon throughout the generations (compare Rashba on Shevuot 9).
     Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi had understood that originally both sun and moon had not only been equal in size but also equal in the ability to dispense light they had generated themselves. Afterwards, G’d decided to make changes in that system for the sake of the world and its inhabitants. Had He not done so the world would have experienced daylight around the clock. This would have deprived the inhabitants of the terrestrial universe of the positive aspects of the night as a result of which the universe and its inhabitants could not have endured indefinitely. This is why G’d made changes in the laws of nature as they had been prior to the creation of life on earth. [Remember the sun and moon were placed in orbit on the fourth day, whereas the living creatures on the surface of the earth were not created until the fifth day, so that G’d’s change does not mean that He found His handiwork inadequate. Ed.]. After all, even prior to this, G’d had made adjustments to the globe when He commanded the oceans to recede in order for the dry land to emerge and to produce vegetation in preparation for animals which would feed on that. This too had not implied that the situation prior to that had been the result of a miscalculation by the Creator. When Solomon (Kohelet 1,15) says that מעוות לא יוכל לתקון, that “that which has been twisted cannot be made straight,” he meant that the number of days which are missing in the lunar calendar annually as a result of the moon being reduced in size will not be replaced. Changes that G’d made in the universe during its development are not reversible after completion of the work of creation. [If G’d made what appear to be changes during the stages of creation this proves that what existed prior to such changes was not twisted, but corresponded to the needs of the universe at that time. Ed.]. (Compare Kohelet Rabbah 1,16). 
      A kabbalistic approach to the words לחטאת לה'. G’d did say: ”bring an atonement offering עלי, seeing that I reduced the moon in size.” By using the word עלי, G’d did not apologise; He merely meant “because I have found it appropriate for My purposes to reduce the moon in size.” 
  When we understand the word עלי in Shevuot 9 quoted in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in this fashion, we must understand the entire Midrash of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi in Chulin 60 as follows: [The key to understanding the following is that in the parable the two kings are not sun and moon but two different emanations, i.e. כבוד and תפארת, presented as similar to moon and sun respectively in their influence on the terrestrial universe. Ed].   The moon  said to G’d: “is it possible for two kings to wear the same crown?” At this point the attribute בינה pointed out that it was entirely possible for two kings to wear the same crown, i.e. to derive its inspiration from the same source just as did the emanations כבוד and תפארת, both of which derive their input from the same celestial emanations This must be viewed as if the attribute of כבוד said this to the emanation בינה (here equated with G’d as it is a higher emanation). The emanation בינה replied that it was absolutely possible, to wit the emanation  תפארת and כבוד make use of the same conduit, צנור. There is no need for each king to have a conduit of its own to draw down to it from the celestial regions its respective requirements. Nonetheless, the attribute כבוד desired to have its own conduit (“hot line” in our parlance) to the emanation בינה; it was not content to share such a conduit with the emanation תפארת. To this the emanation בינה replied: “go and reduce yourself;” i.e. stop sharing the celestial input via the emanation תפארת which served you thus far. Thereupon the attribute כבוד said: ‘why should I be denied direct celestial input when what I said was perfectly reasonable?” To this בינה  replied: “go ahead and rule by day and by night.” G’d added: Israel will count both its days and its nights by means of you. Moreover, the righteous will have your name associated with them, such as Yaakov “the small,” Samuel “the small one,” etc. (as we pointed out in the earlier version of this Midrash). The word שמך, “your name” in the parable is to be understood as the name of G’d אדנ'י, i.e. the “smaller” name of G’d. The attribute כבוד was not satisfied until G’d said that a sacrifice dedicated to Hashem (the great name) would be offered on each New Moon compensating it for its diminution vis-a-vis the emanation תפארת. This is what is meant by the words  אמר הק'בה in Rabbi Shimon ben Pezzi’s parable, i.e. the attribute of Mercy said this. He instructed the Israelites to offer this male goat sin-offering as a sacrifice on behalf of the (sub)emanation כבוד. The purpose of the offering as far as the Jewish people are concerned is to draw down to it the outpourings of the attribute of Mercy which, through the association of the fate of the Jewish people with the emanation כבוד which had forfeited the “hot line” to בינה had been severed. The association with the moon without the sin-offering to the attribute of Hashem on New Moon would otherwise place the Jewish people  under the aegis of the attribute of Justice, as is the moon itself. The entire matter is a part of the mystical dimension of G’d’s relationship with the Jewish people. This is alluded to in the words זאת עולת חדש בחדשו. The attribute in question represented by the offering “rises” i.e. עולה, to become the recipient of G’d’s merciful outpourings.    At an unspecified time in the future, the light of the moon and the sun will be equal in power and origin just as it was originally when both were described as  גדולים, great. This is what Isaiah 30,26 spoke about when he wrote: ”and the light of the moon shall become like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall become seven-fold.” At such a time, the power of the moon which is the attribute of Justice will become unified with the attribute of Mercy. I have already explained this in connection with my commentary on Exodus 15,3: זה א-לי.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ובחודש הראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחדש פסח לה', “and in the first month on the fourteenth of the month, a passover for the Lord.” In this verse the words בין הערבים which usually appear in connection with the passover are missing. Also the burnt-offering which has to be brought on the Sabbath during the seven days of Passover is not mentioned; neither does the Torah make any reference to the offering of the first new barley, commonly known as Omer  which is presented on the second day of the Passover and which is mentioned in Leviticus 23,12. Here the Torah phrases the prohibition to perform work on the Holiday as כל מלאכת עבודה, instead of the more all encompassing expression כל מלאכה, “all manner of work,” used in connection with the Sabbath. The difference is that it is permitted to use fire on the festival in connection with preparing food for the same day. Seeing that in Exodus 12,16 where the Torah also speaks of the Passover it does use the expression כל מלאכה to refer to the work-prohibition it had to add the words: “except what is needed to prepare food for every person,” in that verse. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וביום הבכורים, “and on the day of the first-fruits;” the Shavuot festival is also known as בכורי קציר חטים, “the first fruit of the wheat harvest,” as on that day two loaves of the first ripe new wheat are presented as an offering (Rashi). 
  We must try and understand why in connection with the mussaph offering on this festival the customary male goat as a sin-offering is not described by the word “sin-offering,” although the Torah does say that its function is לכפר, “to atone.” The simple reason is that on a day when the Jewish people commemorate receiving the Torah, an occasion when they were as innocent as new-born children and had no specific sins to atone for, it is appropriate to commemorate this fact at least by an allusion.
      A kabbalistic approach sees in the wording an allusion to the day in the future when the orbit of the earth as we know it will cease, עצרתו של העולם, and the evil urge will be destroyed at that time and the “stone” i.e. the heart of stone, described by Ezekiel 36,26 as our heart, will be destroyed in exchange for “a heart of flesh,” a heart open to Hashem and His instructions.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   תמימים יהיו לכם ונסכיהם, “they shall be unblemished for you, together with their libations.” This means that the libations must also be unblemished. Our sages in Menachot 87 use this verse to legislate that if in the wine of the libation any kind of flour-like material floats to the surface the wine is unfit for the altar. The reason is that only the choicest product of its respective category of produce or animal is to be presented on the altar. Anything which does not fit these criteria is unwelcome, unfit for use on the altar a priori (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Hamizbeach 7, 1-2). If, for instance, someone was obligated to present a burnt-offering on the altar he must not bring a weak or frail, undernourished animal. He must not say that seeing the weak animal is unblemished he has complied with the legislation of the Torah. Concerning such an attitude (saying that as long as it is not blemished it is acceptable) the prophet Malachi 1,14 said “cursed be the cheat” (Rashi).    During the period of the Temple the Israelites would import rams from Moav, and sheep with wide backs they would bring from Chevron, and young turtle-doves from the mountain known as הר המלך. They would bring olive oil from Tekoah; all these places mentioned were known to produce the finest of that respective category of animal, bird, or oil.   We already find that when the Torah mentions the first offering by man, i.e. Kayin and Hevel, that the gift by Hevel is described as consisting of the choicest of its kind (Genesis 4,4). As a result, G’d welcomed his offering while He spurned that of Kayin, who had contented himself with offering produce of an inferior quality (Genesis 4,5). We also have an explicit verse in Deut. 12,11 speaking of כל מבחר נדריכם, “and all the choicest of your vows,” i.e. the choicest animals which you present to G’d to discharge your vows.” It is also written in Numbers 18,32: “when you raise up its best from it.” Even the wood used for kindling on the altar had to be the finest of its kind, was not allowed to contain worms (Maimonides, Hilchot Issurey Hamizbeach  6,2). Timber from buildings which had been demolished was not allowed to be used as wood for the woodpile of the altar. Only “new” wood, i.e. wood not previously used for something else was admissible.  Wood from all kinds of trees was permitted to be used except wood from olive trees or from vineyards (Maimonides ibid.) This was out of ecological considerations  for the land of Israel.   Similarly, the olive oil used for burning in the Menorah was of the choicest quality, only finely crushed pure olive oil being permitted; it had to be the kind which was free-flowing from the fruit after it was crushed. This is also why the sages disqualified oil into which a mouse had fallen as being unsuitable for lighting the candelabra in the Synagogue (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deyah 104,2).  In this connection the same source says that if the mouse had already disintegrated and there is a minimum of 60 times as much oil as residual animal tissue, such oil may be fit for eating, whereas if the remains of the mouse are identifiable one is to throw out the remains of the mouse and, provided there is 60 times as much oil left thereafter, the oil may be used without restriction. All the above is the practical expression of Malachi 1,8: ”would you dare offer a blemished  beast to your governor, would he treat you with favor?”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   והקרבתם עולה אשה ריח ניחוח לה' פרים בני בקר שלושה עשר, “You shall offer a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a sweet-smelling aroma to Hashem; thirteen young bulls;” the total number of bulls to be offered on the festival of Tabernacles was 70. They were offered in a descending order, i.e. 13 on the first day of the Holiday, 12 on the second day, 11 on the third day, etc. The total number served as a reminder of the fact that eventually all the seventy Gentile nations are destined to perish (see Rashi and ancient Midrashim); [The symbolic killing of these animals on the festival which foresees that event as we read in the portions from the prophets on that festival are most appropriate. Ed.]. The original seventy nations, the ones enumerated after the Tower of Babel, each have a representative in the celestial regions as alluded to in Daniel 10,13, where the particular representative of the empire of Persia is singled out as well as the representative of the Greek Empire.    You will observe that in this entire chapter dealing with these bulls being offered as burnt-offerings the customary expression “for Hashem” occurs only in connection with the first day of that festival. The reason for this is that if the Israelites appear to pay some kind of tribute to the 70 representatives of these nations by offering a bull in respect of each one of them this must be understood as something which only has the purpose of unifying all of them under the guidance of Hashem. All of them owe whatever power they appear to possess in history to the One and Only Original Cause, to Hashem.” This is also what our sages had in mind when they said in Sukkah 55: “woe to the nations of the world which are lost and which do not even realise the extent of their loss; as long as there was a Temple in Jerusalem the offerings brought on their behalf by the priests of the Jewish people would atone for them. Nowadays, after they have destroyed the Temple, what instrument of atonement do they have left?”   This teaches that the seventy bulls which the Israelites offered on the festival of Tabernacles served as atonement for the seventy nations of the world. The offering (collectively speaking) was designed to unify the religiously pluralistic nations under the One and Only Creator at least to the extent that they see in Him the original Cause of the universe. 
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Pinchas 16: When the Torah writes: “you are to present a fire-offering,” this is reminiscent of Psalms 109,4: “they answer my love with accusations and I am all prayer.” This was Israel speaking to G’d about the 70 nations on whose behalf the Jewish priests offered sacrifices on Tabernacles. Instead of these nations appreciating this they heaped scorn upon us, hated and persecuted us.” A further Midrashic exegesis concerning the bulls of the festival (Tanchuma Pinchas 17): “the Torah taught us some good manners in connection with these sacrifices; if a person is entertained as a guest, the host will welcome him and offer him fowl on the first day. If the guest stays another day the host will serve him fish. If the guest still lingers the host will serve him vegetables on the third day of his (unexpected) stay. Eventually, he will serve him only inferior fare until the guest realizes that he has overstayed his welcome.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ומנחתם ונסכיהם, “and their respective gift-offerings plus the appropriate libations.” Taanit 2 draws attention to the different versions of the word נסך used by the Torah for these libations on different days. On the second day of the festival the Torah describes the libations as ונסכיהם, on the sixth day they are described as ונסכה, and on the seventh day the word כמשפט “as required” is spelled as כמשפטם. The extra three letters מ-י-ם spell the word מים suggesting that on the Sukkot festival the libations consisted of water in addition to the wine. 
      You must understand the reason why these allusions commenced only with the list of offerings and libations offered on the second day of the festival. The reason is that on the second day of creation the original waters were divided into the “upper” waters and the waters “below” (Genesis 1,6). It is clear therefore that “water” and its activities are appropriately featured on the “second” day. [In order to understand what follows you must know that in times when rain had not materialized at the expected times, efforts were made to intercede with G’d both in the Temple and in all parts of the country. The people chosen to represent their brethren in such prayers and fasts were known as אנשי מעמד. Ed.]. Our sages (Taanit 27) have explained that the אנשי המעמד, used to fast on Mondays (second day) in supplication for rain to materialize seeing that on that day of the week G’d dealt with the waters. They also fasted on Fridays, the day on which man had been created, seeing man cannot survive without water. The Torah had told us that as long as man was not yet on earth there had not been any rain, only mist rose from the earth (Genesis 2,6). When the Torah reports once more on the creation of man in the verse following (Genesis 2,7), this is an allusion that as of that time rain became necessary and materialized. If the last letter ם appears during the mussaf offerings of the seventh day of the festival Tabernacles this is because the seventh day symbolizes completion of G’d’s universe.   In Rosh Hashanah 16 the sages quote G’d as having said: “present libations of water for Me on the Sukkot festival in order that the rains you will receive will prove beneficial.” As a result of such instructions these libations of water were presented on the altar on every single day of the festival. This procedure is known as הלכה של משה מסיני, a decree going back to Sinai when Moses received the Torah. It is not spelled out in the written Torah. The procedure took place during the offering of the daily morning burnt-offering at the same time as the wine-libation was presented. It took place on the south west corner of the altar on the upper half of the altar. The entire amount of water descended to the hole known a “shittin.” The priests would take a bottle made of gold containing three login of water; the bottle was filled from the well known as מי שילוח. When the bearers would arrive at the Temple gate they would blow tekiah teruah tekiah. The priest would ascend the ramp to the altar and turn left after he had arrived at the top and pour the water out of the bottle into a bowl provided for the purpose. There were two such silver bowls. The one on the western side would be filled with the water, the one on the eastern side would be filled with the wine for the libation. Both bowls had two small holes just like the bottom of the nose. The hole in the vessel containing the water was thinner than that in the vessel containing the wine (as water is apt to flow more quickly than wine) so that both libations would arrive at their ultimate destination, the shittin, simultaneously. The priest about to pour the water would be told to raise his hand, seeing it had happened once that a priest poured the water on his feet and the people present pelted him with their citrons believing that he had done so for heretical reasons. [The Sadducees rejected the whole procedure as not written in the Torah. Ed.]   Our sages in Sukkah 51 said that anyone who had not witnessed the joy with which this whole procedure of the preparation for the water-libation was celebrated has no idea what true joy is all about. The whole procedure was known as בית השואבה, based on Isaiah 12,3: “you will draw water amidst great joy.” The drawing of the requisite water took place on each of the seven nights (except Sabbath) of the festival for the needs of the daily burnt-offering.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ביום השמיני עצרת תהיה לכם, “On the eighth day shall be a solemn assembly for you.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word עצרת means: “to be prevented from performing one’s regular work” (compare Chagigah 18).    The Talmud Sukkah 48 states that this was a separate festival distinguished by seven features. It required a separate drawing of lots for who should present the offerings. It qualifies for a separate benediction sanctifying the day; the duty to perform the pilgrimage to Jerusalem applied to it, i.e. anyone who had not come for Sukkot due to whatever reason was obligated to come now if he could.  A special mussaf offering was dedicated to this day (as we read in the following verse). The Levites sang a special hymn saluting that festival. It is mentioned in our prayers as a separate festival. One does not dwell in the Sukkah on that day. If someone had buried a close relative on the eve of that day, its arrival cancels (most of) the remainder of the shloshim, the mandatory thirty days during which the mourner may not shave, etc. The day before, i.e. the one on which the dead was buried, is considered as equivalent to the mandatory seven days of intensive mourning. The festival of Sukkot itself is considered as equivalent  to a further seven days, and the eighth day being a separate festival is also considered as seven days so that at the conclusion of this day 21 of the thirty days of extended mourning are considered as having passed. The mourner needs to abstain from shaving only nine more days (compare Moed Katan 20).    Our sages in Sukkah 47 draw attention to the wording פר, bull, in our verse as compared to the seven days previously on which a number of פרים were offered each day. They also draw attention to the word וביום which introduces the second to seventh day of Sukkot, whereas here the Torah merely writes ביום, without the connecting letter ו which would have linked this day conceptually to the ones preceding it. The significance of all this is that whereas on each of the seven days of the festival of Sukkot bulls (pl.) had been offered as a part of the mussaf offering, on this day only a single bull representing the Jewish people was offered. The missing letter ו at the beginning of the words ביום השמיני makes clear that this day had a significance all its own, is a separate festival.
      A Midrashic approach: the words ביום השמיני עצרת may be understood as “on the eighth day a ‘detention.’” G’d is supposed to have asked the Israelites to remain in Jerusalem an additional day as He wants to enjoy their company for another day. It is similar to a king who had entertained honored guests for a whole week and who finds it difficult to part from them at the end of that period. He asks them to remain with him for an extra day.    In the Talmud Sukkah 55 Abbaye states that whereas the 70 bulls presented on the altar during the seven preceding days were in respect of the seventy nations of the world, the single bull offered on the eighth day was in respect of the unique people, the Jewish people. The commandment by G’d to the Jewish people to offer this single bull on the eighth day is comparable to a king who had told all his servants to prepare a meal for him. At the end of that meal he said to his most intimate friend: “make for me a small dinner so that I can enjoy your presence on an intimate basis.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The word עצרת is a term describing the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept known as “Israel.” The reason that this term is an apt description is that (in colloquial parlance: ‘this people is where the buck stops.’) In other words, were it not for the concept represented by the Jewish people the whole universe would lack meaning and purpose. It is also an expression denoting מלכות, authority, dominion, such as in Samuel I 9,17 זה יעצור בעמי, “this one will rule over My people” (G’d speaking). The word occurs in that meaning also in Rosh Hashanah 16 meaning “crown-prince,” i.e. the prince who will  assume the authority of the king. For the above-mentioned reasons Shemini Atzeret is a festival all by itself. We may see reflected in this day the practice that among the four species of plants with which we praise the Lord on the festival of Sukkot it is the etrog which represents the Jewish people and which is held separately, not being bound up with the other species. The Shemini Atzeret festival is perceived as the festival of the giving of the Torah which the Talmud always refers to as עצרת, meaning the festival of Shavuot, the recurrence of the calendar date on which the Torah was received. We find that the name עצרת is also applied by the Torah to the seventh day of Passover (Deut. 16,8) although that day is an integral part of the festival. In other words, the term appears in connection with all three pilgrimage holidays. What does all this mean? Just as the word שבת is applied by the Torah to the various festivals on various occasions to show that the כנסת ישראל is the “bride” of the Sabbath, [and that without this “bride” the entire legislation would be devoid of meaning, Ed.] so the word עצרת when used in connection with the festivals conveys the idea that the Jewish people, spiritually speaking, are the purpose of all these festivals. In kabbalistic terms, they are the יסוד [borrowed from the emanation by that name] “foundation,” without which the entire legislation of the festivals would lack meaning.   David gave expression to this feeling when he composed the hymn of the Sabbath commencing with the words מזמור שיר ליום השבת, “a song to the Sabbath Day.” Naturally, he did not mean to address the “day,” [in fact this might have been idolatrous, Ed.] but he addressed the spiritual concept of כנסת ישראל which represents this emanation יסוד. When David similarly exalted למנצח על השמינית (Psalms 12,1) he referred to similar thoughts, i.e. calling כנסת ישראל as the concept which has not been upheld by its representatives on earth.    It pays to consider the way G’d phrased the introduction to this special festival by saying עצרת תהיה לכם, similar to להיות לכם לאלו-הים, “in order to be your G’d.” The other festivals in this chapter were introduced as being לה', “for Hashem;” this one is being introduced as being “for you,” i.e. for the Jewish people. On the other hand, in Leviticus 23,36  the same day is described as עצרת היא, instead of as עצרת תהיה לכם. What is the difference? The explanation is that the words עצרת היא should be understood as עצרת של היא, not “it is a detention,” or some such, but it is the detention of היא, the word היא referring to the Sabbath, the companion of the “festival,” i.e. the Jewish people. The Sabbath is featured in a similar manner when the Torah wrote concerning it in Exodus 31,13: אות היא ביני וביניכם, “it is a sign between Me and between you.” When you consider this you will appreciate why the sages in the above-quoted Midrash referred to the meal on the eighth day as a “small” meal. It was an allusion to the letter ה in the word בהבראם, in Genesis 2,4 (compare author’s comments on this. One must remember that the various letters in the word היא appear at different times in smaller than usual script to make these points) as well as the small letter י in the word תשי in Deut. 32,18, and the small letter א in the word ויקרא in Leviticus 1,1. This is the mystical dimension of Berachot 48 that “nine adults plus one minor (usually understood as under-aged individual) may be combined to form a quorum for the sake of making a מנין enabling congregational prayer or use of the word אלוקינו when reciting grace after meals.” [This view is not halachically accepted. Ed.] This is also the mystical dimension of the verse quoting David (in Psalms 37,25) which we recite near the conclusion of the grace after meals prayer נער הייתי גם זקנתי, “I used to be a minor, though in the interval I have come of age and become old,” a verse recited by the שר של העולם, the angel Mattatron who runs the universe on behalf of the Lord. The prophet Isaiah refers to the period of the first Temple as such a “minor” (i.e. peopled by spiritually immature Jews) when he said (Isaiah 28,10) זעיר שם, זעיר שם, “now a little here, now a little there.” (Compare Yevamot 16 on the verse in Psalms 37,25).
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם לבד מנדריכם ונדבותיכם, “these (offerings) you are to present for Hashem on your appointed festivals apart from your vows and free-will offerings, etc.” Actually, the Torah should have written: “your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings” first, seeing these are offerings consisting of meat before switching to offerings which consist of meal-offerings and libations, instead of mentioning the most important offerings, i.e. the total (burnt) offerings only after the vows and free-will offerings. After all, our sages in Yuma 34 are specific about the burnt-offering always preceding other offerings and being the first offering presented on the altar each morning. The Torah concluded its list with the peace-offerings as the purpose of these offerings is להשלים המדות, “to strive to perfect one’s character traits” (compare author’s comments on Genesis 46,1). Moreover, it is the custom for the Torah whenever it enumerates a number of different offerings to conclude with the “peace-offerings.” Furthermore the greatest and concluding blessing of the priests is the blessing of peace, i.e. שלום. This then is the reason why here too the “peace-offerings” are mentioned last.   Just as the tetragrammaton had been associated with these offerings at the beginning of the chapter, the Torah also concludes with mentioning the fact that these offerings are addressed to Hashem. The Torah wishes to underline that all the offerings must always be addressed to this attribute and none other. The reason that the seventy bulls are mentioned between the beginning and the end of our chapter is to remind us that although they were offered on behalf of the seventy nations who are under the immediate care of their celestial representatives, the offerings were all addressed to the attribute Hashem, not to any underlings, angels, etc. The blessings which humanity enjoys from celestial sources are due to the seventy bulls offered to Hashem on behalf of the nations by the priests in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Each “force” in the terrestrial world must recognize that there is a “force” above it, until eventually the highest “force” Hashem is reached. This is the meaning of Kohelet 5,7: “for there is One higher than high Who watches and there are high ones above them.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
     ירא את ה' בני ומלך, עם שונים אל תתערב, “Fear the Lord my son and the king, do not associate with those who keep changing” (Proverbs 24,21). 
  In this verse Solomon warns man to fear the Lord, Hashem, first and foremost, and to fear the mortal king only as someone subordinate to Hashem. He applies the same term יראה, “fear, awe,” as applicable to man’s relations with higher authority be it celestial or terrestrial. The message is: “just as you must fear the Lord Who is everywhere at all times and you must abstain from sin because you know you are being watched although you cannot see the One Who watches you, so you must be in awe of the terrestrial king even when he is not present seeing he can decree death upon you even when he personally has not seen you sin.” It is simply not possible for a mortal king to be in all parts of his domain all the time. Instead of taking advantage of his temporary absence to violate his laws you must engrave in your heart the appropriate degree of awe and fear to help you not to transgress his laws. Simply remember that this is the way you relate to the supreme authority whom you cannot see but whose eye is upon you all the time.    “Do not associate with the ones who keep changing” This is a warning not to display more fear for the visible terrestrial king (because he is visible) than for the invisible celestial king in the event the decrees of the celestial king and those of the terrestrial king are in conflict with one another. There are many people who are concerned first and foremost with what they perceive to be the danger from the local authority. They fear for their lives perceiving the power of terrestrial authority to be immediate and that of G’d to be relatively remote. Solomon warns against such perceptions and conduct based on such faulty perceptions. Seeing that G’d is not only the ultimate authority of the private citizen but also that of the terrestrial king it would be foolish to be more afraid of mortal kings than of immortal G’d. The reason that Solomon interposed the word בני, “my son,” between the word Hashem and the word king, is to emphasize the difference between the two although he had told you first to relate with “fear” to both of them. If not for this consideration, Solomon should have written: בני ירא את ה' ומלך, as he does in other similar instances when the verse commences with the word בני. The difference between G’d and a mortal king is as great as the difference between day and night.    The basic message of our verse is that fear of the terrestrial authority in the guise of a king is something absolutely necessary as otherwise earth would be in a state of chaos, anarchy. This is also why our sages (Avot 3,2) have instructed us to pray for the well being of the government (any government) as without such a government, i.e. legally appointed authority, the world would revert to tohu vavohu and people would tear each other apart as a daily occurrence.    Nonetheless, the even more important kind of fear without which the terrestrial universe would not endure is the fear vis-a-vis Hashem, the ultimate authority in the universe. The lives of all earthly kings are in His hands and terrestrial power is only delegated power. In order to remind us of all this, Solomon said in Kohelet 8,2: “I counsel you: ‘obey the king’s command and that in the manner of an oath to G’d.’”     Concerning the whole subject of how to relate to imposed authority Solomon means that he views it as important to obey the king’s laws because a king is someone who perceives himself as duty bound to observe the KING’S command. When the terrestrial king fails to honour his king’s laws, i.e. no longer views himself as bound by G’d’s laws, his subjects’ obligation to obey him is no longer valid. Sinaitic law which we accepted by means of a solemn oath precedes and therefore overrides legislation by any terrestrial king.     The Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 33,6) understands the verse we quoted from Kohelet as follows: “I am obligated to obey the decrees of the Gentile nations who rule over me (Israel in the Diaspora) as far as their imposing taxes, head-duties, etc., is concerned. However, על דברת שבועת אלו-הים, concerning a matter which is an obligation by oath vis-a-vis G’d, I am not required to obey the king’s laws.” This is why we find that Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah said to Nevuchadnezzar (Daniel 3,16) “behold we are not concerned about this matter; behold there is a G’d Whom we worship — He is able to save us.” The verse had commenced with: “Shadrach, Mishach, and Abed Nego” (the Chaldaen names of Chanayah, Mishael and Azaryah) answered the king: O Nevuchadnezzar, we are not concerned, etc.” Why would the three men have been described first as answering the “king”, when in the same breath they address him by his title, i.e. as Nevuchadnezzar? Surely either one of these descriptions is enough! The fact is that they meant: “you are indeed the king over us concerning matters of taxes, etc.” But when you presume to command us to worship idols you are overstepping your authority seeing we cannot violate an oath we have taken hundreds of years before you ever were king, i.e. the oath we took at Mount Sinai.” This is the meaning of ועל דברת שבועת אלו-הים in the verse from Proverbs which we quoted at the outset.    It is a well known fact that the whole subject matter of an oath is related to fear of and reverence for the Lord. Man is not supposed to utter the name of the Lord even in an oath which testifies to the truth, much less so in an oath in which he perjures himself by using the name of the Lord. It happened once (Bamidbar Rabbah 22,1) during the reign of King Yannai, that this king who had ten thousand towns under his control lost them all (they were destroyed) due to an oath which was true. How was this possible? A person would say to his friend: “I swear by G’d that I will go to a certain place and eat such and such.” The people in these towns were in the habit of confirming all their intentions by using such a formula involving the name of the Lord.  Although these people all lived up to the undertakings they had made, their towns were ruined as they should not have involved the name of the Lord unnecessarily. If this is what happens to people to swear truthfully, we can imagine what must be in store for people who swear falsely. The story teaches how very careful we must be not to render a needless oath. There is no sin as great as that of swearing falsely or merely using the name of the Lord in an unnecessary oath. Seeing that the Torah describes man’s nature as evil from birth (Genesis 8,21) and as a result he tends to be angry a lot, his anger often causes him to swear oaths about what he will not do. The Torah, in its customary manner of providing the remedy before the disease has struck, here introduces the legislation of oaths and vows  and how such can be annulled by either one expert or three ordinary adults.
  'וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות לבני ישראל לאמור: זה הדבר אשר צוה ה', “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel to say: ‘this is the thing that Lord has said.’” According to the plain meaning of the text the words לבני ישראל mean that the leaders of the tribes are to convey this legislation to the Children of Israel.   However, our sages in Nedarim 78 explained that the dual wording “the heads of the tribes”, followed by “the Children of Israel,” implies that either a single expert or a quorum of three ordinary men are authorized to annul vows under certain conditions. The reason this portion has been recorded immediately after the chapter dealing with the mussaf offerings on the festivals is that at the conclusion of that chapter (verse 39) the Torah had mentioned the vows that are generally brought as gifts to the Lord on most of these festivals when the owner of the animals vowed is in Jerusalem on his pilgrimage. This is also the reason why in our verse the Torah adds אשר צוה ה', “which the Lord has commanded;” the Torah reminds us that apart from vows which are made in honor of Hashem there are also others of a more profane nature; one must fulfill all one’s undertakings regardless whether this is an undertaking (vow) made to G’d or to man. Another reason for these additional words “which the Lord has commanded,” is that just as sanctifying the Holidays requires calendar expertise so dissolving a vow also requires expertise if it is performed by a single individual.
  
  Verse 3
  
  'איש כי ידור נדר לה', “when a man vows a vow unto the Lord;” according to the plain meaning of these words the expression “a vow unto the Lord,” does not mean that the person making such a vow or swearing such an oath had to use the name of the Lord when making his undertaking, but it means that even if he merely says “I vow to do a certain thing,” or “I vow not to do a certain thing,” such statements are binding and anyone violating them is committing a major sin unless said vow or oath had been legally annulled or dissolved. In order to make this point plain, the Torah did not write in connection with swearing an oath: או השבע שבועה לה', but merely או השבע שבועה, deliberately refraining from bringing the name “Hashem” into the example described. If you were to ask why the word 'לה is written in connection with נדר at all, the reason is to teach that if one makes a vow concerning matters which belong to G’d anyway, that legally speaking such a vow is valid and failing to fulfill it is a sin. For example: if someone were to declare that “eating  unleavened bread on the night of the Passover is forbidden for me by reason of this vow,” although he is in no position to cancel G’d’s commandments and we might have thought that his words had no legal standing at all, the Torah reminds you that it has. Unless such a person will have such a vow annulled he is punishable if he honors it. This is also why our sages say on that same folio in Nedarim that the words נדר לה' teach that regardless of whether such a vow involves a commandment or something merely permitted but not mandatory, it is legally valid.     The difference between a “vow” and an “oath” may be understood as follows: An oath involving a Biblical commandment is legally completely ineffective (though use of the Lord’s name in it is a cardinal sin regardless). If someone swears not to honour a certain law of the Torah, say that he swears not to lay phylacteries, he will receive 39 lashes in respect of a useless oath. The legal difference between these two similar sounding undertakings is that in an undertaking known as “vow,” the person undertaking it puts a certain object (in our example unleavened bread) out of bounds for himself. This is legally possible. In the example of the oath not to lay phylacteries, he does not place an object out of bounds but he places himself out of bounds concerning such objects. Seeing that as a Jew his obligation to lay phylacteries has preceded his present oath, i.e. his person has been predestined to lay phylacteries by a covenant dating back to Sinai, he cannot now arbitrarily cancel that covenant.   Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 3,7 points out that the difference between vows on the one hand and oaths on the other is reflected in the wording of the Torah in Leviticus 5,4 where the Torah writes: נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים להרע או להיטיב, “a person who swears an oath with the lips to either deny himself something or to indulge in something, etc.” Maimonides understands the word להרע as referring to the person himself, i.e. intransitively [quite extraordinary grammatically, Ed.], whereas the expression להיטיב is also understood intransitively i.e. that he wants to indulge himself and confirms his intention by means of a vow. In the first instance, a suitable example would be that he plans to deny himself food or drink on a certain day, or he wishes to indulge in certain foods or drink on that day i.e. something which he is at liberty to do, but is not obliged to do.    When the Torah discusses a vow rather than an oath, the wording is ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה he must act in accordance with everything that has come out of his mouth (verse 3 in our chapter here). In other words, the vow is valid regardless of whether it pertained to something mandatory or to something only permissible but not mandatory. 
  This also explains the choice of the word איש with which the Torah describes the person initiating the vow, whereas in Leviticus such a person is describes as נפש “a person,“ i.e. it is immaterial if he is a grown up or a minor. When, in our situation, the person who made the vow is a male 12 years and over or a female 11 years and over they were examined as to whether they understand what is implied by their making such a vow. If they are shown to be mentally mature, their vows are valid, if not, their vows are not valid. If either of them has reached biological maturity, usually 13 years of age in the case of a boy and 12 years of age in the case of a girl, their vows are valid without mental examination. The same applies if such biological minors made over property to the Temple treasury (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 11,1). If they can be seen to know the full impact of what they are doing they need only be 12 or 11 years old respectively to be legally liable for their words. This ruling is known as Halachah leMoshe miSinai, i.e. as Sinaitic in origin, not spelled out in detail in the written Torah, and the logic for this distinction not having being revealed to us.   In the Talmud Temurah 2, the basis for this ruling is attributed to Leviticus 27,2 where the Torah writes איש כי יפליא נדר, וג'. The apparently superfluous and unusual word יפליא is regarded as the basis for a biological minor being held liable for vows he pronounced under the circumstances discussed earlier.    Seeing that, as we explained, the vow is applicable equally to matters which are permissible and matters which are mandatory, when a person vowed not to eat on the Sabbath (by declaring the food as out of bounds to him on that day) he will have to fast as penance for having violated the commandment to “enjoy” the Sabbath, i.e. by means of eating more frequently and better quality food on it than on weekdays. The same does not apply when the same person used the formula of an oath to deny himself food on the Sabbath, as, seeing such an oath would be legally invalid, keeping it has no consequences regarding atoning for his conduct by fasting afterwards as a sign of penance. If someone vowed that food is out of bounds to him on a weekday he does not have to fast as penance if he observed his vow as there is no commandment to eat on those days. If he vowed that food is out of bounds for him on Chanukah or New Moon, days which have the status of a holiday by rabbinical decree only, he needs to fast for having violated the proper observance of such a day, seeing that his vow was valid and as a result he violated a rabbinical decree. Some halachic authorities hold that in the examples quoted last the person who made the vow may defer observing it until after the New Moon, (assuming he had specified a certain day of the week for his vow, being unaware at that time that that day would coincide with New Moon). There are opinions that the status of New Moon as a quasi holiday is Biblical rather than rabbinical and therefore the same rule applies as if he had vowed that food is out of bounds for him on the Sabbath. Regarding the validity of vows when they conflict with Sabbath legislation, for instance, some authorities hold that this is restricted only to vows whose fulfillment involves passivity, such as abstaining from food on the Sabbath, not when fulfillment involves an activity which violates the Sabbath (Radbaz 5 on Maimonides Nedarim 3,9).    This is reflected in Taanit 12 that if a person vows to fast (place food outside his domain) every Monday and Thursday of the year and it happens that on one or more of these days there occurs a festival listed in the Megillat Taanit as such, if he made the vow before the Rabbis instituted this festival his vow overrides it. If the Rabbis had decreed such a festival prior to his having made his private vow, the rabbinical decree overrides, i.e. automatically invalidates the vow of the private individual. Although this ruling appears to contradict what we said previously regarding Biblical laws which certainly preceded any vow made by an individual, the reason for the ruling in Taanit is that the sages saw the need to reinforce their decrees and to lend it weight precisely because people might say that such laws are “only” rabbinical and carry less authority. (Maimonides concurs in Hilchot Nedarim 3,9).
      Some authorities understand the expression ידחה in the Talmud which we translated as “postponing applicability of one’s vow,” to mean that such a person should consult with a scholar or Bet Din to have his vow set aside altogether seeing he had based it on a mistaken premise (Nachmanides end of chapter 9 of Nedarim).   If a person employed the formula usually used to pronounce an oath in order to make a vow, or vice versa, the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud are divided in their opinions as to the respective validity of such undertakings when they conflict with other existing commitments which this person is bound by. The sages there rule that the most stringent interpretation of either oath or vow is applied in such cases simultaneously.  Let us turn to a practical example of what we just said: If someone utters an oath or vow concerning something he was obligated to either do or refrain from doing (as the case may be) he is treated as if he had sworn an oath to cancel a decree from the Torah as being applicable to him. As a result he is subject to the penalty of receiving 39 lashes. This penalty is applied even if the prohibition violated was only rabbinical such as drinking wine which was left uncovered so that a Gentile may have touched it while no Jew was watching. Another example would be if someone had vowed to eat the product of a grapevine to which another species of fruit had been grafted in the Diaspora by Gentiles (compare Maimonides Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 10,8). A third example is eating a mixture of fowl and milk, something forbidden “only” by rabbinical decree (Maimonides Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 9,4).    Consider further  that it is forbidden to climb a tree on New Year’s Day to fulfill the commandment of blowing the shofar when the only shofar available is located on such tree. The Rabbis forbade climbing trees on Sabbaths or Holidays (Rosh Hashanah 32). This poses the problem of fulfillment of a Biblical commandment which preceded a rabbinical decree not being possible without violating such rabbinical decree. This brings us to our verse above. When we read in verse 3 of our chapter here about someone who “swears an oath to establish a prohibition upon himself, that he shall not desecrate his word,” our sages in Sifri 153 state  that this refers to something which was permitted to the individual swearing the oath prior to his swearing this oath. If he had sworn an oath intending to permit something for himself which was forbidden to him by Jewish law, the oath most certainly is invalid and the Torah’s warning not to desecrate his personal word does not apply.    If someone overhears a second person swearing an oath or making a vow or inviting bystanders to join him and he wishes same to apply to himself also, he only has to say אמן in answer to what he heard the first party say. If the party who said אמן violates said oath or vow he is as guilty as if he himself had formulated it in the first place. Not only that, but even if the person formulating the vow or oath was a minor or a Gentile, the word אמן by the Jew who overheard him obligates him to fulfill the terms of such a vow or oath (Maimonides Hilchot Shevuot 2, 1-2). The above does not only apply to the word אמן, but to other words having a similar meaning such as the word כן, “yes., or if he said: “this oath obligates me.” If the part formulating the oath had not used the tetragrammaton as the deity he swears by but one of the better known substitutes of the tetragrammaton such as “the one who is known as bestowing grace,” or: “the One who is merciful,” and certainly other names of G’d such as elohim, adonay, etc., the oath is valid. Even if the party formulating the oath had merely said: “cursed be anyone who does such and such a thing,” this is considered a form of oath and expressing agreement with the party who said this makes one a party to such a curse. In other words, extreme caution is advised so as to avoid being implicated and obligated by an oath or vow initiated by a third party.    If someone intended that certain foods or drinks should be forbidden for him as if he had uttered an oath concerning them, this has no legal implication as long as he had not uttered the relevant words. This is why he Torah, when introducing the subject of oaths in Leviticus 5,4 uses the expression לבטא בשפתים “to give expression with one’s lips.” Resolutions which are made only with the heart are not legally binding. The same rule applies if someone unconsciously verbalizes an oath he had no intention of swearing. Seeing it does not reflect what was in his heart it has no legal validity An example would be that a person wanted to vow not to accept invitations to eat at the house of a certain person called Reuven. When he verbalized this vow he said “Shimon” instead of “Reuven.” Seeing this was a slip of the tongue, his vow is disregarded. Similarly, when someone meant to deny himself wheat bread on oath but mentioned barley by mistake he is allowed to eat both kinds of bread seeing the oath is not valid as what he said did not correspond to what he had in mind.     What applies to oaths also applies to vows, i.e. heart and mouth must be in tandem. However, this rule does not apply if one had said אמן confirming someone else’s vow or oath. If that third party comes to a judge claiming he had made a slip of the tongue and what he said was not what he meant, the person who said אמן cannot be absolved from his oath as what he had said אמן to had corresponded to what he thought he said אמן to. If he violates the oath he heard the other party utter he will receive 39 lashes though the original party is not liable to punishment for violating it.    If someone who has uttered a legally valid vow wishes to retract as he had second thoughts he may do so only during the few moments it takes to say the words שלום עליך רבי, “welcome to you my teacher.” If, during this period of time, he says “this is not an oath,” or words to that effect but brief, his oath is completely invalidated as it is the same as if he had erred in the formula of the oath when he uttered it. Maimonides confirms this in Hilchot Shevuot chapter 2.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Mattot 1. On the words: איש כי ידור נדר לה' the Midrash quotes G’d as saying to the Israelites: ‘be careful before making a vow not to violate it, as if someone violates a vow he will eventually violate his oaths also.’ If that were to happen he is as if he had denied G’d and all aspects of the Jewish religion and there is no forgiveness for this as the Torah has told us in Exodus 20,7 that G’d will not completely exonerate anyone who has used His name in vain. We have another verse on this subject in Jeremiah 4,2: “and swear ‘as the Lord lives;’” G’d said to the people: “do not think that it is permissible to utter such a kind of oath as the prophet quotes.” There is a general prohibition of swearing an oath involving the name of G’d unless the people doing so possess the following characteristics: described in Deut. 10,20 as: “you shall revere the Lord your G’d to serve Him and to cling to Him--and to swear in His name.” Only when you have fulfilled the conditions set out in the first half of this verse are you allowed to swear an oath using the name of the Lord.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word ידור in the line איש כי ידור נדר is related to דירה, “dwelling.” The word לה' means that the vow is directed to the Lord Who is the דירתו של עולם, “the dwelling of the universe,” the G’d Who created His world and the seven celestial regions emanating from there. Anyone fulfilling his vows is as if he thereby confirms his belief in this dwelling of the Lord in those regions, whereas anyone defaulting on his vows is as if he denied such beliefs. The former is assured that his soul will return to that dwelling, whereas the ones failing to honour their vows will be removed from those domains permanently The word נדר alludes to a certain thing and its opposite, i.e. the establishment of a dwelling or the uprooting of it. [According to Rabbi Chavell the dagesh in the letter ד permits it to be read as if the word were ינדור, derived from בינה. If one employs one’s בינה one establishes a claim to a permanent dwelling in the celestial spheres for oneself, i.e. within these seven celestial regions. If one fails to so one achieves the reverse.]    The same is true of people who honour their oaths or violate them. If they honour them they enter the domain of these seven celestial dwellings; if not, they forfeit that entitlement. The word שבועה is a clear allusion to these seven regions.
      It is well to note how Moses phrased this legislation when he commenced with זה הדבר אשר צוה ה'. He continues with איש כי ידור נדר לה', instead of merely saying איש כי ידור נדר אליו, repeating the word לה' unnecessarily. Moses had to repeat that word to allude to the power of the vow which is greater, i.e. above that of the שבועה, oath, a word limited to “seven” as it is derived from the word שבעה, seven, and subject to its limitations. Seeing that the vow possesses such a superior power it applies even to mandatory commandments and when one pronounces such a vow  the wording of which overrides such a commandment  this is not as if one had not said anything at all as is the case when one pronounces an oath the wording of which overrides such a commandment. The whole Torah legislation, i.e. the מצות, are products of the regions within these seven celestial regions They represent the seven different types of voices (sounds) the Israelites heard during the giving of the Torah as we explained in our commentary on Exodus 20,1. [Compare our translation ibid. Ed.] This also accounts for the fact that the preposition used by the Torah for the word שבועה, oath, is invariably the preposition ב, such as אשר נשבעת להם בך, (Exodus 32,13); בי נשבעתי (Genesis 22,16) or ובשמו תשבע (Deut. 6,13). נשבע ה' בימינו (Isaiah 62,8) “The Lord swore by His right hand,” Seeing that we learned in Nazir 3 that if someone says ימין [i.e. “by my right”] this is a form of oath, the idea of “swearing an oath” is associated with the party declaring it is a partner of the concept of the seven, שבעה, celestial regions and what they represent.    The word נדר, vow, on the other hand, is always associated with the preposition ל, pointing at something above the object or party referred to by the one making the vow. We have Psalms 132,2 נדר לאביר יעקב, or here איש כי ידור נדר לה', or in Psalms 24,1: לה' הארץ ומלואה. When you appreciate what we have just pointed out you will understand the meaning of Sifri Mattot 153 that whereas when someone renders an oath he swears by the person of the king, when he vows a vow he swears by the life of the king. The essence of the king is his life, in the case of the Lord, His eternal life. The Sifri there points to Elisha saying to Elijah “by the life of the Lord and the life of your soul, I will not abandon you,” as an indication that the expression בחיי is the ultimate statement of this sort (Kings II 2,7).
     לא יחל דברו, “he must not desecrate his word.” The word is derived from חול, not to profane his word. Our sages explain this wording to mean that whereas the person who made the vow must not “profane,” it, others (three laymen or an expert) may do so (Chagigah 10). The annulment of a vow is possible if the person regrets what he vowed because he had not realised its full implications. He tells the court that had he known at the time he made the vow what he knows at that moment he would never have made the vow in the first place (compare Maimonides Hilchot Shevuot  6,5). Having said this the lay judges or the expert will release him from his vow. The legal basis for this is that the vow is presumed to have been erroneous from the start and hence never valid.    A person is not permitted to cancel his own oath, his own vow, or even the vow of his wife on his own (without recourse to such a tribunal). The reason the husband cannot release his wife from her vows is that legally she is considered as part of him, i.e. אשתו כגופו. The inability of the husband to cancel his wife’s vow applies only when the husband was acting as the solitary expert. A husband is allowed to be part of a quorum of three people who listen to the wife state that had she known what her vow entailed she would never have made the vow in the first place. No one, even a “so-called” expert, may annul a vow single-handedly if there is a scholar of greater reputation available locally. Neither may a scholar take such a decision in the presence of his teacher (even if he has surpassed the teacher in knowledge), unless his teacher has specifically given him permission to do so (Maimondes Hilchot Shevuot 6,3).
     ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה, “in accordance with whatever has come out of his mouth he shall do.” Nedarim 3 queries the need for this sentence seeing the Torah had already written that the person concerned must not profane his word. Answer: the Torah here teaches that a formula for vows which does not correspond exactly to the standard formula, i.e. “I vow to do such and such” is nonetheless binding on the party announcing an undertaking. The same applies to oaths. The Talmud elaborates; “if someone in the habit of mispronouncing a certain word due to a hare-lip  lived in a town where they pronounce the word שבועה as מומתא and similar situations, then not only is the word מומתא accepted as binding for him, but even the normal distortion of that word which one could expect from a person with a speech defect is also binding upon him.     The general rule is that in determining the validity of a vow or oath we are guided by the intention of the one making it not by the standard phonetic formula. All of this we derive from the additional words ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה. What matters is that he had resolved in his heart to do the thing he vowed, or to fail to do the thing he forbade himself on oath. This is so even if the name of the Lord or a substitute had not been uttered. If the person concerned violated his undertaking he is guilty of perjury. All of this is in order to lend additional weight to the seriousness of the sin of perjury, not honoring one’s undertaking.   Nonetheless, there is a difference between not honoring an oath in which the name of the Lord had not been mentioned in that the guilty party does not receive 39 lashes and does not have to bring the sacrifice stipulated by the Torah for his sin (Maimonides Hilchot Shevuot 2,4).
      Our sages in Chagigah 10 state that the whole legislation of annulling an oath or vow is “suspended in thin air,” i.e. is not anchored in definitive language in the written Torah. It is all based on our oral tradition This is the reason that the rabbis accepted the principle that both oath and vow are subject to retroactive annulment if the party concerned expresses regret. The reason that the Torah (oral) provided an escape hatch not found in the written Torah is that there are circumstances in life when a person is under severe emotional strain as a result of which he says things which he normally would not have said. The oral Torah makes allowance for this; the written Torah does not, as if it had the incidence of carelessly uttered oaths and vows would multiply. Not only that, if the party was aware that such vows could be annulled, he would add a rider while making a vow due to his anger that the procedure of annulling a vow should not apply to his vow. If he were to do this it would be impossible to release him from his foolish utterance unless he had first expressed regret at having added such a rider to his vow. Only after the scholar had released him from the rider he had added, would he then be able to turn to the same or some other scholar explaining that he was also sorry he had made the actual vow seeing he had not been aware of all that this entailed at the time he made the vow.     The exception to all this is if the vow was made in public. Maimonides Hilchot Shevuot 6,8 states that anyone swearing an oath in public can never be absolved from his oath. The definition of “in public” is in the presence of three people. This definition of the word רבים as “public,” is derived from the legislation of the זבה, a woman afflicted with involuntary vaginal discharge of blood. The Torah in Leviticus 15,25 speaks of this condition continuing for ימים רבים, “many days.” Seeing that the word ימים always means a minimum of two days, the additional word רבים is taken to mean three days or more (in the third chapter of Shevuot 29).    The Talmud quotes Moses as telling the Israelites: “Know that I do not make you undertake an oath merely on my own behalf but also on behalf of G’d.” The Talmud asks why Moses had to say this? Why did he not merely say that they undertook this oath in his own presence? The answer given there is that he meant in the presence of G’d, His celestial tribunal, and himself. This was considered a public oath. Moses warned the Israelites that such a public oath could never be retracted. 
  Nachmanides explains that 'on behalf of G-d' includes also the entire congregation of Israel, similar to what the Sages explain (Gen. 19,24) "and G-d rained down on Sodom etc." to include the heavenly court (Bereshit Rabbah 51,50).  The only reason that Moses himself had to be part of this procedure was that he acted as the agent of the Jewish people vis-a-vis heaven.    When the sages said that if someone swears a public oath such an oath can never be abolished this is so only when the annulment is not requested in order for the party bound by the oath to perform a commandment which he could not perform unless he had been released from his oath. This applies particularly to a commandment from which the community of the whole benefits, such as the writing of a Torah scroll. If the party bound by an oath not to write a Torah scroll was the foremost scribe in his town, it is possible to release him from such an oath (according to the view of Rabbeinu Tam in Gittin 36, Tosafot). Maimonides in Hilchot Shevuot 6,8-9 agrees with this. He phrases this as follows: “if one swears an oath in public or vows a vow in public such undertakings can never be annulled except for the performance of a commandment. How does this work in practice?” Say, a person had sworn publicly not to accept any benefit from a certain third party forever, and a situation arose when the people of his city needed a Mohel to perform the rites of circumcision for the child of the third party involved in that oath, the procedure outlined earlier for releasing someone from his oath may be invoked. The person who was under oath not to act as Mohel may perform the task, receive his payment even from the people concerning whom he had sworn not to accept any benefits. Alternatively, if the one who swore the oath was a ritual slaughterer at a time when he was not the only one in his town, and the other ritual slaughterer, שוחט, had become incapacitated so that the whole town would not have any meat unless the first שוחט was released from his oath, he can be released according to the standard formula we described. He is then also allowed to accept payment for the services he rendered. It would be an unnecessary harshness to release the party for the performance of only this particular commandment.     Rashi does not agree that the only commandment which would cause this person to be able to be released from his oath is a commandment which no one else in that town could fulfill except him. Rashi believes that the expression in the Talmud על דעת רבים, which we translated as “in public,” does not mean that but means that he did so with the consent of the people who were witness to such an oath. Seeing that the people at large would not agree to someone committing himself on oath to a lifestyle that interferes with mitzvah-performance, they may be viewed as having disagreed concerning matters involving the performance of commandments by the person swearing the oath. As a result of their attitude the person qualifies to have his oath dissolved for the sake of performing any commandment. (compare Rashi Makkot 16). Nachmanides agrees with Rashi that even an oath contracted in public is subject to annulment for the sake of any commandment being performed thereby.
  
  Verse 4
  
    ואשה כי תדור, “and if a woman makes a vow, etc.”  A female of twelve years and over is called אשה, “a woman.” Her vows and oaths are legally valid. If she is between 11 and 12 years of age she is presumed to be a minor though she is examined if she understands the implication of a vow or an oath. If she does, she is subject to the same rules as a male between the ages of 12 and thirteen. If she is less than eleven years old she is a minor in all respects of the law. Her pronouncements have no legal standing whatever. If a female is over 12 years of age or a male over 13 years of age their vows or oaths are legally binding even if they did not know to whom [i.e. that this involves an undertaking vis-a vis G’d. Ed.] they made such commitments (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 11,1-3).    This entire paragraph reveals many important laws concerning vows and oaths in very few words. The legal status of women concerning vows may be divided into four categories: 1) A נערה, girl between the age of 12-12 years and six months; 2) An ארוסה, a girl betrothed but not yet having moved in with her husband. 3) A married woman (after חופה); 4) A widow. When a נערה has a father she remains under his legal control and her father can invalidate her vows on the day he hears about them but not later. The logic behind this is that she would have attached a mental rider to her vow that her father would approve of it. If she finds that she was mistaken and her father objected upon hearing of it, her vow was never valid in the first place. The same logic does not apply to vows undertaken by a male of corresponding age. Just as the father is legally empowered to sell the services of his daughter to a stranger, an entitlement which does not extend to selling the services of his son, so the father is also legally entitled to countermand vows made by a daughter not yet fully of age.   When such a נערה has attained the age of 12 years and six months she is considered adult in all legal respects and no longer under her father’s legal control (Niddah 47). She is fully responsible for all her vows and oaths, the same as a widowed woman or a divorcee. The words of verse 10: כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה, “everything she has prohibited upon herself- shall remain upon her,” apply to such a 12 and a half year old single girl. If, while under the age limit, she made a vow and her father annulled it on the day he heard of it, it is as invalid as if it had never been uttered. When the Torah adds the words וה' יסלח לה, that “the Lord will forgive her,” the sages reasoned that these words are applicable when the girl who had made the vow is in need of forgiveness, such as when she violated her vow being unaware that her father had already canceled it (Niddah 47). Obviously, if someone commits what he or she perceives to be a violation of G’d’s law they are in need of forgiveness even if technically, for reasons unknown to them they did not commit a sin.   As to the woman who has been betrothed. The Torah speaks here about a woman who prior to her betrothal made a vow or swore an oath and who enters the first stage of her marriage with such vows still valid. The Torah, by employing the words, ואם היו תהיה לאיש indicates that the girl (under 12 and a half years old) has not yet completely left her father’s domain and also has not yet come under the domain of her husband concerning his interest in the matter. Her father and husband-to-be must both annul her vows in order for such an annulment to be legally valid. This is what we learned in Nedarim 66 seeing that we presume that when she made the vow she mentally resolved that it would be with the approval of both her father and her husband-to-be. Both her father and her husband-to-be have to hear it on the same day in order for both of them together to be able to annul it. The Talmud adds, that if the fiance of the betrothed girl dies before she reaches the age of maturity and she had moved into her husband’s home (after חופה), she reverts to her father’s domain and he can cancel her vows as if she had made them before she was married. If her father died prior to her having become fully married, (חופה), her husband cannot annul her vows until after she is fully married to him (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 11,10).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ושמע אישה...והחריש לה, “and her husband hears of it (her vow) and remains silent concerning it;” the word אישה in this verse means הארוס שלה, her husband-to-be, fiance who gave her קידושין.
  
  Verse 9
  
  'ואם ביום שמוע אישה אותה ...וה' יסלח לה, “and if on the day her husband hears about it ..he revokes it, etc.” the verse speaks about a situation when the father of the girl has already made use of his right to annul her vow. Under such circumstances her husband has the right to complete the annulment commenced in part by her father. This is why the Torah first wrote the additional words בנעוריה בית אביה, “while she was not of age and in her father’s house.” If the (wife) in question had made vows (in her father’s house while he was alive) prior to her becoming betrothed to her husband, her husband cannot revoke them. This is the meaning of Nedarim 72 that the husband cannot revoke vows made by his wife before she became betrothed to him, seeing that the principle that she automatically presumes her husband’s consent to such a vow would not have applied while she did not even know who her husband was going to be.    This assumption that vows are made on the understanding that both father and husband do not object is the only reason why a vow, i.e. an undertaking of  Biblical force can be revoked by a husband invoking only rabbinical force. The example we have in mind is a twelve-year old who is fatherless but mature enough to understand the meaning of her vows who has been given in marriage to her husband by her mother.    The situation of a widowed woman we mentioned as category 4 above refers only to a woman who became a widow after having been fully married (חופה), i.e. after having lived with her husband. Her status, as well as that of a divorcee, is that she had no longer been under the authority of her father at all. Seeing that the authority of her father had  ceased completely after she had received חופה, the final stage of becoming married, her father will not again have any authority over her regardless of her age. This also proves that the institution of חופה is Biblical in its legal force, and that once there had been חופה, if her husband is a priest he must defile himself at her burial, is entitled to inherit her, and is exclusively entitled to revoke her vows [inasmuch as they affect him. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כל נדר וכל שבועת אסר לענות נפש, “any vow or oath which results in a personal affliction, etc.” Here the Torah teaches that the fact that  the Torah has granted the husband of a woman the right to interfere with her vows and to annul them is not a carte blanche applicable to any type of vow. The husband’s authority applies only when such a vow results in personal pain or discomfort also involving him in his marital status. If his wife were to vow not to wash or bathe herself, keeping such a vow would clearly interfere with their marital life; as a result of such considerations the Torah permitted her husband a veto power over such vows. It goes without saying that the husband can veto any vow of his wife which would interfere directly with their family life together. The husband’s authority extends to his wife’s vowing not to use eye-shadow or even certain products for sale in  specific stores. We derive all this from the words בין איש לאשתו “between man and his wife,” in verse 17. The reason the husband has the right to interfere in vows concerning either ענוי נפש, self-affliction, and matters directly involving inter-marital relations is that his wife (any wife) is subservient to her husband in two areas; he is entitled to demand that his wife appear attractive to him and not take measures which result in her becoming physically repugnant to her husband. Our sages in Ketuvot 62 understood this concept as derived form Genesis 3,20 “for she (Chavah) is the mother of all living beings,” as meaning that the wife’s purpose in life is to enhance the quality of life of her husband not the reverse.     In matters of their sexual relations there is no need for additional proof that the wife is subservient to the needs of her husband as denial by the wife of the husband’s legitimate rights whether with a vow or without a vow means that she endangers her marriage and would forfeit her כתובה upon being divorced for cause. In matters which have no bearing on the successful relations between husband and wife the husband has no authority to interfere with his wife’s vows.
  
  Verse 15
  
   מיום אל יום, “from one day to the next.” This verse makes it clear that revoking a vow must occur during the same day, the day being considered the same period as during the six days of creation. The day commences with nightfall and extends for 24 hours until the next evening. It is not a period of 24 hours commencing at the moment when the husband hears about his wife’s vow. If the woman made a vow in the morning of any day the husband upon hearing of it has only till nightfall of the same day to oppose and revoke it. This is the reason the sages permitted the husband to revoke vows made by his wife on the Sabbath if these vows were not directly related to the Sabbath (Nedarim 77). This, in spite of the fact that revoking a vow is similar to pronouncing judgment, something that is forbidden on the Sabbath. If the husband were not allowed to revoke such vows his wife could always make vows on the Sabbath and thus undermine her husband’s authority to cancel her vows. This relaxation of the rules of the Sabbath applies only to a husband revoking the vow of is wife. If she needs the services of a judge, expert or quorum of three laymen to release her from a foolish vow, she will have to wait until after the Sabbath as outsiders who are not affected by her vows are not given leeway to use their authority in releasing someone from a vow on the Sabbath. If the woman’s vow involved matters pertaining to the Sabbath on which she made the vow, the expert has the right to use his authority to release her from such a vow even on the Sabbath. An example of such a vow would be one which would have prevented her from eating on the Sabbath in question. The time frame we discussed applies both to the father and to the husband as the case may be, starting from the time they heard of the vow in question. If a husband or father canceled the woman’s vow later than the time the Torah permitted and the wife or daughter ignores her vow relying on her father or husband having revoked it, he is held liable for violating her vow. This is why the Torah writes here: ”if he will revoke them (the vows) after his having heard” (in contrast with verse 13 where the wording is “on the day he hears about it”), he will bear her iniquity.” This verse gives rise to a general rule in halachah: “he who through his actions causes his fellow to become guilty of a trespass will personally bear the penalties which result for his fellow from his action” (Sifri Mattot 156, quoted by Rashi). 
  Nachmaides, in justifying this ruling, writes that the woman in question is considered as either having sinned unwittingly or as having been deceived altogether and not having sinned at all by violating her vow. The verse we quoted is understood by Nachmanides as applying to a husband who, when he heard of the vow did not object, and when he eventually voiced his objection claimed that it was within the time frame permitted by the Torah    Accordingly, the verse teaches a) the husband bears the guilt and penalty as if he had made the vow and violated it. b) she is free from all guilt pertaining to her vow. If his wife was aware of the fact that her husband did not revoke her vow in time, seeing she knew the law, she is held liable for acting on the basis of such an objection. Her husband, while not liable for her vow, is nonetheless liable for having caused such a guilt to come into existence. He had squandered an opportunity to protest his wife’s vow in time and had neglected to do so, thus becoming indirectly responsible for her violating her vow.    Although  the Torah writes this legislation using the husband as the example and therefore guilty party (although the same legislation applies to her father as long as he has the authority over her), it may be that in most such situations the father, out of his love for his daughter, would immediately voice his objection thus protecting his daughter against becoming guilty of profaning her vow. A husband who may be angry at his wife for making such a vow in the first place, may be less considerate in protecting his wife against trespassing, wanting her to become guilty of a guilt-offering. (Thus far Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   בין איש לאשתו, בין אב לבתו, “between man and his wife, between father and his daughter.” Our sages in Sifri Mattot 156 drew a comparison between husband and father. Just as the husband is only permitted to revoke those vows of his wife  which either directly affect their marital relations or which represent an affliction upon his wife threatening to make her repulsive to her husband’s eyes, so the father also may only cancel vows of his daughter if they are either an affliction for his daughter undermining her health, or otherwise disturb the normal relationship between father and daughter. If, for instance, the daughter had vowed not to provide the services for her father which a daughter is expected to perform for him, the father is entitled to declare such a vow as null and void. This is also spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 11,1. Nachmanides, in his volume on the laws of vows, agrees with the Jerusalem Talmud.
      Maimonides does not base his rulings on vows on the Jerusalem Talmud and rules that the father has an unrestricted right to cancel vows made by his daughter prior to her reaching the age of 12 and a half years. (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 12,1). He follows the plain text of the verse which does not speak of any restrictions. When the scholars from Luneil challenged Maimonides’ ruling pointing to the Sifri we quoted as their source, Maimonides told them that the author of the Sifri unless otherwise noted is Rabbi Shimon, and that we do not generally rule according to his opinion when it conflicts with the opinion of other scholars.   Concerning the subject of the efficiency and therefore desirability of making vows altogether, Maimonides writes in Hilchot Nedarim 5,23: “if someone engages in the practice of making vows to help him build his character, resist temptation, etc., then such a practice is praiseworthy. Example: if someone used to indulge in excessive consumption of wine and strong drink and he imposes upon himself a vow to abstain from drinking wine for an extended period in order to help him overcome his desire to imbibe this is a good idea. Similarly, if someone pursued illegal gains, i.e. payment for services not rendered, and the like, and he repents and wants to reinforce his resolution to desist from this in the future, he may make a vow not to accept gratuitous benefits from certain people, or even from all persons. There are other similar situations when the making of a vow is basically desirable. The principal criterion governing the desirability of a vow is if it helps the person making it to better serve his Creator.   Pursuing this line of thought, our sages in Avot 3,13 have said נדרים סיג לפרישות, “vows are a fence for abstinence.” Maimonides quotes several verses from the Bible in support of such an attitude, such as Psalms 119,106: “I have firmly sworn to keep Your just rules.” (Clearly, even David had to reinforce his resolutions with an oath). We know that Yaakov made a vow from Genesis 28,20. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 70,1 said that the reason that Yaakov added the word לאמור, “to say,” before spelling out the details of his vow was to tell his descendants that when they would find themselves in a situation similar to that of the patriarch Yaakov, they too should resort to making vows. In Numbers 21,2 we find that the Israelites accepted their patriarch Yaakov’s advice and vowed to destroy the Canaanites and their belongings if only the Lord would make them victorious over their attackers, the Canaanites. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   נקום נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים, אחר תאסף לעמיך, “take vengeance for the Children of Israel from the Midianites; after that you will be gathered in to your people.” G’d told Moses that He did not reconsider His oath that Moses and Aaron would not lead the people into the Holy Land because they had failed to sanctify  His name, etc. The above consideration is the reason why the Torah wrote this paragraph in conjunction with that describing that the privately made vows and oaths of individuals are subject to annulment. 
     אחר תאסף, “after (that) you will be gathered in, etc.” Some commentators, such as Nachmanides, see in this a promise that Moses will live to see and enjoy the revenge on his enemies. Tanchuma Mattot 3 points out that whereas the Torah (G’d) speaks of a vengeance for Israel, Moses in turn speaks about a vengeance for G’d when he tells the Israelites the purpose of the punitive campaign against Midian in verse 3. Moses is quoted (by the Midrash) as saying to G’d: “O Lord if we had been uncircumcised, or even circumcised but worshipping idols, the Midianites would not have hated us. Why then do they hate us? Because of the Torah and the commandments which You have given to us. Therefore it is Your vengeance.”  The concept behind all this is that anyone who attacks the Jewish people actually aims at the G’d of the Jewish people and uses the Jewish people as G’d’s alter-ego.
     מאת המדינים, “from the Midianites.” Why single out the Midianites? Did not the Moabites initiate the whole scheme of cursing the Jewish people and, when that failed, the seduction by their women as we know from Numbers 22,7 and 25,1? The fact is that whatever the Moabites did was prompted by a genuine fear of the Israelites as reported in the Torah in detail in Numbers 22,3. After all, although G’d had told the Jewish people not to harass and make war against the Moabites, this did not preclude them from robbing their belongings, etc. The Midianites, however, had gotten involved in an argument which did not concern them at all. The Jewish people had no designs on their country and posed no threat to them. Furthermore, [Moab is not specified] because King David is a descendant of theirs.
  
  Verse 3
  
   החלצו מאתכם, “mobilize from amongst yourselves, etc.” It is as if Moses had said: “gird your pioneers, your vanguard, (with their swords).” The words used here reflect an eagerness on the part of Moses to discharge his part in this commandment although G’d had told him that its fulfillment would bring about his death shortly thereafter. Tanchuma Mattot 4 points out the contrast between Moses and Joshua in this matter. When Joshua faced 31 Canaanite kings he said to himself: “if I slay them I will die shortly thereafter just as Moses died shortly after the Midianites were defeated.” What did Joshua do? He commenced with attacking one of the Canaanite kings and then delayed following up on his success as we know from Joshua 11,18: “Joshua was engaged for many years in battling all these kings.” When G’d observed this He told him: “because you did this in order to prolong your life I will deduct 10 years from the life span I had allocated to you originally. You should have lived to 120 years as did your teacher Moses. Now you will live to be only 110 years.” This is the meaning of Proverbs 19,21: “Many designs are in a man’s mind, but it is the Lord’s plan that is accomplished.“
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . וימסרו מאלפי ישראל, “they were handed over from amongst the thousands of Israelites, etc.” Our sages in Sifri Mattot 157 comment on this that these men had not volunteered but had been drafted against their will due to their love of Moses; they knew that Moses’ death would result from their waging this war and they did not want to contribute to Moses’ death.
  
  Verse 6
  
   אותם ואת פינחס, “they together with Pinchas.” The wording suggests that Pinchas by himself was equal to all of the twelve thousand men in moral/spiritual stature. Why did Pinchas go instead of his father the High Priest Eleazar? G’d had said: “the one who commenced by assuaging My anger and slew the first Midianite (Cosbi) shall complete the task” (Tanchuma Mattot 3). Moses, who had spent many years in Midian which had served as his refuge from Pharaoh after he had slain the Egyptian did not join the campaign so as not to give people an opportunity to say that “he threw stones into the well from which he used to drink.”
     וכלי הקודש, “and the holy vessels, etc.” This is a reference to the Holy Ark and the golden headband of the High Priest (Sotah 43). Tanchuma Mattot 5 relates that the Midianites employed all kinds of charms in conjunction with Bileam and that the kings were riding in the air when they saw this war. Moses had told the soldiers that if they noticed that the kings of the Midianites would employ such means against them they should show the ציץ, and the Midianites would immediately fall to the ground. This is the reason that the Torah writes (in verse 8) ואת מלכי מדין הרגו על חלליהם, “and they killed the kings of the Midianites “on, above” with their slain ones.” The Torah means that these kings dropped out of the air on top of the slain Midianites whereupon the Israelites killed them. We find something similar in Joshua 13,22: “together with the others that they slew, the Israelites put Bileam son of Beor, the magician, to the sword.”
     וחצוצרות התרועה בידו, “and the trumpets for blowing teruah in his hand (Pinchas’s).” Whenever the Israelites journeyed they had the trumpets with them. The same applied when they made ready to enter somewhere or to go to war.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויהרגו כל זכר, “they killed every male,” i.e. the adults. The male children were part of the loot as per verse 9.
  
  Verse 8
  
    ואת צור, “and Tzur;” the father of Cozbi חמשת מלכי מדין, “the five kings of Midian.” The reason the Torah wrote the word חמשת מלכי מדין as if mentioning their names did not already tell us that there five such kings, is to tell us that all five were of one mind concerning their hostility against Israel. The construct form חמשת reflected this. The reason that Bileam was there was that he had detoured on his way home, (a long way off from Aram) in order to collect his reward for having been the cause of the 24,000 men of Shimon killed by the plague, Bileam had mocked the Israelites saying: “if you could not go to war against Midian when there were 600,000 of you, how can you now expect to defeat them with only 12,000 men?” He had tried to undermine their self-confidence (compare Tanchuma Mattot 3). [The challenge by Bileam reported here is not found in Tanchuma. Ed.]
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ואת כל המלקוח באדם ובבהמה, “and all the captives, humans and animals.” Whenever the Torah does not mention the words שבי and מלקוח separately, the former refers to human captives, the latter to animals captured. When only the expression מלקוח is used it includes both humans and animals. (Rashi and Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 12
  
  . ויביאו אל משה, “they brought them to Moses.” The Torah compliments the 12,000 men none of whom touched the loot without first having obtained permission to do so. This is what Solomon referred to in Song of Songs 6,6 when he said (concerning the Jewish people) ”your teeth are like a flock of young lambs.” He meant that even the soldiers, i.e. the teeth of the Jewish people are as disciplined as a flock of ewes. They are all righteous (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4,5).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ויקצוף משה על פקודי החיל, “Moses became angry at the commanders of the troops.” The word פקודי is the same as in Isaiah 24,21 יפקוד ה', “G’d will punish,” as distinct from other meanings of this word, such as “counting.”
     שרי האלפים ושרי המאות, “the chiefs of thousands and the chiefs of hundreds.” A total of 132 men. The verse teaches that misconduct by the common people is always blamed on their leaders, the ones who have the authority and power to stop such misconduct by the people and who fail to do so (Sifri on our verse).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . וכל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר הרגו, “and every woman fit to know a man by lying with a male, you shall kill.” After Moses had started by saying: “kill every male minor, he now added separately: “kill the women, etc.” There is a reason that he had to use the word: “kill” twice. If the Torah had only written: “kill every male minor,” I would have thought that the second half of the verse i.e. “all the female minors who have not slept with a man you may let live,” included even females who were old enough to sleep with men but had not done so. In order to avoid such misunderstanding the Torah inserted the word הרגו at the end of verse 17 to separate these two categories of female minors. On the other hand, if the Torah had only written verse 18, the meaning of the instruction would have been: ועתה כל זכר בטף וכל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר וגו', “and now every male minor and every female minor old enough to lie with a male, etc.” would have meant that males above the age of nine years (when they are perceived as capable of intercourse) had to be killed. This is why these instructions had to be worded the way they were to avoid misunderstanding. Male children, even if infants, had to be killed (Sifri). 
      You may well ask how the Israelites could determine which child fitted which criterion? We are told in Yevamot 60 that each child walked past the High Priest wearing his golden headband whereupon the faces of the girls who had had sexual experience turned green. This is the reason we were taught that a disease called דרקון is an indication that the afflicted person was an idolater. According to some, examination by walking by the ציץ was effective only for Gentiles, whereas Jewish girls would be seated on a wine casket if one wanted to determine their virginity. If a certain odour would be emitted this was considered proof that the girl in question was not a virgin. Rav Kahane derived the inadmissibility of the ציץ test for Jewish girls from Exodus 28,38 where the Torah describes the function of the golden headband as “it shall be on his forehead (High Priest) always, to bring them favour before Hashem.” The function of the ציץ did not include incriminating Jewish girls. Rav Ashi added that the word להם in that verse extends the beneficial function of said golden headband to Israelites only.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה, “as for you, encamp outside the camp, etc.” The returning soldiers were forbidden to enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle in their present condition out of regard for the Shechinah which was present there.
     כל הורג נפש, “anyone who had killed a person, etc.” it was presumed that he had touched the slain person with his weapon, seeing that the sword confers the same degree of ritual impurity as the corpse itself. The verse therefore excludes people who had killed by shooting arrows and had not subsequently touched the corpse  (Sifri Chukat 127).
     תתחטאו, “purify yourselves!” By means of the ash of the red cow mixed with the water designated for the procedure. Although Gentiles (their corpses) do not confer ritual impurity on a Jew when both are in the same covered airspace at the same time, contact with the corpse of a Gentile does transfer such impurity.
     אתם ושביכם, “you and your captives.” When the captives would become proselytes and they become ritually impure they require purification rites including being sprinkled with the ash of the red cow. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  . וכל מעשה עזים, “and everything made of goat’s hair.”  This also includes all vessels made from the hooves or the horns or the bones of the animals. All had to stay outside the camp until  they had become purified.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  . אך את הזהב, “However, the gold, etc.” Although these vessels had in the meantime undergone purification from the ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse or derivative of a corpse, they had to undergo another purification by reason of having been owned by idolaters which confers a different type of impurity upon them. They had to undergo immersion in a ritual bath or more. These vessels had absorbed residue from foods forbidden to Jews, i.e. animals which had not died by ritual slaughter or had not been fit to eat for Jews even if slaughtered ritually. Rashi explains that the word אך at the beginning of the verse teaches that these vessels had to be thoroughly cleaned prior to immersion in a ritual bath so as to remove rust over the areas in which forbidden foods might have penetrated.
  
  Verse 23
  
   כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש, “any item which is normally used on (in) the fire you shall make pass through the fire.” The purification process must match the manner in which it is normally used. Iron spits used for roasting meat for instance, would have to be made red hot in fire in order to be ritually purified.
     אך במי נדה יתחטא, “but also it has to be purified by the water of the sprinkling.” In this instance all these captured items, regardless of the manner of their use had to undergo this procedure of being sprinkled with water and ash from the red cow as the Torah writes in Numbers 19,13 that if this water and ash had not been sprinkled on such person or item they remain impure. From the combination of these verses we derive the requirement that even new utensils, unless manufactured by Jews, have to undergo ritual immersion before being fit to use as food or in connection with food (Avodah Zarah 75). The extra word וטהר in our verse is the allusion to this requirement.
     וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים, “Any utensil not used in or on the fire, you must pass through the water.” This refers to metal utensils which did not absorb any forbidden materials in their normal use, i.e. they are used cold. It suffices to pass them through water to make them fit for use by Jews.    Our sages (Avodah Zarah 67) added that the utensils of the Midianites forbidden for immediate use were only those which had been in use during the previous 24 hours by their owners. The reason is that during that period the residue contained in the walls of such pots enhances whatever you cook in them. Once they have been out of use for over 24 hours the contribution made to whatever the Jew cooks in them at that time will be detrimental to the taste of the dish, so that the Jew derives no benefit from  what is forbidden. The entire prohibition of such residue inside the walls of the pots is based on the word כל, “all, any,” in Deut. 14,21 לא תאכלו כל נבלה, “you must not eat anything which pertains to a carcass (which was not ritually slaughtered before death).” This teaches that not only the substance is forbidden by Biblical decree but also the taste of it is equally forbidden. However, if one ate something in which the forbidden part consisted of insubstantial taste the person doing so is not liable to the penalty of 39 lashes.    If the utensil previously owned by the Gentile had not been used for 24 hours, it is  permissible by Biblical law to be used as is, although there is rabbinic prohibition. We know that it is permitted by the Torah as the Torah itself writes that such carcasses described as נבלה may be given to resident strangers to eat (Deut. 14,21). From this we derive the principle that a נבלה permitted for a resident stranger (one who accepted the 7 Noachide laws) to eat is still called נבלה by the Torah, whereas one that is not suitable for his consumption is not described as such. When the forbidden material is still identifiable, substantive, but is the residue of something cooked more than 24 hours previously, it is also not forbidden by Biblical injunction as it is foul-tasting. The rabbinic prohibition however, extends indefinitely, the reason being that if the Rabbis had not “fenced in Torah law,” people would eat from such utensils even before the 24 hours had elapsed since they were last used by a Gentile for his ritually forbidden food. The Rabbis based their approach on the assumption that when a Jew gets hold of such vessels owned previously by Gentiles they are most unlikely to have been used for ritually forbidden food during the 24 hour preceding this.   Seeing that this is so the only vessels subject to the legislation in our chapter were the ones which had definitely still been in use during the previous 24 hours.
   This brings us to the problem of why the Torah had held back with telling us of this legislation until now and had not revealed it after the wars against Sichon and Og (Numbers chapters 21-22) when the Israelites had also collected a great deal of loot which surely included cooking utensils (compare Deut. 2,35). The reason is that the war fought  against Sichon and Og was fought on soil which G’d had designated as land of the Jewish people. Seeing this was so they were permitted to make full use of all the loot including matters totally forbidden under normal Torah law. The Torah itself recalls that the Jewish people would inherit in the land of Canaan, “houses full of everything that is good, i.e. desirable,” (Deut. 6,11). Our sages elaborated on this in Chulin 17 saying that even dried pork was allowed for the warriors at that time to be eaten as booty. Midian was not, however, a territory allocated to the Jewish people, and therefore the rules which applied to lands that were conquered at G’d’s command did not apply.     This is why in the case of the Midianites the Torah even forbade the victors to make use of the vessels of their adversaries until after they had been purified. This is also why in this instance the Torah stresses the fact that the warriors had (practically) all become ritually impure through contact with their (now) dead enemies, whereas not a word of this had been mentioned after the Israelites had killed the Emorites under Sichon and Og and taken over their lands. When Jews become involved in a situation which on an individual basis results in each one of them becoming ritually defiled, this law is set aside when the occasion which necessitated this impurity was one of conquering their own land at the behest of G’d.    You will also observe that the spoils of war which were salvaged from the punitive expedition against Midian were also shared out to the Levites and the priests although the priests and the Levites have been described as being “G’d’s share” and not inheriting any part of the land of the Canaanites, etc., (Numbers 18,20). Seeing that the loot from the campaign against the Midianites had nothing to do with a war of conquest fought against the Canaanites, the Levites and priests were not excluded from sharing. The loot was the proceeds of a war avenging G’d’s vengeance, something everybody was equally involved in. When it came to the war against the Canaanites, not only were the priests and Levites not allowed to capture any, their brethren from the other tribes were even prohibited from giving them some of that loot voluntarily (compare Numbers 18,20).
  
  Verse 24
  
  . ואחר תבאו אל המחנה, “and after (these procedures) you may enter the camp.” The reference is to the camp of the Shechinah. After all, a person who has “only” contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse does not have to leave any other parts of the camp.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . שא את ראש המלקוח השבי, “count the total of the spoils of beast and humans.” The word מלקוח is a reference to the animals, the word שבי is a reference to the human prisoners. The two words fit together just as the words שמש ירח, “sun (and) moon,” without the conjunctive letter ו; (compare Chabakuk 3,11).
  
  Verse 27
  
  . וחצית את המלקוח, “and divide in half the spoils of beasts and humans.” In this verse the word מלקוח includes humans as well as beasts. G’d commanded that the loot be divided between the soldiers who had captured it and the people who had remained behind. Also, the captors were to give a tithe to the Levites of 1/50th of the loot, seeing that 1/50th of Israel’s fighting men had taken part in this campaign. The priests, i.e. Eleazar received תרומה i.e. one tenth of the amount the people gave to the Levites. The 12,000 fighting men shared the one half of the spoils, the people on the home front shared the other half between them.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  . ויהי המלקוח יתר הבז, “after deducting the inert objects captured and the amounts the soldiers had consumed, the remainder of the animal loot amounted to, etc.” the reason the Torah gives us all these numbers is to enable us to picture the vastness of this victory, an amount of loot not paralleled elsewhere. The Torah mentions the מכס, tribute or tithe, given to the Levites separately as even this was a substantial amount. Our author understands the word מכס as being similar to חלק, share, as in Exodus 12,4 תכסו על השה "You shall participate in the lamb".
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  . ויקרבו אל משה הפקודים, “the officers approached Moses, etc.” The word  הפקודים here is the same as הפקידים, “the commanders.”
  
  Verse 49
  
   עבדיך נשאו את ראש אנשי המלחמה אשר בידינו ולא  נפקד ממנו איש, “your servants have counted the heads of the warriors entrusted to us and not a single man is missing.” This was a remarkable miracle. In fact, it may be described as one of the greatest miracles amongst all the miracles which were performed for the Jewish people ever. When we consider the number of prisoners taken we can imagine how many adult males there must have been participating in this war. The Israelites killed each one of them without sustaining a single casualty. The reason why this miracle occurred was that every one of these 12,000 soldiers was a righteous individual who felt morally superior enough to take part in this punitive expedition. This is what our sages had in mind (Shabbat 64) when they said that the words ולא נפקד מהם איש mean that not one of them was guilty of a sin that would be held against him [the word being used as in Exodus 20,5. Ed.] When Moses heard this, he asked: ”if this is so why do you want to offer this sacrifice of gold, etc.?” They answered: ”we want to atone for lewd thoughts which we may have entertained.”
  
  Verse 50
  
  'ונקרב את קרבן ה', “we have offered the sacrifice to the Lord.” This verse proves that when one vows to bring a sacrifice either in thought or word this already constitutes a sacrifice, i.e. that the money set aside with which to buy the animal  is already sanctified (Yuma 63).   אצעדה, “anklet;” an ornament worn on the foot, the organ one makes steps with צעדים)  צמיד, “bracelet;” an ornament worn on the arm. We have encountered the word when Eliezer put two such bracelets on Rivkah’s hands (Genesis 24,22). טבעת, “a ring;” for the finger; עגיל, “a ring worn in the ear.” וכומז, “a clasp;” something  known as chastity belt in the middle ages, worn over the private parts.
  
  Verse 51
  
   ויקח משה ואלעזר הכהן את הזהב מאתם כל כלי מעשה, “Moses and Elazar the priest took the gold from them, all items which had been fashioned into a complete article.” The Torah stresses that the offering did not contain broken items. They brought it to the Tabernacle to convert into  כלי שרת, utensils to be used in the sacrificial rituals.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן ולבני גד, “and the tribes of Reuven and Gad possessed large amounts of livestock.” The tribe who was a descendant of Leah is mentioned first although the tribe of Gad was the instigator of this request (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויבואו בני גד ובני ראובן, “the members of the tribe of Gad and Reuven came, etc.” The Gadites came up with the idea of remaining on the far bank of the Jordan. They were personally much braver than the members of Reuven as we know from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,20: וטרף זרוע אף קדקוד, “tearing off arm and even head.” They were not afraid that by choosing to remain physically distant from the main body of the people on the far side of the Jordan they would be isolated and easy prey for the surrounding nations.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Mattot 5: when material wealth is received from heaven it is liable to endure; if its source is not heavenly it is unlikely to endure. There were two truly wealthy people in the world, one was an Israelite, i.e. Korach, the other was Haman. Both of them not only lost their wealth but they perished ignominiously seeing that their material wealth had not been a gift from heaven. They had acquired it by tearing it away from others.   You will also find that the wealth possessed by the members of the tribes Gad and Reuven caused them to become inordinately fond of it. As a result they lived (loosely speaking) in what we call חוצה לארץ, outside the essential part of Eretz Yisrael. They separated from the main body of the people on account of their possessions and wound up being the first to be exiled because of their sins (compare Chronicles I 5,26).    When we read in Psalms 75,7: “for what lifts a man comes not from the east or the west or the wilderness הרים,  for it is G’d Who gives judgment, He brings down one man, He lifts up another.” The psalmist referred to the fate of the two and a half tribes Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe (compare Tanchuma Mattot 6). The words ולא ממדבר הרים, normally translated as “and not from a wilderness of mountains,” are somewhat misleading. Whereas it is true that everywhere else in the Holy Bible the word הרים means “mountains,” in this instance it means “elevation.” (socially, financially). When G’d wanted to enrich the members of these tribes He gave them what had belonged to the Midianites. Thereby He fulfilled what is written in Psalms 75,7.     Why are material possesions called נכסים ? Because it is in the nature of such belongings to be hidden (disappear) from one owner and become revealed to the other owner. Chanah alluded to this when she said in Samuel I 2,7: ה' מוריש ומעשיר, משפיל אף מרומם, “the Lord makes poor and makes rich; He casts down, He also lifts high.” When G’d displays His anger (אף) at one people, another is liable to benefit from that. This is the reason our chapter is introduced  most unusually with the conjunctive letter ו. Instead of the words ומקנה רב היה, וגו', I would have expected something like לבני ראובן וגד היה מקנה רב. The letter ו as the introduction to the whole chapter draws our attention to the fact that the reason these tribes had so many possessions was only because they had captured them from the Midianites, i.e. that G’d had deprived the Midianites of their possessions.    When Kohelet 10,2 speaks of “the heart of the wise being on the right whereas the heart of the foolish is on the left,” he had in mind people like the members of the tribes of Gad and Reuven who made things of secondary significance such as the livestock their primary concern, i.e. they confused that which is essential with that which is merely auxiliary. They demonstrated this when they mentioned their livestock before referring to their children (verse 16). G’d told them that people who considered their personal wealth as more important than their children would find that their wealth was not blessed. This is what Solomon taught us in Proverbs 20,21: “An inheritance gained hastily (sudden riches) at the outset will not be blessed in the end.” This is also the meaning of Proverbs 23,4: “Do not tire yourself out trying to become rich; desist out of a feeling of insight.” The truly wealthy individual is he who is content with what G’d has seen fit to provide for him as we know from Psalms 128,2: “when you consume the fruit of the labors of your hands you will be happy and feel content.”
  
  Verse 3
  
   עטרות ודיבון. These districts had been part of the lands of Sichon, the king of the Emorites. Some of the nine locations mentioned here used to be centers of idolatry such as Nevo and Baal Meon. We find that at least Nevo is mentioned in that context in Isaiah 46,1 when he describes these idols as collapsing. In Onkelos’ translation of this verse we find that he uses the word בית repeatedly. Presumably, this refers to the temples to these deities which had stood in those locations. Our sages in Shabbat 115 also refer to places where idolatry was practiced with the prefix בי, i.e. “house of.”    When the members of the tribe of Reuven rebuilt these towns they also renamed them to remove their stigma. This is the meaning of מוסבות שם in verse 38, i.e. the Torah tells us that these places had acquired new names. The names of the idolatry which had been practiced there should not be remembered.  When our sages said in Berachot 8 that each one of us should endeavor to complete reviewing the Torah portion read each week together with the congregation by reading the Hebrew text twice and the Targum once, even “Attarot and Divon,” they meant that it is in order to mention the original names of these locations. But for this statement by the sages we might have reasoned that seeing the Targum is only a translation of these names which we had already read twice in Hebrew it would be inappropriate to repeat the names of these centers of idolatry a third time in Aramaic.
      You should realize that there is also a mystical dimension  connected to the rebuilding of these towns and renaming them. Whereas our verse, as is customary, is explicit regarding events on terrestrial earth, it also contains allusions pertaining to what occurs in the celestial spheres in which we also have “structures” parallel to those on earth.    We are dealing here with nine names (Attarot, Divon, Yaazer, Nimrah, Cheshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nevo and Beon) which correspond to the nine times we find the word ויאמר אלו-הים in the report of the creation in Genesis chapter 1. The tenth (equivalent) of the word ויאמר is not mentioned as it is the word בראשית, and at a time when there was no matter to be addressed yet it would have sounded peculiar to issue instructions to אין, something non-existent. [This is a reference to the statement in Avot 5,1 that the world was created by means of ten directives, the assumption being that each directive was introduced by the word ויאמר. Rashi there comments that the tenth (missing) ויאמר is actually represented by the very word בראשית. Ed.]  Our verse here draws our attention to the nine directives with which the world was created after the initial raw material had come into existence, and divides it into three stages as represented by our mussaph prayer on Rosh Hashanah when we have three separate groups of benedictions called מלכיות, זכרונות, שופרות. The mystical dimension of the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 32 describing that three groups of shofar blasts must be blown on that day, is linked to the statement of our sages to read the weekly Torah portion three times. We must appreciate that just as repeating something three times, such as the blowing of the shofar or the reading of the Torah portion, each time deepens our understanding of it, so that even such names as Attarot and Divon which when we read them the first time make no impression upon us are going to give rise to more profound analysis if we repeat them again and again.    Seeing that the entire Torah from Bereshit to Vezot Habracha is a continuous document, indivisible, these names simply must have a significance over and beyond their sound. It is up to us to decipher the deeper meaning. There is no qualitative difference between reading about the leaders of the tribes of Esau, the names of the towns captured from Sichon, or the Ten Commandments. All of the Torah is of equal degree of sanctity. All of it stems from the same source. Its “waters” originate from the Temple (Ezekiel 47,12), and all have been given to us from the same shepherd.     [I believe the reason the author is at such pains to provide a meaning for these place names over and above merely giving us this information is that he wants to pre-empt anyone asking why the Torah did not simply write that these two tribes claimed lands in Gilead and Yaazer especially suitable for grazing without giving us a list of these names which we should read for the next several thousand years every week when these places had even be renamed. How would we know where these locations are if we did not know their original names? On the other hand, if the names listed are the original names why would we have to remember all these sites of idolatry? Ed.]    The meanings of the words עטרות ודיבון, etc. are as follows: the location עטרות, is spelled in the verse it occurs next, (34) without the letter ו, i.e. it is an allusion to עטרת, a crown. The word דיבון refers to the river which originates in Gan Eden which never ceases to flow. The word is written with the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning, although all the other locations mentioned have not been linked by the letter ו. The numerical value of the word ודיבון is 72, an allusion to the 72-lettered name of G’d. A never ceasing river reminds us of Psalms 78,20: הכה צור ויזובו מים, “He struck the rock and waters flowed.” The name of the place יעזר is a reference to the emanation הוד of which we know from Psalms 145,5 הדר כבוד הודך. The emanation הוד is the “lowest” on the left side of the diagram of emanations, a side representative of the negative spiritual influences of Satan. Because of this, man, i.e. Israel is in need of divine assistance to overcome its influence. The location described by the name נמרה symbolises the emanation נצח, the one opposite הוד on the right side of the diagram we referred to. The word may be perceived as an acrostic of the line ימין ה' רוממה In Psalms 118,16. The two emanations הוד, נצח are perceived as the two “thighs,” supports of the universe, in the diagram of the emanations which I referred to. We have an allusion to this in Psalms 16,11 נעימות בימינך נצח. The location described as חשבון is an allusion to our patriarch Yaakov, of whom it is written in Psalms 16,11: ישראל אשר בו אתפאר, a reference to the tetragram, i.e. the word חשבון  has a numerical value of שם כ'ו, ‘the name equal to 26” [numerical value of י-ה-ו-ה]. The location described as אלעלה is an allusion to the patriarch Yitzchak who has been described variously as עולה תמימה, “an unblemished burnt-offering.” We could therefore read the word אלעלה as עלה לאל by slightly re-arranging the sequence of the letters. Since the Torah wanted to hint at his outstanding characteristic גבורה, a manifestation of the attribute of Justice, (the last letter ה in the tetragram), the name אלעלה concludes with the letter ה in the list of these nine locations. This becomes clearer when you compare the name in verse 37 as אלעלא with the letter א at the end instead of the letter ה. We have another instance where Yitzchak’s outstanding characteristic is alluded to by a change in the spelling of his name in Psalms 105,9 where the letter צ in יצחק is replaced by the letter ש, an allusion to the fact that he is a “great fire.”     The location described as שבם is a reference to Avraham; it may be understood as an acrostic of אברהם סבא, “grandfather Avraham, i.e. the originator of Judaism.” The location described as נבו alludes to the emanation בינה, whereas the location described as בעון is an allusion to the emanation חכמה. When you reverse the sequence of the letters in that word you get נובע. We find this word connected to wisdom, חכמה in Proverbs 18,4 נחל נבע מקור חכמה, “the source of wisdom is a flowing stream.” The word is also connected to מעון, מעונה (when the letters are reversed) “regions in the upper celestial heavens, origin of wisdom.” This is why this place is referred to as מעון in verse 38, i.e. ואת בעל מעון. At any rate, I believe we have demonstrated that the names of these locations all relate to important concepts although at first glance they may appear as irrelevant.
      The reason the Torah considered it imperative to mention the names of all of these locations is that they were all part of the territories of Sichon and Og and their significance in terms of idolatry far outshone their local importance as they represented important idolatrous doctrines, doctrines completely opposed to Judaism and Monotheism. Their significance in their time paralleled the importance of the idolatry practiced of the generation of the Tower, the people of which arrogated to themselves the power to uproot G’d in the heavens from His throne. Those people who had phrased their ideology in the innocent sounding slogan “let us make a name for ourselves,” (compare Genesis 11,4 and the commentary of our author there) were the (ideological) descendants of Kayin who had been described earlier in antediluvian times (Genesis 4,17) as בונה עיד constantly engaged in building a city (or cities). The fact that the tribes of Reuven and Gad were well aware of the historical and theological significance of these locations under Sichon and Og prompted them to rename them and thus to eradicate the ideology they had stood for in former times. It was their sincere intention to convert all these places into centers where the Lord would be worshipped instead.   This is why they prefaced their request to Moses with the words: “if it pleases you let this land be given to your servants as an heritage;” they meant: “seeing the whole purpose of the Children of Israel crossing the Jordan and disinheriting the Canaanites is to establish a civilization bent on serving the Lord, this is something that we can also do right here.” Their implied point was that if the land captured from Sichon and Og were to remain unpopulated and all the twelve tribes were to live only on the west bank of the Jordan, the vacuum would be filled by other people bent on acquiring grazing land and these people would perpetuate idolatry in that region. It was therefore much better to allow them, who had a surfeit of livestock, to take over these lands instead and to practice Judaism in that region.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . בלתי כלב בן יפונה הקנזי, “except for Calev, son of Yephuneh the Kenizite.”  Our sages (Sotah 11) derive from here that Calev was a stepson of Kenaz for whom the mother of Calev had born Othniel.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   כאשר אדוני דובר , “as my lord speaks.” In verse 31 the formulation is “as the Lord (Hashem) has spoken to your servants so we shall do.” It is clear from these two verses that the Torah wants to equate the authority of Moses with the authority of the Lord. Moses was the kind of instrument for Holy Spirit which functioned around the clock; one was not to think that during certain hours of the day Moses was not on G’d’s “wavelength,’ and that his pronouncements during such times did not have the same validity as when he was inspired. He was always inspired. This is also what our sages (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 27) pointed out in connection with Exodus 33,7: “so it was whenever someone sought Hashem he would go out (outside the camp where Moses had pitched his personal tent) etc.” The Torah does not write that the individual in question went out to seek out Moses but that he went out to seek Hashem. This proves that the people equated what Moses would tell them with what they expected to be told by G’d. The “glue” is called by the substance it is glued to. In other words, seeing that Moses was as if “glued” to Hashem, he himself is sometimes described as if he were Hashem. Our author quotes a number of verses illustrating this in his commentary on Exodus 33,7.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  'נחנו נעבור חלוצים לפני ה', “we will cross (the Jordan) as vanguard before the Lord.” Actually, the Torah should have written אנחנו instead of נחנו. However, seeing that the members of the tribe of Gad always appear as physically strong and self-reliant, and they had the audacity of describing themselves as a vanguard מלפני ה' “in front of the Lord,” the Torah decided to put them in their place by omitting the letter א from the word אנחנו as if teaching that they needed to downgrade their reliance on ego. The word נחנו appears in the guise of understating ego when Moses and Aaron play down their part in orchestrating the Exodus in Exodus 16,7. This interpretation is tenable as the plain meaning of the words.
      However, we have a tradition that the Torah deliberately wanted to commence this verse with the letter נ just as we find Jeremiah commencing Lamentations 3,42 with the words נחנו פשענו ומרינו, “we have rebelled and transgressed.” In Lamentations the need for the verse to commence with the letter נ is dictated by the prophet wanting to maintain the alphabetical sequence of each verse, i.e. each verse commences with the following letter of the alphabet. In our paragraph the need for the verse to commence with the letter נ is dictated by the fact that there are a total of 11 verses in scripture which commence and conclude with the letter נ. It is a well known fact that the tetragram originates in these eleven verses and that it contains 13 letters. If one mentions these verses together with the holy name of G’d which emerges from them one has no reason to be afraid as the great name of the Lord is an antidote against fear itself. [Rabbi Chavell points out that the eleven verses are listed in the Siddur Otzar HaTefillot (page 866 in my edition) after the songs to be recited at the conclusion of the Sabbath.] 
  The members of the tribe of Gad were not afraid to dwell on the east bank of the Jordan river surrounded by the Gentile nations without natural barriers as they possessed two types of weapons. 1) the physical strength of their bodies; 2) the merit of having been in the vanguard before the Lord during the years in which the Israelites defeated the kings of the Canaanites. The expression חלוצים לפני ה' includes reference to both of these “weapons.” This is why they said (32,32) ואתנו אחוזת נחלתנו, “the heritage of our forefathers is with us.” They meant that in spite of their settling relatively far from the main body of the nation they had reason not to be afraid. Commenting on Joshua 6,13 והחלוץ עובר לפניהם, our sages in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4,6 explain that that verse refers to the two and a half tribes Reuven, Gad, and half of Menasheh who lived up to their commitment seeing they were full of confidence both in the merit of their mitzvah performance and their physiques. Our sages have also described the words in Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרוע as a reference to the merit of the phylacteries they wore on the arm, and the word אף קדקד as a reference to the phylacteries they wore on their heads.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ויקרא לה נבח בשמו, “He called it (the district) Novach just like himself.” The letter ה in the word לה is “weak,” i.e. without the customary dagesh. Ruth Rabbah 5,5 claims that the reason is that this name did not endure, i.e. the word is almost equivalent to having been spelled לא, “not.” We find other examples of the same defective spelling in Zecharyah 5,11: לבנות לה בית בארץ שנער, “to build a house for her (it) in the land of Shinar.” The subject there is the prophet being shown a measuring device known as eyfah which the angel transported away and the prophet wanted to know its significance. The prophet is informed that those who remain in Babylonia although the Temple was being reconstructed in Jerusalem would not have much of a future, as there is no future for untruth. The missing dagesh in the word לה in that verse alludes to the transience of people who decided to remain in a kingdom built on lies. Solomon expressed himself similarly when speaking about lies in Proverbs 12,19: “Truthful lips will be established forever; but a lying tongue endures only for a moment.” They will soon be tested and found to be lies. This is why man must love truth and hate lies. This is also what Zecharyah 8,19 said: “Love truth and peace!” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     ראשית חכמה קנה חכמה ובכל קניניך קנה בינה, “The beginning of wisdom is: ‘acquire wisdom!’ With all your acquisitions acquire insight.” (Proverbs 4,7)
   In this verse Solomon taught the people that the first kind of wisdom they are to acquire is the wisdom dispensed by the Torah. This is the meaning of ראשית חכמה in the verse we quoted. Once a person has acquired this wisdom he also needs to acquire insight, discernment, in order for him to understand the connection between different phenomena. Wisdom is always totally incomplete unless accompanied by a measure of such ability to discern relationships. Seeing that the attribute (or emanation) בינה insight, discernment, is so crucial, Solomon advises a person to spend his entire fortune in his search to acquire בינה. The words: “with all your acquisitions acquire insight,” mean that “even if you have to spend all your money in order to acquire this attribute, do so, for true wealth is בינה, not money.”    Wisdom is also portrayed as shouting (to its owner) (Proverbs 8,18) “riches and honor belong to me, enduring wealth and success.   Solomon was forced to inform us here that the first and foremost requirement for his נפש, personality, is the acquisition of Torah knowledge before learning any other disciplines. If he were to acquire other kinds of knowledge first, these are apt to turn his heart away from true wisdom and implant in his mind worthless ideas. However, if a person studies Torah first and makes it the mainstay of his outlook in life he is then permitted to study other disciplines, sciences, etc., seeing that if he has built a sound base of Torah knowledge for himself he is not liable to be corrupted by the philosophically negative elements which are part of other disciplines. Torah knowledge will always remain “floating” on top just as does purified silver.   This is also what David had in mind when he described G’d’s words as pure, i.e. just “like refined silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold,” not containing any dross (Psalms 12,7). The meaning of that verse in Psalms is that although all disciplines (wisdom) are comparable to silver [when compared to ignorance, Ed.], Torah wisdom is like silver which has been refined seven times over. All other wisdom contains elements comparable to dross, impurities, which have a tendency to invalidate that wisdom. Our Torah, by contrast, will not lead man to sustain losses either in money or through misleading him philosophically.    When Solomon demands that Torah must be the first subject studied, he means that unless one learns about the meaning and purpose of miracles one may fall victim to the theory that nature preceded the Lawgiver chronologically, that the universe was not created by Hashem. The reason that in Hebrew nature is known as טבע is that if one delves into the study of nature before having studied Torah such study is liable to swallow a person, he will “sink into a morass,” just as people who are drowned by the sea, טובעו, were drowned, because they had not learned to swim first.    A person who has studied Torah and early Jewish history summarized in the Torah knows that in addition to “nature” and natural laws, the Creator Who is totally free has demonstrated on many occasions that He is the master of what we call “laws of nature” by temporarily suspending these so-called eternal laws and thus demonstrating that it must have been He who had created and formulated them in the first place.   Scientists, i.e. people who study nature, believe only the evidence of their eyes. When they read about the miracles which the Torah records they assume that the desert through which the Israelites marched must have been a very benign strip of land, capable of producing crops, etc., etc. They totally deny what the Torah describes as “this great and terrible wilderness inhabited by fierce serpents, etc., etc., through which the Lord your G’d has led you” (Deut. 8,15). The point made by the Torah is precisely hat the deserts through which the Israelites marched was even more hostile to human habitat than regular deserts. This is why the Torah stresses beyond doubt “it was not a place where one could sow or expect to plant fruit-bearing trees such as figs, pomegranates, etc.” There were no wells. The prophet Jeremiah testifies that even by his time, 1000 years later, that region had not been one in which people set foot voluntarily. The experience of the Jewish people therefore was by itself so miraculous that unless we study it before we study general subjects we would not appreciate the greatness of G’d and His works.   This explains why the Torah took pains in our portion to list so many details of the places where the Israelites stopped in their trek through this inhospitable country. That information contained many valuable lessons both for the nations of that period and for us the descendants of the generation which experienced the Exodus and the wanderings through the desert on the way to the Holy Land.
   אלה מסעי בני ישראל אשר יצאו מארץ מצרים לצבאותם ביד משה ואהרן, “These are the journeys of the Children of Israel, who went forth from Egypt according to their hosts, under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.”  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'למסעיהם על פי ה', “according to their journeys at the command of Hashem.” The Torah states: 1) the journeys themselves were all at the command of G’d; 2) Moses recorded them all at the express command of G’d. The purpose of these records was what we discussed already in our introduction. There was an additional purpose, namely to demonstrate the many acts of loving kindness performed by Hashem, who, though He had decreed that they were to travel through the desert (although alternate routes were available) did not subject them to the discomforts associated with travel through such inhospitable country. Moreover, by having listed all the places where the Israelites camped, we realise that the people did not move around in the desert constantly, like someone escaping from a pursuer, but that during the entire 40 years (counting from the crossing of the sea until the death of Moses) there were actually fewer than 40 stops, so that they usually could stay put in a camp for more than a year at a time. 
      A careful analysis shows that 14 of the total of 42 stops were made during the first year of their journeying. Eight more stops are recorded after the death of Aaron which occurred in the 40th year, so that during the 38 years after the sin of the spies until the death of Aaron there were only 20 stops. According to our tradition the “many years” which the Israelites are reported as having remained stationary in Kadesh (Deut. 1,15) were equivalent to the total of the years they journeyed from there, i.e. 19 years. This effectively reduces the period of wanderings or journeying to 19 years during which they broke camp 19 times. There was clearly no human planning at work in the strategy governing these journeys, why else would the Torah describe that sometimes the people would stay in one place for only a single night (Numbers 9,21)? The people never knew for how long the cloud would remain stationary signaling that they were to remain in their present location. All their journeys were determined by G’d’s strategy, not their own or that of Moses.    We may illustrate the matter by means of a parable. A king had a sick child. He took that child from one place to another to find a cure for him. After the father returned from these exhausting trips and the child had been cured, he would remind himself and the child of what happened at each location that he and his sick child had stopped on the way. He would remind his son: ”here we were freezing cold;” “here we were resting comfortably,” “here you suffered from a headache,” etc., etc.
      There is a third purpose in the Torah recording all these details which appear irrelevant to us the reader of these lines three millennia afterwards. Every journey was triggered by certain events or certain tendencies displayed by the people at that location. This is the reason the Torah does not merely give us the number of the way stations but names each one of them. [Clearly most of these places being in the middle of the desert had not been named before and only were so named after the Israelites had stopped there to commemorate this. Ed.] If the reason that G’d decided to move the people from one location to another was because they had conducted themselves properly, then the name of the location at which they arrived next reflected this, such as ויחנו בהר שפר (verse 23). If the reason G’d made them break camp was because the people had misbehaved, the place where they encamped reflected this, such as ויחנו בחרדה, a name reflecting fear, disquiet. When the name of the place suggests something pleasant, positive, it means that the move had been orchestrated by the attribute of Mercy, whereas if the name of the place suggests a negative connotation this reflects the fact that the attribute of Justice had orchestrated that particular journey.    Concerning this matter the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud said that when the Israelites had been complaining about their fate, the watchmen surrounding the camp would tremble all night long. This teaches that the different attributes of G’d were very much in evidence, and that the moods of the people kept on changing. This is what Solomon spoke of in Song of Songs 3,8: “to protect him from the fear during the nights.” He meant that the Israelites were afraid of the attribute of Justice.
   Still another purpose of the Torah providing us with all these details about the Israelites’ journeying is that it contains allusions to the future. All the predictions of our prophets concerning the redemption of the future clearly indicate that this redemption will largely reflect earlier redemptions. The more we know about the redemption from Egypt, etc., the better we can picture how the redemption of the future will develop. Just as when the Israelites departed from Egypt they marched into the desert, so in the final redemption many Jews would also march into the desert on their way to their home and this is what the prophet Ezekiel 20,34-35 spoke about when he quoted G’d as saying: “I shall take you out from the nations, and gather you from the lands into which you were scattered....and I will bring you to the wilderness of the nations.” In our verse there is an allusion to this as the word מוצאיהם, “the place from which they set out,” is repeated. Ezekiel speaks of the final redemption and means that in the interval between the Israelites leaving lands in which they sojourned as exiles, the Lord will guide them and provide for them as He had done after the Exodus from Egypt.    The apparently redundant repetition of the words ואלה מסעיהם למוצאיהם are an allusion to the way the redemption of the future will materialise. Seeing the paragraph had commenced with אלה מסעי, the Torah employs the same syntax when alluding to the journeys in the future. The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the words ואלה מסעיהם למוצאיהם indicates that these words refer to journeys in the future.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Massey 3: Why were all these journeys spelled out in the Torah? It was a reward for these parts of the earth which willingly accepted the people of Israel on their soil. This region, though it had always been barren, etc., will flourish in the future after the final redemption of the Jewish people as we know from Isaiah 35,1-2: “the arid desert shall be glad, the wilderness shall rejoice and shall blossom like a rose. It shall blossom abundantly, it shall also exult and shout. It shall receive the glory of Lebanon, the splendour of Carmel and Sharon. They shall behold the glory of the Lord, the splendor of our G’d.”     If the desert will receive so much reward for merely tolerating the Jewish people on its surface, how much more will he be rewarded who welcomes Torah scholars into his home. You find that whereas on the one hand some deserts will be transformed into habitable regions, there are regions which were always habitable and will be made into desolate, arid land. This is the meaning of Malachi 1,3: “I have hated Esau; I have made his hills a desolation, his territory a home for beasts of the desert.” Isaiah 41,18 says specifically that the desert will become a pool of water. You know that nowadays there are no trees to be found in the desert. In the future trees will grow there. We have this on the authority of Isaiah 41,19: “I will plant cedars in the wilderness, acacias and myrtles and oleasters; I will set cypresses in the desert, box trees and elms as well.” Whereas nowadays people are fearful to travel through these regions, in due course “I will make a path through the wilderness, rivers in the desert” (Isaiah 43,19).
  
  Verse 3
  
    ממחרת הפסח, "on the day following the Passover-offering" The reference is not to the festival but to the day on which the lamb was slaughtered in anticipation of the Exodus. This occurred on the afternoon of the 14th of Nissan; the Israelites left Egypt on the morning of the 15th.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ובאלוהיהם עשה ה' שפטים, “and the Lord had inflicted punishments on their deities.” G’d had kept His promise made in Exodus 12,12 “and on all the gods of Egypt I will inflict judgments.” How did these judgments or punishments become manifest? If the images were made of silver or gold they would simply melt; if they were made of wood, the wood would rot; if they were made of stone, the stone would crack in many places. The word שפטים also includes that these idols would be found by their worshippers in embarrassing positions as described in Samuel I 5,4: “Dagon was again lying prone on the ground in front of the Ark of the Lord. The head and both hands were cut off.” (The Philistines had taken the Holy Ark captive from the Israelites).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . וישב על פי החירות. The word וישב in the singular is the same here as  וישובו, “they turned back.” Alternatively, the word may refer to the cloud traveling above the people. This would account for the singular וישב.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ויסעו מפני החירות ויעברו בתוך הים המדברה, “they journeyed away from Pi Hachirot and they crossed the sea into the desert.” The Torah repeats that the people journeyed from Eylim and encamped by the Sea of Reeds to teach us that they returned to the side of the sea they had already passed previously.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . ויסעו מים סוף ויחנו במדבר סין, “They journeyed from the Sea of Reeds and encamped in the desert of Sin.” The desert mentioned here was not the desert of Sinai seeing the Torah goes on to write in verse 15 that when the people journeyed away from Refidim they encamped in the desert of Sinai.” The desert known as “Sin” is situated between Eylim and Sinai, just as reported in Exodus 16,1
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויחנו בקברות התאוה, “they camped at Kivrot Hata'avah” — a place otherwise known as Kadesh Barnea. [The name mentioned here was in commemoration of the people who died because they overindulged their craving for meat.]
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויחנו בחר הגדגד, “they encamped in Char Hagidgad.” The word חר is not to be confused with הר. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ויסעו מקדש, “They journeyed from Kadesh.” This was the name of a town.
  
  Verse 38
  
  . בחדש החמישי באחד לחודש, “in the fifth month on the first of the month.” This was the New Moon on which Aaron died. On the ninth of that month (many hundreds of years later) the Temple was burned and the Torah with it. On the 7th of the month of Adar following Moses died, as is reported in Joshua that the Children of Israel crossed the river Jordan on the tenth of the first month (Nissan). You may deduct the three days that the people prepared food for the crossing and 30 days during which the people mourned their leader and you will find that Moses must have died on the 7th of Adar (compare Joshua 4,19 and 1,11).
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד, “the Canaanite, i.e. the King of Arad heard.” This verse follows mention of Aaron’s death  to teach that when the Canaanite noticed that Aaron had died and that the protective cloud-cover over the camp of the Israelites had disappeared, they assumed that it was now permissible to attack this nation.
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
    ויחנו על הירדן מבית הישימות עד אבל השטים בערבות מואב, “they made camp by the river Jordan, from Bet Yeshimot until the plains of Shittim in the wilderness of Moav. The Torah describes the length of the camp, i.e. 12 “mils” (13,5 km.) We have the personal testimony of Rabbi Bar bar Chanah who was shown this site (Eiruvin 55). This is when G’d gave the direct order to disinherit (exterminate) the people residing in the land of Canaan at that time, as the people had now come very close to carry out this directive by crossing the river.
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  . והורשתם את הארץ, “you shall drive out the land.” The meaning is to drive out the inhabitants of the land. Once you have done this, you will be able to settle in it. If you fail to drive out the present inhabitants you will not be able to stay in the land for long.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . כי אתם באים אל ארץ כנען, “for when you come to the land of Canaan, etc.” The grammatical construction of the letter ה in front of the word ארץ is similar to Chronicles II 15,8.
     זאת הארץ אשר תפול לכם בנחלה, ארץ כנען לגבולותיה; “this is the land which will fall to you as an inheritance; the land of Canaan according to its boundaries.” The reason that the Torah refers to the distribution of the land as נפילה, something that “falls,” is that the lots by means of which the shares were allocated “dropped, fell,” on the ground.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Massey 4: The word תפול teaches that G’d first deposed the respective celestial representatives of these Canaanite nations; He made fall from heaven these erstwhile celestial representatives and bound them, demonstrating to Moses that they had lost their power.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . והיה לכם פאת נגב ממדבר צן על ידי אדום, “Your southernmost point shall be from the edge of the Wilderness of  Tzin, at the side of Edom.” The word על יד means the same as אצל, “next to.” We also find this expression in Numbers 13,9. The purpose of this whole list is to tell the Israelites the part of the country they were obligated to conquer. Rashi comments that this is extremely important as there are many commandments in the Torah which are applicable only within the boundaries delineated by the Torah in this chapter. It was critical therefore to know these details precisely.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . נחלה מצרים, “to the stream of Egypt.” This means: “to the river dividing Egypt from Palestine,” and not to the river Nile.
  
  Verse 6
  
  . הים הגדול, “the Mediterranean,” known in the author’s time as “the Spanish Sea.” וגבול¸”and the western boundary.” The sea itself is the boundary. (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והתאויתם, the word is the same as והתויתם, “draw a line for yourselves for” (תו). Compare Ezekiel 9,4 “draw a line for yourself.” The southern boundary of the land of Israel consists of three countries: a small section of Egypt, the whole land of Edom, the whole land of Moav.” Rashi says so explicitly. [I presume that the reason the author quotes Rashi on this as his authority is that the definition “south” rather than “east” for the land of Moav, sounds peculiar, at least. Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
   ומחה על כתף ים כנרת, the word is similar to ימחאו כף, “clapping with one’s hands,” (Psalms 98,8) [i.e. an expression of closeness of two objects, touching].
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . שני המטות וחצי המטה לקחו נחלתם מעבר לירדן קדמה מזרחה, “and the two and a half tribes took their inheritance on the far side of the river Jordan in a south-easterly direction.” This whole detail is repeated here to describe the exact area of their inheritance. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אלה שמות האנשים אשר ינחלו לכם את הארץ, “these are the names of the men who will take possession of the land for you (on your behalf)”. We have translated this in accordance with Rashi, i.e. that each tribal head acted  as the trustee of his tribe. He in turn would distribute the parcel according to the number of families and the number of male members in his tribe. He would personally select these parcels and whatever he did was considered as if their legal representative had done it. The reason that the Torah names Eleazar the High Priest first, although he did not share out anything, is that Joshua was subject to his authority as he could not initiate a war without first obtaining Eleazar’s approval. The Torah here mentions ten of the tribes and their respective princes, omitting the tribes of Reuven and Gad as these tribes had already taken possession of their inheritance. It starts the list of the tribal heads with Yehudah as Yehudah‘s lot was determined first. 
  Why did the Torah repeat the word נשיא when speaking of the prince of the tribe of Gad, Buki ben Yagli and the princes of the tribes listed after him? Perhaps the reason is that Calev was so well known that there was no need to add his title. He had already been described by that title when the Torah described all the twelve spies in Numbers 13,2 as נשיא. Seeing that the prince of the tribe of Shimon, Zimri, was also well known in the negative sense of the word, a name may not have been mentioned as no replacement had yet been appointed to take the place of the slain Zimri. The title “prince” may have been withheld from the tribe of Binyamin in view of later developments involving the tribe in a civil war as a result of that tribe’s unwillingness to hand over a criminal (Judges, chapter 20,13). We find in Tanchuma Behaalotcha 12 that Elydad ben Kisslon, here mentioned as the prince of Binyamin was identical with Eldad, the colleague of Meidad, both of whom had prophesied as reported in Numbers 11,26. Seeing the man was already known as a prophet there was no need to add another (inferior) title to his name.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . צו את בני ישראל ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחוזתם ערים לשבת ומגרש לערים סביבותיהם, “instruct the Children of Israel to allocate (give) to the Levites from the heritage of their possessions, cities for dwelling and an open space around their cities.” The expression מגרש describes an empty space outside the city for decorative purposes extending around the walls of a city 1,000 cubits all around that city. This area must not be used to build houses on, nor must it be used to plant trees or perform any agricultural activities. It is reserved for use by the livestock of the Levites and their free-roaming animals.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    ומדותם מחוץ לעיר אלפים באמה, “you shall measure outside the city ...approx 2,000 cubits (in each direction).” The meaning is that the Levites were to be given a belt of two thousand cubits of land, the inner half of which has already been described in verse 2. The outer 1,000 cubits could be used to plant vineyards, etc. (compare Rashi).
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר, “In addition to them (the 6 cities designated for involuntary manslaughterers to take refuge) you will add another 42 cities for the Levites.”  This would make a total of 48 cities in which the Levites would dwell. Three of the cities of refuge were to be situated in the territories of the two and a half tribes on the east bank of the Jordan, the remaining three in Eretz Yisrael proper.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והקריתם לכם ערים, ערי מקלט, “you shall designate cities for yourselves, cities of refuge.” The expression והקריתם is derived from קריה, city.
     ונס שמה רוצח מכה נפש בשגגה, “and to such a city a murderer who killed a person unintentionally shall flee.”  Such a person is not guilty of the death penalty seeing he did not intend to kill his victim. This law demonstrates that the heart of the person is the prime driving force of man’s activities. This principle applies to the performance of all the commandments as well as to the commission of any sins. Exile is the penalty decreed here seeing that the man’s heart was not associated with his action. The death penalty never applies unless body and heart had committed the sin in question in tandem, in agreement with each other. The body contributes the relevant movement, the heart the relevant intention. Seeing in the example mentioned there was no such co-ordination between body and mind, the guilty party only has to be exiled.    By the same token, if a person performed a commandment, in accordance  with all its details but his heart was not involved, i.e. he did not mean to perform a commandment by doing what he did, he will not receive a reward for his deed (compare Nazir 23). This is what David meant when he said in Psalms 119,48: “I raise my palms toward Your commandments which I love, etc.” The “raising of hands” which David speaks of is the intention harboured by  his heart. We find these two words side by side in Lamentations 3,41: “let us raise our hearts with our palms.” 
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Massey 12: “the words: ‘he who kills a person inadvertently,’ emphasise the fact that the deed was inadvertent not accompanied by malice.” If a person who had killed intentionally were to claim that his deed had been committed inadvertently the city of refuge does not afford him any refuge even if he had already reached it. He would be removed even from the Holy Altar in the Temple and convicted. We know this from Exodus 21,14: ”if someone kills a person deliberately, using subterfuge, you shall even remove him from My Altar to apply the death penalty to him.” We find that this is precisely what happened to Yoav, David’s commander-in-chief, who held on to the corners of the Altar in order to escape prosecution for murder (Kings I 2,28). He was forcefully removed and executed by Benayahu. On the other hand, we find that the law to exile an involuntary murderer dates back already to the very beginning of human history when David exclaimed in Psalms 25,6: “O Lord be mindful of Your compassion and Your faithfulness; they are as old as time.”     According to the Midrash we quoted David said to G’d: ”Your compassion and faithfulness extend to the inadvertent killer of a human being for whom You have prepared a city of refuge seeing that such killer who did not kill intentionally is not guilty of death. This compassion of Yours dates back to the time You created man.” Although Adam brought death into the world, You did not kill him but You only exiled him as we know from Genesis 3,23: “He exiled him from Gan Eden.” We also have a verse describing this as an expulsion (verse 24 immediately following). [I suppose the Midrash bases itself on the repetition of the reference to Adam being expelled. Ed.]
  
  Verse 12
  
   למקלט מגואל, “as a refuge from the avenger.” The reference is to a family member of the slain person who would act as his avenger.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . שש ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם, “you shall have six cities of refuge.”  We learn from this verse that although Moses already set aside three of these cities (on the east bank) while he was still alive, they did not begin to function as cities of refuge until the other three cities were so designated after the conquest of the land of Canaan. Even though nine and a half tribes resided on the west bank of the Jordan as compared to two and a half tribes on the east bank, both sides had the same number of cities of refuge. This indicates that the relative incidence of murder in the territory of the two and a half tribes was statistically far higher than that in Eretz Yisrael proper. Gilead had a bad reputation in this regard as we know from Hoseah 6,8 :”Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood.” The provision of three cities of refuge for that part of the land of Israel reflects the goodness of the Lord as we read in Psalms 25,8: “Good and upright is the Lord; therefore He shows the sinners the way.” If G’d is so compassionate towards involuntary murderers, showing them a path how to escape from their predicament, how much more compassionate must He be towards genuinely righteous people!
      Nachmanides provides two separate reasons  why the Torah provided relatively more cities of refuge for a territory with such a  small population as the east bank of the Jordan. One reason cited is that it was in honour of Moses who had set these towns aside already during his life time when there really had not been any need to do so. The second reason is purely functional. Seeing that the territory in which the two and a half tribes settled, i.e. the territory formerly under the control of Sichon and Og was so much larger than that of the nine and a half tribes on the west bank, had the allocation been proportionate to the relative population, the average distance a potential killer would have had to travel to escape the avenger would have been so much greater that his chances of actually reaching a safe location would have been unrealistically small. Hence, the same number of such cities was allocated by the Torah to that region as was allocated to a region which had been ruled over by no fewer than 31 kings.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו וימות רוצח הוא, “If he had struck him with an iron implement and he died, he is a murderer.” The Torah legislated that if someone killed with a stone or a wooden implement the court will examine if the force used was sufficient to result in death under normal circumstances, i.e. if the victim were healthy. We know this from verse 17: “If he struck him with a hand-sized stone which is sufficiently large to cause death, or with a wooden implement.” These words mean that the court must weigh the relative strength of the blow according to the physique of who administered it and according to the implement employed to strike the victim with. When the blow was struck with an iron tool or weapon, the Torah does not apply such criteria but assumes that anyone who strikes a blow with such an instrument has murderous intentions. Iron instruments, even if as small as a needle are capable of causing death. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Rotzeach  Nefesh 3,1; 3,2, etc.)    If the killer pushed the victim so that he fell off the roof of a building and died, this is a situation covered by the words in verse 20: “if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled him from an ambush so that he died,” the killer is automatically assumed to have had murderous intent. If less lethal instruments caused the death of the victim the court has to assess if the blows inflicted were prompted by hostility. This is why the Torah wrote: “or he struck him in enmity with his hand.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ואם בפתע בלא איבה, “But if with suddenness, without enmity,” The word “suddenly” means that it was caused by an accident. The victim was close by the killer and he did not have a chance to be warned.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויפל עליו, “he caused it to fall upon him.” This verse caused our sages (Makkot 7) to determine that if someone kills unintentionally by dropping something while lowering it he must go to the city of refuge, but if it occurred while lifting the object he does not go.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
    וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדול, “and he will stay there until the death of the High Priest.” Our sages in Makkot 11 linked the duration of the stay of such an inadvertent killer to the death of the High Priest to the fact that the High Priest is the means of atonement for the people; it had been up to him to beseech G’d for mercy and he had failed to do so (adequately) or the tragedy of this killing would not have occurred. In this manner he shares the guilt of any murder which occurs during his tenure of the office of High Priest.   Furthermore, the death of the High Priest serves as a measure of consolation and comfort for the relatives of the slain person who will no longer bear a grudge concerning that killing. The Sifri on our verse also writes that seeing that the High Priest is the cause for the Presence of the Shechinah to dwell in Israel, i.e. the cause that lengthens the lives of the people, the killer had caused the opposite i.e. he caused the Shechinah to depart [by reducing the average life span of the people through killing someone prematurely, Ed.]. It is not appropriate therefore that the killer present himself in the vicinity of the High Priest. Hence he had to remain confined to the city of refuge.
     אשר משח אותו, “whom one had anointed.” The subject המושח is missing in this verse. It  is one of numerous verses where this occurs. Our sages in Makkot 11 derive from this missing word that if a High Priest died during the period that the court had to decide if the killer was an intentional killer or not, and a new High Priest was appointed prior to the end of the trial, the killer has to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the second High Priest. The reason that although the second High Priest was not even in office yet is still associated with this killer is that the new appointee should have prayed that the court would find the killer as innocent of wrongdoing instead of convicting him of manslaughter through negligence. [I believe the underlying linkage is that the killer confined in the city of refuge prays for the demise of the High Priest so that he can go home. Ed.]
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   והיו אלה לכם לחקת עולם משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם, “and these shall be for you a decree of justice for your generations in all your dwellings.” This verse teaches that as long as Jews reside in Eretz Yisrael and they have a Sanhedrin which functions, a Sanhedrin can function outside Eretz Yisrael. This is how Rashi explains this verse. Nowadays that there is no Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael, no Sanhedrin (its authority) is competent in the Diaspora either.     The meaning of the verse according to the plain text is that  even in these times there should be a judiciary wherever Jews reside, competent to rule on matters of financial disputes, compensation for injuries inflicted, etc., etc.; any infringement of laws for which the penalty prescribed by the Torah is 39 lashes such a court is competent to rule on. This is why the Torah writes the words לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם. However, in the absence of a Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael we are not entitled to rule on capital offenses [even if the host country were to give us such authority. Ed.]. We derive this from Sanhedrin 52 based on Deut. 17,9: ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט...ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא, “you will come to the priests, the Levites, and the judge...who will tell you from that place”. When there is a High Priest capital cases may be tried, when there is no High Priest such authority does not exist. We also learned this in the Mechilta (page 126) “how do we know that capital cases may be judged only when the Temple is standing? The Torah writes (Exodus 21,14) “from My Altar you shall take him to die.” When there is a Temple and an altar you may decree a death penalty; when there is no altar we have no authority to decree death by human hands. (Compare also Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, “and you must not accept a ransom payment in exchange of the life of the murderer.” The Torah tells us here that no amount of money is adequate to atone for the death of a Jew; hence a ransom payment is out of the question. The guilt of murdering someone is the greatest sin between man and his fellow man. Solomon told us in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit; let no one help him.” We may learn a lesson from Achav, King of Israel. When the prophet makes comparisons between the levels of guilt of different kings we are told in Kings I 21,25 concerning a very evil king, “there was never one like Achav who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord, at the instigation of his wife Izzevel.” When Achav’s sins were measured and his merits were weighed against them, the decisive sin held against him was that he had framed Navot and had him executed. This is why we read in Kings I 22,21: “the spirit (of the deceased Navot) came forward before the Lord and said: “I will entice him.” “How?, the Lord asked him.” And he replied: “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then He (G’d) said: “you will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.” (Compare Sanhedrin 102). The story is an illustration that although Achav had not even killed with his own hands and could have pointed to the court which convicted Navot as guilty as responsible for his death, G’d considered the deed as his. How much more severely must someone be viewed who killed with his own hands.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  . ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “you must not  bring guilt upon the land.” The word חנף means to commit evil secretly.
     ולא תטמא את הארץ, “so that the land will not be defiled.” The letter ת in the word תטמא is a feminine form third person. The verb is in a passive form. The Torah means that we must not allow the חנופה, the secretly committed sins, to contaminate the Holy Land. Alternatively, the letter ת is masculine, second person  active future tense and means: “each one of you is charged with not defiling the land.” The reason why such a sin would be grave is because “I the Lord dwell in it amongst the Children of Israel.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקרבו ראשי האבות למשפחת בני גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה, “the heads of the families of the sons of Gilead son of Machir, son of Menasheh approached;” this paragraph too is a continuation of the paragraphs dealing with the distribution of the cities to the Levites, land taken from the heritage of the ordinary Israelites. The term ראשי האבות refers to the princes. (Compare Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואם יהיה היובל לבני ישראל, “and when the Jubilee year will arrive for the Children of Israel, etc.” These people argued that if the daughters of Tzelofchod were to marry someone outside their tribe, the heritage they had been given would then pass over to their husbands and as a result would never revert to their tribe even in the Jubilee year. The result would be an increase of ancestral land of some other tribe at the expense of the tribe of Menashe. The legal reason was that inherited property is not subject to the Yovel  legislation.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ולא תסב נחלה לבני ישראל ממטה אל מטה אחר, “so that ancestral property will not make the rounds from tribe to another tribe.” This commandment was valid only for the generation of the Israelites entering the land of Canaan at that time (Baba Batra 120). At that time the twelve tribes of the Israelites on terrestrial earth corresponded to their exact counterparts in the celestial spheres (Zohar Bamidbar 118). If one tribe would have sold part of its ancestral territory to another, the result would have been an imbalance of the forces representing the tribes in the celestial regions. Once the people had settled in Eretz Yisrael which is the terrestrial counterpart of the sum total of all these celestial forces of the tribes, this did not matter anymore. 
  
  Verse 8
  
   וכל בת יורשת נחלה ממטות בני ישראל, “and any daughter inheriting ancestral land, etc.”  A girl whose father did not have a son who could inherit the land. This is why the Torah had to write a second time (verse 9) “so that the inheritance shall not make the rounds, etc.” (Ibn Ezra).  As a result of this verse it became a custom in Israel that if a girl who had inherited ancestral land married out of her tribe to describe her as a זונה, “a harlot.” She would therefore be deprived of the inheritance from her father.  This is the meaning of the words in Judges 11,1 that Yiftach the Gileadi was the son of a woman known as זונה, harlot [i.e. it is not a reference to her sexual mores. Ed.] The prophet is merely telling us that his mother had belonged to a different tribe than his father. Yonathan ben Uzziel also translates the word זונה in Judges 11,1 in the same way [cited by R' David Kimchi ibid., but is not found in our editions of Targum Yonathan].    Perhaps the meaning of the word לא תסב נחלה refers to persons, not landed property, and this would account for the Torah writing the same words twice. [It would be an oblique reference to the transmigration of the souls. If injustice would occur through the incorrect handling of ancestral property, certain souls thus deprived might have to be placed inside other bodies to right the wrong during another cycle of life on earth. Ed.]   This may also account for the use of the word ידבקו, “they shall cleave” (verse 9), seeing that this is a term applicable to both souls and bodies but not to land. The first time (verse 7) the Torah writes the word it refers to the body, the second time to the soul.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . מחלה, תרצה,  “Machlah, Tirtzah;” earlier  the Torah mentioned the names of these girls in the chronological order of their births, whereas here the Torah mentions them in the order of their getting married. When the Torah describes their husbands as “sons of their uncles,” this does not mean that the husbands were all brothers of one another (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אלה המצות והמשפטים, These are the commandments and the ordinances, etc.” the third Book of the Torah, the Book of Vayikra, known as Torat Kohanim concluded with the words “these are the מצות, commandments which G’d commanded Moses.” The fourth Book, the Book of Bamidbar, is also concluded (sealed) with similar words except that the Torah added the word והמשפטים, “and the ordinances (social laws).” The reason is that it contains the laws of inheritance, the legislation about murder, all laws governing the way people interact with one another.
      It is up to us to understand why in Bechukotai the Torah describes the laws as being commanded את משה, whereas in our verse here the Torah describes them as being commanded by G’d ביד משה, “through”, or “by means of” Moses. The reason is that after the first covenant  which the Children of Israel received and accepted at Mount Sinai the King (G’d) canceled it when they traded the invisible eternal G’d for the image of an ox, i.e. the golden calf. Their erstwhile glory turned to a source of destruction; when Moses observed the letters on the Tablets flying away he threw the Tablets on the ground.    Now, however, when the second covenant was made with the next generation in the wilderness of Moav, this covenant between G’d and the people was permanent. For the mountains may move and the hills be shaken (Isaiah 54,10), rocks may be dislodged from their place (Job 14,18), but this covenant  will never be annulled, the strong bond of love between G’d and His people will not be torn asunder. The words of this covenant were accepted by an oath and a curse [in case we should renege, (Sotah 37)]. Keeping all this in mind, the Torah wrote as its concluding words: “these are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to conclude with the Jewish people in the land of Moav in addition to the covenant He made with them at Chorev.”
  
  Devarim
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     מוכיח אדם אחרי חן ימצא ממחליק לשון, “He who rebukes a man (after me) will ultimately find favor; [more so] than he who flatters with his tongue.” (Proverbs 28,23) 
  Solomon was in the habit of rebuking everybody (through his writings) and he warned everybody who was fit to rebuke others to follow in his footsteps and to take his place. Seeing that the person who has been so rebuked had tended to relate to earth (rather than heaven) when he committed deeds which provoked the rebuke, Solomon uses the expression מוכיח אדם instead of מוכיח איש, i.e. that the rebuke was provoked through the rebuked person having identified too closely with אדמה.     It is well known that most rebukes are directed at the average person, the masses; the masses have different views, are not homogeneous. If they would all be of one mind and had similar outlooks they would be known as יחידים and not masses (common people). [I believe that our author distinguished between people who have a mind of their own whom he calls יחידים, individuals, i.e. people with a mind of their own, whereas he calls the people to whom we attribute a herd instinct המון עם, masses. Ed.]. Seeing that all these people do have minds of their own they do not easily accept rebukes seeing that what one person likes another dislikes. What is pleasing to one person is unacceptable to others. This is what prompted Rabbi Tarfon to say (in Erchin 16) “I am convinced that there is hardly a person nowadays willing to respond positively to rebukes. If one tells one person to remove the splinter in his own teeth the person told this would retort that the rebuker should first remove the wooden beams  which blocked his own vision.” It was typical of the people of his time that if one pointed out that someone wore a soiled garment, he would respond that the rebuker’s garment was even dirtier. People like to be flattered and not to be criticized. This recalls a statement in Ketuvot 105 according to which the reason that young scholars enjoy more popularity than their senior colleagues is the fact that the former refrain from rebuking people’s  religious misconduct.   Keeping all this in mind, Solomon said that, eventually, he who rebukes a man will find favor more so than the flatterer. Solomon was not unaware of the psychology of the people enduring rebukes; rather he spoke in terms of what is favored by G’d. He meant that the fact that people do not like to be rebuked is not decisive in the eyes of the Lord. He wanted to encourage people, especially leaders, who would live after him not to commit the error attributed to the young scholars in Ketuvot 105 by complimenting their parishioners rather than pointing out areas in which they should improve. Ultimately, only severe rebukes will have an effect on habitual sinners and save them from the results of their errors. G’d appreciates people who respond positively to rebukes; He accepts repentant sinners seeing that these people responded to rebukes and changed their ways. Ultimately, even the person who has been rebuked realizes that this is preferable to losing his life or even his soul by not being called to order and continuing in his wicked ways.   When Moses rebuked the Jewish people with harsh words, he found a favorable echo in the eyes of G’d. Moses invariably used tough language when rebuking the people as we know already from Kadesh (Numbers 20,10) when he called the people “rebellious.” Even as early as Exodus 16,7 Moses criticized the people for accusing Aaron and himself for leading them into the desert as if it had been Moses’ idea to do so.
      We are told in Devarim Rabbah 2 that when Solomon above spoke of the flatterers he referred especially to Bileam  (who had flattered the Jewish people as opposed to himself) and pointing out that as a direct consequence of Bileam’s flattery the Israelites suffered 24,000 dead at Shittim. Solomon portrayed Moses as the opposite of Bileam when he encouraged leaders to rebuke people for their shortcomings. This is what prompted him to say in Proverbs 27,6: “wounds inflicted by a loved one are long lasting; the kisses of an enemy are profuse.” He meant that discipline administered by a well-meaning father is effective, whereas the compliments of someone who hates you evaporate into thin air. Moses would rebuke the people every time they sinned and would pray for them thus endearing them to their father in heaven for tolerating the rebukes. This is why now, a few weeks before leaving the people permanently, he recalls to them all the sins they had committed while under his care. Moses listed some of the names where the more fateful sins had been committed.
   אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל בעבר הירדן במדבר  בערבה מול סוף בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן וחצרות ודי זהב, “These are the words which Moses addressed to the whole of the people of Israel, on the east bank of the Jordan, in the desert, in the wilderness of Moav, opposite Suf, between Paran and Tafel; at Lavan, Chatzerot, and Dee Zahav.” The reason the Torah writes the word במדבר, is not to repeat that the people were in the desert, but to tell us that Moses rebuked the people for sins committed in the desert. Compare Psalms 78,40: “How often did they defy Him in the wilderness, did they grieve Him in the wasteland!” Concerning the expression בערבה, Rashi comments that the word is to be understood as בשביל הערבה, that on account of being in the wilderness they sinned at Baal Peor, Shittim, sins which occurred in the area described as ערבות מואב. The word מול סוף was meant as a reminder of the Israelites having said sarcastically at the ים סוף, the Sea of Reeds: “did you take us here to die because there was a shortage of burial places in Egypt?” The people again complained when moving away from the Sea of Reeds as we know from Psalms 106,7: “they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.” The words בין פארן is an oblique reference to the episode of the spies; the words ובין תפל ולבן are references to the complaints uttered against the manna (Numbers 21,5) and the word חצרות is a reference to what occurred when Korach and his supporters rebelled, as well as to the inappropriate comments made by Miriam against her brother Moses. The words די זהב are a reference to the sin of the golden calf, a sin which was possible because they had a surfeit of gold. Compare Hoseah 2,10 who attributes sin to excess material wealth, “I who lavished silver on her and gold, which they used for the Baal.”
      Midrash Devarim Rabbah (an edition by Lieberman, according to Rabbi Chavell) concerning the meaning of the words ודי זהב, says that the word ודי is an acrostic of the 6 days in which G’d created the world, the four directions of the globe, and the Ten Commandments. Moses meant that if the comments of the Israelites had been restricted to these three subjects they would not have been guilty of any misdemeanor, they would have been as pure as gold.  All the words mentioned in this verse, which appear as if relating to locations, are only allusions to occurrences as these places do not exist (are never mentioned by these names). At the time when Moses made the speeches which form a large part of the Book of Deuteronomy, the people had already left the desert and were encamped on the fringe of civilisation near the banks of the Jordan. It follows that these descriptions must refer to sins committed in the desert. This is the opinion of Onkelos who explains these names as being oblique references to where the Israelites sinned, i.e. Moses was concerned with the image of the people and did not want to sound too harsh.
      Seeing that this Book is the fifth and last of the five Books of the Torah I want to explain to you the reason why the Torah has been divided into 5 separate Books and why the sequence is that which we find in front of us. You are aware already that although this fact has already been alluded to (Midrash on Genesis 1,3 on the words “let there be light”) these “Books” are essentially all closely tied to one another. The reason that the Torah commenced with the Book of Bereshit is that the record of the world coming into existence is a basic foundation of our faith. Without this knowledge the concept of G’d supervising and taking an interest in all life on earth would not exist and all of us would consider ourselves as being no more than “accidents” on earth. Once we have established that G’d the Creator takes an interest in what He has created, and especially in the human beings, it follows that there is such a thing as “reward and punishment.” Seeing that these concepts are critical to the Torah they have all become part of the Book of Genesis. The Book of Bereshit therefore had to include some basic commandments, else, the fact that a system of reward and punishment for obedience to the Creator exists could not be demonstrated. These commandments must include positive as well as negative commandments.    As far as the reward for observing the commandments is concerned, the expulsion of Adam from Gan Eden illustrates punishment on a personal level, whereas the deluge demonstrates punishment on a collective level. Noach’s being saved demonstrates reward on a personal level. The prediction of both this reward and punishment demonstrated to both the victims and the survivors that G’d must be Master of the universe, i.e. of nature, ergo its Creator. What befell the people concerned proved that He (unlike a painter who completes a painting) did not sit back and leave His universe to self-destruct but made sure that it would endure (even while allowing man free will). After conclusion of the Book of Bereshit, the second Book of the Torah commencing with the names of the sons of Yaakov is the corollary of the story of the patriarchs who imbued their descendants with this faith in G’d and His Justice.    Once a person possesses faith in the fact that G’d was the Creator, it is only a small step to believe that He is Unique, and the Only G’d. The second Book of the Torah which contains so many examples of the Uniqueness of the Creator, and His revealing Himself to the people of Israel is a natural sequence to the Book of Bereshit.   The Book Vayikra, the Book dealing with the sacrificial service, follows next seeing that the sacrifices represent the bringing closer together and unifying the various forces in this universe until they ultimately reach the Original Cause. The righteous person succeeds in unifying these apparently different and heterogeneous forces through his devotions. Once the unifying force of these sacrifices has been demonstrated the next Book is that of Bamidbar Sinai which contains the story of Eretz Yisrael. It is the logical corollary of the Book of Vayikra, to point out that the sacrificial legislation applies only to the land of Israel. As soon  as the Israelites had received the Torah, and the legislation concerning the sacrifices, they were meant to proceed directly to the land of Israel. Had it not been for the sin committed by the spies (and the people who accepted their estimate of their situation), the people’s progress would not have been delayed for 40 years by their wandering in the desert. After the Book of Bamidbar has been concluded and the people’s unity with G’d had been restored we come to the fifth Book, אלה הדברים. Seeing that the principal residence of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael was not the period during which the two Temples stood, but commences only with the final redemption which is not followed by another period of exile, the Torah wanted to conclude with a Book in which the ultimate redemption is discussed or alluded to. This will be an event comparable to a renewal of the universe itself (compare author’s comments on Deut. 30,3). This event will represent the true purpose and culmination of the creation of the universe, i.e. essentially another Book of Bereshit.
      We need to understand still why this Book opens with the words אלה הדברים, [traditionally a term which separates from the foregoing. Ed.] instead of ואלה הדברים, just as the Book of Shemot had commenced with the words ואלה שמות in order to demonstrate that it was the logical continuation of the Book of Bereshit. The reason is that although the fifth Book is a continuation in the sequence of the five Books, it is at the same time something unique, just as the etrog, although part of the four species over which we recite benedictions on the festival of Tabernacles is in a class by itself and therefore not bound together with the other three plants, the lulav, the hadass and the aravah.    The second letter ה in the tetragrammaton, i.e. the name י-ה-ו-ה, although part of that name, is nonetheless not quite an integral part of the name which basically represents the attribute of Mercy, as this very letter ה at that point represents the element of Justice. We have explained many times that neither attribute ever appears in a pure form, i.e. the attribute of Justice is always accompanied by at least a small proportion of the attribute of Mercy, and vice versa, the attribute of Mercy is always accompanied by a small proportion of the attribute of Justice. The letter ה at the end of the tetragrammaton represents that portion of the attribute of Justice. It is described by Kabbalists as the “weak,” i.e. diluted form of the attribute of Justice. It is perceived as disciplining Israel for seven specific sins. In our case, the Book of Devarim, the fifth Book of the Torah, is better known as משנה תורה, “a second” version, repetition, of the Torah. This is why Moses commences with severe words of rebuke, recalling seven sins committed by the people under his stewardship of them. The seven sins are: the complaints in the desert, the sin of Baal Peor, the rebellion at the Sea of Reeds, the sin of the spies, the belittling of the heavenly food, the manna; the revolt of Korach, and the sin of the golden calf. “Tofel and Lavan,” are two references to the same sin. The seven sins are also alluded to in the Tochachah in Leviticus 26,18: “therefore I will punish you further seven ways for your sins.” Keeping this in mind, you will find that Moses, instead of speaking in the name of Hashem, as he did generally in the other Books, uses the attribute ה' אלו-הינו, i.e. a deliberate combination of the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice when he refers to what G’d has commanded in this Book. The most pronounced example of this is Devarim 4,24: כי ה' אלו-היך אש אכלה הוא א-ל קנא, “for the Lord your G’d, He is a consuming fire, a jealous G’d.” This is a reminder of the manifestation of G’d’s Presence the people had experienced at Mount Sinai.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אחד עשר יום מחורב, “eleven days’ journey (distance) from Mount Chorev.” These words are also part of the rebukes. Moses reminded the people that the traveling time from Mount Chorev to Kadesh Barnea is normally eleven days. The people had traversed this distance in only three days. This very fact should make them understand that the reason they had remained in the desert for so many years was only due to their sins. Had they not sinned G’d would have shortened their travel time instead of lengthening it.    How did the people travel during the three days we just mentioned? The Torah tells us that the people broke camp after having remained around Mount Sinai since the 1st of Sivan in the first year of the Exodus (10 days short of a full lunar year). The cloud lifted on that day as we know from Numbers 10,11. One month and nine days later, i.e. on the 29th of Sivan, Moses sent the spies on their mission from Kadesh Barnea. If we count backwards to the 20th of Iyar, we have to consider that during these 39 days at least 30 days were spent at a place named  Kivrot Hataavah, where the people gorged themselves on meat  (Numbers 11,21). In addition, they were stuck at Chatzerot, waiting for Miriam to be cured from her tzoraat (Numbers 12,14-16). You will note that there were only a total of three days left during which the people could have traveled between the 20th of Iyar and the 29th of Sivan. It follows that they must have covered the entire distance from Sinai to Kadesh Barnea in three days.
      According to Devarim Rabbah (an edition by Lieberman, according to Rabbi Chavell), the words אחד עשר יום מחורב, “eleven days from Chorev,” must be understood to mean that for only eleven days after leaving Mount Chorev could the people of Israel be described as perfect vis-a-vis G’d. The Midrash speaks of the 40 days that Moses was on the Mountain. During the last 29 days they were already contemplating making the golden calf. Another opinion quoted in that Midrash claims that the people remained completely loyal to G’d for only two days out of the 40 days that Moses had absented himself. The author of that view bases himself on Isaiah 58,2: ואותי יום יום ידרשון “As to Me, they seek Me out one day, one day (daily).” A third opinion quoted in that same Midrash claims that the people remained completely loyal only for a single day basing itself on Deut. 4,10: “the day you stood before the Lord your G’d at Mount Chorev.” Yet another opinion expressed in that Midrash claims that the people were not even totally loyal for an entire day, but committed idolatrous acts even on that very day. The source quoted for such an extreme view is Isaiah 17,11: “on the morning you sow, you see it bud but the branches wither away on a day of sickness and mortal agony.” [The author of the Midrash presumably searched for the source of the corruption as the thought that a people perfectly loyal to G’d could not have committed the sin they did just because they saw that Moses was six hours late returning from the Mountain. Ed.].    Another approach to these words: the word אחד and עשר are not to be understood as “eleven,” but have to be read separately, i.e. “one,” “ten.” The first of the Ten Commandments, the אנכי ה' אלו-היך was the theological problem the people could not deal with satisfactorily. Moses reminds the people that the anger they caused G’d stems from their not accepting that commandment properly.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ויהי בארבעים שנה בעשתי עשר חודש, “It was in the fortieth year, during the eleventh month, etc.” Moses rebuked the people when he was already close to death; you find that our patriarch Yaakov also waited until he was close to death before rebuking those of his children whom he wanted to rebuke (Genesis chapter 49). Joshua also waited until he was close to death before he rebuked the people (Joshua chapter 24). The prophet Samuel was also close to death when he challenged the people to tell him if they had any complaints against him (Samuel I 12,2-3). King David also waited with telling his son Solomon who needed to be rebuked (Kings I 2,1).
  
  Verse 4
  
    אחרי הכותו, “after he had defeated, etc.” a reminder of how G’d had been on the side of the Israelites and had defeated the mighty kings Sichon and Og using Moses as His agent. Moses now decided the time had come to rebuke the people for past errors. [Moses reminded them that if anyone had the right to do so he possessed those credentials. Ed.]
     אשר יושב בעשתרות באדרעי, “who was dwelling in Ashtarot at Edre-i.” We find that the Bible uses the term Ashtarot to describe three totally different phenomena. The term is used to describe 1) mountains, 2) flocks of sheep; 3) a form of idolatry. In this instance the Torah tells us that Og lived in mountainous country. The reason the Torah tells us this is that not only was Og, the giant, personally powerful and awe-inspiring, but the terrain in which he had his capital was easy to defend and most difficult to conquer. The same applied to a place called עשתרות קרנים which the Torah mentioned in Genesis 14,5 when it described Kedorlaomer defeating the giants residing there. The reason that place was called not just עשתרות, but עשתרות קרנים, is that the sheep which have horns קרנים, used to graze in those mountains just as did the mountain goats and gazelles.    The flocks, sheep, are referred to as Ashtarot in Deut. 7,13 where the Torah writes עשתרות צאנך, when referring to flocks of sheep and goats. The word’s root is עשר, “wealth,” i.e. these flocks provide wealth for their owners through their milk, their wool and their young. We have been told in Chulin 84 that one should make a practice of selling land (a field, but not ancestral land in the land of Israel) and buy עתודים, he-goats with the proceeds, based on Proverbs 27,26: ”the he-goats, the price of a field.” We also have a verse making a similar point in verse 27 of the same chapter, i.e. “the goat’s milk will be sufficient for the food of your house, and for the vital needs of your maids.”   The term Ashtarot is used to describe idolatry in Judges 12,6 ויעבדו את הבעלים ואת העשתרות, “they served the Baalim and the Ashtarot.” The reason this term is used is that the image representing the deity was a sheep (and the fertility it represents).
     באדרעי, “in Edre'i.” This is the name of a province in which the king’s capital was located. They used to build it at the edge of a mountain in the flat land, and there would be assembled his entire army. This is the meaning of that word in Numbers 21,33, where the Torah describes where the battle took place.
  
  Verse 5
  
   הואיל משה באר את התורה הזאת, “Moses began explaining this Torah.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses wanted to explain to the people at this time all the commandments and the fact that the essence of the Torah is contained in the Ten Commandments. Seeing that the parent generation of the people assembled had heard the Ten Commandments ,directly from from G’d, Moses repeated the text so that at least they would hear it from his mouth. Even though the people were already familiar with the Ten Commandments, having heard them from their fathers, and they believed in the divine origin of these commandments, the fact that Moses was an accredited prophet in their eyes made hearing them from him equivalent to hearing them from G’d Himself.
      A Midrashic approach: Moses commenced explaining the Torah in the land of Moav explaining 49 facets of the Torah in a way that would yield authentic exegesis, [our sages call it טהור, ritually pure] and also demonstrating that one can pervert Torah exegesis by 49 ways and obtain 49 inadmissible, “ritually unclean” ways of exegesis. The number 49 corresponds to the numerical value of the word מואב. [This explains that the words בארץ מואב are not to be translated as “in the land of Moav,” seeing the people of Israel had been forbidden to violate the borders of Moav. Ed.]. We have a similar explanation on Song of Songs 5,10: דודי צח ואדום, where these words do not mean “my beloved (simile for Hashem) is clear-skinned and ruddy,” certainly not an appropriate description for G’d. The word דודי is a simile for the 24 Books of the Bible, seeing that its numerical value is 24. The word צח has a numerical value of 98, reflecting the 2 sets of 49 ways to interpret the Torah (pure &amp; impure) discussed above. We also have an allusion to this kind of exegesis in Proverbs 2,4 כמטמונים תחפשנה, “search for it as you would for treasures.” The word מטמונים is understood as מ'ט טמונים, that the Bible or Torah contains 49  (מ'ט) “hidden meanings.” The word מונים as “times” appears already in Genesis 31,7 when Lavan changed Yaakov’s wages עשרת מונים, “ten times.”
  
  Verse 6
  
   ה' אלו-הינו דבר אלינו, “the Lord our G’d spoke to us, etc.” You have to remember that throughout this Book Moses always refers to G’d with both attributes, i.e. Hashem and Elokim. I have already mentioned this at the end of verse 1.   בחורב, at Mount Chorev. This is the same as Mount Sinai.
  
  Verse 7
  
    ואל כל שכיניו, “and to all its neighbors,” i.e. Ammon, Moav, and the Mountain of Se-ir.  והחוף הים, “and at the beaches of the Sea.” This refers to the coast of Ashkelon, Azzah, and Caesaria and other coastal towns along the Mediterranean.
  
  Verse 8
  
   לתת להם ולזרעם אחריהם, “to give to them and to their descendants after them.” Our sages in Yalkut Shimoni 801 understand these words to mean: “to the people who took part in the Exodus and to their descendants,” i.e. the ones who took part in the Exodus from Babylonia. The additional word אחריהם, “after them,” refers to the people alive at the time of the final redemption, the ingathering of the exiles from the present Diaspora. It appears that the reason the Midrash had to interpret the text in this way is the fact that the Torah spent 3 verses on the subject. Each verse adds a new dimension not stated previously. The next verse on the subject is Deut. 11,21; in verse 9 of the same chapter the Torah repeats this message but without the words: “as long as there is a heaven over earth.” This prompted our sages to understand Moses as referring to three separate inheritances.
  
  Verse 9
  
  . ואומר אליכם בעת ההיא לאמור, “I spoke to you at that time, saying:” the word לאמור here refers to Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law who had given this advice. When G’d indicated His approval, Moses accepted this advice in practice (Exodus 18,23).
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ה' אלו-היכם הרבה אתכם, “the Lord your G’d has multiplied you, etc.” Moses referred to the increase of the Jewish people during their sojourn in Egypt. They had arrived there comprising only 70 persons, whereas by the time they left Egypt they numbered over 600,000 fighting men. As of the time when Moses was addressing them they were so numerous they could not be counted. It is also possible to understand the words הרבה אתכם as not referring to quantitative increase in the people of Israel but to the qualitative increase; they had developed into a powerful nation. The word רבי המלך in Jeremiah 39,13 means the distinguished people of the King, גדולי המלך.
     והנכם היום ככוכבי השמים, “and here you are to-day as the stars in heaven.” Moses compared the people to the stars from a quantitative perspective; this is why he added the word לרוב, “in quantity.”
      A Midrashic approach, found in Devarim Rabbah (Lieberman edition 16 only)  the words “and you are as the stars in heaven” are a reference to the encampment of the Jewish people, and are similar to when G’d showed Avraham that all the zodiac signs in heaven surrounded the Shechinah. Similarly, the flag of the Jewish people, three tribes and their flag in each direction is perceived with the Shechinah in the centre of the camp (the Tabernacle). G’d had told Moses: “just as the zodiac signs surround Me and I am in the centre, so your children will multiply and encamp according to their respective flags while My Presence will dwell in their midst. In other words: “your encampment as of this day (on earth) is similar to My camp in heaven.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  . ככם אלף פעמים, “like you, one thousand times.” According to Devarim Rabbah, 13, quoted by Rashi, Moses explained that this blessing was his personal one, and therefore limited. G’d, however, would bless the people without placing a limit on His blessing. This is the meaning of Moses’ rider “as He has said to you,” i.e. “you will be like the dust of the earth (Genesis 28,14).
  
  Verse 12
  
    איכה אשא לבדי טרחכם, “How am I able to carry alone the trouble of you, and the burdens, etc.”  The “trouble” Moses was referring to was that he had to explain the meaning of the commandments to foolish people. Our sages in Sifri Devarim 12 explain that the Israelites were bothering Moses with a great deal of litigation and the loser in litigation would never be content with the judgment but would claim that he had witnesses whom he had not presented, arguments which he had not used, etc., all in order to reopen the matter. Moses would have to add more judges to  review the case.
     משאכם, “your burden.” A reference to the demands for meat and water. We know that in Numbers 11,11 Moses had asked G’d to relieve him of משא כל העם הזה עלי, “the burden of this whole people.”
   וריבכם, “and your bickering.” This teaches that the people had a habit of quarreling with one another. 
  
  Verse 13
  
    ואשימם בראשיכם, “I shall place them as heads over you.” Moses gave these people positions of honour so that the people would respect them. Our sages (Rashi) point out that the word ואשמם is written defectively, the letter י being missing after the letter ש. This converts the word into אשם, “guilt.” The spelling teaches that the sins of the people of Israel are largely blamed on their leaders if these had been in a position to stop the people from committing these sins and they had failed to exert their authority. (The author notes that in our version of the written Torah the letter י described by the sages as missing is part of the text.)
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . אנשים חכמים וידועים, “wise men, knowledgeable ones.” Moses does not mention נבונים, “men of insight,” one of the criteria suggested by Yitro that he look for. He had not found people who possessed this quality (Sifri Devarim 15).
     שרי אלפים, “chiefs of thousands.” This means that one such “chief” would be in charge of 1,000 Israelites. Similarly, there would be judges in charge of 100 Israelites, judges in charge of 50 and judges in charge of 10 men.
     ושוטרים, “and law enforcers.” Men who would enforce the judges’ decisions by physical force.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ואצוה את שפטיכם, “I commanded your judges.” This refers to the judges being cautioned that although they might feel that similar cases had been judged by them many times, each case has to be addressed as if it were the first of its kind.
     שמוע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק, “listen among your brethren and judge righteously.” This means that the judges should attempt to settle conflicting claims by getting the litigants to agree to arbitration. Technically, the wording suggests: משפט, “judgment,” which is the result of צדק, “charitable attitudes” by both litigants.
     ובין גרו, “and his litigant.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 7) derive the word from לגור, to sojourn; they mean that even if the dispute concerns minor matters such as arguments about use of a dwelling, a stove, between people who live in the same house.
  
  Verse 17
  
   לא תכירו פנים במשפט, “Do not show favoritism in judgment.” This is a warning to a judge not to display a stern attitude versus one of the litigants and a mild attitude versus the other party.
     כקטון כגדול תשמעון, “listen to claims involving minor sums of money as if it concerned major sums.” Do not relate to disputes involving pennies as a waste of the court’s time.
     לא תגורו מפני איש, “do not display fear before any man.” The warning is addressed particularly concerning litigants who enjoy a reputation of being violent.  כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא, “for the judgment is G’d’s.”  This is a reminder to the judges that they are not representatives of man but of G’d. If they base their decisions on what pleases man instead of on what pleases the Lord, G’d will find other ways to repay them for their sin. If they convict an innocent party, thus enriching the guilty, G’d will redress the imbalance in His own way. We find this sentiment expressed by King Yehoshaphat in Chronicles II 19,6: “Consider what you are doing, for you judge not on behalf of man, but on behalf of the Lord, and He is with you when you pass judgment.”
      A kabbalistic approach: the words כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא,“for judgment is G’d’s,” emphasise the connection between שופט  and דין, “judge” and “justice.” The judge receives his input, inspiration from the attribute of גבורה, also known as the attribute of Justice,  מדת הדין. This is the reason why the judge of the universe is known as אלו-הים, seeing He draws on that emanation גבורה situated on the left side of the diagram of the emanations. Seeing that G’d, i.e. the attribute אלו-הים is described by Assaph (Psalms 82,1) as both G’d and judge, it is not surprising that the attribute אלו-הים is applied by the Torah to judges who perform G’d’s work. משפט=דין הנחתך, “Justice= the result after the “discussion of the legal points, לדון, have been concluded.” It is the finished product, “cut and dried,” i.e. separated from the theoretical discussion. When the Torah (Exodus 22,8) speaks of עד האלו-הים יבא דבר שניהם, the meaning is not that the dispute has to be submitted to G’d, but that it be submitted to mortal judges. Seeing the judge performs G’d’s function, he is accorded this title. If such title is accorded to man, on occasion, it is most certainly also accorded to angels who, by definition, always perform G’d’s work as His agents. Both the angels and the mortal judges receive their input from the attribute of Justice, the emanation גבורה. 
      You should appreciate that seeing the emanation is situated on the left side of the diagram of the emanations, as we know from Ezekiel 1,10 “and the face of the ox was on the left” (of the chayot), the Great Sanhedrin was also known as שררך (Song of Songs 7,3). Rashi explains that its seat was at the navel of the earth, in the centre, at the Temple. The office where the deliberations were held was known as לשכת הגזיז, the office of “cutting,” i.e. where definitive judgments were made, where after deliberations the judgment became (in colloquial terms) “cut and dried” (compare Midot 5,4).   תקריבון אלי ושמעתיות , “submit (bring close) to me so that I can hear it.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 8 considered that these words of Moses were words for which he was punished. The reason the law of inheritance which the daughters of Tzelofchod submitted to him was concealed from him was because he had given the impression that he could deal with the most difficult cases unassisted. I commented on this in connection with Numbers 27,4.
      We must nevertheless wonder what sin did Moses commit here against Hashem, and why he should be punished for it? How do the words תקריבון אלי, express arrogance on Moses’ part? How else was he to have phrased the message that matters which the chiefs of thousands had been unable to resolve should be brought to him as the Chief Judge so that he could attempt to resolve them? 
  Perhaps the fact that Moses, who had already said in the first half of this verse that “judgment belongs to G’d,” now made it seem as if he equated his own knowledge with that of G’d  is the reason why our sages felt that Moses was punished for this. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ונלך את כל המדבר הגדול, “we went through this great desert.” This refers to the wanderings during the eleven days of which Moses spoke earlier. והנורא ההוא, “and that awesome one.” [This is a reference to the dangerous reptiles inhabited by this desert;] there were snakes as large as beams and scorpions the size of bows. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
    ראה, נתן ה' אלו-היך לפניך את הארץ עלה רש, “See, the Lord your G’d has given the land before you. Ascend and take possession!”  Instead of the word ראה at the beginning of this verse we would have expected the words הנה נתן ה' אלו-היך לך את הארץ, “Here the Lord your G’d has given you the land.” Why did Moses change the usual syntax? He wanted to indicate to the people that seeing the protective angel of these people had already been dealt with by G’d, the people themselves should certainly not present any obstacle. All the Israelites had to do was ascend and take possession. The word עלה is to be understood as “climb on to, or over the protective angel of these people who had already been brought low.” The word ראה here refers to the mental eye of the people, their ability to understand the situation of the Canaanites after  the Lord your G’d has already given the land “before you,”
      This is also what prompted the sages of the Midrash (Tanchuma Massey 4) to write concerning the above words: “did then G’d literally place the land of Canaan at the feet of the Jewish people?” They answer that the meaning is that G’d made their protective angel fall to earth in front of the Jewish people. This is why we find similarly worded verses in verse 8 of our chapter, and a similarly worded report in 2,33: “go and take possession of the land” had been used in verse 8; the Torah, at this point should have written only: “take possession of it,” instead of  repeating the words את הארץ. The apparent repetition means that an obstacle which had existed in verse 8 had meanwhile been removed; the obstacle was the protective angel of the Canaanites. Rashi makes a similar point in explaining the wording of Deut. 2,31.    As to the word החל רש used by G’d in 2,31 as compared to the word רש without the preamble החל in our verse here, G’d meant that seeing He had commenced giving possession of the lands of Sichon to the Jewish people (at the time), it was now time to complete the work of taking possession of all the lands of the Canaanites and to complete the process. This is why in our verse the word החל, “begin!” would have been out of place. There was  no reason to add the word גמור, “finish, complete,” in our verse because as soon as the Israelites would have commenced to do their part (if the report of the spies had been uniformly favorable) the whole campaign would have ended almost as soon as it started. When G’d commences a war, it does not last long.    We have a Midrash Rabbah in Exodus 21,5 in which the same point is made concerning the demotion of Nevuchadnezzar of which Daniel speaks in Daniel 4,28 when a heavenly voice announced that the king had already lost his kingdom (although he still occupied the throne and bragged about his accomplishments). Rabbi Joshua ben Avin interprets the words  קל מן שמיא נפל in that verse as “an angel named קל, i.e. Nevuchadnezzar’s celestial counterpart, had fallen from heaven.” This is why the verse in Daniel did not speak about a voice from heaven being heard, or calling, but “falling.” It was not “a voice” but that angel. Immediately after that, heavenly voices saying: “your kingdom Nevuchadnezzar has departed from you, (and much worse)” were heard.
  
  Verse 22
  
  . ותקרבון אלי כלכם, “and all of you approached me;” the people did not come to Moses as a delegation in an orderly fashion but they mobbed him. (Sifri Devarim 20).
     ויחפרו לנו את הארץ, “so that they will spy out the land on our behalf.” The reason that the Torah uses the term חפר for what was really רגול, spying, is that digging is designed to uncover hidden objects; spying is also designed to reveal hidden things.
  
  Verse 23
  
  . וייטב בעיני הדבר, “the matter appeared good (worthwhile) in my eyes.” Moses felt that seeing the entire people were in agreement it was probably all right. The word בעיני, “in my eyes,” makes it clear that the suggestion did not find favour in G’d’s eyes. This is why, when G’d related to the project He told Moses: שלח לך, “send for yourself,” i.e. “not on My behalf. I am not ordering you to do this.”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  . הארץ אשר דרך בה, “the land on which he walked.” A reference to the city of Chevron, seeing the Torah had specifically mentioned that Calev came to Chevron (Numbers 13,22). Calev is mentioned first before Joshua, here and everywhere when G’d speaks of him.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ואתם פנו לכם, “and you — turn yourselves around.” A 180 degrees turn in the direction of the Sea of Reeds
  
  Verse 41
  
  . ותהינו, ”then you were ready.” The word is derived from הן. It is as if the people had said הננו ועלינו, “here we are ready to ascend” (Rashi). Onkelos renders the word as ושריתון למיסק לטורא, “you started to ascend the mountain.” If someone prepares himself to commence a project, an undertaking, he usually signals this by saying הנני, “I am all set to go.”
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
    כאשר תעשינה הדבורים, “just as the bees would do.” They chase anyone who touches their hives putting such people into mortal danger. 
  The verse also alludes to the fact that at least some of the pursuers died while pursuing the Israelites. The reason is that when bees sting they themselves die as a result of emitting their poison.
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
    ותשבו בקדש ימים רבים, “you remained in Kadesh for many years.” A total of 19 years. The words כימים אשר ישבתם mean as the total number of years you stayed in all the other locations. The subject is repeated in chapter 2 verse 14, where the number of years it took to get from Kadesh Barnea to the river Zered is given as 38 years. This number is confirmed in the Book called Seder Olam — "Nineteen years they spent in Kadesh and nineteen years they wandered the desert."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
    רב לכם סב את ההר הזה, “you have spent enough time being around this mountain.” G’d prevented the people from harassing the Edomites out of regard for the fact that their  patriarch Esau had shown much honour to their mutual father Yitzchak. G’d does not shortchange a single creature of the reward due to it. The reason is so that such a creature would not have an argument in the world to come and G’d could say to it that it had already received all the reward due to it for the merits it had accumulated while on earth.
     פנו לכם צפונה, “turn yourselves northward!” Devarim Rabbah 1,19 comments on this that when the time arrives for Esau to be supreme, it behooves Israel to move north. Another comment from the Midrash: G’d said: “I have only one Altar and he (Esau) is going to destroy it.” [It is seen as a concealed warning not to make common cause with the people who in the end will destroy the Temple. The Israelites (Hyrcan and Antipater) who called in the Romans for political reasons lived to suffer the consequences. The word צפון is understood as something hidden, exclusive; in other words: “do not share your exclusive and direct ‘hotline’ to G’d.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
    אתם עוברים בגבול אחיכם בני עשו, “you are passing through the boundary of your brethren the descendants of Esau, etc.” G’d reminds the people that although these people are descended from Esau they are still to be considered as “your brethren.”    The word בגבול is an allusion to the fact that even Edom/Esau’s ascendancy (the Roman Empire) will have a limit גבול, although all the people of the earth are eager to join that Empire and they stream from all sides to join that culture. The Midrash uses a verse in Ovadiah 7 to prove this. The prophet writes: “all your allies turned you back at the frontier;” the second part of the verse reads: “they have duped you and overcome you.” The prophet describes how the one-time fair-weather friends of Rome have abandoned it and worse. The first half of the verse describes Edom/Esau’s ascent, the second half its decline.
     וייראו מכם ונשמרתם מאד, ”they will fear you; but you shall be very careful.” In what way can you be careful? By not harassing them and provoking them.”
      Rabbi Eleazar in Devarim Rabbah reflected on this verse by saying: “woe to the ears who have to listen to such instructions! If we have to be worried about the Edomites even while they are afraid of us, what is it going to be like under conditions when we are afraid of the Edomites seeing we are in exile, under their sovereignty!” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi preferred to read the words as the following message: “if you want them to be afraid of you, what can you do to ensure this? Be very careful with Torah observance, i.e. ונשמרתם מאד.” This expression has been used by the Torah also when warning us to protect our lives through maintaining our physical health (Deut. 4,15).
  
  Verse 5
  
  עד מדרוך כף רגל, “even the right to set foot.” G’d forbade the Israelites to set foot in the territory of the Edomites unless specific permission had been obtained.
      A Midrashic approach mentioned by Rashi: the word עד is understood as indicating a time in history, i.e. until the day comes when the Lord’s “feet” are described as standing on the Mount of Olives ushering in the redemption and the destruction of Edom and all it stands for (Zecharyah chapter 14). Another view expressed in Devarim Rabbah (Lieberman edition 24), also understanding the word עד as a reference to a certain point in time, links setting foot on Edom’s territory to Isaiah 63, a chapter in which the prophet deals with G’d returning from making war against Edom. In verse 3 of that chapter we read (G’d speaking) “I trod out a vintage alone...their life-blood bespattered My garments and all My clothing was stained.”
     כי ירושה לעשו, “for it is an inheritance for Esau.” This claim goes back to Avraham. G’d said that He had allocated the territory of 10 nations to the descendants of Avraham, seven to the Israelites, whereas the territories of the Keyni, the Kenizi, and the Kadmoni were given to Ammon, Moav and Se'ir. One of these territories was allocated to Esau, the other two to the descendants of Lot (Rashi).
  
  Verse 6
  
  . אכל תשברו מאתם, “You may purchase food from them;” Our author understands these words as a question: “Do you need to purchase food from them? Are you short of water?” In other words: “seeing that all your needs are taken care of why would you be interested to set foot on the soil of these people?” This is also why the Torah immediately continuous with: “for the Lord your G’d has blessed you in all your handiwork during all these forty years.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
    ונעבור מאת אחינו בני עשו היושבים בשעיר מדרך הערבה מאילת ומעציון גבר, “we moved on away from our kinsmen the descendants of Esau, who dwell in Seir; from the way to the Aravah, from Eylat and from Etzyon-gever.” We turned away from (ערבה) from the paths of the Lord and Torah; this is why the Edomites were not given to us to conquer at this time (a Midrash found in Lieberman’s edition of Devarim Rabbah, not the standard printed text) [The implication of the words עציון גבר in this Midrash is that instead of honoring the נעשה ונשמע the Israelites had pledged at Sinai, they regressed to man-made counsel, the result being a reduced-size Eretz Yisrael. Ed.]
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים, “the Rephaim were also considered as similar to giants.” According to Rashi, Moses says to the Israelites: “you thought that this is the land of the Rephaim which I have allocated to Avraham, seeing that the Eymim who are identical with the Rephaim used to live there. However, this is not correct; the territory of those Rephaim I have allocated to the descendants of Lot and I have made the descendants of Lot settle there. The reason that these Rephaim were considered as identical with the Eymim, fear-inspiring like the giants was that although they themselves were not giants, they nonetheless succeeded in making everyone afraid of them as if they had been giants. We find a similar construction in verse 12: ובשעיר ישבו החורים, “and the Chorim who had lived in Seir.” This is a reference to the inhabitants of that land before Esau took over that territory allocated to him by G’d.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
   ויהי כאשר תמו כל אנשי המלחמה  למות ...וידבר ה' אלי לאמור, “It was after all the arms-bearing men had finished dying, the Lord spoke to me, etc.” According to the plain meaning of text Moses is telling the people that as soon as the Israelites had become aware that all the men who had been 20 years old at the Exodus had died, G’d communicated once more with Moses and commanded the people to march past the territory of Moav.  According to our sages in Taanit 30 G’d had not spoken (individually) with Moses since the time the spies had died and the generation of the adults who had been redeemed from Egypt had been condemned to die in the desert. This proved that Moses’ elevated position was entirely due to the people he represented. When these people were in disgrace, Moses was made to feel this. This condition remained static for 38 years until the 15th of Av of the fortieth year. This day became a day of great rejoicing as the fact that G’d commenced His dialogue with Moses indicated that the people were once again in a state of grace. It was also a special day for Moses personally as it signaled the return of his prophetic powers. The reason that the prophetic powers did not already return to Moses on the 10th of Av, i.e. precisely after the anniversary of the debacle with the spies,  was because at that time, in the second year when the decree against the people had been promulgated, Moses observed 7 days of mourning for the decree, a period when he would not have been the recipient of prophetic insights, seeing that a state of joy is required for a person to possess such powers. Now, on the 15th of the month of Av, both Moses and the people could rejoice simultaneously.    If you will peruse the text of the Torah starting with the debacle of the spies’ mission, you will not find that G’d addressed Moses, i.e. the words  וידבר ה' אל משה. You will only find ויאמר ה' אל משה, i.e. a level of communication reserved for prophets of lesser stature, people who receive an “indistinct message,” the kind G’d referred to when He rebuked Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12,6 (compare Baba Batra 121). This will also help you understand Jeremiah 1,6 who had said to G’d: “here I am only a lad, and I do not know how to speak, דבר.” He did not mean that he had a speech impediment, but that due to his low level of prophetic insight he could not communicate his message with the appropriate degree of clarity. He alluded to this by adding the word אהה before saying א-ד-נ-י אלוקים, The fact that G’d communicated with Jeremiah on the lower level of prophecy is confirmed by verse 7 in that chapter, i.e. ויאמר ה' אלי. [Incidentally, seeing that in Korach, etc. we do find the formula of וידבר ה' אל משה, this may be proof that the uprising of Korach had occurred prior to the debacle with the spies. This editor has always felt that Korach’s bid for power made little sense seeing that all the people who joined him were bound to perish in the desert, ignominiously, so why risk your life for such positions? Ed.]. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   החל רש, “commence to take possession;” רש is derived from ירושה, meaning 'inheritance'. According to Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6,1 the word החל is derived from חולין, “profane, not sacred.” G’d told Moses that as far as the Israelites were concerned, He had made the land of the Emorites no longer “sacred” i.e. out of bounds to the Jewish people. It was permitted to conquer that land seeing that it belonged to an idolater, Sichon. [I suppose this means “as opposed to the Moabites who had owned most of it at one time and whose territory G’d had declared out of bounds to the Israelites.” Ed.].
  
  Verse 25
  
   אחל תת פחדך, “I shall begin to put the fear of you, etc.” This verse contains a hint that the sun stood still for Moses during the battle against Og just as it stood still in Joshua’s time. This is the opinion of the sages in Taanit 20 who say that there were three people on whose account the orbit of the sun was arrested. They were: Moses, Joshua, Nakdimon son of Gurion. The latter case is testified to by the Talmud. [The miracle was performed in order for Nakdimon not to have to pay a huge sum pledged to the Romans in exchange for water from their stores for the Jews in the event it would not rain by a certain date. Ed.]. We know that the sun was arrested in its orbit in response to a prayer by Joshua when he asked in Joshua 10,12: “let the sun remain still at Givon and the moon at Ajalon.” This is followed in verse 13 by: “the sun stood half way up in the sky.” How do we know that something similar occurred  for Moses? Rabbi Eliezer points to the word אחל in our verse, and the same word in Joshua 3,7 where G’d promises Joshua to display his greatness to the people. G’d adds that “just as I was with Moses I will be with you.” The implication is that the performance of the miracle of the sun standing still for Joshua will prove that he, just as Moses for whom the sun had also stood still, is great.   Rabbi Yochanan brings a different proof from the word תת. In our verse G’d says that He will begin to put the fear of Moses into  the nations surrounding the Jewish people. In Joshua 10,12 that word תת also appears in connection with “silencing, or arresting” the sun. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni in Avodah Zarah 25 feels that the whole text of the verse is sufficient proof. Seeing that G’d promises to put the fear and dread of Moses into all the people under the sky, how was this to be accomplished simultaneously? By some manifestation of something supernatural in the sky, visible to all. What was it? The arrest of the orbit of the  sun. This is the reason the Torah referred to היום הזה, i.e. all the nations of the world would become aware of this phenomenon on the same day. 
  Seeing that the continued existence of the terrestrial universe depends on the functioning of the orbits of the sun, this miracle was as great as the acts of creation described in Genesis. Even a brief interruption of the movements of the sun could lead to serious ecological damage to parts of the earth exposed at the time. The fact that both Joshua and Moses caused the sun’s orbit to be arrested (for several hours in the case of Joshua) without negative fallout for the inhabitants of the earth caused people to become overawed by the power of Moses and Joshua respectively. This miracle cannot be compared to that which occurred when King Chizkiyah of Yehudah asked that the hands of the sundial be reversed; this is why that King was not mentioned as in the same category as Moses, Joshua, and Nakdimon (compare Tossaphot Avodah Zarah 25). In that miracle the sun never stood still; it only traveled backwards for the appropriate amount of time, but it remained in motion. The word נקדה used by the Talmud in Taanit to described what happened to the sun for the sake of the three people mentioned is the same as the word נקודה, a stationary spot. That very word already makes it clear that what happened in those three instances was different from what happened at Chizkiyah’s request (compare Kings II 20,10-11).
      Tanchuma Acharey Mot 9 focuses on the word דום “be silent,” rather than עמוד, which appears in Joshua chapter 10. The sun is perceived as constantly praising the Almighty, i.e. its motion is the way in which it praises the Lord. If it stands still, this results in its temporarily ceasing to praise the Lord. It therefore cannot proceed when it remains silent. Its function is aptly described by David when he said in Psalms 113,3: “from the east (where it rises) until it sets the name of the Lord is praised by means of it.” Seeing that this is the sun’s function, i.e. to praise the Lord, Joshua commanded it to be silent, i.e. to cease to function. Arrest of its motion is simply a corollary. The Midrash there elaborates that the sun did not simply accept Joshua’s command but demanded to know how it could be that a “minor” could command a “major?” It meant that seeing it had been created before man, how could man presume to issue orders to the sun? Joshua replied to this argument: “why should not a free (willed) person, even though junior, be able to give orders to a senior who has no freedom of choice?” Upon hearing this, the sun was silent and as a result its orbit ceased. This is the meaning of: “the sun stood in mid-heaven” (Joshua 10,13).
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
    אכל בכסף תשברני, “sell me food in exchange for money!” The meaning is “in the event that I need to buy supplies.” Similarly, מים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי, רק אעברה ברגלי, “water in exchange for money give me so that I may drink it,; only let me pass through on foot.” Moses referred to the armies marching though Sichon’s territory. From this verse you can deduce that when the prophet Zecharyah had depicted G’d as standing on the Mount of Olives (Zecharyah 14,4) this was a reference to the heavenly hosts and soldiers. (The author discussed this in detail on Genesis 6,6).
  
  Verse 29
  
  . כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the children of Esau have done for me.” It is quite impossible to understand these words to mean that the Edomites had provided the Israelites with bread and water seeing that Moses includes the Moabites in his statement and we know for a fact that the Moabites had done no such thing. After all, one of the reasons that a Moabite may not become a proselyte is precisely because that nation had not offered bread and water to the passing Israelites when they were in need of it (Deut. 23,5). The words  must refer to the request to be allowed to march through their lands without causing any damage. Verse 4 in our chapter means that the Edomites were quite amenable to the Israelites traversing the mountain of Seir at the border of their country. The king of Edom only refused the Israelites to travel through the built up area of his country, the fastest route to the land of Canaan. This is why he had said לא תעבור בי (Numbers 20,18) i.e. “not through my capital.” Neither he nor his people had any objection to the territory of their land being used as a passage for the Israelites. I explained it there. 
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי הקשה ה' אלו-היך את רוחו ואמץ את לבבו, “for the Lord your G’d hardened his spirit and made his heart stubborn.”    This kind of language is employed only when the people concerned are wicked in the extreme and beyond redemption. Pharaoh was another example of such a person whom G’d deprived of his free will as a penalty for abusing it so grossly. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Teshuvah 6,3). Seeing that these people’s sins were not outgrowths of an overpowering urge, but were based on a deliberate attempt to thwart G’d, they are denied the opportunity to repent at a certain stage in their lives. Even when they are emotionally ready to repent, G’d causes some event which make their minds resist such attempts. You will find that the Torah does not mention such an attempt by G’d to prevent Pharaoh from true repentance until after he had already failed to repent and his promise four times (compare  Exodus 7,13; 8,11; 8,28; 9,7;). We find something similar in Kings I 18,37 where Elijah refers to G’d having caused the hearts of the people of Israel as turning away from Him as a punishment for their many and repeated sins (Maimonides Hilchot Teshuvah 6,3).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . כל חבל ארגוב, “the whole district of Argov;” according to Rashi the word refers to “a province;” other commentators believe that Argov is the name of an individual who used to own this strip of land, having inherited it, and that it had been measured with a rope to determine its boundaries, hence the word חבל ארגוב. Onkelos translates it as בית פלך טרכונא, “the resi-dence in a district by that name, i.e. a famous palace.” Our verse then would refer to the province in which the palace was situated.
  
  Verse 5
  
  . לבד מערי הפרזי, “apart from the ‘open’ cities;” the ones scattered throughout the countryside, not protected by a wall. The word occurs in connection with Jerusalem in Zecharyah 2,8 where the prophet suggests that in the future Jerusalem will not need a wall around it to protect it against invaders.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  . צידונים יקראו לחרמון שריון והאמרי יקראו לו שניר, “The people of Tzidon would call Mount Hermon Siryon, whereas the Emorite would refer to it as Senir.” We find here three separate names seeing that in Deut. 4,48 Mount Hermon is also called Siyon. Why did the Torah have to record all these names of Mount Hermon? It was to give us an idea of the prominence and esteem in which the land of Israel was held. Everyone of these respective nations (their kings) would refer to his own land by a name reflecting a location in the land of Israel. [By calling his capital Mount Hermon in their language, they would pay tribute  to that Mountain in Israel and to their own standing in Israel. Of course, in their arrogance, they would make believe that the Israelites had named their mountain to correspond to the capitals of their own respective countries. Ed.] (Sifri Eykev 37).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר מיתר הרפאים, “for only Og, King of Bashan, was left of the remnants of the giants” whom Amrafel and his colleagues had killed, as we read in Genesis 14,5: “they killed the Rephaim in Ashtarot Karnayim.” Og had escaped from the battle; this is why the Torah reports “the escapee” as reporting to Avram that Lot had been taken captive (Genesis 14,13). Our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 25 identify this “fugitive” as having been Og.
     באמת איש, “by the standard measure “cubit” applied to everybody else.” Onkelos translates this as אמת מלך, “by the measure known as “cubit” in the country under control of that king.” The measure was called after this king who had established it.  The word מלך when used by Onkelos is a defective spelling for the word  מלכא, King, in Aramaic. Onkelos alludes to the fact that Og was the only survivor of the descendants of Kayin whose giants had been introduced to us by the Torah in Genesis 6,2 as בני אלוהים. (Compare author’s comments at the end of Numbers, 21,34 and this Editor’s translation.)
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים, “the land called ‘the land of the Rephaim,’” i.e. the land G’d allocated to Avraham.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
    ואצו אתכם בעת ההיא, ”I commanded you at that time, etc.” Moses was now speaking to the tribes of Gad and Reuven. Seeing that they were part of the people of Israel, Moses used the pronoun אתכם, “you,” as if his commandment applied to all the tribes. Actually, it would have been less misleading if he had used the pronoun אותם, “them.” (compare Ibn Ezra).  We find something similar at the end of the Torah where Moses “officially” addresses the Levites (Deut. 31,25-27) commencing with “Moses comman-ded the Levites ... to take the Torah scroll  and to place it at the side of the Ark;  “I have known your rebelliousness and stiff neck, etc.” Although Moses is reported as speaking to the Levites, he addresses the whole people. [The Levites most certainly did not have an exclusive on being rebellious, rather the reverse. Ed,] 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
    עיניך הרואות את כל אשר עשה ה' אלו-היכם לשני המלכים האלה, כן יעשה ה' לכל הממלכות, “your eyes who have witnessed all that the Lord your G’d has done to these two kings, thus will the Lord do to all the kingdoms.” Moses reinforced the people’s confidence regarding the battles ahead by recalling to them what they had themselves experienced in the war against Sichon and Og. This would give them the necessary faith in G’d that they would easily overcome the 31 kings who would be defeated before the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua. Also Joshua’s heart was strengthened by these reminders of Moses that it would be he who would  enter the land that Moses himself had not been allowed to enter.
      A Midrashic approach (Midrash Tehillim 136) Sichon and Og were more difficult to overcome than Pharaoh and his armies at the time. Seeing that the people had celebrated their victory over Pharaoh by reciting a song of thanksgiving to the Lord, they should most certainly have done so also after their victories over Sichon and Og. Since they failed to do so, David made up for this omission in psalm 136, 17-20: “Who struck down great kings, His steadfast love is eternal; Sichon, king of the Emorites, Og king of Bashan, and gave their land as an heritage to His servant Israel for His love is eternal.”
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
     מלוה ה' חונן דל וגמולו ישלם לו, “G’d is a lender to him who is gracious to the poor; He will recompense him.” (Proverbs 19,17)
   In this verse Solomon explained to us the usefulness (on a functional level) of practicing charity and the great reward in store for performance of this commandment both in this life and in the world to come. It is a well known fact that the eyes of the wealthy person are turned inwards towards his wealth or to the many people whom he believes to be his friends. Solomon himself said in Proverbs 14,20 that the rich have many friends. The poor on the other hand, has no one to focus his eyes on except Hashem. He cannot rely on his personal wealth, seeing he does not have any. He cannot turn to his friends either, seeing that the poor do not have many friends. Even if he had friends from before he became poor, they will likely abandon him as they do not want to be associated with “a loser,” a person whom they now perceive as a failure. Solomon already taught us this piece of human psychology in Proverbs 19,7: where he said: “all the brothers of a poor man hate him; how much more is he shunned by his one time friends. He pursues them with words but they are not to be found.” In verse 4 of that same chapter Solomon had already said that a poor man finds himself separated from his friend. Solomon means that even if he had one solitary friend left, this one too soon turns his back on him. Seeing the poor is shunned by his peers, G’d loves him instead.   This point is made succinctly in Isaiah 14,32: “in it (Zion) the needy of His people shall find shelter.” Seeing that the Jewish people (Zion) act as lenders to Hashem in supporting the poor when they perform charity, Hashem in turn is indebted to them and has to repay them both in this life and in the hereafter. It is not the custom for the Book of Proverbs to mention commandments explicitly written in the Torah unless a new dimension of that commandment is added to our understanding of it thereby. When Solomon speaks about חונן דל instead of מרחם, in Proverbs 19,17 “granting grace to the poor, instead of extending mercy to the poor,” the reason is that the word חונן suggests חינם, extending help for free, without demanding any sort of recompense from the recipient. Even when the recipient did not have a claim on such largesse, G’d extends it “without strings attached.” He had explained this as being one of His attributes when He told Moses at Mount Sinai וחנותי את אשר ארחם, “I reserve the right to extend My grace to whomsoever I will extend My mercy” (Exodus 33,19).   We are commanded to emulate this attribute of Hashem when the Torah writes in Deut. 28,9: והלכת בדרכיו, “you shall walk in His ways,” i.e. just as G’d extends His mercy not asking for anything in return, we too must relate to the poor without asking anything in return. When someone practices this commandment and he makes certain requests from Hashem in the course of his prayer, his prayer will be favorably received. We have proof of this In Psalms 30,9 where David says: “I called to You my Lord, to my Lord I made appeal.” The repetition is an explanation of why David thinks he has a right to make such an appeal. Moses did something similar in the first verse of our portion when he describes himself as having pleaded with G’d, i.e. ואתחנן. He was busy for 40 days and 40 nights praying and none of his prayers was responded to positively until he used the תחנה prayer.
   ואתחנן אל ה' בעת ההיא לאמור, “I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying:” the words בעת ההיא, “at that time,” refer to the aftermath of the defeat of Sichon and Og, whose lands were given to the Israelites. At that time Moses had dared hope that maybe the decree that he would not be allowed to enter the Holy Land had been canceled. This verse is a continuation of verse 21 when the Torah mentioned ”these two kings.”
     לאמור, “to say.” This expression is strange as who was G’d to say this to? The fact is that the word לאמור here refers to the movement of the lips of Moses during prayer. We have encountered a similar construction in Numbers 12 13: ויצעק משה אל ה' לאמור, “Moses cried out to Hashem saying.” On that occasion I already commented on the meaning of the word לאמור at that juncture. 
    A Midrashic approach to the words ואתחנן אל ה' בעת ההיא לאמור; Moses said to G’d: “You have called me ‘servant,’ seeing You have said to Miriam and Aaron: “not so My servant Moses” (Numbers 12,7). I am Your servant and Leviathan is Your servant. I am pleading with You and Leviathan is pleading with You. We know that Leviathan is pleading with You from Job 40,27: “Will he plead with you at length? Will he speak soft words to you?” You have accepted the pleadings of Leviathan [why else would Job be unable to catch the Leviathan unless G’d had responded to its pleas? Ed.]  Moses continues: “Leviathan apparently has made a covenant with You to remain Your lifelong slave.” Moses argued that seeing G’d had also said to him that He had made a covenant with him (Exodus 34,10) why should G’d listen any less to his entreaty than to that of the Leviathan?” Moses added that apparently G’d did not mean to keep this covenant with him else why did He tell him that he would die on the mountain he would ascend (Deut. 32,3)? There is another verse in Exodus 21,6 that if the slave does not want to leave the master and go free that he will have his ear pierced and serve the master forever? Moses claimed this right for himself in his prayer. He complained that G’d did not apply that rule to him. G’d answered him: רב לך, meaning: “as far as you are concerned Your adversary, i.e. Adam, the first human being, already caused the decree that you or any human being cannot live forever seeing he had eaten from the tree and he and his descendants have been condemned to become mortal. The very Job whom you have cited as discussing the fate of Leviathan  already said (Job 31,35) concerning Adam: ‘O that I had someone to give me a hearing; O that Shaddai would reply to my writ; or my accuser draw up a true bill!’” Which was the book he talked about? The ספר תולדות אדם, the Book of the descendants of man (Genesis 5,1). Thus far the Midrash. 
  
  Verse 24
  
   אדוני אלו-הים אתה החילות להראות את עבדך את גדלך...אעברה נא ואראה,  “My Lord, G’d You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness...please let me cross so that I may see, etc.” There are a number of puzzling points in this entreaty by the foremost prophet that ever lived. How does the fact that G’d showed Moses some of His greatness relate to his desire or entitlement to cross the river Jordan into Eretz Yisrael?
      According to the plain meaning of the text the words: “You have begun,” refer to the giving of the Torah, the performance of which is man’s purpose on this earth. This was the reason Moses injected the words את עבדך, “Your servant,” to point out his function on earth to keep the laws of the Torah, [some of which he could most certainly not keep if denied entry into Eretz Yisrael. Ed.] The word את גדלך, “Your greatness,” Moses chose seeing that in connection with the giving of the Torah, the Torah itself spoke about את כבודו וגדלו, “G’d’s having manifested Himself in His glory and greatness” on that occasion (Deut. 5,21). The words את ידך החזקה are also a reference to what occurred on that occasion at Mount Sinai as we know from that same verse where the Torah writes: ואת קולו שמענו מתוך האש as well as 4,36: מן השמים השמיעך את קולו ליסרך ועל הארץ הראך את אשו הגדולה אשר יעשה  כמעשיך; all these quotations of G’d’s attributes Moses mentioned, the Torah had mentioned in connection with the revelation at Mount Sinai. The word מעשיך refers to G’d manifesting Himself in the heavens, the word גבורותיך, to G’d manifesting Himself on earth. This is the reason that Moses addressed two attributes of G’d at the beginning of his plea when he said “Lord-G’d.” When G’d commenced the decalogue He  introduced Himself as אנכי י-ה-ו-ה- אלוה-יך.    You may best understand the sequence of the verses to which Moses referred as follows: “seeing that You G’d have begun to give the Torah through me, and the Torah in the main cannot properly be observed except in the land of Israel, and we have a principle that if someone commences to fulfill a commandment he is given an opportunity to complete it, it follows that I should be allowed to cross the Jordan in order to complete fulfilling the commandment which I began fulfilling when You G’d gave us the land of Sichon under my leadership”. This is the way my great and revered teacher Rabbi Shlomo Aderet explained Moses’ prayer.
      It is possible to view Moses’ prayer as a plea to allow him to translate into terrestrial reality his spiritual accomplishments in understanding the structure of the emanations. The words אתה החילות להראות are a reference to the enlightenment in these matters he had been granted; by saying אעברה נא ואראה, Moses asks to be allowed to relate all these insights to what needs to be done on earth to bring these two spheres, the celestial and the terrestrial, into tandem. [I have paraphrased this paragraph and condensed  it. Ed.].
      A Midrashic approach, based on Devarim Rabbah 2,8: the words אתה החילות are a reference by Moses to G’d Who was the first One to refer to the Israelites as rebellious when He said in Numbers 17,25 למשמרת לאות לבני מרי, “as a sign for the rebellious ones,” (the Israelites who had challenged the appointment of Aaron). Seeing that G’d had decreed Moses’ punishment on account of his having addressed the Israelites as שמעו נא המורים, “listen please you rebellious ones,” (Numbers 20,10) and immediately thereafter G’d had decreed that Moses could not enter the land of Israel, Moses now argues that he had been entitled to use this word seeing G’d Himself had already called the Israelites by that adjective.
      A kabbalistic approach: with the words ”you have begun to show me Your greatness, etc.,” Moses refers to his first encounter with G’d at the burning bush. When he goes on to describe G’d’s attributes, he means that it had been his privilege to acquaint the Jewish people with these attributes of G’d and His accomplish-ments in his capacity as His prophet. (David uses similar language in Psalms 86,8) Seeing that this has been so, Moses begs to be allowed to see the Holy land with his own eyes. The reason the name of G’d is spelled א-ד-נ-י in his plea here is that Moses alluded to Psalm 114 7-8 in which G’d is called  אדון חולי ארץ, in connection with turning the rock into a lake of water. That verse referred to the incident at the rock where Moses had become guilty of this punishment. He now begs forgiveness by alluding to his sin in this indirect way. The word י-ה-ו-ה with the vowels of “elo-him” are an aspect of the attribute of Justice which contains a large measure of the attribute of Mercy. The word ואתחנן is used  next to the attribute of Justice by Moses as when one asks forgiveness one does not address the attribute of Mercy but first has to assuage the attribute of Justice. We also learn this from Job 8,5: אם אתה תשחר אל א-ל ואל שדי תחנן, “if you want to pray to the Lord (to forgive your sins) first plead with the attribute Shaddai.”
     הארץ הטובה,ההר הטוב, “the good land, the good mountain.” Tanchuma Va-etchanan 1 explains Moses’ words by means of a parable. A king who wanted to marry a certain lady sent some of his trusted messengers to look over the prospective bride. When the messengers returned they reported that the bride was the most ugly woman they had ever seen. A friend of the king who overheard this report by the king’s emissaries upbraided them by saying: “how can you have the nerve to give such a report seeing that the girl in question is extremely beautiful, unmatched in fact!” When it came to the wedding, the father of the bride told the king’s emissaries that none of them would be allowed to participate in the wedding feast seeing they had slandered the bride. When the friend of the king was about to enter the wedding feast the father of the bride told him that he too was not welcome. To this, the friend of the king said: ‘how can you deny me entrance seeing that I have praised your daughter without even having seen her whereas the other messengers of the king described hers as indescribably ugly!’ Now I want to see her to see if perchance the messengers had spoken the truth or if I have been right all along!” This is what happened when  Moses prayed to cross the Jordan. As long as the spies who had been sent to evaluate the bride (the land of Canaan) had issued a negative report saying that this land ate up its inhabitants, and Moses had been full of praises to the people of Israel concerning that land, he had done so merely on faith. Now he asked G’d for a chance to see if he had been right all along. This is why he said: “please let me cross the Jordan so that I can see the good land and the good mountain with my own eyes.”   ההר הטוב הזה והלבנון, “this good mountain and the Lebanon.” These words are similes for the Temple which “whitewashes,” מלבין, the sins of the Jewish people (Sifri Vaetchanan 28).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויתעבר ה' בי למענכם, “the Lord was angry at me on your account.” According to the plain meaning of the text G’d became filled with anger on account of your many complaints. We have a similar verse in 4,21 where the wording is והתאנף ה' בי על דבריכם, “the Lord was angry at me on account of your words. Moses’ own reaction to some of the Israelites’ complaints was described in similar language, such as in Psalms 106,32: “and Moses suffered on their account.” [His error had been caused by the Israelites’ annoying G’d. Ed.].
      A Midrashic approach to these words: The word ויתעבר is basically the same as ויעבור in Exodus 34,6 ויעבור ה' על פניו, “the Lord passed in front of Moses.” Moses refers to the time after the sin of the golden calf when, seeing that G’d had endowed him with greatness on account of the Jewish people and “G’d passed before him,” he pleaded with G’d to forgive his own sin as well, but G'd did not accept his plea.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word ויתעבר contains an allusion to the mystical dimension of calculating the lunar calendar. This idea is reinforced by Moses using the word בי instead of the word עמי, “with me.” On other occasions when the word התעבר is used as an expression of G’d’s anger such as in Psalms 89,39 the preposition used is עם, i.e. התעברת עם משיחך, “You were angry with Your anointed.”  It is common knowledge that the expression סוד העבור, is chosen as it depicts an element of עברה, זעם, i.e. Divine anger. The mystical dimension of all the orbits, the constant revolutions of celestial bodies which are a feature of this present imperfect universe (עולם הזה), are manifestations of the attribute of Justice. This is also the mystical dimension of Exodus 34,20 that G’d is פוקד עון אבות על בנים, that He remembers and punishes the sons if the sins of their fathers have not been expiated I have alluded to this principle when I discussed that verse and subject.    Another meaning of the expression פרשת העבור is that offered in Berachot 29, where Rav Chisda says that even when G’d is angry the needs of a pregnant woman, עוברה, are constantly part of His concern. Moses prayed that G’d should not allow His anger to blot out any other consideration. Some commentators in the Talmud there read instead of באשה עוברה, “at,” or “of” a pregnant woman,” כאשה עוברה “like a pregnant woman.” This error is responsible for these people misunderstanding the Talmud, as they thought G’d’s anger is compared to a pregnant lady. There can be no doubt that the correct text is באשה עוברה. This is also the view of the famous Kabbalist of Gerona, Rav Yitzchak the blind. [Incidentally, his house is the only trace of a Jewish presence ever in Gerona. This editor visited Gerona].    The reason that the science of calculating the time when the moon renews itself month after month is known as סוד העבור is that G’d knows all developments in human history long before they occur as well as the dates on which they will occur, as we know from Isaiah 41,4 קורא הדורות מראש, “He Who announced the generations from the start (of history).” [If the sages who calculate our calendar would err with the date the new moon is to appear and fix our calendar according to their faulty calculations this would cause confusion and play havoc with G’d’s plans seeing He authorized the Jewish sages to determine the calendar. Ed.]. This is why the סוד העבור is also known as כח הדורות, “the force determining human development.” All manifestations of trans-migrations of souls derive from the concept that G’d has foreseen all developments and finds ways of achieving His objectives in spite of man’s freedom of choice.    The word עבור is also closely related to the word רבוע, “square, divided into four equal parts,” (same letters differently arranged), an allusion to such transmigrations of souls being limited to a total of four such lives i.e. the original and a maximum of three transmigrations.  Another mystical dimension of the word עבור is that such transmigrations do not occur outside, (beyond) the original family of the body the soul lived its original life in [if I understand the author correctly. Ed.]
     רב לך אל תוסף, “enough for you; do not carry on.” According to our sages (Sifri Pinchas 135) G’d meant: “what has been reserved for you as reward in the hereafter is sufficient.” The word רב is understood by Sifri in the same sense as Psalms  31,20: “how abundant is the good that You have in store for those who revere You.”
      A Midrashic approach by Tanchuma Vaetchanan 6: when G’d said to Moses רב לך אל תוסף, Moses replied: “not only did my mother have to gnash her teeth when she had to throw me in the river, but now she even has to gnash her teeth in death (when I die).” G’d answered that this is the way He had decided in His מחשבה, and this is the way of the world, i.e. everyone has to die. [If I understand this, the Midrash refers to the word אל תוסף, interpreting these words as G’d saying to Moses: “do not add new rules to the way the world is run.” Ed.] 
  
  Verse 27
  
   ימה וצפונה ותימנה ומזרחה, “westward, northward, southward and eastward.” We do not find that the Bible describes the four directions of the wind in a uniform manner. Sometimes the Bible commences by mentioning the direction “east,” such as in Job 23,8: הן קדם אהלך ואיננו ואחור ולא אבין לו שמאל בעשותו ולא אחז יעטוף ימין ולא אראה, “but if I go (forward) East — He is not there; and backward (West) — I still do not perceive Him; “on the left hand (North) where He does work — since He is concealed, I do not behold Him; on the right hand (South) He is hidden, and I cannot see Him.” This is the appropriate order in which the directions should be referred to seeing they represent  two straight lines, East to West and North to South. The sequence we find in Job also corresponds to the promise G’d made to Yaakov in his dream (Genesis 28,14) “you will spread out West and East, North and South.” On other occasions such as Genesis 13,14, North is mentioned first, such as when G’d said to Avraham: “raise your eyes please and look from the place where you are standing, to the North, to the South, to the East and to the West.”  It is possible that the reason that in the case of Yaakov and Moses the reason why the Torah commences by mentioning West first is that the Shechinah which descended with Yaakov to Egypt (Megillah 29) is perceived as being in the West (Baba Batra 25). Here too, Moses addresses the Shechinah in the first instance and mentions תימנה as “southward,” instead of the more customary נגבה. The reason may be that in this way he was able to include one half of the Holy Name, i.e. either י-ה, or ו-ה in each of the four directions he made mention of. Had he said ונגבה, the second י-ה would have been missing. We must remember that Moses had previously exalted G’d by calling Him א-ל אלו-הי הרוחות, “the Lord G’d Who presides over the winds (directions of the earth).   The reason why G’d used the words עיניך twice when He responded to Moses’ prayer and why He told him to “raise” his eyes before looking and to physically ascend the summit is because from that location he would be able to behold the four corners of the land with his physical eyes and at the same time understand by means of focusing with his mental eyes on the four-lettered name of Hashem which symbolizes the highest מרכבה, on all directions of the world.
      You should appreciate that the four directions of the world, i.e. מזרח, מערב, צפון, דרום, are known by three names each. מזרח, (East) is known as מזרח, קדם or פנים. West is known as either מערב, ים or אחור. South is known as דרום, נגב or ימין. North is known as צפון, אסתן or שמאל. the meaning of these various terms for these directions is as follows: The reason the Hebrew word מזרח means East, is that the sun “shines” זורחת in the morning from the East. The reason it is also called קדם is because it proceeds in a forward direction from the East as it spreads its light over more parts of the globe. It is also called פנים (face) as when G’d created man he made him face East after completing him. His back faced westward, his right side southward, and his left side northward.    The name מערב for West, i.e. “mixing,” derives from the fact that the sun sets in the West; it is a time when the shadows merge, become confused and indistinct. It is also called ים as the great Sea, the Mediterranean, is the western boundary of the Holy Land. It is also called אחור, “rear,” seeing its counterpart, East, is also known as קדם, “front.” Incidentally, Onkelos calls the Mediterranean the ים האחרון, “the Sea of the rear,” or “the ים המערבאה, the Sea of the West.” The word אחור,  meaning “West” occurs in the verse from Job 23,8-9 we quoted earlier. The South is known as דרום, seeing that at its highest point at midday the sun is high in the sky. The word דרום is a combination of the two words דר רום, “residing on high.” Alternatively, we may view the word as an acrostic of דרך רום from Chabakuk 3,10 רום ידהו נשאת ”lifted up his hands on high.”     The reason South is called נגב, is that that direction is very dry, exposed to extreme heat of the sun which  spreads out over that region more than on any other. This is what Solomon referred to when he said (Kohelet 1,6) “it travels toward the South and then describes a turn moving northward.” Solomon uses the verb הלך in connection with the sun’s motion while shining, whereas he uses the verb סבב, “turning,” when describing the sun’s motion when out of view of man’s eyes. We have been told by the “scientists” that it happened once that someone living in the South forgot  a wooden bowl outside and left it lying outside in the midst of the sun’s rays in the middle of the summer. When he returned to pick it up in the evening he found it completely dried out, shrunk as if it had been burned by the fire. This is why the South is called נגב i.e. ”dried up.” We know this from Judges 1,15  where Calev’s daughter complains to her father that the land she was given was parched, dried out, deprived of water, and she  requested sources of water to offset it. The Targum there renders the words ארע דרומא, normally translated as “southern land,” as ימין, the right side, seeing that it is on the right of man as he was when first created, i.e. facing East. It is also possible that the reason for this translation is that the sun always has the south on its right. We have a verse in Daniel 1,5 וימן להם המלך, “the king provided for them.” This is the reason the provisions the Israelites received in the desert from heaven were called מן. The word reflects the fact that it was ready for them on a daily basis, i.e. available like “provisions.” The North is also called צפון because the sun is perceived as “hiding” in that region while invisible to man at night. Furthermore, the northern extremes of the globe are known to be unfit for human habitation. Our sages in Baba Batra 25 interpret Job 26,7 נוטה צפון על תהו to mean that ”He stretches Tzafon over chaos” means that the north wind does not operate there.    The word אסתן is not a Biblical term but one coined by our sages occurring as a proverb in Ketuvot 23 and meaning that when someone’s witnesses are in an inaccessible, “hidden” region, how can they be relied on? Rashi understands the word as meaning “north.” The author quotes some sources showing that the north wind is associated with therapeutic qualities, [maybe freezing kills the bacteria. Ed.]. At any rate, this would agree with the tradition that the Israelites did not circumcise their children while in the desert due to the absence of this North wind and its therapeutic effects on wounds.   The reason North is also known as שמאל, left, is that when man faces East, as we said, North is always on his left. It may also be due to the fact that it is on “the wrong side” of the sun, i.e. the sun never shining in that direction. The “left,” basically is associated with negative connotations, something inferior. The word, phonetically speaking, is related to סומא, “a blind person.” When we speak about something hidden, the Talmud uses the term סמוי מן העין, “hidden from the eye.”   According to a Midrash quoted in Tosafot Baba Batra 25 the reason that David spoke about Adam describing himself as having been created “both forward and backward” (Psalms 92,8), was because he faced forward toward sources of light, whereas his rear faced darkness, an absence of light, i.e. the rear of the sun being perceived as having no light to radiate. His right side, the one always exposed to the light of the sun was called “right,” his left, the northern side, always out of reach of the sun was called שמאל. This is the side with which man does not perform his work.
     כי לא תעבור את הירדן הזה, “for you are not going to cross this Jordan.” G’d meant that even Moses’ remains would not cross the river Jordan (Sifri Pinchas 135). This is what Moses had in mind when he said in 4,22: “I am going to die in this land, I will not cross the Jordan.” Seeing that if he were dead he could not cross the Jordan, the last part of the verse means that even his bones would not be put to rest in Eretz Yisrael. If Moses had not previously been informed of this decree, surely he would have commanded Joshua and Eliezer to  bring his remains for burial in the Holy Land. Or, he could have commanded the entire Jewish people to see to it that he would be buried in Eretz Yisrael, just as Joseph had done, and just as he must have done seeing he had carried Joseph’s coffin with him all these 40 years in the desert.   Yaakov, the last of the patriarchs, one of the supports of the מרכבה, was afforded burial of his entire body in Eretz Yisrael. Joseph only had his bones buried there. Moses, who surpassed both Yaakov and Joseph in his relationship with G’d, did not merit to have any part of his body interred on holy soil.  It was G’d’s wish that none of Moses’ body be interred in Eretz Yisrael as a form of respect for the entire generation of Jews who had died in the desert and whose remains had also not been interred in Eretz Yisrael. Also, it was a consolation for all the many hundreds of generations of Jews throughout the Diaspora who died and were buried in exile. The souls of all these people are in G’d’s care pending the resurrection, at which time not only Moses but the vast majority of them will also be resurrected.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ונשב בגיא מול בית פעור,  “We stayed on in the valley across from Bet-Peor.”  We had already been encamped there, as this was the ראש הפסגה Moses had mentioned in verse 27; seeing this was where the people had committed idolatry and adultery. Moses warns them once again concerning the sin of idolatry in the following paragraph.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . ועתה ישראל שמע אל החוקים ואל המשפטים אשר אנכי מלמד אתכם לעשות למען תחיו; “and now Israel hearken to the statutes and social laws I will teach you to perform in order that you shall live.” This verse teaches that learning, studying the Torah is not the main purpose of the Torah but performing the commandments one has studied. Our sages in Avot 1,17 stated this succinctly when they taught לא המדרש הוא העיקר אלא המעשה, “not the study is of the essence but the performance, the  deed.” Only performance of deeds is a guarantee of life (both here and in the hereafter).
  
  Verse 2
  
   לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם, ולא תגרעו ממנו “do not add to the words which I command you, nor subtract from it.” This is a warning for man not to try and be smarter than G’d by saying that he will do more than G’d commanded, by thinking that the addition will be considered part of his serving the Lord. This is why Moses had to point out that the Torah is perfect. Not only does it not need additions or subtractions but any addition is in fact a subtraction (Sanhedrin 29). Our sages in Sifri Re'ay 82 quote examples of what the Torah means by additions or subtractions. If someone were to take five paragraphs from the Torah and place them inside the phylacteries of the head, doing so deliberately as an addition to what the sages said, or if he were to present G’d with five species of plants on the festival of Sukkot, instead  of the four species mentioned in the Torah, or if a priest were to add a fourth verse to the three verses which form the priestly blessing, such a person would be guilty of violating this commandment.    On the other hand, if someone adds to the various Rabbinic “laws” instituted to protect Biblical laws against infringement and violation by the ignorant, such additions do not qualify as a violation of the commandment Moses speaks about here. Any Rabbinic ordinance introduced for the sole purpose of ensuring the observance of the Torah law as it is and protecting it against violation is not  called “an addition.” It is in  the nature of a fence around a vineyard, something that does not contribute to or enlarge the vineyard but merely protects it against thieves, marauders, etc. The classic Talmudic example for this is found in Shabbat 13 where the sages are quoted as encouraging a Nazirite to detour around a vineyard. It is not forbidden for a Nazirite to walk through a vineyard. However, if he does not walk through it it will be easier for him to resist the temptation of taking and eating from its grapes, something absolutely forbidden to him by Torah law. In fact, not only does observing the Rabbinic ordinances not constitute a violation of the commandment  not to add to the Torah’s laws, but violating Rabbinic ordinances violates a specific Torah commandment of “do not depart from the word that they tell you right or left.” The “they” are the duly authorized Rabbis (Deut, 17,11).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . ראה למדתי היום חקים ומשפטים כאשר צוני ה’ אלו-הי, “See, I have taught you this day statutes and social laws in accordance with what the Lord my G’d has commanded me.” Moses stresses that he never initiated any thing by himself claiming G’d had told him so. Our sages in Nedarim 37 see another dimension in Moses’ statement, namely that just as he did not charge a fee for teaching G’d’s laws so teachers of Torah must be prepared to teach it gratis, not demanding payment.  G’d did not charge Moses for teaching him the Torah either. This is also what Solomon meant in Proverbs 23,23 when he said: “buy the truth, never sell it.” When dispensing Torah knowledge the purpose must never be to turn a profit.
  
  Verse 6
  
    ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים, “You shall safeguard it and perform it, for it (the Torah’s laws) are what the nations perceive as your wisdom and discernment.” The verse teaches first and foremost that all the commandments only come into their own when being performed. Their integrity has to be safeguarded (against reformers) and their substance has to be carried out (when they are positive commandments) or performed by not violating them (in the case of negative commandments). All the worthwhile activities in the world are automatically part of one or more of the Torah’s commandments. The discipline of healing is part of a commandment seeing the Torah tells us that if we listen carefully to its commandments and perform all its statutes and refrain from violating them we will not experience disease, etc., (compare Exodus 15,26) “seeing the Lord is your Healer.” The message is clear: Torah observance=preventive medicine. The same applies to all other scientific disciplines.   Our sages in Shabbat 75 understand the words לעיני העמים in our verse as a reference to the people (astronomers, mathema-titians) who can calculate the movements and timing of the stars in their respective orbits. They go so far as to say that if someone possesses this knowledge and neglects to use it (for the benefit of mankind) he becomes the target of the verse in Isaiah 5,12: “they refuse to acknowledge the work of the Lord and refuse to see His accomplishments.”
     את כל החקים האלה, “all these statutes.” We would have expected Moses to say את כל המצות האלה, “all these commandments.” Why did he mention only the statutes? The fact is that not only do the Gentile nations not praise the Jewish people for these statutes they observe but they make fun of us for performing laws the value of which we do not comprehend. However, when the nations observe that by performing the commandments which do make sense to us the Jewish people have achieved a position of great prominence and success in the world, they reason that there must also be hidden values to the statutes even though such meanings defy our logic. They realize that the Torah does not contain any meaningless laws, כי לא דבר רק הוא, “it is not something empty, devoid of meaning and value.” This is why the Torah quotes the nations as saying: “this must be a wise and learned discerning people.” The words רק, “only,” are their admission that the Jewish people are the only people qualifying for such a compliment.
  
  Verse 7
  
    כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלו-הים קרובים אליו, “for who else is a great nation to whom G’d is so close!”  Moses hints in this verse at the superior status of the Jewish people who, when praying, are answered seeing they focus in their prayers on the supreme Power in the universe, the only Power able to fulfill their requests. This is why they are answered each time. Moses  describes the Jewish people here as גוי גדול, “a great nation,” instead of either as גוי קדוש, a “holy nation,” or גוי צדיק, “a righteous nation.” The reason is that גדולה, “greatness,” is the equivalent of the attribute (emanation) חסד, the highest attribute usually associated with Hashem such as in Chronicles I 29,10 לך ה’ הגדולה, והגבורה, והתפארת, “Yours O Lord is “greatness, mightiness and harmony.” The meaning of the verse then is: “who is a great nation so close to the attributes of G’d such as the Lord our G’d whenever we call upon Him!?” It was important for Moses to add “when we call upon Him, so that one should not think we address our prayers to the attributes instead to the essence, to Hashem.    This explains why our sages (Avodah Zarah 3) describe G’d as switching from being seated on the “chair of Justice” to the “chair of Mercy,” in order to avoid rendering verdicts which could be destructive. On the other hand, on occasion G’d has to switch from the “chair of Mercy” and seat Himself on the “chair of Justice,” in order to deal with certain situations in His universe. Everything in accordance with the need of the party who addresses Him in prayer.    Concerning these various attributes of G’d the prophet Chabakuk 3,8 said: “is Your rage against Yam (the Sea) or against Neharim, (rivers) that You are driving Your steeds, Your victorious chariot?” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah (68,10) comment on this that the rider is never secondary to the horse, but the horse is secondary to the rider. They are prompted to make this observation in connection with this verse as the prophet described G’d as venting His rage at the forces of nature which have no will of their own. Seeing that neither the sea nor the rivers are the prime causes of evil but man who abuses them, what is the point of G’d venting His anger at the secondary phenomena
      It is well to note that in our verse the usual order of ה’ אלו-הים is reversed in that Moses first refers to אלו-הים before referring to ה’. [Perhaps this describes G’d on the chair of Justice moving to the chair of Mercy as the result of the prayers of the Jewish people. Ed.]  Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 9,1 observe that the plural in the word קרובים in the sequence אשר אלו-הים קרובים אליו when we would have expected אשר אלו-הים קרוב אליו means that G’d is close to the Jewish people in more ways than one.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ומי גוי גדול אשר לו חקים ומשפטים צדיקים , “for what great nation possesses statutes and social laws which are fair, etc.?” After having told us in verse 7 of things which are praiseworthy about Israel, Moses now praises the Torah; when using the expression ככל התורה הזאת, he reiterates a point made previously that Torah contains the sum-total of all that is worth knowing.
  
  Verse 9
  
    רק השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים, “Only beware for yourself and be very much on guard lest you forget the thing;” Rashi understands the injunction in this verse as a corollary to the previous verses. Israel will be considered as wise, discerning, etc., on condition that it lives up to these laws so much admired by the Gentiles. If they were to forget them and not observe them they would soon be considered fools instead of wise people. It appears from the syntax that the words רק עם חכם ונבון, “only a wise and discerning nation,” refer to what Moses said previously, i.e. that “only if you observe all these G’d-given laws will you be considered as deserving the description “a wise and discerning people.”
      It is also possible to see in the word רק which always points to something or someone in the minority, a hint that if the nations indeed consider themselves as inferior to you  this is only as long as you perform the commandments. If you were to forget them willfully, or otherwise, the nations would soon stop considering themselves as inferior to you. Your advantage stems from the revelation at Mount Sinai when the Torah testified: “and all the people saw the sounds and the lightning, etc.” (Exodus 20,18). The moment you forget this experience, you will tend to deny it, and subsequently the whole foundation of Judaism will crumble. Both your body and your soul will then be at risk.   Our sages  in Avot 3,8  who said that anyone who forgets part of his learning is considered as if he had made his soul subject to perdition, referred to this verse where Moses warns us not to forget, i.e. not to do things which result in our forgetting any part of the Torah. When reading our verse here one might come to the conclusion that even if one forgot due to illness one would be guilty. This is why Moses added ופן יסורו מלבבך כל ימי חייך, that guilt occurs only if one erases these commandments from one’s heart, i.e. deliberately. We have another severe warning by our sages in the Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot 38,13 that if someone forgets part of what he has learned he violates three negative commandments all of which are derived from this verse, i.e. the words פן, תשכח, and השמר לך, are three separate injunctions.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  .ואותי צוה ה’ בעת ההיא..ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים , “and the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes, social laws, etc.” These are the other commandments of the Torah, the ones in addition to the Ten Commandments which were commanded at Mount Sinai (Ibn Ezra). Rashi understands the words ואותי צוה as referring to the oral Torah.
     לעשותכם אותם בארץ, “for you to perform in the land, etc.” This does not mean that these commandments are not a personal obligation anywhere in the world. It means that the principal purpose of all the commandments is that they be performed in the Holy Land.
  
  Verse 15
  
    ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה, “But you shall greatly beware for your souls, for you did not see any likeness.”  Seeing that you know clearly that you did not see any phenomenon, image, at the time when G’d revealed Himself, you must take care in the future never to make such a likeness, no molten image or sculpture; there are nations which serve and worship some domestic animal or free-roaming beast, whichever they encounter first on that day. The astrologers have written that the zodiac sign cancer places some of its power on such animals and causes them to bite or otherwise cause damage.[The point of worshipping these animals would be to neutralize their destructive power against the person worshipping them.]
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ופן תשא עיניך השמימה, “not to raise your eyes skyward.” There is a difference between the word השמים and the word השמימה, just as there is a difference between מצרים and מצרימה. The name of the political entity, the state, is מצרימה, whereas the word מצרים includes the entire country, region. We have proof of this distinction in Numbers 20,15 where Moses describes the descent of the family of Yaakov from the land of Canaan as וירדו אבותינו מצרימה, ונשב במצרים, “our forefathers descended to the state of Egypt and they settled in “greater Egypt.” Similarly here. When the Torah describes השמים, this includes any part of the sky visible to the eye anywhere. All parts of the sky are the same for that purpose. This is why the Torah also writes תחת כל השמים at the end of this verse. However, when the Torah speaks of השמימה, it refers to specific areas of the sky, areas known for certain constellations of stars, etc. They are areas where certain patterns of stars always appear at intervals that are subject to human calculations. Seeing that certain such constellations appear to presage certain happenings at certain times, some people err in ascribing powers to these constellations. This is why the Torah warns the Jewish people not to raise their eyes to such parts of the sky and the constellations visible there. The “seeing” the Torah speaks of is not with the physical eye but with the mental eye, i.e. the conclusions derived from this “seeing.” This is why G’d told Avraham in Genesis 15,5: הבט נא השמימה וספור הכוכבים, “take a look at the sky and count the stars, etc.” He took him to a place from which he could look down at the stars (Bereshit Rabbah 44,12).
     וראית את השמש ואת הירח, “and you will see the sun and the stars.”  The words ואת הכוכבים do not refer to the multitude of the stars in the sky but to the 7 basic planets (pre-Copernicus astronomy) The word כוכבים (pl) means the minimum plural i.e. 2; the letter ה at the beginning adds another 5, making a total of 7 stars or planets. Add the words צבא השמים, and you have the 12 zodiac signs, the horoscopes. The word כל includes the ministering angels. The reason the Torah adds the words ונדחת before writing והשתחוית להם, “you will bow down to them,” is to remind us that anyone doing that will automatically be נדחה, cast out,  much as one casts out a person from a certain location so that he falls and dies.
     אשר חלק ה’ אלו-היך אותם לכל העמים תחת כל השמים, “which the Lord your G’d allocated to all the peoples under the whole sky.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חלק means: “He gave it to them as their share.” [They have the choice of serving the Lord directly or by means of these astrological manifestations]. The word is not to be understood to mean that these people have been “assigned” these phenomena in the sky. If the latter meaning were correct then these people would have an ironclad argument accusing G’d of preventing them from worshipping Him directly or indirectly, seeing He had made their fates dependent on the correlation of these stars to one another. Idolatry would then have been decreed upon them. Seeing that the word חלק lends itself to misunderstandings, the seventy sages who had been assigned by King Talmai to translate the Torah into Greek, were forced to translate this as “which the Lord allocated to  them to provide light for them” (Megillah 9).
      A Midrashic approach: the word חלק is connected to the word חלקות, something smooth, slippery. G’d flattered the nations with words in order to eventually drive them out of the world (Pessikta Zutrata ). Our sages had interpreted the words משגיא לגוים ויאבדם in Job 12,23 as meaning precisely this (according to Shemot Rabbah 15,11). They suggested that the letter sin  in the word משגיא in that verse be read as a shin to mean “mislead,” instead of  “exalts”. [The end-effect of the verse, i.e. that G’d destroys the Gentiles is the same; the difference is only the immediate cause. Ed.].   We have a similar statement by the sages in Avodah Zarah 55: Rabba bar Yitzchak said to Rabbi Yuda: “there is an idol in our town, and whenever there is a drought with us it appears to a priest in a dream and says: ‘sacrifice a human being to me and you shall have rain.’ When the people of the town offer a human being as a sacrifice to this idol it really does begin to rain.” Rabbi Yuda commented: ‘if I had already died I would not have been able to explain the matter to you.’ Rav explained  the words of the verse אשר חלק ה’ אלו-היך אותם לכל העמים, to mean that G’d misled these idol-worshippers (who had already forfeited their claim to the hereafter) by letting them think that their idols had some power. By making them fall victim to that illusion He expedited their disappearance from this world. This is also what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant when he explained Proverbs 3,34, אם ללצים הוא יליץ, “at the scoffers He scoffs.” The principle by which G’d operates in this world is that if someone wants to do the right thing he enjoys heavenly assistance. If he insists on doing the wrong thing, (seeing he possesses free choice) one lets him be without interfering. As a result, i.e. of G’d “playing along,” these idolaters dig their own grave.” 
  G’d does not actively “help” them to dig their grave, He just does not restrain them from doing what they set out to do.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל אשר צוך ה’ אלו-היך, “and you make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of anything, concerning which the Lord your G’d has commanded.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word “image of anything the Lord your G’d has commanded you,” is a warning not to make such images. Alternatively, it may be a warning not to duplicate the cherubic figures which were part of the kapporet on the lid of the Holy Ark. They were a cast likeness. This was something unique, permitted only in the Temple (where it was placed in a pitch dark section, the Holy of Holies, a cubicle without lighting or windows, so that no one, including the High Priest, ever could see it).
      A kabbalistic approach: the words ה’ אלו-היך are a description of the attribute כבוד, i.e. כבוד ה’ כאש האוכלת בראש ההר, “the attribute of glory which manifests itself like fire consuming the mountain” (Exodus 24,17). This was the attribute against which Moses had sinned, and this is why the Torah wrote in verse 21 “and against me the Lord was angry on account of your words forbidding me to come into the land.” The verse is a warning of the awesome attribute of Justice when it manifests itself in that manner. Moses warns the people that they themselves had seen this attribute at work on the occasion of the revelation at Mount Sinai.   The reason that Moses adds once more that G’d is a jealous G’d, adding the word הוא, is because הוא is one of the names of G’d. Moses wants to point out that seeing that G’d’s essence remains forever invisible to man, the word הוא, even when used as a name for G’d, simply means that it is a pronoun, substituting for His essence which is never manifest to us. The prophet Elijah was taught this lesson when he was at Mount Chorev and experienced a number of divine manifestations. G’d explained to him that when he thought a particular manifestation, even אש, fire, represented G’d’s essence he had been wrong (compare Kings I 19,11). Certain manifestations of an attribute have only one objective, i.e. to demonstrate that G’d is a jealous G’d, has an attribute called “jealousy.”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . כי תוליד בנים ובני בנים, “When you will beget children and grandchildren, etc.” The reason this paragraph adjoins the passage warning the Israelites against becoming guilty of idolatry is because Moses foresaw that in the future the Jewish people would become guilty doing precisely this on holy soil in the land of Israel. Proof that this paragraph is a prediction, not a mere theoretical discussion of what might happen, is that the paragraph does not commence with the conditional word אם תוליד,” if you will beget,” but Moses says כי תוליד, “when you will beget, etc.” Seeing that it is the prophet’s task to rebuke his people, and at this time Moses was the prophet, it was up to him to react to what he foresaw in his prophetic vision.
     ונושנתם בארץ, “and you are long established in the land;” our sages in Gittin 55 find in these words an allusion to the length of time the Israelites would enjoy independence in the land. The numerical value of the letters in the word ונושנתם is 852. Solomon’s Temple was completed 480 years after the Exodus as we know from Kings I 6,1. The Temple stood for 410 years before it was destroyed by Nevuchadnezzar King of Babylon. This gives you  a total of 850 years after deducting the 40 years the Jewish people were in the desert before they gained their own land. The reason that G’d allowed the Temple to be destroyed 2 years prior to the time allotted to it was to ensure that the decree of absolute destruction [no rebuilding] would not have to be kept, seeing that the people had not been allowed to enjoy the full number of years allotted to their independence. We read in our verse the words כי אבד תאבדון מהר, which mean “you will perish utterly and quickly.” G’d in His mercy, accelerated the destruction of the Temple so that He would not be bound by this prediction. We find an allusion to this in Daniel 9,14: “Hashem hastened the calamity and brought it upon us, for Hashem is righteous in all His deeds which He has done.” Daniel means that the very premature destruction of the Temple was an act of righteousness enabling the Temple to be rebuilt 70 years later.
  
  Verse 26
  
  . העידותי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ, “I have called as witnesses against you this day heaven and earth, etc.”  Ibn Ezra quotes an opinion according to which Moses meant the angels and people on earth when he said that he called heaven and earth as witness.  It is also possible that the reference was to rain. Moses meant that if the people kept the covenant rain would be forthcoming, whereas if not the heavens would be like iron, i.e. the behavior of heaven would reflect whether the Israelites kept the commandments of the Torah. Similarly, seeing that the Torah had also stated that if the people did not keep the Torah that the earth would be like copper, whereas otherwise it would yield its produce, this too could account for Moses mentioning heaven and earth as witness (compare Leviticus 26,19). 
  Ibn Ezra understands the fact that Moses appointed heaven and earth as witness to Israel’s performance of the Torah’s commandments as due to no one else being able to watch such developments around the clock. Any other kinds of witnesses would have to take time off their duties as witnesses. This is not the only time inert objects have been cited as witness; compare Joshua 24,27: “and this stone (monument) shall be as a witness for us.”
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ועבדתם שם אלוהים מעשה ידי אדם, “and there you will serve (worship) a god which is the work of man.” This is not a prophecy that the Israelites when in exile in host countries will themselves worship idols, G’d forbid. The meaning is that once you have been exiled you will become slaves to people worshipping idols, so that indirectly you will be serving such idols (Onkelos).
     אשר לא יראון ולא ישמעון ולא יאכלון ולא יריחון, “deities which are neither able to see, to hear, to eat or to smell.” In this verse Moses mentions only four of the basic five senses of man, omitting to mention the sense of touch. There was no need to mention that sense separately as it is included in the statement “who cannot eat.” There was no need to mention more than one of the two senses that serve as tools of perceptions by the body. The three senses, sight, hearing, and smelling are considered mental, spiritual senses and this is why we often find them associated with G’d. Examples are: “The Lord saw” (Genesis 6,5 and many others) “G’d heard” (Numbers 11,1 and others). “The Lord smelled” (Genesis 8,21). When David describes the impotence of the idols in Psalms 115,7, he had to mention that the idols’ hands are unable to use the sense of touch, ידיהם ולא ימישון, seeing he had not mentioned the inability of the idols to eat.  From this paragraph we can learn something about the importance of the five senses which are the principal tools man employs in all his activities. They are needed to fulfill the commandments of the Torah, and, inversely, they enable man to commit trespasses against the Torah. Man’s reward or punishment is due to the manner in which he employs these five senses. The reason that G’d provided man with five such senses is  that they correspond to the five Books of the Torah. They also correspond to the five occasions on which “light” is mentioned in the story of creation. They also correspond to the five names by which the soul is known. They represent the complement of the body, making it the residence of the soul. The soul displays its activities by means of these five senses This is why the Torah/Bible condemns idolatry by pointing out that these idols cannot use any of their senses. Any image, cast or otherwise, which is devoid of the means of experiencing the sensations we experience by means of our senses is a priori incapable of helping anyone. How can idolaters say to their deities in times of stress: “arise and save us!” These idols are unable to rise, much less save (compare Jeremiah 2,27).   The infinite wisdom of the Creator made five different parts of the body the seat of these five senses and made them gateways to the spiritual, abstract soul. Even our “scientists” admit that the manner in which these senses have been “planted” in man is phenomenal and reflects the wisdom of the Creator. The sense of touch extends throughout the body of man, any part of man’s exterior feels, tingles, hurts, when coming into contact with other phenomena. The sense of smell extends beyond the boundary of our skin, outwards. We can perceive by means of it matters which are relatively distant. The sense of hearing covers a wider area than the sense of smell, enabling us to perceive things even further distant. The sense of sight enables us to perceive matters far further removed from us than most of the phenomena we can perceive by the sense of hearing. It is the sense which we need most of all.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ומצאת, “and you will find.” Seeing that the previous verses addressed the people en masse, as a plural, we would have expected Moses to write this verse also in the plural instead of switching to the singular, “you (individually) will find.” Had Moses continued in the plural the impression would have been created that the needs of the Jewish people of which he speaks are due only to the fact that they are in exile. It would have sounded as if G’d responds only to communal prayer, communal requests and not to that of the individual. There would have been a precedent for this seeing our sages in Berachot 8 have said that G’d does not despise communal prayer, i.e. that the prayer of a congregation is more effective than that of a mere individual. The Talmud there quotes Job 36,5: “Surely He is mighty, is not contemptuous,” as the source of its message.   For these reasons Moses made a point of telling us that G’d does respond to individuals who seek Him out.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי שאל נא לימים ראשונים, “if you inquire into the first days of history,” Moses rationalizes why G’d is unforgiving concerning the sin of idolatry if committed by the Israelites, seeing His relationship with the Jewish people is of a unique nature. He invites the people to research the annals of history as they will find that never since the creation of man has there ever been a people who had such close relations with its G’d. You will not find that G’d revealed Himself to any nation as He did to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.
      A rational approach to these lines: every nation is obligated to serve its Creator but not in the same degree as the Israelites. G’d has extended Himself on behalf of the Jewish people as He has not done for any other nation. The Jewish people are the only ones who have an intimate knowledge of G’d as “Hashem.” Idolaters are not even allowed to praise G’d using that attribute as we know from David in Psalms 145,21 תהלת ה’ ידבר פי, ויברך כל בשר שם קדשו לעולם ועד ואנחנו נברך י-ה, “the praise of the Lord my mouth will proclaim, but all flesh will bless His holy name forever.” The psalmist distinguishes between how Israel and the rest of the nations relate to the Lord even while praising Him. The reason that at the end of that verse the Jewish people say ואנחנו נברך י-ה, “let us bless the attribute י-ה instead of the full tetragram, is that these two letters describe the terrestrial world which was created with the letter ה, and the celestial regions which were created with the letter י of the tetragram. Seeing that the psalmist says מעתה ועד עולם הללויה, “from now (on terrestrial earth) until forever (in the hereafter and the perfect world to come),” the letters י-ה were quite appropriate in this psalm.
     למן היום אשר ברא אלו-הים אדם על הארץ, “starting from the day G’d created man on earth;” at that point the doors of inquiry were slammed shut. We are not allowed to investigate what G’d did prior to creating man (Chagigah 11). Our sages phrased it thus: “investigation of what preceded the creation of man, what will occur after the earth as we know it ceases to function is prohibited.” Neither are we allowed to know what is “above” and “below” the visible universe. Even though the Torah preceded the creation of our visible universe the terms of reference for our investigation begin only with the creation of man.
     הנשמע כמוהו, “has anything like it ever been heard of?” These words belong to what follows, i.e. השמע עם, “has any nation heard?” In other words: “has it ever been heard that a nation as a whole hears the voice of G’d speaking out of the fire, etc., as you have done and remained alive?” Normally, man is not capable of hearing the voice of G’d until after his soul has departed from his body.   Another meaning of the word ויחי, could be that such a people remains alive after death of their bodies as did the Jewish people? This would be a reference to the Talmud in Shabbat 88 that upon hearing the first of the Ten Commandments from G’d directly, the souls of the Jewish people flew off and the people had to be resurrected. The Talmud bases this on Song of Songs 5,6: “my soul departed when He spoke.” G’d resurrected the people by making dew descend upon them. As a result of this experience the Israelites turned to Moses and said to him: “if we have to continue to listen to the voice of the Lord our G’d any further we will die” (5,22). The word used by the people in that verse, i.e. ומתנו instead of נמות, suggests that they had already died once. They were afraid that they would have to experience this a second time. This proves that the first time there was a collective resurrection during the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. The second time something similar occurred was when Joshua requested for the sun to stand still in its orbit (Joshua 10,12). Compare Devarim Rabbah on this (Lieberman edition page 43). I have referred to this in my commentary on Exodus 19,17
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   או הנסה אלו-הים לבא לקחת לו גוי מקרב גוי במסות, Or, did G’d ever attempt to remove one nation from the midst of a nation with displays of power, etc.” the word מסות is the same as נסיונות, “display of power,” such as when Moses offered Pharaoh that he could determine when he wanted the plague of frogs to disappear (Exodus 8,5). באותות, “with miracles,” i.e.  certain signs on Moses’ staff. ובמופתים, “and with wonders.” This is a reference to the Ten Plagues. ובמלחמה, and with war, i.e. G’d fighting the Egyptian army at the Sea of Reeds. We read there that Pharaoh said: “for the Lord is fighting against Egypt” (Exodus 14,25). וביד חזקה, “and with a strong hand.” This is a reference to the Israelites leaving Egypt ביד רמה, with their hands held high.” ובזרוע נטויה, “and with an outstretched arm.” This is a reference to the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire in which G’d manifested Himself during the Exodus. ובמוראים גדולים, “and with awesome deeds.” This is a reference to the splitting of the Sea and the drowning of the Egyptians in it. במצרים לעיניך, “in Egypt before your eyes.” The word לעיניך is a figure of speech which occurs frequently after the Torah had first spoken in the plural and then suddenly reverts to the singular, i.e. the eyes of an individual instead of the eyes of the people collectively. A well known example of such a construction is found in Leviticus 19,9 where the Torah writes ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם לא תכלה, “when you (collectively) will harvest the grain harvest of your lands, you (individual) must not completely cut, etc.”   It is possible that Torah here wanted that our verse commenced with the letter א and concludes with the letter כ, seeing that the combined numerical value of the these letters is the same as the name of G’d אהיה, i.e. 21. It was this name with which Moses’ mission to the Jewish people commenced (Exodus 3,14) a form of the attribute of Justice contained within the attribute of Mercy. Seeing that the whole purpose of the Exodus was the acceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah at Mount Sinai, it is fitting that Moses continues after mentioning the degree to which G’d extended Himself to orchestrate the Exodus, אתה הראת לדעת, “you have been given visual knowledge that the Lord is the G’d, etc.,” a reference to the unforgettable experiences at Mount Sinai. In verse 36, מן השמים וגו’, you find all the letters of the aleph bet, just as in the Ten Commandments you also find all the letters of the aleph bet. The Ten Commandments also commence with the letter א and conclude with the letter כ, just as does our verse here.
  
  Verse 35
  
   אתה הראת לדעת, “You have witnessed a clear demonstration, etc.” All the miracles you have witnessed are equivalent to your having first-hand knowledge of the greatness of the Lord and that there is none beside Him. Verse 39, והשבות אל לבבך makes the same point once more by asking the people to also open their mental eyes and draw the proper conclusions from what they had observed with their physical eyes.
   Incidentally, you will not find anywhere that when both attributes of G’d appear successively that they occur in any other sequence than Hashem Elohim. We never find the sequence  Ha-elohim Hashem. The two names when used successively sometimes refer to the manifest miracle on the one hand, and the “hidden” miracles, i.e. G’d’s interference in history which is not visible to our physical eyes.
  
  Verse 36
  
   מן השמים השמיעך את קולו, “He let you hear His voice from the heavens.” The verse means that G’d’s voice emanated from heaven in order to be heard by you, but you did not hear any sound until G’d’s voice had reached the fire so that you appeared to hear His voice as coming out of the fire. If this were not the correct meaning of the verse, how could Moses first say: “you have heard the voice of G’d from the heavens,” and only afterwards: “you heard His words out of the fire?”
  
  Verse 37
  
    ותחת כי אהב את אבותיך, “and on account of His having loved your patriarchs, etc.,” i.e. He allowed you to hear His voice because He loved your forefathers.
     ויבחר בזרעו אחריו, “and He chose “his seed” after him. Clearly the subject is Yaakov, the third of the patriarchs. This is why the Torah says: “his seed” instead of “their seed.” Had the Torah used the plural “their seed,” both Esau and Ishmael would heve been included in the “chosen people.” This is also the reason why the Torah wrote in Parshat Eykev, 10,15: “but the Lord your G’d was fond of your forefathers (pl) to love them, and He chose (of) their seed after them you from amongst all the nations, etc.” Seeing the Torah had written בזרעם “their seed,” which could have been interpreted as “all their seed, i.e. including Esau, etc.,” the Torah had to conclude that verse by saying “בכם” you, meaning “only you of all their seed.”   Instead of using the preposition תחת, the Torah could have written more commonly used prepositions such as בעבור or למען. The reason the Torah chose the word תחת, a word which occurs on only two more occasions, once in connection with the מרכבה, the Divine “carriage,” may be an allusion to the מרכבה  which is supposed to be supported on terrestrial earth by the patriarchs and the Jewish people as a whole.
     ויוצאיך בפניו, “He took you out before Himself, etc.;” according to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is “G’d took you out Himself, personally.” The word is used in the same sense in Samuel II 17,11 ופניך הולכים בקרב, “and you yourself march into battle.” 
      A Midrashic approach based on Ibn Ezra: “the word represents “anger, כעס;” the word occurs in that sense in Exodus 33,14. “My face will go.” Also we find that expression in Samuel I 1,18 ופניה לא היו לה עוד, “she was no longer angry.” The reason for the use of this word here is that Moses tells the people that a major factor of the Exodus was G’d’s anger at the Egyptians.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word בפניו in the expression ויוציאך בפניו refers to the angel who was assigned to supervise all this. The angel is known as מלאך הפנים. He is featured in Isaiah 63,9 ומלאך פניו הושיעם, Our verse also refers to the contribution made by the patriarchs to the Exodus. The word בפניו reminds us of מבקשי פניך יעקב סלה (Psalms 24,6) “Yaakov who seeks Your presence.” The word בכוחו refers to Yitzchak whose primary attribute was גבורה, “Power.” The word הגדול is an allusion to Avraham. The reason Moses mentioned (alluded to) Yaakov first is that he formed the third link in the string of patriarchs, and once there was such a third link the principles the patriarchs stood for could be perceived as certain to endure. This is also why at the end of the Tochachah the Torah quotes G’d as remembering first His covenant with Yaakov and only afterwards His covenants with Avraham and Yitzchak (Leviticus 26,42).
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   והשבות אל לבבך, “you will impress it upon your heart,” i.e. it is a positive commandment to know the Lord and to research the fact that He is unique, one of a kind. It is not enough to accept this merely as “something handed down by our forefathers,” but it must become something that is the result of our examining the plentiful evidence in our world which makes this quite clear.
   Knowledge of G’d by means of the deeds He has performed is absolutely possible even though knowledge of G’d’s essence is beyond our ability to comprehend. Concerning this latter knowledge (or attempt at knowing) Solomon said in Proverbs 25,2: “it is the glory of G’d to conceal a matter.” Seeing that acquiring this kind of knowledge about G’d cannot commence, as do other disciplines, with one’s seeing the object of one’s research and thereby trying to assess its constituent parts, the Torah used the term והשבות, something describing an end result, when discussing our study of theology-related subjects.   We find that the prophet Elijah, after having experienced several manifestations of G’d’s attributes, discovered (with the help of G’d) that he had been wrong when at the first such manifestation he had thought that he had “seen” or “experienced” the essence of G’d (Kings I 19,11-12). We have been warned in the Sefer Yetzirah  (1,8) בלום פיך מלדבר ולבך מלהרר, “restrain your mouth from speaking and your heart from even contemplating.”   Moses uses the word לבבך for “your heart” in our verse whereas the author of the Sefer Yetzirah uses the word לבך. Moses refers to two contradictory urges which each try to dominate our heart. One is called “the good urge,” (urge to do good) the other “the evil urge.” Moses urges us that if perchance the “evil urge” tries to make us deviate from the true path of Torah, suggesting hat there are at least two domains in the universe which compete with one another for supremacy, we are to use the “good urge” to resist such temptations and to tell the evil urge that there is only one domain. This is also why the verse ends with the words אין עוד, “there is no one else.”    The expression השבת הלב, means that the subject matter is one that requires intensive study and considerable knowledge before one embarks on examining it. Isaiah 44,18 referred to people who  fail to come properly equipped for such research when he said: “they have no wit or judgment, their eyes are besmeared, and they see not.” The lesson that Moses wants us to appreciate is that  the Lord is also the G’d of nature, the captain of the universe; the word בשמים refers to the planets; the word ממעל refers to the celestial spheres, the habitat of the angels, the words על הארץ refer to our terrestrial earth; the word מתחת, refers to all that is hidden in the depths of the oceans or the bowels of the earth. All of this is summarized by Solomon when he says in Proverbs 25,3: “like the heavens in their height, like the earth in its depth.” The word אין עוד includes all the various layers of the universe, i.e. there are none which Moses had not already included  in our verse.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים בעבר הירדן, “at that time Moses set aside three cities on the east bank of the Jordan.” This introduction is to inform us that when Moses set aside these three cities on the east bank of the Jordan he immediately proceeded  to renew the covenant G’d had concluded with the previous generation at Mount Sinai (chapter 5 which follows). Even though Moses was well aware that these three cities would not become operational as cities of refuge until the other three cities of refuge on the west bank of the Jordan had been set aside, he wanted to fulfill  at least half the commandment while he was still alive. This should serve as an important lesson to us how to relate to the commandments in general. There certainly could hardly have been anyone who had performed more commandments during the previous 40 years since the Torah was given than Moses, who had taught all these commandments to the people. If he was so concerned as not to leave even a half a commandment unfulfilled this should be our inspiration to emulate him.    Perhaps this gives us a better insight into the true meaning of a comment by our sages according to which Moses became personally wealthy from the chips of the second set of Tablets which he had been told to fashion himself before coming up the mountain. The sages use the wordsפסל לך , “carve out for yourself” as meaning that the left-overs of this raw material became Moses’ personal property and that we are speaking about a very precious kind of stone (compare Exodus 34,1 and the comment in Nedarim 38). A more ethically inspiring approach would be that G’d chose the word פסל, an allusion to פסולת, rejects, left-overs, to teach that even seemingly inconsequential commandments are to be rated highly. The true measure of Torah and mitzvah performance is not the attention we give the impressive commandments, the ones which command a high degree of visibility but the loving attention which we lavish on the apparently minor commandments, the ones frequently neglected as the person who performs them does not reap any recognition for them from his peers.
     מזרחה שמש,  “toward the rising sun.” Our sages have said that anyone who kills a person has to flee eastward in the direction of the rising sun. Mortality was decreed upon man who was placed by G’d in Gan Eden which the Torah had described as east, i.e. מקדם. Exile is a reminder of this tragic first (disobedience) error committed by man. We also know that Kayin, who had slain his brother Hevel, was exiled in an easterly direction as he is reported subsequently to have settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden (Genesis 4,16).
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   את בצר במדבר, “the city Bezer in the desert;” In the next verse the Torah continues with the words וזאת התורה. It seems difficult to account for this sequence of subject matter. Our sages in Makkot 10 used this sequence to teach us that the words of Torah are equivalent to the refuge offered by the cities of refuge. They may even afford refuge from the angel of Death himself. The Talmud reports that the angel of Death wanted to take Rav Chisdah but he was so immersed in his studies hat he had no opportunity to snatch his soul until a diversion was created by a heavy beam in the academy falling down. The sound momentarily distracted Rav Chisdah so that the angel of Death could snatch his soul. Similar stories are told about David.   Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that the protective angel of the Roman Empire (Edom) will make three errors in the future. He bases this on Isaiah 63,1: ”Who is this coming from Edom, in crimson garments from Bozrah — who is this  majestic in attire?” The angel believes that Bozrah was also a city of refuge whereas only Bezer is such a city. Another error the angel of Edom will make is  that he thinks that these cities serve as refuge for both intentional and unintentional killers, whereas they only afford protection for unintentional killers. Thirdly, he thinks these cities protect angels and humans alike. The fact is that they only protect human killers, not angels.
     בארץ המישור לראובני, “in the land of the plain of the tribe of Reuven.” The reason this is mentioned first is that Reuven had tried to save the life of Joseph at the time when he prevailed on his brothers not to kill him (Genesis 36,21-22). This is why the first city of refuge was situated in Reuven’s part of the east bank. This is the meaning of Proverbs 28,17: “a man oppressed by blood guilt will flee to a pit, let none give him support.” The “pit” mentioned in that verse is a reference to the territory of Reuven of whom the Torah writes in Genesis 37,29: “Reuven returned to the pit.”
  
  Verse 44
  
   וזאת התורה אשר שם משה , “And this is the Torah which Moses placed before the Children of Israel.” This is a reference to The Ten Commandments  which follow in chapter 5
      A Midrashic approach (Devarim Rabbah, Lieberman edition page 62)  the letter ו in the word וזאת teaches that in addition to the cities of refuge providing safety for unintentional killers, the Torah does also. In fact Torah study and observance is even more effective than the city of refuge. The cities of refuge accept only unintentional killers, whereas Torah study and performance is freely available even to intentional killers. When the Children of Israel asked Moses where an unintentional killer can flee to when the cities of refuge would cease to exist for one reason or another, he told them: “to the Torah.” This is why it says here immediately after the passage of the cities of refuge: “and this is the Torah.” This thought is reinforced by Proverbs 3,18: “she (the Torah) is a tree of life for those who support it and support themselves by it.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקרא משה אל כל ישראל, “Moses called all of Israel;” this refers to the children i.e. the generation which had not heard the Ten Commandments first-hand at Mount Sinai. This is why in verse three Moses makes the point that the covenant made between G’d and the people at the time did not only include the generation which was an eye-witness to the revelation but that it included all the subsequent generations of Jews throughout the ages.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  . כי אתנו אנחנו אלה פה היום כלנו, “but with us we who are here all of us alive today.” Moses‘ point is that “the covenant was concluded with us.” Seeing that there were some survivors from the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, Moses added: “G’d spoke with you face to face, etc.” In verse 5 Moses recalls to the survivors of that time that at that time they (their elders) had asked him to be the go-between between themselves and G’d as they felt unable to endure the voice of G’d directly any longer.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . פנים בפנים דבר ה’ עמכם, “the Lord spoke with you face to face.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that there was no intermediary between G’d’s voice and the people’s ears.
      According to a Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 29,2) G’d told the people that the fact that they had experienced a variety of manifestations of Him must not mislead them. The fact is  that sometimes G’d appeared to them in the guise of a young man, a warrior (Exodus 15,3), and other times as an old man (Hoseah 12,11), a sage, sometimes they perceived Him as seated, whereas other times as standing up. At Mount Sinai they perceived Him as an old man seated, dispensing the Torah. The words פנים בפנים then mean: ”I have spoken to you revealing many different facets of Myself.”
      A kabbalistic approach: compare author’s comment on Exodus 33,11
  
  Verse 5
  
  . אנכי עומד בין ה’ וביניכם, “I was standing between Hashem and between you.” According to Ibn Ezra this verse speaks about Moses being an intermediary between the Israelites and G’d ever since the revelation at Mount Sinai. However, the correct meaning is that described by Nachmanides, that Moses reverted to describe what happened during that revelation when Moses was speaking to the Israelites translating G’d’s words to them, i.e. making what they had heard intelligible to them. The Israelites had both heard and understood the first two of the Ten Commandments. They heard G’d’s voice saying the remainder but did not understand the words and their meanings. This is the meaning of להגיד לכם את דבר ה’, “to tell you the word of Hashem, i.e. the ones you did not understand.” You had become afraid of the fire and you had not ascended the mountain.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   שמור את יום השבת לקדשו , “safeguard the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” In the first recorded version of the Ten  Commandments, this commandment was introduced with the word זכור “to remember.” The reason for the variation is to obligate women to listen to kiddush and havdalah. Women are traditionally not obligated to observe positive commandments the performance of which is tied to a certain time frame. If the Torah had not written the word שמור here, the laws about a formal sanctification of the Sabbath, kiddush, and a formal termination of the holiness of the Sabbath, havdalah, would not have been applicable to women. By writing a formula applicable to negative commandments, i.e. שמור, in this version, the Torah made it plain that women are included in these aspects of Sabbath obser-vance. The technical halachic means of arriving at this is termed: “every person who is obligated to fulfill the שמור aspect of the Sabbath legislation is automatically also obligated to observe the זכור aspect, seeing the Torah once employs the one term and once the other.” (Berachot 20,2). This statement effectively covers the Sabbath from its commencement to its termination. Our sages committed this principle to memory by coining the phrase זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו, “the words זכור and שמור were said as a single utterance” (Shvuot 20).
      A kabbalistic approach to the concept of בדבור אחד נאמרו: We explained that normally G’d’s legislation appears under the heading of Hashem, i.e. the attribute of Mercy being predominant. In the Book of Deuteronomy, this norm is reversed and Moses almost always speaks of ה’ אלו-היך, “the Lord your G’d,” i.e. a blend (of equal proportions) of the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. According to accepted norms the first set of the Ten Commandments should have been introduced by Hashem whereas in fact the first set of the Commandments is introduced by the uncharacteristic וידבר אלו-הים, “G’d spoke” (Exodus 20,1).   G’d had employed only the attribute of Justice when He began to create the universe. When it came to creating man who was subject to His commandments G’d co-opted the attribute of Mercy in His creation as we explained in our commentary on Genesis 2,4 ב-הבראם. The letter ה alludes to this attribute of  Hashem. We have explained that the universe was created by G’d employing 5 sounds. The universe was created in 6 days. The Torah was given on the 6th day of Sivan, and  you find the name אלו-הים 32 times in the course of the Torah’s report of the creation. The revelation comprises 10 commandments [10 commandments plus 5 sounds plus five Books of the Torah, plus  six days plus the 6th of Sivan add up to 32. Ed.] The Torah commences with the letter ב, concluding with the letter ל, another allusion to the 32 paths of wisdom of the Torah. All of these allusions are reminders of Who created the universe and Who gave us the Torah.
     כאשר צוך ה’ אלו-היך, “as the Lord your G’d commanded you;” at the revelation at Mount Sinai at which time the Torah commenced with וידבר אלו-הים, to remind us that the Creator spoke those words.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך כמוך, “so that your male servant as well as our female servant may enjoy rest just like you.” The Torah here gave a reason for the work-prohibition on the Sabbath by your servants, i.e. that the Sabbath was not legislated to give the slaves a rest, but the rest enjoyed by the slaves is merely a by-product of their owners’ rest. In other words, seeing that G’d has had pity on you and instead of your having to serve Him for 7 days a week (the curse of earning one’s livelihood in the sweat of our brow) we in turn should display the same kind of consideration for our own servants and not assign them tasks on the days when we rest.
  
  Verse 15
  
    וזכרת כי עבד היית במצרים, “you shall remember (on the Sabbath) that you used to be a slave in Egypt, etc.” just like the slaves that you own now.  ויוציאך ה’ אלו-היך, “and the Lord your G’d took you out;” with manifest miracles which attested that something like a rebirth of the universe had taken place, i.e. that it was your G’d who must have created the universe in the first place.   על כן, “this is why;” He commanded you to observe the Sabbath day as reminder that G’d created the universe and it did not precede Him as proven by His orchestrating the Exodus.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . כבד את אביך, “honour your father.” In this version of the fifth commandment, Moses (the Torah) added the words למען ייטב לך, “so that it will be good for you,” i.e. that the person fulfilling this commandment will enjoy a quality of life on earth. This is an example of reaping the dividends of the reward for a mitzvah-performance in this life, whereas the principal is stored up in the hereafter. The author explained the significance of the letter ט which introduces טוב the first time it appeared in the Torah, in connection with his commentary at the end of Exodus 20,14. Similarly, you will find explanations about the letter ו which links several commandments to each other in this version whereas this letter is absent in his discussion of the first version in Exodus. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ולא תתאוה בית רעיך, “and do not covet the house of your fellow.” In the first version of the Ten Commandments the Torah described this coveting of one’s fellow’s house with the verb לא תחמוד. The difference is whether one is planning to pay for it or wants it even without contemplating paying for it i.e. not planning to translate his craving into action. Here Moses reminds us that even the mere thought of wanting it makes one liable for violating this commandment. The reason is that ultimately the desire to own what belongs to someone else (who has not offered it for sale) will lead to one offering money and pressuring the owner to part with it (compare Maimonides Hilchot Gezeilah 1,9).
  
  Verse 19
  
    קול גדול ולא יסף, “a powerful voice not weakening;” the sound did not stop, did not exhaust itself. This is also how Onkelos understands the words ולא יסף. If you peruse the whole paragraph you will find the word קול “sound, voice,” occurring seven times. It occurs five times as referring to G’d’s voice (verses 19,20,21,22,23 and twice in verse 25 as the voice of the Israelites.) This is what the sages in Shemot Rabbah 28,4 meant when they said that the Torah was given with seven “voices,” i.e. that one voice was split into seven sounds. We have mentioned this already near the end of our commentary on Exodus 20,1.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   הן הראנו ה’ אלו-הינו את כבודו, “here the Lord our G’d has shown us His (attribute) כבוד.” This is a reference to the fire the people experienced at Mount Sinai which was totally aflame.   ואת גדלו, “and His greatness;” this is a reference to the thunder and lightning which accompanied the giving of the Ten Commandments, as well as the sound of the Shofar.   ואת קולו שמענו, “and we have heard His voice;” a reference to the Ten Commandments.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  . כי מי כל בשר אשר שמע קול אלו-הים חיים...ויחי, “for whatever creature of flesh and blood has heard the voice of the Living G’d .....and remained alive?” The meaning of the words “the living G’d” is: “the G’d who is the source of all life.” [How could the Torah speak about a “dead” G’d? Ed.]. According to the author, if the Torah had not added the word חיים, one would have interpreted the word אלו-הים to be a reference to an angel. 
  According to Ibn Ezra the word was meant to distinguish between Hashem, and His army, His entourage, even the stars.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ואת תדבר אלינו, “and you will speak to us.” The meaning of the feminine את for of אתה here is similar to the same word in Numbers 11,15 ואם ככה את עושה לי, where Moses applied this feminine form of “you” to G’d.
      A kabbalistic approach: The people wanted to be addressed by the attribute of Justice rather than by the attribute Hashem. Hence the weaker form of אתה. את כל אשר ידבר ה’ אלו-הינו אליך “everything the Lord our G’d will say to you.” seeing that the Speaker is Hashem.   ושמענו ועשינו, “as soon as we hear it we will carry it out.” They meant that as soon as they would hear it from Moses they would carry out G’d’s instructions.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אותי, “who can assure that their heart should remain the same for them to revere Me, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text  the reason that Moses quoted G’d as using the words מי יתן, “who could assure?” is that seeing that G’d had divested Himself of the right to control man’s heart by granting him free will, there is no authority in the world which could guarantee that His wish be fulfilled. This is why our sages in Berachot 33 coined the phrase “all is within the power of heaven except the fear of heaven.”
      A Midrashic approach (based on Midrash Tehillim 14): We must understand these words in the same vein as Psalms 14,7: מי יתן מציון ישועת ישראל, “O that the deliverance of Israel might come from Zion!” David records this same verse twice in the Book of Psalms (compare Psalms 53,7). Why did he do so? The verses have to be understood as respective wishes by teacher and student. The teacher expresses the wish that the students would remain on their spiritual high as evidenced at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, whereas the student (Moses) expresses a similar wish regarding the teacher, i.e. מי יתן כל עם ה’ נביאים, “who could assure that G’d’s entire nation were gifted with the power of prophecy!” (Numbers 11,29 when Eldad prophesied and Joshua was upset.)  The fact is that in this terrestrial world there is no assurance that either the wish of the “teacher” or the wish of the “student” will be fulfilled. In fact, according to the Midrash it is certain that the wishes of both will not be fulfilled. However, in the life after the arrival of the Messiah the psalmist is convinced that such wishes will be fulfilled. He bases himself on Ezekiel 36,26 who describes the ushering in of that age with G’d’s promise to replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh. This will result in the wishes of the teacher regarding the conduct of his pupil being fulfilled. He also finds an allusion to the wishes of the pupil being fulfilled in that new world in the prophecy of Yoel 3,1: “l will pour out My spirit upon all flesh.” The reason David repeated this verse then is to teach us that the time will come when both these types of wishes will become realistic and subject to realization.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words מי יתן והיה לבבם זה, “these words were uttered by Hashem, meaning who would “inspire” the emanation of wisdom, the source of inspiration for reverence of the Lord, to be active in this regard on an ongoing basis!. Seeing that G’d has to wish that the emanation “wisdom” do or not do certain things is proof that G’d Himself is unable to do this. This is the true meaning of the statement by the sages we quoted that “all is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven.” The sages referred to the attribute known as heaven, an attribute which has great powers but whose powers do not include the ability to inculcate fear of the Lord in people. It is something “beyond” this particular attribute, emanation, as it has no control over inspiring reverence for G’d in people.   We find a dialogue between Moses and the people described in Avodah Zarah 5 where Moses is described as having  harangued the Israelites for being ungrateful when they heard G’d express the wish that the people should always be on a spiritual high such as they attained at Mount Sinai. According to Moses they should immediately have asked G’d to grant that His own wish be fulfilled. Surely this dialogue described in the Talmud presupposes that G’d does have control over who would and who would not possess יראת שמים, “reverence for heaven!” Moses meant that the people should have asked G’d to address His prayer to an emanation higher than the one called שמים.    This reflects something we learned in Taanit 25 in connection with Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedot who was in very depressed economic circumstances and it bothered him so that G’d asked him if he really wished that G’d should decree destruction on earth so that possibly on his next round of life he might be born under a more propitious horoscope? Rabbi ben Pedot was amazed to learn that even if G’d were to turn the universe upside down on his account this would still not be a guarantee that his personal fortunes would improve significantly. He therefore declined the “offer.” [The author mentioned only the gist of the story, and although I added some of what is found in the Talmud I suggest to the interested reader to read the whole story in the Talmud.  Ed.].    In a different context the Talmud tells the story of how G’d showed Moses all the leaders of successive generations including that of Rabbi Akiva and his death through cruel torture by the Romans. When Moses saw with his mental eye that Rabbi Akiva’s flesh was being offered for sale in the store, he exclaimed: “is this the reward you receive for excelling in Torah?” G’d told Moses to keep silent, that He had seen fit to allow things to happen this way. (Compare Menachot 29 and Nachmanides’ comment).    The meaning of this comment by G’d (speaking as the essence) there is that the emanation “wisdom” decreed to delay punishment for the crime of the sale of Joseph by his brothers until over 1200 years later for the sake of the Jewish people as a whole. You find a comment in Midrash Rabbah on the first half of Proverbs 8,30  ואהיה אצלו אמון, “I was like an artisan with Him,” explaining these words as meaning that the Torah says about G’d that it was G’d’s artisan, i.e. He used it to fashion the world. Just as the King when he builds a palace does not do so with his own hands but employs the services of an architect, but the architect works according to plans provided by the king, not making his own designs, so G’d “looked” into the Torah to consult how best to implement His own plans for the universe. Thus far the Midrash.   The meaning of all this is that the author of the Midrash compared the Shechinah to a king of flesh and blood and His great name to the “artisan” who carries out the various tasks assigned to him by G’d’s essence The חכמה, the emanation wisdom, is perceived as the textbook which serves the artisans as a standby for consultation to perform their work in the most efficient manner. This is why Moses of whom the Torah wrote in Deut 33,21 וירא ראשית לו כי שם חלקת מחוקק ספון, ”he chose the first portion for himself for that is where the lawgiver’s plot is hidden,” was called מחוקק. [The reason this needs explaining is that this term normally translated as “lawgiver” suggests that the law is initiated by such a מחוקק. This would mean that Moses acted independently of G’d, an intolerable thought. The Midrash therefore introduces these parables to define Moses’ role within the hierarchy commencing at the top with G’d the essence, the emanation wisdom, the Torah as the textbook of wisdom, etc.  Ed.] The Talmud elsewhere defines this word as similar to parchment which has been salted and treated with flour in order to make it ready for the writing on it to endure.   We encounter such Midrashim (Tanchuma Va'eyra 5) in connection with Pharaoh, who, when told by Moses that he was sent by Hashem, is reported to have asked his magicians to take out all the books containing the names of any past and present deities to search for the name Hashem. The Midrash refers to these “books” also as דפתרא, the kind of parchment we just described. All of this merely proves that the king does not proceed to implement his plans without going “through channels.” When we keep this in mind we do not find some of our sages’ statements as so difficult to comprehend. Seeing that an artisan is not a robot and does not perform his work mechanically without employing his mental faculties it becomes clear that חכמה, the emanation wisdom, is pivotal to all of G’d’s activities. This then is the mystical dimension of Job 28,28: “See, fear of the Lord is wisdom,” i.e. ”wisdom, i.e. pure intelligence, pure thought equates with reverence of the Lord the Creator, the master of the universe.” This is also the mystical dimension of Isaiah 30,18: ולכן יחכה ה’ לחננכם ולכן ירום לרחמכם, “truly, the Lord is waiting to show you grace, truly, He will arise to pardon you.” Why does the prophet switch from the verb חכה in the first half of the verse to רום in the second half of the same verse? The first half of the verse describing G’d as waiting is similar to the wish expressed by G’d in our verse here where G’d waits for the Jewish people to maintain their spiritual high. The second part, i.e. the word ירום describes the result of such waiting at the end of which time G’d can endow the people with His חכמה. חכמה and אמונה, “wisdom and faith” are so closely interwoven as to make them almost inseparabable. 
  The author, quoting the Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchok ben Harav suggests that psalm 143,1 באמונתך ענני בצדקך, is to be understood as an oath to which David wants G’d to commit Himself. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
    ואתה פה עמוד עמדי ואדברה אליך  את כל המצוה והחקים והמשפטים, “and you, stand here with Me, and I will say to you all the ceremonial laws, the statutes and the social laws.” When G’d uses the term דבור as distinct from אמירה He refers to the written Torah; i.e. the area over which Moses’ prophecy extended. This is why G’d mentioned that He only “said” it to “you,” i.e. to Moses, seeing that the rest of the people would receive these messages in written form on a Torah scroll. When Moses refers to the people who had originally received these laws the wording is not אליכם but אתכם, i.e. “as the Lord your G’d commanded you at Sinai when you heard the words from His mouth” (verse 30). [The word את always describes some closer relationship than the word אל, such as the difference between ואהבת לרעך and 'ואהבת את ה].
     ועשו בארץ, “they shall perform it in the land.” This wording was now appropriate as the people were nearing their destination. Alternatively, the reason for adding the word בארץ is simply because the entire panorama of commandments is designed first and foremost for performance in the land of Israel. I have mentioned this previously (4,14). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . כל ימי חייך “as long as you live;” on this terrestrial earth; ולמען יאריכון ימיך “and in order for you to enjoy long life;” in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” The reason this paragraph concludes with the words “a land flowing with milk and honey,” whereas the next paragraph commences with שמע ישראל followed by והיו הדברים האלה, is to remind you that the purpose of your coming to the Holy Land is not to merely dwell there and for you to enjoy yourselves. The purpose that you come there is to enable you to keep G’d’s commandments. The enlarged letter ד in the word אחד alludes to both the goodwill of G’d which is the source of Mercy as well as to the attribute of Justice. The whiteness of the milk in the word חלב in our verse as well as redness of the honey respectively also point at the attribute of Mercy and Justice respectively. This same thought is alluded  to also in Deut. 8,8 ארץ חטה ושעורה “a land producing wheat and barley.” In that latter verse wheat is the “white” and the word דבש appears there also to depict the attribute of Justice.
  
  Verse 4
  
   שמע ישראל ה’ אלו-הינו ה’ אחד, “Hear O Israel the Lord our G’d the Lord is One.”According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that Moses mentioned three names of G’d, i.e. <i>Hashem elokeynu Hashem</i>, needs explaining. Had he only mentioned ה’ אחד, there would have been a chance for the nations to understand the name Hashem as the way the Jews describe the god of the Gentiles in their language. This is why Moses had to add the word אלו-הינו, to make plain that Hashem is the name of our G’d, the G’d of the Jewish people. Conversely, if Moses had merely said ה’ אלו-הינו אחד, the nations might have said that while it is true that there is only a single national Jewish G’d, their own national god was also unique in his own right. Therefore Moses had to phrase this declaration of faith and acceptance in such a way that it unmistakably reflected our belief that 1) there is only one G’d deserving this name, 2) that He is the G’d of the Jewish people, 3) that He is unique in the universe, there is no other G’d deserving the title. He has no partners, is not an amalgamation of different powers working in tandem. His uniqueness is unmatched on earth, below it, or in the celestial regions. In the future He will be recognized as such universally as promised by our prophets, especially Zecharyah 14,9: “it will be on that day that the Lord will be One and His name will be One.”  If Moses here said אלו-הינו, whereas so far throughout the Book of Deuteronomy he had almost invariably spoken of אלו-היך when addressing the Jewish people, this was because he wanted to include himself in the Jewish community who accepted the Oneness of the Lord.
      An interesting comment by Rabbi Eliezer from Germeize, (the author of the Rokeach, a pupil of Rabbi Yehudah Hachassid): he claims that the first time Moses mentioned Hashem he referred to G’d who preceded the universe, the word אלו-הינו refers to G‘d as He is perceived while the present universe is in existence;  the third time Moses refers to Hashem he refers to the time when this universe as we know it will no longer exist. While there are people who relate to Him, He is perceived as אלו-הינו, whereas when there are no creatures to thus acknowledge Him He is simply known as Hashem.
      You should realize that the whole subject of G’d’s uniqueness relates to serving G’d with one’s heart. The Torah refers to this in 11,13 where we read the instructions “to serve him with all your heart.” Seeing that people who speak to another sometimes mean what they say, i.e. concentrate on what they are saying and sometimes they don’t, being distracted, the Torah writes “שמע,” which includes the mind and the ear being attuned to each other. One is not only to relate to G’d by hearing with one’s ear but by opening one’s heart to what one is about to hear with one’s ear. Whenever the subject of G’d’s Unity comes up it is an absolute requirement that it not be treated offhandedly, lightheartedly, without adequate concentration of one’s mind. When saying the above words one must not only make sure that one’s own ears hear them but one must be certain that one’s heart is attuned at the same time.    Seeing that when one hears a person recite the שמע that person cannot be certain if at that moment the mind of the one reciting it is on the same wavelength as his mouth, or if his mind is on other matters altogether, the letter ע in this word is written in larger script as is the letter ד, at the end of the verse. When read together these two letters spell the word עד; in other words, we are warned that there is a witness, i.e. the Lord Himself, Who is aware if we have concentrated on what we are saying when reciting this commitment or if we have only been going through the motions. From all the above it is clear that a person must be very careful when reciting the קריאת שמע not to undo the good he plans to do thereby by performing the commandment in an offhanded manner. We were taught in Berachot 34 that one teaches a reader (in the Synagogue) to concentrate on what he is saying even if one has to physically strike him to drive home the lesson.
      You should know that Gan Eden (after death) was not created except to reward the people who acknowledge G’d’s Unity not only as a platitude but by concentrating on what they are saying. Admitting G’d’s Uniqueness is the other side of the coin of denying the validity of any form of idolatry. On the other hand, anyone who acknowledges any form of idolatry automatically denies the Oneness and Uniqueness of the Lord. The principal reason that purgatory, gehinom, and its seven kinds of fires have been created was to repay the people guilty of idolatry. This is why you find the word גן thirteen times in Parshat Bereshit (compare Genesis 2,8; 9; 10; 15; 16; 3,1; 2; 3; 8;9-10; 23;24;) By way of contrast you find the word אש, fire, thirteen times in our Parshah here. This is to teach you that everyone who has had the right thoughts when saying the word אחד=13 in the line שמע ישראל ה’ אלו-הינו ה’ אחד will be saved from the fires of Gehinom, seeing that he will merit the thirteen levels of elevations available in Gan Eden.    We are told in Ketuvot 77 that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi once met Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (in a dream) when the latter was seated on thirteen golden mattresses. This is an allusion to the thirteenth and highest level in Gan Eden.
      A Midrashic approach: The reason that the verse שמע ישראל is written here after the Ten Commandments is to teach the people that when G’d used the attribute אנכי when introducing Himself at the beginning of the Ten Commandments, He referred to this אחדות of His, His uniqueness. Rabbi Nathan used the Ten Commandments (the text) to counter the claim of the heretics who believe that there are two separate and independent domains of authority in the universe. When the Lord stood at Mount Sinai and began the decalogue with the words “I am the Lord your G’d who has taken you out of Egypt,” this was equivalent to a challenge. Who dared oppose G’d at that time? Seeing that this verse שמע ישראל introduces our declaration of G’d’s Uniqueness, Moses saw fit to commence numerous verses in the Book of Deuteronomy with the words שמע ישראל. Some samples of such verses are found in Deut. 9,1; 20,3; 27,9. There are many others.   We read in the Midrash (Devarim Rabbah Lieberman edition page 66) that the words שמע ישראל recall the time when Yaakov was worried that may be one of his sons was not whole-hearted in his loyalty to Hashem and he called in his sons and confronted them on the issue by saying ושמעו אל ישראל אביכם, (Genesis 49,2). What he meant was: “listen to the One whom your father Israel serves, i.e. to G’d.” Upon hearing this, the sons replied in unison שמע ישראל ה’ אלו-הינו ה’ אחד. Ever since the Jewish people have adopted the declaration made by the 12 sons of Yaakov as one of abiding faith in G’d also their own declaration of faith, pronounced every day. The formula has been amended to read: “שמע ישראל אשר במערת המכפלה ה’ אלו-הינו ה’ אחד “hear O Israel who is buried in the cave of Machpelah the Lord our G’d,  the Lord is One.” (Compare Devarim Rabbah Lieberman edition page 67).    Our sages also commented in Devarim Rabbah (Lieberman edition page 77) that when the people had stood at Mount Sinai they had vowed נעשה ונשמע, “we will do and we will listen.” Once they had made the golden calf Moses said to them that seeing they had already reneged on the first half of their undertaking they should at least honor the second part, i.e. the נשמע, by reaffirming their faith in the one and only G’d by saying the שמע ישראל on a daily basis. This matter can best be illustrated by a parable.  A king betrothed a wife by giving her two 2 pearls. When she lost one he said to her: “safeguard the remaining one.” Thus far Midrash Rabbah.
      A more rational approach to our line: we all know of many phenomena both above terrestrial earth and below in our world which exercise their influence  on our lives in one form or another. It stands to reason that above all of these phenomena there is a hand which directs them all. The proliferation of the phenomena we witness must have its origin in a single force (compare Shaar Hayichud Chovot Halevavot chapter 5). Just like the number 1 is the first in a string of numbers, so Unity is the first (in terms of time) of a number of phenomena. Seeing that we are all witnesses to so many and different phenomena in the universe, it is quite clear that all of them must be derivatives of an original phenomenon, the Ultimate Cause. Even though the name “one” is applied to many things this description is misleading and inaccurate. It is a habit of people to use terms which, strictly speaking, apply to only one phenomenon and to describe other phenomena as possessing such characteristics. For instance, even in the Torah we find the Tabernacle referred to as אחד, “one,”(Exodus 26,6) although we all know that it was composed of many different parts. The reason the Torah described it on that occasion as “one,” was that all its constituent parts had been joined together and placed in their correct positions so that the finished product appeared to be “one.” Nonetheless the Tabernacle was subject to being dismantled and to no longer appear as a single unit.    We find that G’d told the prophet (Ezekiel 37,16) “take for yourself ‘one’ tree (or piece of wood).“ The expression אחד in that verse is a misnomer as there is only one phenomenon to which that definition can truly be applied, but the prophet describes it as such as he wants to portray a concept, i.e. the symbol of unity, something undivided. Although man is composed of 248 limbs the composite of these 248 limbs is called “one man.” Even the raw material man is made of is a composite of 4 elements; nonetheless we speak of “flesh” as if it consisted of a single raw material. All of the components of man will disintegrate at death proving that what was considered as “one” during his lifetime was in reality nothing of the kind. [Science may be defined as the search for the original single cause of the universe. Ed.]. Even amongst the celestial beings, the angels which are made of a uniform raw material and are therefore not subject to disintegration the term אחד cannot be applied in the true meaning of the word, seeing that each angel is only one of many such angels, so where is his uniqueness? The same applies to our souls. Although it is not an amalgam of elements such as our body, there are thousands of souls so how could a soul be truthfully described as אחד, truly unique? In other words, none of the phenomena in the universe can accurately be described as אחד with the exception of the Lord G’d Who is truly one of a kind in the absolute sense of the word. This is what the prophet Isaiah 40,25 meant when he said, paraphrasing G’d: ואל מי תדמיוני ואשוה, “to whom do you wish to compare Me, to whom can I be likened?”
      A kabbalistic approach: the words שמע ישראל may be understood as “bend your ear and listen.” This verse comprises the subject of true uniqueness which is accepted by all the students of Kabbalah as the mystical dimension of the ten emanations. It is man’s task to unify these ten emanations and to ensure they are joined together not only in a descending but also in an ascending direction [It is a common perception that the concept of the emanations is intended to facilitate our understanding of how something totally abstract, disembodied, can be transformed into a physical, substantive universe. Kabbalists understand it as the task of man to transcend the physical universe they find themselves in and to strive for a union with the source, Hashem, by means of these emanations. Ed.]. The word שמע is perceived as an instruction to create such a bond, union. The word occurs in this context in Samuel I 15,4 וישמע שאול, where it could not mean that Saul had heard with his ears. It means that Saul mustered the troops, i.e. made them join together. Psalms 18,45 is another example of the word שמע meaning something beyond merely hearing with a physical organ of the body. It speaks about the assimilation of such “hearing,” i.e. obedience, as a natural result of “digesting” what one’s ear has heard.  The word Hashem  is also to be understood as similar to לך ה’, “it is yours O Hashem” (Chronicles I 29,11). That verse combines the three highest spiritual attributes (emanations) אלו-הינו, הגדולה, הגבורה. The second time the word Hashem occurs in our verse is a reference to the emanation תפארת and the emanations below that until the lowest emanation, “the completion of the structure.”   The word אחד at the end of our verse comprises all the emanations. The letter א in that word refers to the One whom our mental capacities cannot define. The letter ח refers to all the eight emanations which accompany Him; The letter ד refers to the tenth emanation, the crowning glory known as עטרת זהב גדולה, and the word אחד, is not to be separated from the rest of the verse. [I suppose the author stresses this as by definition that which is אחד, one, unique, is distinct and separate from anything else already. Ed.]. Here the Torah tells us that all the ten emanations are to be joined as if they were not multiples but one. The reason it is appropriate for this process of joining the emanations together to proceed from the bottom up, is because we have a principle that in matters of sanctity we always proceed from a lower level to a higher level, never the reverse.    Concerning the letter ד in the word אחד i.e. the lowest emanation known as מלכות, Isaiah 63,12 says בוקע מים מפניהם לעשות לו שם עולם, “Who divided the waters before them to make Himself a name for all time.” We refer to this manifestation of G’d as the lowest of the emanations in our prayers every day when we recite מלכותך ה’ אלו-הינו ראו בניך בוקע ים לפני משה זה אלי ענו, “Your manifestation Lord our G’d as the emanation מלכות Your children have witnessed when You split the sea before Moses and they answered: “this is My G’d.” [The version of this prayer quoted here is similar to that in Machzar Vitri].   Seeing that the verse שמע ישראל does not contain an explicit reference to the emanation מלכות, our sages have seen fit to append the line ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, “may the name of His glorious emanation מלכות be blessed forever more.” Even though Moses did not mention this attribute explicitly we do find it alluded to in the letter ד at the end of the verse. Our sages (Pesachim 56) illustrated the problems our sages encountered in adding something Moses had not seen fit to add but which our patriarch Yaakov reportedly added, by means of a parable.  The daughter of a king who entered the kitchen smelled a delicious dish which had wonderful condiments added to it. She was very eager to eat some of it immediately. She said to herself that if she were to ask for this outright now it would be considered ill-mannered. On the other hand, if she were to wait until evening when the dish would be served she would experience physical pain during the time she had to wait. When her attendants became aware of this they brought her some of the condiment surreptitiously. As a result, the mind of the princess was put at rest. The parable symbolizes the Israelites (princess) who had become aware of the blissful effect of the emanation מלכות. Her attendants, i.e. the Shechinah, realized the Israelites’ strong desire to exalt G’d by making reference to this emanation. If they would not be allowed to do so they might pine away from distress. Giving the princess some of the condiment secretly is equivalent to the sages allowing the Jewish people to recite the line ברוך שם  sotto voce, in an undertone, so as not to reflect on the spiritual  presumptuousness of the Jewish people. In kabbalistic terms the compromise thought up by the Shechinah, and later our sages, means that reciting this line in an undertone is equivalent to reciting G’d’s “lower level” of unity and praising it. This is also why the line ברוך שם comprises 6 words just as the verse שמע ישראל comprises 6 words, each alluding to the six extremities of the terrestrial universe, i.e. the four directions of the compass plus “up” and “down.” Adding the letter ד from אחד completes the number 10 so that all the ten emanations are represented. The 6 words in the line שמע ישראל allude to the celestial regions, whereas the six words in the line ברוך שם allude to the terrestrial regions of the universe in each of which the Lord is supreme, unique, unmatched.   The Sefer Habahir (item 27) contains the following comment: The students asked their rabbi about the meaning of the letter ד in the word אחד at the end of our verse. He told them by means of a parable that they should perceive of ten kings, all wealthy, all congregating in a single place. One of the ten, while wealthy, was not as wealthy as the others. Due to this relative poverty he was considered as דל, “poor.” Thus far the text in the Sefer Habahir. The ten kings are the ten emanations all of which congregate in the celestial spheres, except the lowest emanation מלכות which is part of the עולם העשיה, the terrestrial universe, (at least perceptually. Ed.). When people in the terrestrial universe declare the Unity of Hashem they must therefore concentrate on all the ten emanations or they would not do justice to their task. The word אחד therefore has especial significance. The number 10 represents the Power of the One who “invented” the ten emanations   Compare the smallest unit in our terrestrial universe the “point.” A point is not really only a point, as no matter how  small it is it has width, length, and depth. Not only that, but the area (or imaginary line) called length has a beginning, a middle and an end. The same is true for the area called width and that called depth. This already makes a “point” something consisting of no less than nine definable areas. Add to this the space in the universe this “point” occupies and we are talking about 10 units of space. This demonstrates the importance of the number 10 as an indispensable number; in terrestrial terms you may call it an irreducible minimum. When we translate this into the aleph bet, the smallest letter the י, though perceived and spoken of as no more than a “point,” נקודה, actually represents both the number 1 and the number 10. A similar principle applies to the letter ה of the tetragrammaton, the Holy name of Hashem. Being three-sided it has three times beginnings, middles and ends in each line. Add the space it occupies and you find it also represents the number 10. Or, you simply view the letter ה as a combination of the letter י, i.e. the left, lower part, plus the letter ו. In either event you wind up with the number 10 (at least).  When we recite the Kaddish, this also has to include concentrating on the ten emanations. The words אמן יהא שמיה רבה מברך are perceived as being said on the קו האמצעי, the center line of the diagram of the ten emanations. Five of the emanations  are above this “center line,” whereas the other 5 are below making a total of 10. (The author proceeds to demonstrate similar patterns in the kedushah claiming that the sages of the Great Assembly who formulated that prayer deliberately chose to commence with the word כתר to allude to the highest, the tenth of the emanations. He continues in this vein to analyze the visions described by Ezekiel and quoted in the קדושה דסדרא in the daily ובא לציון גואל prayer).
      According to the Midrash Devarim Rabbah near the end of Parshat Vaetchanan, the reason that the line ברוך שם is recited sotto voce is that it is the formula used by the angels to praise the Lord, and we do not want to provoke the angels by copying them. According to that Midrash, Moses learned this secret formula while overhearing the angels when he was on Mount Sinai. When Moses taught the Torah to Israel he told them that everything he taught them he had learned himself from the Torah (G’d) with the exception of the line ברוך שם which he had learned from the ministering angels. He advised the Israelites to recite this line silently. Only on the Day of Atonement, when, thanks to our sins having been forgiven we are on a spiritual par with the angels, do we recite this line without fear of arousing their jealousy. The fact that on that day we neither eat nor drink, just like the angels, coupled with the fact that we don white garments, makes us sufficiently like the angels to praise G’d in the way they do.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ואהבת את ה' אלו-היך, “You shall love the Lord your G’d.” Seeing that we have no other G’d than Hashem we are bound to love Him. The point of “loving G’d” is to perform His commandments out of a sense of love for Him. If someone serves the Lord out of fear, his service is not of the best variety. The way this love for G’d expresses itself is by our studying the laws of the Torah  and by obtaining a better understanding of what G’d expects from us through such study. As a result of such study we will enjoy having gained deeper insights of what the Lord wants from us. To tell us that this is the purpose of loving G’d, the Torah immediately continues with —  והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך, “these matters which I have commanded you this day will be upon your heart.” The verse is the practical manifestation of the result of your loving the Lord. The Sifri Vaetchanan 33 explains the subject of man loving G’d in a similar manner when the author writes  that the key to this is found in the verse והיו הדברים האלה. The words ואהבת את ה' אלו-היך are an instruction to display love vis-a-vis G’d as one would vis-a-vis G’d’s creatures. This is what Avraham did and why G’d referred to him as אברהם אוהבי “Avraham who loves Me” in Isaiah 40, 8.    Our sages, in elaborating on this theme, defined someone as loving G’d if by his conduct he brings people closer to G’d and thereby helps them secure their claim to the hereafter. This is the reason why the sages cited Avraham as their model for such love.    Do not argue that seeing that the emotion described as חשק is perceived to be a stronger emotion than that of אהבה, love, why did the Torah not instruct us to וחשקת את ה' אלו-היך, “to display fondness of the Lord your G’d?” The answer to this question is that אהבה, “love”, is something that comes and goes, an emotion which manifests itself on occasion but does not manifest itself on other occasions. If someone loves a certain kind of food, he will experience this emotion when such food is placed before him and he eats it. He does not however, go around all day long “loving” that dish. When someone is in the grip of the emotion we call חשק an inordinate desire, [such as that of Shechem for Yaakov’s daughter Dinah, Ed.] this emotion is ever-present in his mind even if the object of his desire is out of sight and earshot. He will dream about the object he is so fond of.  Seeing that we have been commanded to love the Lord with both our hearts לבבך, i.e. both the urges within us, (Berachot 62) as well as with all our soul and all our material assets, i.e. we must involve emotions which we cannot suppress in this love of G’d in order to fulfill the commandment properly. The Torah’s point in using this term ואהבת is to make clear that our love for G’d must always win out in a conflict with our other emotions. The other urges cannot be ignored as one cannot live without them. For instance, unless one has an urge to stay alive one will likely become the victim of death in its many forms in short order. Similarly, unless one has an active urge to acquire some material goods one will starve to death not having the wherewithal to pay for one’s food, clothing and shelter. The very relativity of the emotion אהבה then is what enables us to fulfill this commandment. Had the Torah commanded us to relate to G’d with the emotion חשק, this would involve our abandoning all other emotions in order to devote ourselves exclusively to the emotion of being fond of the Lord. We would have had to totally suppress even the emotions without which life on terrestrial earth is impossible. The end-result of relating to G’d in such a manner would effectively have made it impossible to fulfill any of the other commandments in the Torah as they all presuppose the activation of a whole range of human emotions.    The definition of the emotion חשק implies דבקות, an inseparable attachment to the object of one’s חשק such as described in Psalms 91,14 כי בי חשק ואפלטהו. The point made in that psalm is that if only the Jewish people will display sufficient חשק, affinity to G’d, He will personally deliver them instead of only by means of an angel (compare Alshich). When one attains that level of affinity to G‘d one qualifies for what is commonly known as מיתת נשיקה, a death by kiss from G’d, i.e. a demonstration by G’d of His affinity to the person leaving earth.  We find that even in His relationship to the entire Jewish people G’d speaks of such חשק, such an intense feeling of fondness for the Jewish people, when He says in Deut. 7,7 לא מרבכם מכל העמים חשק ה' בכם, “not because you are the most numerous of all the nations did  the Lord entertain such a strong fondness for you.“ This verse clearly spelled out that G’d’s closeness, affinity to us, surpasses His affinity to any other nation. Our sages derived from there also that wherever the Jewish people are exiled, G’d, in the form of part of the Shechinah, is also present (Megillah 29).
     בכל לבבך, “with your entire heart.” The heart is perceived as the seat of the soul and man’s wisdom, seeing it is the first organ of man to be created and the last one to cease functioning when man dies. The meaning of the words: “love the Lord your G’d with all your heart,” may therefore be equivalent to “love the Lord your G’d until your dying breath.”
     ובכל נפשך, “and with all your soul,” i.e. with the soul which demonstrates all the various desires of man.   ובכל מאדך, “and with all your material assets.” The word מאדך is derived from מאד, i.e. ‘love him as much as it is physically possible.” In short, “do not love your material assets better than the commandments of the Torah.” One should not begrudge spending money liberally for the performance of the commandments. Cost should not be the factor governing if one buys an etrog and lulav or not. We have the example of Rabbi Gamliel who once spent 1000 zuz (certain coins) in order to acquire the four species (Sukkah 41).   Our sages stipulated as a rule of thumb that one is allowed to spend up to one third of one’s (liquid) assets in order to perform the commandment in the most impressive fashion. The Talmud in Baba Kama 9 discusses the wording of the above rule of thumb wanting to know if one has to sell one’s house in order to live up to this requirement. The sages point out that if that were so a person might be called upon to perform 3 commandments each one requiring him to pay as much as one third of his total assets. As a result of listening to the sages such a person might become dependent on public charity. The sages therefore agreed that the meaning of paying up to one third of one’s assets for the performance of a commandment in this fashion was not meant literally, but meant that a person should be prepared to overpay up to one third of the going price in order to have a chance to perform the commandment in question. If an average etrog costs 15 dollars, a person should be prepared to pay up to 20 dollars to acquire a specimen of a superior degree of perfection. The sages base all this on the verse זה א-לי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will beautify Him” (Exodus 15,2). They explain that the way to fulfill this promise is by having a nice talit, a beautifully written Torah-scroll, a perfect specimen of lulav, etc. The rule of not overpaying more than one third of the price for a regular lulav is accepted by the sages.    The Talmud Berachot 54 states that the way to serve the Lord with “all your heart” is to do so by employing both the evil urge as well as the good urge in G’d’s service. The way to serve the Lord “with all your soul” is that on occasion one may have to serve the Lord by laying down one’s life or Him. The way to fulfill the third part of the commandment, i.e. to serve the Lord with all one’s fortune is applicable only if one does have a fortune. [I understand this to mean that one need not go into debt to fulfill certain commandments. Ed.].    Rashi explains that the reason that the instruction to love G’d with all our material wealth is placed last is that there are people who find it harder to part with their money than to part with their lives, i.e. they consider life as a pauper not worth living. When people of such a disposition sacrifice their wealth for the love of G’d they have loved Him even better than if they had laid down their lives for Him.   An alternative way of understanding the words בכל מאדך, is that the Torah refers to the מדות, attributes, by means of which G’d measures us, tests us. We are to display our love for G’d by the way in which we react to the attributes of His He saw fit to apply to us. This is also what David had in mind when he said (Psalms 101,1) חסד ומשפט אשירה, “I will sing kindness or justice;” he meant if G’d measures me with the yardstick of kindness, חסד, I will acknowledge it by song; if He measures me by the yardstick of justice, משפט, I will still acknowledge it by song.” In a similar vein David wrote כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה’ אקרא, “I will raise the  cup of salvations and call out the name of the Lord;” at the same time צרה ויגון אמצא ובשם ה’ אקרא, “if I should find trouble and sorrow I will still proclaim the name of the Lord.” Some commentators see in these three levels of love for G’d the Torah’s way of reflecting the different levels of love for G’d displayed by the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Avraham displayed love for G’d with all his heart attracting many people to the service of the Lord, i.e. serving the Lord with heir hearts. Yitzchak displayed the second dimension of love for G’d, i.e. בכל נפשך, seeing he offered his own life on the altar of G’d. Yaakov is an example of the third dimension of loving G’d seeing he vowed to give 2 tithes to G’d of all he would acquire, i.e. he loved G’d with all his possessions.
  
  Verse 6
  
    והיו הדברים האלה, “these things (concepts) shall be;” the idea of G’d’s Unity, the love for Him which Moses  mentioned, shall all be deeply engraved on your heart. Alternatively, Moses refers to the commandments, all of which should be firmly engraved on our hearts.   אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “which I command to you this day, etc.”  Sifri Vaetchanan 93 explains the reason that Moses adds the word היום, this day, as if he were commanding all the commandments on that day for the first time, to mean that the commandments should forever be something fresh in our minds. We should not relate to them as something deja vu, something which has lost its freshness and therefore its appeal. It should always be like some new decree the depth of which we have not yet explored. You should view them as if you had received them from Mount Sinai only this day.
  
  Verse 7
  
  . ושננתם לבניך, “you will teach them diligently to your children.” The word שנון denotes something “sharp” like the blade of a sharp sword. The word occurs in connection with the tip of an arrow, i.e. חץ שנון, Proverbs 25,18. The idea behind this phraseology is that if your children will ask you about the meaning of these laws you should be able to answer them immediately, without stuttering. 
     ודברת בם, “you shall speak about them.” The principal subject of your conversation with your children (or generally) shall be words of Torah, exploring their meaning. The word בם is restrictive, i.e. you talk about the Torah to the exclusion of other subjects (Yuma 19). The word בם also means that while you may speak audibly about Torah subjects, you must not raise your voice in prayer but pray silently so as not to disturb your neighbour. The reason Torah is to be studied while raising your voice is that Torah was given to the Jewish people under the influence of overpowering voices at Mount Sinai (as we mentioned frequently in connection with Exodus 19,16).
      We learned in Chulin 89 that the meaning of the words האמנם אלם צדק תדברון, (Psalms 58,2) is that the word אמנם has a dual meaning, the psalmist saying that the vocation of man in this life is to act as if he were silent (dumb). In the event you were to understand this message as also applying to the words of Torah, David hastens to add: צדק תדברון, “it is appropriate that you should speak words of Torah.” Solomon confirms this approach by his father when he says in Proverbs 3,21: “let them not depart from your eyes.” Seeing that the attributes (emanations) חכמה, תבונה, דעת are the ones which G’d employed in creating the universe it is fitting that you make them the subject of your conversation.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וקשרתם לאות על ידך , “you shall tie them as a sign on your hand.”  This refers to the phylactery worn on the arm and we have a tradition that in this instance the word “your hand” refers to the left hand as that word depicts the left hand as we know from Isaiah 48,13: אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים, “also My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the skies.” Another verse in which the word יד clearly refers to the left hand is found in Judges 5,26: ידה ליתד תשלחנה וימינה להלמות עמלים, “her hand reached for the tent pin (Yael’s), her right hand for the workman's hammer.” Also in Exodus 13,16 the Torah speaks of ידכה “your hand,” with the weak ending, i.e. the letter ה at the end indicating that it refers to the weaker hand, i.e. the left hand.   Our sages in Menachot 37 cite a tradition according to which the place on the arm where the phylactery is to be fastened is above the elbow opposite the heart. Just as the phylactery of the head is to be placed on the highest part of the head, so the phylactery of the hand is to be fastened at the highest part of the arm, where the muscle bulges. If the Torah had intended the phylactery (the housing with the parchment) to be worn on the hand itself, i.e. on the back of the hand, this would not have been opposite the heart. Besides, that part of the body is not known as “hand,” but as קנה. Seeing that our tradition stipulates that the phylactery be fastened opposite the heart, the only logical spot is the upper arm. Job 31,22 speaks about אזרועי מקנה תשבר, “may my forearm break off at the elbow.” Our sages in Menachot 43 view the Jewish people as especially beloved of G’d seeing He made them wrap the phylacteries around their heads and arms respectively. They also point to the words: “you shall tie them as a sign” as the source for making a knot when tying the phylacteries. The very knot is a “sign”, i.e. this is the hint that all the detailed laws about the phylacteries have been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, i.e. they cannot be arrived at by the use of the exegetical tools at our disposal (Menachot 35).
     והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך, “they shall be as ornaments between your eyes.” The words “between your eyes,” are not to be taken literally but mean that they are to be placed on the forehead opposite the seat of the brain, seeing that it is the seat of our intelligence.   Our sages in Menachot 37 explain the wording “between your eyes” to mean that the phylacteries are to be placed on a spot, where the Gentiles tear out the hair as a sign of mourning their dead. (compare Deut. 14,1) We also learn from Menachot 36 that the reason why the Torah wrote לטוטפות, ornaments (plural), is that the plural form means that one must put on the phylacteries of the hand first so that when one puts on the phylacteries of the head there will be two (טוטפות) such ornaments.
  
  Verse 9
  
   וכתבתם על מזזות, “you are to write them (these words) on the doorposts of your house.” According to Rashi there is a reason why the word is written in the singular, i.e. מזוזת and not מזוזות, as we would have expected. It is to tell us that only one of the doorposts need to have a mezuzah affixed to it. The proper side is the right hand side. [Any reader of the Torah knows that the spelling in the Torah is not a defective plural, but that the letter ו denoting two mezuzot at least is part of the text. Ed.]     The word ביתך is understood as an allusion to דרך ביאתך, “the way you arrive,” i.e. the right side side of your entrance. All this is based on people preferring the right hand side. People always commence putting the right foot forward first. (Menachot 34.)     Our sages have already explained which kind of house requires a mezuzah and which does not. We find a list in Yuma 11, and Sukkah 3 where we are told that a house which has an area of less than 16 square cubits does not qualify for the term בית and therefore the owner is free of the obligation to affix a mezuzah. Any small foyer (designed to keep out the wind and cold) does not require a mezuzah. Toilets, bathrooms, do not require a mezuzah, neither does the room in which hides are treated to become leather (a tannery), a room which is full of unpleasant odours. A ritual immersion bath house is also free from this requirement. The governing principle is that houses which reflect man’s dignity must be provided with a mezuzah (perhaps to remind us of G’d’s dignity). On the other hand, all the buildings on the Temple Mount, the offices adjoining the Temple, the hall at the entrance to the Temple, עזרה, also do not require a mezuzah, as our sages interpret the word ביתך as “your house,” i.e. the house which serves your secular needs, not the sacred houses, G’d’s houses. Such houses do not belong to you personally. A synagogue does not require a mezuzah unless it contains the private dwelling of one or more of its officials. There was a single office on Mount Zion, the one known as לשכת פלהדרין which did have a mezuzah seeing it was the private residence of the High Priest for the seven days prior to the Day of Atonement.
      It is important to realise that through fulfillment and study of this commandment many fundamental aspects of the Torah and the outlook of Judaism become clearer to us. The belief in the creation of the world by the Creator, G’d’s being a personal G’d who supervises the fates of His creatures, the existence of the institution of prophecy, are all part of what we find in the segments of the Torah written in the mezuzah. The first paragraph contains references to the Unity and Uniqueness of G’d as well as to His Torah. The second paragraph deals with the principle of reward and punishment, the remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt which was a period during which G’d performed many miracles compelling the witnesses to believe in His primacy in the universe as well as convincing them that G’d takes a very personal interest in each one of His creatures. Our sages in the Talmud have agreed that the correct spot to affix the mezuzah is within (upper part) the top third of the door frame. (Menachot 33). This is also clear from the Jerusalem Talmud Megillah near the end of the fourth chapter. The reason for this is to symbolize the third and uppermost part of the emanationכבוד  which is known both by the name שדי and אדנ-י. [the concept of עשר מעלות, ten levels of sanctity, is not new and appears symbolically in our liturgy such as the blowing of the shofar in units of three times three, the recital of the Biblical verses in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaph prayer, three from each section of the Bible. In all these instances these divisions of three symbolize the attribute of כבוד as it manifests itself in a lower form, an intermediate form, and an upper form. In all of these divisions the tenth and highest unit represents the highest emanation כתר. [Placing the mezuzah near the top of the upright doorpost then symbolizes our striving for affinity to the highest level of sanctity. Ed.]. This is also why we write these names on the outside of the parchment of the mezuzah (Maimonides Hilchot Mezuzah 5,4). The word שדי is to be written in such a way that it is visible through a little hole in the upper half of the casing of the mezuzah. The parchment is affixed in an almost upright manner at a slight angle pointing in the direction of the entrance. This is why it is commonly known as מזוזה, the numerical value of which is the same as the name of G’d אדנ-י i.e. 65. That name also symbolizes that G’d is the שומר ישראל, “the guardian of the people of Israel.” The reason the word שדי is to be visible from the outside is that the Gentiles believe that the success of their domestic lives depends on the horoscopes of the people dwelling therein. Seeing that the name שדי represents the concept that this attribute of G’d defeats any horoscopic constellations, we write this on the outside to demonstrate the Power of G’d which we believe in. All good fortune originates with Him and not the horoscopes under which we are born.    We read that Eliphaz (quoting heretics) says in Job 22,17: ומה יפעל שדי למו, “what can Shaddai do about it?” In the following verse Eliphaz continues: “whereas it was He who filled their house with good things.”     There is a story told in Jerusalem Talmud Peyah 1,1 (Steinsaltz edition page כב) that the last Parthian king Artavan once sent a gift of a very precious pearl to Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, asking to be sent something of equal value in return. Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi sent a mezuzah in return. When the king received the mezuzah he was dumbfounded that Rabbi Yehudah could consider this little piece of parchment as an equivalent to the precious pearl. He expressed his sentiments in no uncertain terms. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah explained to the king that they had different sets of values, hence the king’s amazement. He went on to say that whereas the king’s gift was something that he, Rabbi Yehudah, would constantly have to guard against theft, etc., his own gift to the king was something hat would guard over the king and protect him. He quoted Proverbs 6,22 in support. Solomon writes: “When you walk it (‎Torah) will lead you; when you lie down it will watch over you. When you are awake it will talk to you.” Thus far the quote from the Talmud.   When someone affixes a mezuzah to his door he has to recite a benediction “who has sanctified us by means of His commandments and commanded us to affix a mezuzah.” Seeing it is not a commandment which one fulfills regularly, one also says the benediction שהחיינו, acknowledging the kindness of G’d in allowing us to live to this point in time.
     ובשעריך, “and on your gates.” This includes the entrances to the city itself, and even to the country. Our sages in Yuma 11 said that (not only gates of private residences) gates to cities and countries are subject to the commandment that they must have a mezuzah affixed to them. The sages base this on the word ובשעריך in our verse. However, this rule applies only if within these gates there is at least one private residence. The word ביתך in our verse means a house set aside as a residence. Had the Torah only written the word ביתך  I would have thought that only residential houses are subject to this commandment. Hence the Torah added the word ובשעריך to ensure I do not misunderstand. There has to be a common denominator between the word “your house” and the word “your gates.” The gates have to lead to a house, a residence.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   בתים מלאים כל טוב אשר לא מלאת וגו., כרמים וזיתים אשר לא נטעת, “houses filled with every good thing which you did not have to fill; vineyards and olive groves which you did not have to plant..” Our sages (Chulin 17), in interpreting the meaning of the word כל טוב stated that even pig’s ham and vineyards planted less than three years previously were permitted  to be enjoyed by the conquering Jews. 
  Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 8,1 writes that the soldiers who were part of the conquering armies were permitted to eat all kinds of forbidden foods if they were hungry and could not find food which was ritually permissible. They could also drink wine of the Gentiles in such circumstances.
      This appears to be a very peculiar statement by Maimonides, seeing that the Torah permitted all of these forbidden foods without attaching the rider that permission was granted only when nothing kosher could be located. Why would Maimonides add the words: “if he is hungry?” Did then the Torah permit these spoils only if the soldier’s life depended on his eating it? Who needs special permission under life-threatening situations?  Nachmanides already took Maimonides to task for this line in his commentary on verse 10. The same objection applies to what Maimonides writes concerning drinking wine made by the Gentiles. Nachmanides writes that it is not true that such wine is permitted to soldiers in the field, seeing the prohibition is Biblical and is part of the prohibitions of idolatry. On the other hand, if Maimonides meant what is called סתם יין, wine made by Gentiles but not intended a libation for idolatrous purposes, he did not have to write that this is permitted as no one would have thought that it was not. We only needed to be told that soldiers may ignore Biblical injunctions, not rabbinical injunctions. If Biblical injunctions are set aside for soldiers, rabbinical injunctions are most certainly set aside for them!
  
  Verse 12
  
  . השמר לך פן תשכח את ה’ אשר הוציאך  מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים,  “Beware for yourself lest you forget the Lord Who took you out of the land of Egypt, from the House of slavery!” The Torah warns that as a result of the affluence and carefree existence the people should not forget that this had not always been their lot, that they used to be poor, oppressed, in a land where they had neither owned cities, houses, etc., as they did now. They should not forget who it was who saved them from such a miserable existence and whom they have to thank for their present fortunate circumstances. They must always remember the great acts of loving kindness performed for them by Hashem and serve the Lord as a servant serves his master. This is why Solomon wrote in Kohelet 7,14: “so in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune reflect, the one no less than the other was G’d’s doing.” The meaning of the verse is that in time of good fortune we should remember days of misfortune which we experienced already, whereas in times of misfortune we should remember times of good fortune we have experienced. When we do this we will be grateful to the Lord for our present fortunate circumstances.
  
  Verse 13
  
   את ה’ אלו-היך תירא ואותו תעבוד ובשמו תשבע, “revere the Lord your G’d, serve Him, and swear only in His name.”  According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is: “if for some reason you have to render an oath that you will adhere to some undertaking or do something which you want to do, do not swear such an oath in the name of any other deity, only by the Lord your G’d.” The verse is not a positive commandment to engage in the swearing of any oath.
      Our sages in Tanchuma Vayikra 7 comment on the words: “and in His name you shall swear:” If you possess all the good virtues, i.e. that you fear committing sin, that you are constantly engaged in serving your Creator, then you are entitled to swear an oath using His name, seeing that you will be careful not to do so light-heartedly and frivolously seeing that you truly revere the Lord.   It is a well known fact that everyone who loves also reveres. There are people who do revere but do not love the object of their reverence. This teaches that reverence is an aspect of love. This is what Moses said here when he wrote; “fear the Lord your G’d, after he had already written in the קריאת שמע that we are to love the Lord our G’d. He first cautioned us to love G’d before he cautioned us to fear Him, i.e. to revere Him.    In Parshat Eikev, when belaboring a similar point, Moses adds another dimension describing our relationship with G’d by adding the requirement ובו תדבק, “and to Him you shall cling” (Deut. 10,20). The reason is that previously Moses had spoken about G’d on His part displaying this affinity for the Jewish people, i.e. רק באבותיך חשק, “He only displayed such abiding fondness for your patriarchs” (10,15). Seeing that G’d on His part had gone so far out of His way to show the Jewish people evidence of His fondness of them, the people in turn may be expected to reciprocate such feelings and display them.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   לא תנסו את ה’ אלו-היכם, “Do not put the Lord your G’d to a test.” The Torah warns us not to make our service of G’d conditional on G’d responding to it as we expect Him to. We must not serve Him on condition that our undertakings succeed, thus trying to make Him fall in with our wishes instead of vice versa. One must be wholehearted in one’s service of the Lord. Our love of the Lord must not be conditional on His responding to it, requiting it according to our yardsticks. It may well happen that although a person serves the Lord sincerely, he experiences bad times; if this happens one must not conclude that G’d’s Justice and judgment are faulty but one must continue to serve Him even if one fails to always understand His ways.    This is why Moses adds as an example of the wrong kind of service: “as you tested Him at Massah.” When the people asked for water on that occasion they did not merely pray for water but they added the words: “in order to know if the Lord is in our midst or not.” We read there that Moses named the location where all this occurred מסה ומריבה, “Test and quarrel,” The test was to see if G’d could produce drinking water in which case the people would serve Him whereas if He would not they would not follow Him into the desert. This is why the word במסה here is spelled with the vowel patach under the letter ב, a reference to why that place had been named מסה. Psalms 78,18 also refers to this event describing it as “they tested G’d in their hearts.” This was an example of serving G’d with a doubting heart, something totally lacking in שלמות, integrity, and this why the Torah forbids it under the heading of “testing, experiment.” We do find that there is a single instance in which “testing” is permitted and that concerns whether in return for being very charitable one will find that G’d repays one.” In Malachi 3,10 we find a verse to this effect saying: “thus put Me to the test: ‘bring the full tithe into the storehouse and let there be food in My House, and thus put Me to the test, said the Lord of Hosts.” Solomon also said  in Proverbs 3,9-10 “honor the Lord with your wealth, with the best of your income, and your barns will be filled with grain.”
  
  Verse 17
  
   שמור תשמרון את מצות ה’ אלו-היכם, “be certain to observe the commandments of the Lord your G’d.” This is a continuation of the prohibition to put G’d to the test. Rather, we are to unconditionally observe the commandments in the firm belief that generally speaking you will find that this pays off also in this world and is beneficial for your body, even. By keeping the commandments you will do what is good and right in the eyes of the Lord. This is why Moses adds the words למען ייטב לך, “so that it will prove to be good for you.” It stands to reason that people who are loyal to their king and observe his laws will be recognized as such and be suitably rewarded. The same holds true when you serve the King of Kings in even increased measure. After all, the whole reason G’d issues commandments to His creatures is for their benefit as repeated in 10,13.
      We may divide the commandments mentioned in our verse into three major groups: 1) מושכלות, laws recommending themselves to our intelligence; 2) מקובלות, laws based on our history; 3) חקים, statutes, the meaning of which transcends our ability to understand. When Moses speaks of מצות ה’ he has in mind mostly laws governing inter-personal and inter-societal relationships, the ones generally referred to as משפטים. These are the ones we termed מושכלות, accessible to our intellect. When Moses writes: ועדותיו, he refers to ritual commandments, ceremonies by means of which we express our faith that G’d created the universe, is the only G’d, etc. When Moses speaks of חקיו “His statutes,” he speaks of laws the reason for which has not been revealed. The commandment not to test the Lord applies to each of these categories of law.   Having dealt with the absolute demand to observe all these commandments, Moses turns to a lesser demand, i.e. to act in a manner which makes G’d’s law, and therefore the observant Jew, appear good in the eyes of man also, i.e. to occasionally do more than strict justice requires by being willing to waive something one is entitled to (compare Rashi on the words הישר והטוב). 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמור מה העדות והחקים והמשפטים, “when your son will ask you tomorrow (in the future): ‘what is the purpose of the ceremonial laws, the statutes, and (even) the social laws?’” Your children who have not been part of the historic process of becoming a Jewish nation, will ask: “why do you observe all these many types of laws?” You are to tell them that it all dates back to the time when we were slaves, oppressed, and the Lord liberated us from all this. As a result, we are obligated to accept His dictates in lieu of those of Pharaoh. Moses sums up the commandments as the Torah being a repository of our history and that observing it will keep the historic connection between the founding fathers and subsequent generations alive (compare Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויצונו ה’ לעשות את כל החקים האלה ליראה את ה’ אלו-הינו, “The Lord commanded us to carry out all these statutes in order to revere the Lord our G’d.” At this point Moses explains the principle of reward for keeping the commandments. Reverence for G’d, something previously (5,26) described as not within the power of heaven to grant, is nonetheless the product of Torah-observance, especially the meticulous observance of the statutes, the laws which have no intrinsic value for us as we do not understand them. [I have elaborated on the theme. Ed.]  לטוב לנו כל הימים לחיותינו כהיום הזה, “to be good for us for all times as well as to have kept  us alive as of this day.” This means that mitzvah-observance is good both for the body and for the soul. “Good for us for all times,” is a reference to the soul, i.e. the life in the hereafter. The term ימים is indicative of life in the hereafter, something that is prolonged, whereas life on earth is perceived as חיי שעה, “life for hours.” The words: “and to keep us alive as of this day,” are a reference to our physical existence on earth, our bodies. When the Torah describes Avraham as בא בימים in Genesis 24,1, the principal message is that Avraham had earned his hereafter, his eternal life. When David asks: “who is desirous of securing life, loving ‘days’ to see true good?” He refers to eternal life (compare Psalms 34,13). Only in those “days” will man finally experience to see the true “good.” The reason that Moses did not write כיום הזה but added the letter ה writing כהיום הזה, is a reminder of the terrestrial universe which was created by means of the letter ה, the last letter of the tetragrammaton. The reason why Moses first referred to the reward in the hereafter is that the celestial regions preceded earth in creation as a habitat.    After this Moses added: וצדקה תהיה לנו לפני ה’ אלו-הינו, “it, i.e. the performance of these commandments, will be considered a merit for us before the Lord our G’d.” The “good” promised us by the Torah will always be “in front of the Lord,” i.e. in  the world of the souls. This is why Onkelos translates these words as וזכו, ”they will merit.” 
  We may view this verse as a clear statement that there is a reward in the hereafter for performing the commandents. This then is the conclusion of the paragraph dealing with how to explain to the children of later generations why we are obligated and why it is in our interest to fulfill all these commandments.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ולא תחנם, “and you are not to show them any favor.” The word תחנם has been explained in many different ways. It may mean חן, grace, charm; it may mean חנינה, compassion, pardon. Clearly, the plain meaning is from חנינה, compassion, reprieve, and tells us that we must not indulge our feelings of compassion vis-a-vis these people. It is as if the Torah had written לא תחון אותם, “do not be charmed by them”. According to the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 20 it is forbidden to even comment on the aesthetic beauty of artifacts designed in honor of idols. One must not even admire the physical features of a handsome Gentile or a beautiful Gentile woman. The Talmud suggests that this is part of the word לא תחנם when we read the letter ח as if it had the vowel <i>chirik</i> underneath it. They also understand the expression as meaning that  we must not grant these people חניה “parking,” i.e. temporary residence status and that it is forbidden to sell any land to Gentiles in the land of Israel. The Torah spelled out the reason when it said “so that they will not lead you into sin.” You must also not give them any gift, including land, the letters in the word תחנם being read with the vowel pattern patach, sheva, patach, i.e. tachnam. In fact, the word lends itself to still further permutations by changing the vowel pattern. Basically, the sages demonstrate the power of the written Torah, which, because it does not have vowels or other signs such as commas and period signs, is capable of being interpreted in so many different ways. Changing the vowel pattern can give a single word many different meanings. Having appreciated this you will understand even better the power inherent in the names of G’d which lend themselves to so many permutations, i.e. different emphasis of the basic concept of Hashem. I have elaborated on this already in my comments on Numbers 11,15.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולא תתחתן בם, “and you must not intermarry with them.” This means even after conversion of the other partner to Judaism. (Compare Yevamot 76, according to which the term התחתנות would be inappropriate for people who had not converted, and  with whom marriage in the legal sense does not exist for Jews.) Seeing the Canaanites were guilty of more sins than any of the other nations, the Torah applied stricter yardsticks to them than to our marrying proselytes from other nations.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . כי יסיר את בנך  מאחרי, “for he will lead your son astray from following Me.” The Torah does not say that the mother, i.e. the daughter-in-law of such a marriage will lead your son astray. but it speaks about the next generation, i.e. the grandson from your daughter married to the Gentile. The grandson from a Gentile daughter-in-law could not be referred to as “your son,“ as, seeing his mother is not Jewish, he is not either (compare Kidushin 68). The syntax of the verses makes clear that the Torah considers the mother pivotal in determining who is Jewish. The plain meaning of the verse then is: ”if the son of a Gentile marries your daughter he will lead your grandson born from your daughter astray” (religiously speaking, even though technically your grandson is Jewish). Her husband will train his son to engage in idolatry.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא מרבכם מכל העמים, “not because you are the most numerous amongst all the nations, etc.” The premise underlying the verse is that seeing we have a principle that the glory of a king is manifest in the numerous legions he owns, and it would therefore be natural for G’d, the King of Kings, to command the most numerous legions as His people, this is not the case in the G’d-Israel relationship. His relationship to you is governed by the degree of fondness He has developed for you, a consideration outweighing considerations of numerical strength. This is why He chose you to be His special people as already mentioned in verse 6. You do not have officers or policemen in the celestial regions you are subservient to, only to G’d Himself. This is the meaning of being an עם סגולה i.e. under His immediate authority. This is why you must not err to serve idols in any shape or form (see Nachmanides on that verse).
      I believe that the correct way to interpret the words: “not on account of your being the most numerous,” refers to the reason G’d took us out of Egypt to make us His nation. The verse provides evidence that we were indeed the most numerous people at the time but this did not provide G’d with the motivation to take us out of there. Rather, He was motivated by feelings of a strong fondness so that even if we had been the least numerous nation He would still have taken us out of there. G’d loved us and wanted to keep His oath to the patriarchs.   The reason G’d felt compelled to state all this now in the fortieth year after the Exodus is that now Moses had referred to how numerous the people had become, i.e. “like the stars in the sky” (1,10). If so, and especially seeing that the numbers of the people had not changed since the Exodus, how could G’d say that He had taken us out because we actually were the least numerous,  i.e. כי אתם המעט מכל העמים? 
      We may add further  that the absence of a dot, dagesh in the letter מ in the word המעט proves this; had the letter מ in המעט been written with a dagesh I would have used this as confirmation that the people had indeed been the least numerous. However, seeing that it is written without such a dagesh, just as in the word המעט In Numbers 16,9 or 16,13, the word is not to be understood as confirmation of anything, rather as a supposition. The meaning of the line is: the word אתם refers to the spiritual level of the people, i.e. a very high level. Moses, resp. G’d is saying: “you who are numerically the smallest nation are yet on such a high spiritual level that instead of considering yourselves the most insignificant of all you are the most significant of all. Nonetheless, even considering your relative excellence, the reason the Lord took you out of Egypt was because of a feeling of love for you and in order to keep His oath to them.     Our sages in the Midrash (compare Rashi Pinchas 26,36) interpret the words: “for you are the smallest, etc.” as ה מעט, “five families.” The total number of families of the Jewish people was 65, i.e. five fewer than the 70 nations (families) enumerated in Noach after the dispersal of mankind subsequent to the Tower. The expression חשק is a variant of קשור and is found in that sense in Exodus 27,10 חשוקים כסף, surrounded by bands of silver (closely attached). These bands were firmly attached. The word in our verse indicates that the attachment between G’d and the Jewish people is permanent, extends beyond the death of the bodies of the individual Jews.
      A Midrashic approach based on Chulin 89: the word לא מרבכם means “not because you boast of the fact that you are so numerous but, on the contrary, because you are unassuming, modest before Me do I relate to you in this manner. David referred to this in Psalms 136,23: “He remembered us because we were humbled, for His kindness is everlasting.” This is the true meaning of: “for you are the least assuming of all the nations.” G’d said: “at a time when I bestow greatness upon you, you belittle yourselves.” When I granted greatness to Avraham, he said: “I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18,27). When I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron they said “who are we?” (Exodus 16,8). When I bestowed greatness upon David, he said: “I am only a worm and not a man” (Psalms 22,7). The nations of the world do not react in this manner. When I granted greatness to King Nimrod he went ahead and said “let us a build a tower which reaches into heaven!” (Genesis 11,3)  When I granted greatness to Pharaoh  he reacted by saying: “who is Hashem that I should listen to His instructions!” (Exodus 5,2): When I granted great stature to Sancheriv, he responded by saying: “Who amongst all the gods of these countries has saved them from my hand that you (Chizkiyah) would think that the Lord can save Jerusalem from my hand?” (Isaiah 36,20) When I granted greatness to Nevuchadnezzar he proclaimed: “I will ascend the highest places” (Isaiah 13,14). Chirom the king of Tzor  said: “I am a god; I sit enthroned like a god in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28,2).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וידעת כי ה’ אלו-היך הוא האלו-הים ה-אל הנאמן, “and you  know that the Lord your G’d He is the true G’d.” The word “you know” refers to the knowledge the people acquired at the Exodus that the Lord is the G’d who had created heaven and earth; further more you will know that He is a true G’d seeing that on that occasion He kept His promise and will continue to so seeing He has the power to do so. Whereas in our verse Moses speaks of one thousand generations hence, in a different context the Torah speaks of G’d remembering things two thousand generations hence. Our sages in Sotah 31 do not see a contradiction in this but say simply that when G’d is served out of fear He will remember this for 1,000 generations and there will be positive fallout. When someone serves Hashem out of love the fallout will continue for 2,000 generations. In each instance, the number of generations that G’d reacts to who either hate Him or love him is mentioned next to the words לשונאיו or לאוהביו respectively. This teaches that the verse is not to be understood only collectively, but that G’d deals with each person on his merits (Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 10
  
  . אל פניו “to his face.”  to each one of them, individually. להאבידו, “to destroy him.”  Just as He destroyed the Egyptians and not a single Israelite. This attribute is a demonstration of the absolute truth with which G’d operates in this world. Although it may take a long time before the wicked person gets his deserts seeing G’d has a lot of patience during which time the wicked continues his evil, the reason he appears to get away with it is that G’d may still owe him a reward for good deeds he has done without having been rewarded as yet.
      Others (Ibn Ezra) explain the wording here differently, saying that the word אל פניו means “personally, without intermediary,” similar to Samuel II 17,11.
     לא יאחר לשונאו, “He shall not delay for His enemy.” He will not wait for three or four generations with retribution as mentioned as sometimes occurring (Ten Commandments 5,9). He personally will experience the retribution, not a descendant. This is the meaning of the words following אל פניו ישלם לו, “He will pay him back to his face.”
      A Midrashic approach based on Midrash Tehillim 99: our wording “He pays back His enemies to their faces” expresses what is written in Psalms 73,4: “כי אין חרצובות למותם ובריא אולם, “death has no pangs for them; their body is healthy (standard translation). The word חרצובות is understood as an acronym of the two words אחר צביונן, a change of colour, appearance.  G’d does not prescribe a medication for these kind of wicked people which, though making them suffer, would cure them ultimately. You may understand this by means of a parable. A doctor who attends two patients prescribes unpleasant medicines to the one patient whereas he tells the nurse of the second patient to let him eat whatever he wants, etc. When questioned why he did not prescribe medicines for the second patient, he explains that that patient is doomed and therefore there is no point in letting him undergo the additional discomfort of a medicine which will do nothing for him. Moses says something similar here. Seeing that G’d is going to destroy the deliberate unrepentant sinner anyway, the fact that he enjoys some of the benefits life on terrestrial earth has to offer in the meantime is irrelevant. We have another Midrash on the subject in Kohelet Rabbah  7,32: Rabbi Yoshiah said that there are three reasons why G’d allows the wicked to flourish in this world. 1)  He hopes they will repent. 2) They have already fulfilled a major mitzvah for which G’d owes them a reward. 3) He foresees that a righteous person of major dimensions will be descended from them. We know, for instance that one such example was King Achaz, a heretic of considerable proportions who became the father of King Chizkiyah of Yehudah, a king who almost qualified to be the messiah. Another example is Shimi ben Gerah, the one who cursed David, from whom Mordechai is descended. Had G’d punished Shimi sooner than when Solomon eventually executed him, perhaps we would have been without a Mordechai. Mind you, Shimi, was not a heretic though he challenged the legitimacy of David both as king and as Jew. The only people who qualify under the heading of G’d’s שונאיו are the ones who deny Him and His authority. Only concerning such utter heretics does the Torah say that G’d will wipe out such people.
      Onkelos believes that our verse speaks of G’d repaying the sinner generously for his relatively insignificant good deeds so that He will not have to use unrewarded good deeds as ameliorating the eventual punishment of such people in the hereafter. G’d chooses the inferior world to be the arena in which such sinners receive their rewards, a world which is brief and transient. By doing so, He is free to deny such people any share in the world to come, a world which is unending. It follows that what the onlooker perceives a the “good fortune” of the sinner in this life is actually part of his ill fortune, seeing it is the cause he will not enjoy life in the hereafter.    This is what David alluded to in Psalms 92,7: “a foolish man cannot know, a fool cannot understand זאת, this.” Such people as the ones David refers to do not understand the workings of the attribute זאת, the way the attribute of Justice works. This is also what is meant when the psalmist describes in the following verse: בפרוח רשעים כמו עשב ויציצו כל פועלי און—להשמדם עדי עד, “when the wicked sprout like grass and the evildoers blossom; it is only in order to destroy them forever.” G’d often treats the righteous in the opposite way by punishing him for his relatively few sins through inflicting pain and discomfort on him in this life so as to preserve his life in the hereafter fully intact.
  
  Verse 11
  
  אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם, “which I command you this day to perform.” Our sages in Eiruvin 22 use the superfluous word  “this day,” to teach that whereas performance of the commandments is incumbent upon us “this day,” G’d does not promise that the reward will also be paid immediately, i.e. “this day.” Basically, our terrestrial world is perceived a the עולם העשיה, the world of “action,” as opposed to being the period in which one enjoys the reward for one’s actions. Solomon already alluded to this when he said in Kohelet 9,10: “for there is no action, no reasoning, no learning no wisdom in Sheol, where you are going.” His message is that it is too late to rectify after death what one has failed to rectify while alive. Once one has died one has forfeited all one’s former potential. This is why one has to perform all the good one can while on this earth and capable of exercising one’s faculties. This is what Solomon had said in the first half of the verse we just quoted, where we read: “whatever it is in your power to do, do with all your might.”    Our sages in Avodah Zarah 3 have paraphrased this thought when they said that he who labors on the Sabbath eve will have what to eat on the Sabbath, When will the one who did not trouble himself on Sabbath eve have food to eat on the Sabbath? All these considerations commit each one of us to spend as much effort to perform a so-called מצוה קלה, an easy commandment, or one that appears capable of fulfilling with little effort as that which requires great efforts on our part. We do not know which mitzvah will be rewarded more greatly. G’d did not take us into His confidence [else nobody would perform the מצות קלות.] Our sages in Avot 2,1 spelled this out quite clearly. We must not commit the error of applying our yardsticks to G’d’s thinking and deciding what in His view deserves a great deal of reward and what does not. In referring to the inadequacy of our intellect, Solomon writes in Proverbs 5,6: “she does not chart a path of life, her ways are unstable; you do not know them.”  We must not overestimate the reliability of the conclusions we draw about what is good and bad by second-guessing G’d. David had a similar message in Psalms 119,14 and 16: by emphasizing the positive, i.e. the delight of accepting G’d’s law, His teaching in preference to all riches available on this earth.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  בני לדברי הקשיבה לאמרי הט אזנך אל יליזו מעיניך שמרם בתוך לבבך כי חיים הם למוצאיהם ולכל בשרו מרפא, “My son, give attention to my words; incline your ears to my words. Do not lose sight of them; keep them in your heart. For they are life to those that find them; and healing for all flesh.” (Proverbs 4,20- 22). 
  Solomon urges us here to tune in to words of Torah and to tune out to extraneous matters. This is the deeper meaning of the words הט אזנך, “incline your ear.” He uses a similar phrase in Proverbs 2,2 where the words תטה לבך also mean to turn one’s attention away from other matters in order to acquire the requisite תבונה, discernment, insight. Solomon called the commandments דברים ואמרים, warning that neither must the text be forgotten nor the essence, the actual commandment. They must not be forgotten. The words אל יליזו מעיניך refer to forgetting the text of the Torah; even if you have urgent matters to attend to we must always remember these commandments described as הדברים בין עיניך in Exodus 13,9. The reason the Torah commanded us to wear the phylacteries on our forehead is to make it harder to forget these commandments.     When saying שמרם בתוך לבבך, “guard them inside your heart,” this refers not so much to the text of the commandments as to their essence. Something buried inside a person’s heart and constantly guarded  is not subject to being forgotten. This is why we must guard Torah text as well as essence in our hearts so that we are not in danger of forgetting them. Solomon provides a reason why he considers this so essential, namely that Torah essence is equivalent to life itself for all those who have once found them. Torah (text) and the commandments between them are healing for both body and soul. Solomon has touched on that subject already earlier in Proverbs 3, 22 when he said: ”they will give life to your spirit and grace to your throat.” When Solomon used the word לגרגותיך in that verse, meaning “for your throat,” he meant that when you (also) observe the words of Torah which you express with your mouth, they will then be an adornment for you. In the words of our sages: Torah words are effective when the one who speaks about them also is known as keeping them, i.e. נאה דורש נאה מקיים (compare Chagigah 14). Solomon also says (Proverbs 4,13) נצריה כי היא חייך, “guard her well” for she is your life.     Seeing that our Torah is the fruit, i.e. the product of the attribute of חכמה, wisdom of the celestial world, of which it is written in Kohelet 7,12: החכמה תחיה בעליה, “the wisdom revives those who possess it,” this is why Solomon says in our opening verse that “it is life-giving for those who find it.” The plural of חיים הם, is an allusion to Jeremiah 2,13 who quotes G’d as saying that the Jewish people have forsaken Him Who is מקור מים חיים the source of “living” waters. Moses himself refers to this phenomenon in Deut. 4,4 where he attributed the people’s being alive to ואתם הדבקים בה’ חיים כולכם השיום, “you are all fully alive this day because you have cleaved to the Lord your G’d, i.e. His Torah, the wisdom He revealed to you.”   Solomon is very specific in describing for whom the words of Torah constitute life, saying “for the ones who have found them.” By adding this rider he makes it plain that not every person is likely to find words of Torah. The reason that not everyone finds words of Torah is because not everyone searches for them. Those who have not found words of Torah would have found them if only they had wanted to find them, if only they had looked for them. This is what Solomon said in Proverbs 2,4-5: “If you seek it as silver, and search for it as for treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord  and will find knowledge of G’d.”  Our sages  in Eiruvin 54 comment on the word למוצאיהם, “for those who find them,” by slightly changing the spelling to למוציאיהם בפה “for those who express these words of Torah as wisdom with their mouth.” The moral reason is that it is not enough to possess knowledge of G’d and to keep it to oneself; one has to spread this knowledge, talk about it. In fact, these words of Torah have to be שגורים בפה, fluent in one’s mouth, one must have quotations from the Torah constantly at one’s command. Concerning these two additional facets of Torah Solomon said in Proverbs 22,18: “it is pleasant if you store them within you, so that they will be ever ready on our lips.”   As to the meaning of the words ולכל בשרו מרפא, “that the words of Torah will be a therapy for one’s whole flesh,” it is customary for a physician to give a patient a certain drug and to feed it to him in his food or drink so that it will heal the sickness of a particular organ of the body. Very often such treatment has a negative side effect for parts of the body which were not afflicted by the disease. The great advantage of Torah as therapy is that it applies to all parts of the body and that Torah’s therapy does not produce negative side effects in any part of the patient.    Solomon also teaches in this verse that not only the body but also the soul benefits therapeutically from Torah. Moses underlines that by saying in 6,24 לטוב לנו כל הימים, “to be good for us for all time.” The word כל in that verse clearly is a reference to the hereafter. The words לחיותנו כיום הזה on the other hand, refer to life in this world. This also explains the division of the commandments into what we called מצות מושכלות and מצות מקובלות. The former are designed to help our bodies while we are on terrestrial earth, whereas the other are primarily of benefit to the soul, all their demonstrable benefit being reserved for the hereafter. David referred to this division, i.e. that the מצות מושכלות are of immediate benefit to our bodies in this world, when he said גם עבדך נזהר בהם בשמרם עקב רב, “Your servant pays them heed; in obeying them there is much reward.” The word  עקב meaning reward  occurs both in connection with מצות מושכלות and with מצות מקובלות. It occurs in connection with חקים, the commandments which defy our reason. Nonetheless, David says in Psalms 119,33: ”Teach me O Lord the way of Your statutes, I will observe them עקב.” We have a similar verse in Psalms 119,112. In both instances David means that one of the reasons that prompts him to carefully observe the laws known as חקים is the reward which will accrue for their observance, ultimately, עקב. This “reward” is concealed at this time but David describes it as מה רב טובך “how great is Your goodness,” (Psalms 31,20) a reference to the greatness of the reward. Hence the term עקב רב for describing great reward for the observance of the social laws, מצות מושכלות the social laws, משפטים as we know from the following verse:
   והיה עקב תשמעון את המשפטים האלה  ושמרתם ועשיתם אותם, ושמר ה’ אלו-היך לך את הברית ואת החסד אשר נשבע לאבותיך, “This shall be the reward when you hearken to these social laws and observe them to carry them out; Hashem your G’d will safeguard for you the covenant and the kindness which He has sworn to your forefathers.” All the promises made in this portion of the Torah are of a physical dimension, refer to the benefits derived by our bodies in this terrestrial life which is but a prelude to life in the world to come. One reason why this type of reward is described as עקב, something “low” “at the bottom like the heel,” is that the reward shared out in this world for mitzvot performed here is insignificant compared to the part which awaits us in the hereafter. That part of the reward is alluded to in the word והיה, a reference to the world to come, a word which contains the letters of the tetragrammaton, G’d’s Holy Name. We already mentioned the relationship between this world and the next world in matters of rewards in explaining the word היום in the last verse of the last portion.    In order not to create the impression that מצות מושכלות performed היום i.e. in this life, will not be rewarded at all in this life, Moses wrote our verse here to stress that even those commandments will entitle the people performing them to a measure of reward including זיו השכינה, “a certain divine illumination.”    There is yet another lesson, a moral one, in the choice of the word עקב by Moses at this juncture. There are commandments which man does not take seriously, tramples under foot, so to speak with his עקב, his heel. The Torah warns us not to do this as we would miss out on the reward for the meticulous performance of those commandments. Our sages warned us of the punishment for the neglect of just those commandments. We are told in Avodah Zarah 18, based on Psalms 49,6 עון עקבי יסובני, “the guilt of my heels which surrounds me,” that the psalmist has in mind these very commandments which we neglect as not worth our while to pay attention to. Another meaning of that verse is that David refers to the kind of commandments which require from us that we walk toward them, situations which we have to create in order to perform the commandments in question. They include such duties as attending funerals, walking to the synagogue to participate in communal prayer, visiting the sick, etc. The reward for such commandments is especially great as the performance of these mitzvot entails that we extend ourselves. Our sages in Berachot 6 who have taught us that on the Sabbath one does not run or make big steps, have nevertheless suspended this rule for people who run to the synagogue.     If one does not fulfill the commandments requiring this use of one’s feet and one’s heels one will be held accountable for this on the day of Judgment after death. Hoseah 11,10 who writes: “the Lord will roar like a lion and they shall march behind Him,” refers to people being allowed to run to the synagogue on the Sabbath.    Naturally, if one is held accountable for merely not running or walking toward the opportunity to fulfill a commandment, if one rums toward an opportunity to commit a sin one will be held doubly accountable. Not only will one be punished for the commission of the sin, but separately for the effort made to enable one to commit it. We are told that the daughter of Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon was condemned to sit in the company of whores as she had walked with an arrogant gait in front of the noble senators of Rome after she had heard the scholars comment on her beautiful legs. She accepted the sentence by acknowledging that G’d had punished her in accordance with Jeremiah 3,19: “wondrous in purpose and mighty in deed, whose eyes observe all the ways of men, so as to repay every man according to his ways.” We learn from this that even the manner in which we walk (and our purpose in walking in such a manner) is something we are held accountable for. All of this is included in the words והיה עקב תשמעון. 
      A Midrashic approach (based on Devarim Rabbah Lieberman edition page 76) the word עקב teaches that the righteous are rewarded only at the end of their career on earth, whereas the wicked are repaid immediately for any good deeds they perform. This is the real meaning of ומשלם לשונאיו אל פניו, “and He repays immediately (for the good deeds) those who hate Him.” On the other hand: ואחריו כל ישרי לב (Psalms 94,15) “and after him (his life) all those who were of an upright heart.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ברוך תהיה מכל העמים, “You will be blessed more than any other nations.” The word יותר “more than,“ is implied here though it does not appear in the text. It is a construction similar to Deut. 28,1: ונתנך ה’ אלו-היך עליון על כל גויי הארץ, “and the Lord will make you supreme above all the nations of the earth.”  Alternatively, the words מכל העמים can be understood as מפי כל העמים, i.e. you will be blessed by all the nations. They will all acknowledge your superiority.
  
  Verse 15
  
   והסיר ה’ ממך כל חולי, “the Lord will remove all manner of sickness from you;” This refers to the kinds of maladies all of mankind is plagued by.   וכל מדוי מצרים, “and all the specific illnesses prevalent in Egypt;” unusual kinds of diseases. 
  Alternatively, the words כל חולי may refer to sickness which attacks the body from the outside due to climate, and conditions of air pollution, etc. The words וכל מדוי מצרים would refer to diseases originating inside the body. Concerning those, Moses says: “G’d will not afflict you with them.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ואכלת את כל העמים, “you will consume all the nations.” When you will utterly destroy them the result will be as if you had eaten them as one eats bread. This is in line with what Calev had said when he came back from the spying mission 38 years earlier when he told his compatriots that the Canaanites “are our bread” (Numbers 14,9).
     אשר ה’ אלו-היך נותן לך, “which the Lord your G’d is about to give to you.” Our sages in Baba Kama 113 state that this was true only at the time when the Canaanites were being delivered into the hands of the Israelites during the years of conquest. Nowadays, stealing from or robbing Gentiles is certainly prohibited. In fact, the Talmud there describes stealing from Gentiles as a greater sin than stealing from Israelites as it involves the desecration of the name of the Lord. The Jewish people are to be models of morality. If we steal we drag G’d’s Torah into disrepute. (See also the author's comment on Lev. 25,50).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וגם את הצרעה, “and also the hornet,” etc.; Remember that miracles occur on two levels, so-called “open” (supernatural) miracles, i.e. visible manifestations of G’d interfering with the laws of nature; secondly there are the so-called “hidden” miracles (natural) which are no less miraculous although we do not witness overt interference with the laws of nature. In the previous verse G’d referred to the first category of miracles, the ten plagues, etc., in which G’d demonstrated His mastery over the forces of the universe, the laws of nature.   Now the Torah, i.e. Moses, turns his attention to the occurrence of “hidden” miracles such as swarms of hornets which occur at regular intervals, almost like rain. Seeing that neither rainfall nor swarms of hornets are the result of changes in the laws of nature they are not regarded as miracles. This is why the Torah introduces this element with the word וגם, “and also,” to say that in addition to the supernatural miracles mentioned above there will also be natural forces such as the hornet. The fact that G’d employs a tiny insect to drive out the powerful people of Canaan is surely enough of a miracle to register with the people who observe this. Therefore — לא תערוץ מפניהם, “You shall not be afraid of them (the inhabitants, not the hornets).” The only One you shall be afraid of is the Lord your G’d Who dwells among you. (The author suggests reading the first 6 words in verse 21 together).
      It is worth noting that the words ה’ אלו-היך and the word בקרבך contain two separate praises of the Lord. They are the attributes גדול ונורא, “great and awesome.” These two adjectives, i.e. attributes, refer to the two types of miracles we spoke of earlier. The word גדול describes the attribute involved when G’d performs “hidden” miracles, whereas the word נורא describes the attribute involved when He performs “open” miracles. When G’d’s activities at the Sea of Reeds were reported in the Torah we read about נורא תהלות עושה פלא, ”too awesome for praises, Doer of wonders” (Exodus 15,11). Presently (10,21) the Torah will refer to both kinds of miracles describing them under the heading of “את הגדולות ואת הנוראות האלה, “these awesome deeds and these great deeds.” The צרעה is an insect similar to a fly which emits a poison by means of its sting. Our sages in Tanchuma Mishpatim 18 have said that a plague of such hornets occurred twice; once during the time of Moses and once during the life of Joshua. It would attack the enemies of the Israelites disabling them from offering serious resistance. The Israelites would simply kill the Canaanites without encountering resistance. There is another Midrash in Sotah 36 according to which the effect of the bite or sting of the hornet resulted in the victim becoming both blinded and impotent as if castrated. The prophet Amos 2,9 referred to this when he said: “Yet I destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was like the cedar’s and who was as stout as an oak; destroying the boughs above and his trunk below.” Onkelos also translates the word צרעה as ערעיתא, “wasp, hornet.” According to Onkelos, the reason for this name may be that it encounters man like the Amalekites encountered the Israelites in the desert, i.e. אשר קרך בדרך (Deut. 25,18), compare Onkelos there.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   פסילי אלוהיהם תשרפון באש, לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם ולקחת לך, “the images of their gods you shall burn by fire. Do not covet the silver or gold on those idols and do not take it for yourself!”  The sages in Avodah Zarah 52 read this verse as follows: “if the silver and gold was meant i.e. cast for the idol, do not covet it, if, however it was (once) part of the idol itself (seeing the idol has been destroyed or neutralized, ולקחת לך you may take it for yourself.” This is because the word פסל may have one of two meanings. One meaning is that it is a molten or carved image, the idol itself; the other meaning of the word is related to פסולת, reject, that which is left over, no longer fit for its original purpose. This is why our verse may also refer to a situation where the rejects, the leftovers of an idol after it has been destroyed is permitted for further use, whereas the idol itself is, of course, totally forbidden for any  use.
  
  Verse 26
  
   ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך, “and do not bring any abomination into your house.”  Our sages derive from this verse indirectly that it is forbidden to rent out one’s house to a pagan as a residence seeing the pagan will introduce various idols into your house. The technical reason why the Jew renting the house to a pagan is transgressing the law is that renting does not confer title of the ground the property is on to the person who has rented the house. Seeing the ground remains the property of the Jew he is held liable (rabbinically) when the pagan practices idolatry in that house (based on Meiri in Avodah Zarah 21). However, we find that some halachic authorities take a more lenient view; these include the Jerusalem Talmud as well as Rabbeinu Chananel, hence our practice of renting houses to Gentiles. Nachmanides takes a more stringent view stating that a responsible person will refrain from renting his house to Gentiles not only in the countries under Catholic rule but also in those under Moslem rule. 
     שקץ תשקצנו , “you shall surely abominate it.” The verse teaches that we must relate to idolatry with a very negative and disdainful attitude and when for some reason speaking about it always make plain how we detest it. We are not to refer to houses of pagan worship by the names they are usually referred to but by some name which belittles them, downgrades them. (Sanhedrin 63). We have a principle that unbecoming speech is forbidden unless such epithets are reserved for idolatry and places where such idolatry is practiced (compare Isaiah 46,1 where the prophet ridicules pagan deities in insulting language: “Bel is bowed, Nebo is cowering.”) The author quotes more such examples from the Talmud where pagan sites are referred to in a derogatory manner.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כל המצוה אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “the whole (set) of commandments which I command you this day, etc.;” The placing in apposition of the words כל המצוה, to the paragraph teaching us how we are to relate to paganism is meant to convey that he who takes the instructions of the previous chapter to heart is considered as if he had fulfilled כל המצוה, “all the commandments.” Our sages reinforced this when they said anyone who denies paganism is as if he had expressly acknowledged the entire Torah; conversely, if someone acknowledges any aspect of idolatry as true he is considered as if he had denied the totality of Torah and Judaism.
      We find the following comment in Devarim Rabbah (Lieberman edition Nitzavim page 14): the words כל המצוה are to be understood as “fulfill the commandment to its nth degree, completely;” the author means that if you have commenced to fulfill a certain commandment make every effort to complete that commandment. Do not content yourself with half-measures. (compare also Tanchuma Eykev 6)  where the Midrash states that the credit for fulfilling a commandment goes to the person who completes it. Although for 40 years only Moses was preoccupied with transporting the remains of Joseph through the desert as we know from Exodus 13,19, the Book of Joshua 24,32 credits the Children of Israel who reburied Joseph’s remains in Shechem with that mitzvah. This is because Moses had not been able to complete carrying out the entire mitzvah and it was completed by the Children of Israel.
  
  Verse 2
  
   לדעת את אשר בלבבך, “to know what is in your heart.” The word לדעת is to be understood as if the Torah had written להודיע, “to make known to others.” The author attributes the comment to Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon. [It is clear that the meaning cannot be “to know,” as G’d does not have to find out what goes on in our hearts. Ed.] We find a similar meaning of the word לדעת in Exodus 31,13: לדעת כי אני ה’ מקדשכם, where the translation “to know that I the Lord am sanctifying you,” would not do justice to the text. [The text discusses the fact that the Sabbath is something called אות, a symbol, a declaration vis-a-vis others; clearly then the word לדעת must have a transitive meaning. Ed.] In both our verses the message is to be radiated to the nations of the world. In order for the Torah to make plain that service of the Lord is the principal reason G’d bothered to create the universe, G’d had to use  the appropriate educational tools. 
  It is possible to understand the words וירעיבך, “He starved you,” as a reference to the excellence of the manna. Anyone eating it would understand the meaning of מצות המושכלות, “the deeper meaning of the commandments which are accessible to our intelligence.” This is possible only after the traces of physical food have departed from the body. This is also how our sages explained the need for Moses  to be wrapped in cloud before reaching the top of Mount Sinai (Yuma 4 based on Exodus 24,16). During those six days the last traces of conventional food Moses had eaten prior to his ascent left his body. In other words, the word: “he starved you,” is not to be understood objectively, but He ensured that prior to eating manna your bodies were cleansed of any excrement remaining from conventional food. When that had occurred it was possible to become a receptacle for receiving certain commandments and to cleave to the Shechinah.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . ויענך וירעיבך, “He afflicted you and let you go hungry.” The word “He afflicted you,” refers to the tedium of the journey, compare Palms 102,24: “He drained my strength on the way.” The word “He let you go hungry,” refers to denial of the kind of conventional food eaten by the other nations.
     ויאכילך את המן, “He fed you the manna.” This is celestial food, not terrestrial food.
     ולא ידעון אבותיך, “and which your forefathers had not known.” It is possible that these words are a reference to the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, in which case our verse would describe that the generation of Israelites journeying in the desert enjoyed manifestations of miracles not granted to their illustrious forbears. The reason for this is that the patriarchs had not been granted a proper appreciation of the attribute Hashem as had their descendants. The great and awesome miracles are usually performed by that attribute, and G’d had not needed to invoke this attribute during the lives of the patriarchs. He had contented Himself with the kind of miracles performed within the boundaries of nature, miracles orchestrated by the attribute Shaddai.
     לא על הלחם לבדו, “not on bread alone, etc.,” the bread that people normally eat does not possess the power by itself to keep man alive but it must contain also ingredients enabling it to grow, to be assimilated by the body through a digestive process. These ingredients are usually referred to as the power and mazzal of bread. The Torah here reflects a well known statement by our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7) that there is not a blade of grass in this world which does not have its own mazzal, i.e. properties which enable it to accomplish the purpose of its Creator in calling it into existence. This mazzal tells the blade of grass: “grow!” We know all this from Job 38,33: “do you know the laws of heaven  or impose its authority on earth? Can you send up an order to the clouds for an abundance of water to cover you?” Each of these powers reposing in any of the phenomena G’d created contains within it an adjacent power, all of which combined amount to what we call the laws of nature, the symphony of instruments which combine to keep this universe on track. Moses sums it all up as the מוצא פי ה', “the utterances of the Lord’s mouth.” Just as historic decisions are attributed to הדבר יצא מפי המלך, “the word had emerged from the mouth of the king,” (Esther 7,8) so Moses uses an idiom understandable to us human beings when describing G’d’s activities.    The principal message Moses teaches us here is that contrary to appearances, the power to keep us alive does not reside in the purely physical properties of bread, or any other food for that matter, but in the potential G’d has placed within that physical food to sustain and make grow the people who consume it. Bread was chosen as the example seeing that in order for man to even produce it so many steps are necessary that one could have thought that the finished product reflects man’s accomplishment more than it does G’d’s.    The closer we are to direct divine input and reduced reliance on intermediaries such as the eleven stages needed to convert a kernel of wheat into bread, the closer we are to the true life-giving forces of heaven. This is the meaning of Exodus 24,11: “they ‘saw’ G’d and they ate and drank.” The ability of the nobles of Israel described in that verse to have a vision of G’d is what gave them the energy they normally thought they derived by eating  and drinking physical, conventional food.   Rabbi Yochanan in expounding this verse in Vayikra Rabbah 20,7 said: אכילה ודאית. This sounds as if he meant that the people described ate regular food after or in spite of having been granted such a vision of G’d. I do not believe that this is what Rabbi Yochanan had in mind. If that had been his meaning he need not have commented at all, as the matter is self-evident. I believe that Rabbi Yochanan meant that the effect of the vision described in the Torah was the same as the effect of consuming regular terrestrial food. Even though all the phenomena in the world are in the last analysis “intermediaries” having originated with G’d, i.e. are מוצא פי ה’, as we know from the very word  כל, “everything,” the manna came more directly from G’d more than any other kinds of food. This is why G’d described it as לחם מן השמים, “bread from heaven” in Exodus 16,4. The complete meaning of the verse then is: “man lives by means of all the various divine sources of food and energy. Seeing that this is so the words מוצא פי ה’ mean that this food, the manna is even superior to the other foods which come from G’d only indirectly.
  
  Verse 4
  
   שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך, “your garment did not wear out from you.” This was a great miracle involving suspension of the rules of nature. It is normal for clothes to wear out, to disintegrate after much use. The garments worn by the people of this generation remained as new for 40 years. They resisted the acidity generated by human sweat which normally has a very corrosive effect.
      A Midrashic approach based on Midrash Tehillim 23: Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Shimon where the Israelites got all their clothing during the forty years in the desert. Rabbi Shimon answered that their clothing came from the same source as that of the ministering angels. He based this on Ezekiel 16,10: “I clothed you in embroidered garments.” Concerning the meaning of the word רקמה, “embroidered,” used by the prophet, Rabbi Simai said that it is a kind of mantle. To the question: “did they not wear out?” Rabbi Shimon replied: “Did you not ever read the text of the Torah? The Torah tells you that the clothing did not wear out!” To this Rabbi Rabbi Simai retorted: ‎”did then the clothing grow with the children?” He was told to take his cue from the lizard whose skin (compared to clothing because it is shed) also grows with it. To this came the question: “did this clothing not ever need laundering?” He was answered that the cloud would both wash it and iron it. The questioner then wanted to know if these clothes did not ever burn, catch fire? He was told to observe a certain category of animal called Sitin (salamander) which are “sort of dry-cleaning themselves” in fire without suffering burns. The questioner now wanted to know if the people wearing the same clothing for forty years did not ever experience attacks by vermin such as lice, etc.? Thereupon the questioner was told that if the bodies of these people were not subject to attacks by worms, they would certainly not be vicitimized by vermin while they were alive. The next question concerned the foul smell that must have emanated from people who wore the same clothes year in year out without change. The answer given was that the traveling well produced fragrant smells which neutralised any stench emitted by the clothing of the people. This is why they did not have to change their garments at all. In fact, according to our tradition this well made all kinds of herbs grow, herbs the fragrance of which could be inhaled from one end of the earth to the other. The people would waft these herbs to and fro; this is what David referred to in Psalms 23,2 בנאות דשא ירביצני, “He makes me lie down in green pastures.” Solomon also referred to this phenomenon in Song of Songs 4,11 when he said: “and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon”. Thus far Midrash Tehillim on Psalms 23. The meaning of the word <i>sittim</i> is “garment;” a garment the size of a זרת, the span between the two outermost fingers of the hand, is called <i>sit</i>.
      According to Shabbat 105b (The source "Pirkei Rabi Eliezer" quoted by the author may refer to the chapters in Tractate Shabbat which are entitled 'Rabi Eliezer Omer' - Chavell)  the full width of a double <i>sit</i> is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. (This contradicts what was stated above that a single <i>sit</i> equals this distance - Chavell).. It is also reputed to be one of the 72 names of the Lord and if manipulated in the appropriate manner in order to demonstrate the power of G’d against a pagan who challenges it will result in the death of that pagan.
     ורגלך לא בצקה, “and your foot  did not swell;” the word is derived from בצק, dough, i.e. a mass which swells and expands in size. It is observed frequently that people who spend a lot of time walking experience swelling of their feet.
   It is also possible that this remark of Moses addresses the Levites who had to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders while walking barefoot. Even though it is actually the law that the Holy Ark is to be carried by the priests, seeing that at that time there were only so few priests, the Levites assumed this function until the priests increased in number (compare Maimonides Sefer Hamitzvot, positive commandment number 34). 
  Onkelos simply understands the words to mean that not only did the clothing of the people not wear out, but neither did their sandals.
  
  Verse 5
  
  . ה’ אלו-היך מיסרך, “the Lord your G’d is disciplining you.” Moses means that the denial of regular food and the strain imposed on the people by their journeying are examples of how the Lord subjected them to discipline, to tests of obedience and faith. The principal virtue of a Torah-true Jew is his faith in the Lord. The two examples of “afflictions” mentioned by Moses were designed to test this faith.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
    כי ה’ אלו-היך מביאך אל ארץ טובה ארץ נחלי מים, “for the Lord your G’d is bringing you to a good land, a land of many rivers full of water, etc.” Moses contrasts the land of Israel with the desert the people find themselves in at this time. We find something similar in verse 6 where Moses emphasizes what grows in the land of Canaan. The products mentioned there including the honey from dates and pomegranates are supposed to account for the growth of blood in our bodies. In our verses Moses mentions only the three principal sources of nutrition. The word ארץ occurs six times in the three verses 7-8-9. The word occurs twice in verse 7, and again twice in each of the next two verses. In the fourth verse the word is הארץ when the Torah speaks about the commandment to say grace after meals, a prayer in which the excellence of the land of Israel is mentioned. The reason that the word ארץ occurs 6 times in the first three verses is that the land of Israel is the source of 6 different climatic zones which spread out from this land and which draw on its qualities. Concerning the seventh climactic zone, the Torah uses the expression הארץ הטובה, with the letter ה marking the one and only country boasting these advantages. When our sages in Avot d'Rabbi Natan speak about 7 regions, they refer to seven different climates which exist in our globe. David praised the seventh of these climates when he said in Psalms 48,3  concerning Mount Zion that it is situated in the most beautiful region, both  climate and landscape-wise. The words יפה נוף used by the psalmist refer to the climate of Jerusalem. The word נוף meaning climate occurs in Joshua 17,11 in connection with the division of the Holy land to the tribes. The difference between different “climates” is determined by the proximity of the area in question to the sun. It is a well known fact that when people leave one climatic region to settle in another they are liable to suffer disease and sickness as a result. However, Jerusalem enjoys such a good climate that anyone moving there will not experience any problems but will be healthy and never get sick (based on R' David Kimchi). This is the reason that David calls it משוש כל הארץ, ‘the best climate on earth.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   ארץ חטה ושעורה, “a land producing wheat and barley, etc.” Seeing the land corresponds to the tenth emanation, it is praised as possessing ten qualities. Five of these qualities are the types of grain that can be grown in the land of Israel successfully. Moses mentions only the two principal varieties, i.e. wheat and barley as he considers the other three as sub-categories, i.e. oats, spelt, and rye. The five types of fruit mentioned make up the number ten. On other occasions the blessings of the land of Israel are summarized under the heading of “a land flowing with milk and honey.” This hints that G’d’s goodwill results in an abundance of products reminding us both of His attribute of Mercy (the white, milk) and His attribute of Justice, (the red color of the honey from dates). [The author commented on Genesis 36,39 that the abundance of material blessings when abused such as by the descendants of Esau may result in the attribute of Justice being activated. Ed.].
  
  Verse 9
  
   ארץ אשר לא במסכנות תאכל בה לחם, “a land where you will not eat bread in poverty.” A land in which all the good things of earth can be found such as the land of Egypt which the Torah compared to “a garden of the Lord,” nonetheless lacks certain ingredients found elsewhere so that people eat bread in such a land of plenty in poverty, not enjoying the affluence around them. This is why the Torah praises the Holy Land by comparison to the land of Egypt seeing it offers the same advantages without the accompanying drawbacks. None of the food products found anywhere in the world are not also available in the land of Israel. There are, however, agricultural products which are exclusive to the land of Israel and cannot be grown successfully elsewhere. This is the meaning of the words לא תחסר כל בה, “nothing is lacking in it (the land of Israel).”
      It is possible that the expression: “you will not eat bread in poverty in that land,” refers to something spiritual, i.e. that the word לחם, “bread,” does not refer to physical food. This would not be the first time that Torah has been compared to לחם. Compare Proverbs 9,5 where Solomon, quoting the Torah called “Wisdom,” says: “come eat my bread”. Seeing that it is impossible to acquire Torah and wisdom in the full sense of the word without proper preparation designed to facilitate its study, Moses may indicate here that the ideal such preparation is residence in the land of Israel, which possesses the physical conditions such as ideal climate to enable people to study Torah successfully. Scholars studying Torah in that land do not suffer from the handicaps which scholars in other countries suffer from. Those scholars belong to the category of people known as eating לחם העצבים, “the bread of troubles” (Psalms 127,2), in contrast to the people in Israel. The true wealth of the people in Israel is the quality of their Torah knowledge which was acquired with the help of the superior climate and therefore food produced in the Land of Israel. This is why Moses underlines this thought by adding לא תחסר כל בה, “nothing is lacking in that land.” The blessing is anchored in the word בכל; compare Genesis 24,1 “and the Lord had blessed Avraham בכל.” The reason Moses adds that the stones of the Land of Israel yield iron, is to tell us that in places where one expects to encounter only stone  one will be surprised to find iron. A similar surprise awaits those who see nothing more than high piles of rock in the mountains of that land. These mountains are filled with copper. Seeing that copper and iron are used as raw materials for most of man’s utensils, a land which yields such raw material can aptly be described as “lacking nothing.” A people who have to import all these raw materials are at a serious disadvantage, aware of real shortcomings in their land. If the earth of a land does not yield silver or gold this is at best considered a minor shortcoming. Moses praised the availability of those ores which are needed daily in people’s lives. Moses includes this kind of blessing once more at the end of the last portion of Deuteronomy when he praises the soil of Asher’s section of Eretz Yisrael (33,25).     Our sages in Taanit 4 take a Midrashic approach to the words ארץ אשר אבניה ברזל by suggesting that instead of reading אבניה, “its stones,” we might read this as בוניה, “its builders,” i.e. the Torah scholars are possessed of a faith as strong as iron.
  
  Verse 10
  
   וברכת את ה’ אלו-היך, “you will bless the Lord your G’d.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses means that when you reflect on the painful periods of your history, the sufferings you experienced in the land of Egypt, and you also look back on the discomforts experienced during your long trek through the desert, you will be inspired to bless the Lord as soon as you will enjoy eating the produce of this land. You will include the food of the land in your blessing of the Lord. 
      An approach to these words by our halachic authorities based on Berachot 21: our verse is the positive commandment to recite grace after one’s meal. The commandment is similar in force and meaning to: “you shall make a fence around the roof of your house” (Deut. 22,8), i.e. if you have a house (with a flat roof) you must protect the edges against the danger of someone falling from it. When you ate and were satisfied you have to bless the Lord your G’d for the food He has provided.    The meaning of the word על הארץ הטובה in our verse is the same as if the Torah had written ועל הארץ הטובה, “and for the good land, etc.”
   This verse contains a clue to the whole mystical dimension of the concept that man “blesses” the Lord. The whole idea of the creature blessing the Creator instead of vice versa is somewhat strange. We do not find any other place in the whole Torah except here where G’d commands us to “bless” His name. This is the verse which prompted David to say in Psalms 145,1 “and I will bless Your Name.” He also said הודו לו ברכו שמו, “give thanks to Him, bless His Name” (Psalms 100,4). We find many similar quotes in the Book of Psalms. 
      According to the plain meaning of this legislation we must appreciate that we are not dealing with the needs of the Lord but with the needs of man. Seeing that G’d is the source of all blessings and all the blessings devolve on His creatures from heaven it is clearly an impossibility for any of His creatures to bless Him adequately. Seeing that He, G’d, is the original Being in this universe having “invented” all the others, there is really no existence worthy of the name. His Existence is so self-sufficient that it has no need of anyone or anything beside Him. Therefore, even if we were to bless Him all day long and all night long what would we accomplish by this? How would we thereby enhance His existence either qualitatively or quantitatively? Job 35,7 makes this point when he says: “if you are righteous what do you give Him? What does He receive from your hand?” Any usefulness of blessing G’d is one-sided, i.e. affects our well-being not His, addresses our needs, not His. When we bless G’d for what we have received and enjoyed we testify that we acknowledge His השגחה, His benevolent and ongoing interest in all His creatures. The merit we accumulate for ourselves by such an act of “blessing” G’d ensures that He will continue to favour us with His benevolent largesse. The produce, the fruit, etc., will continue to be blessed by Him seeing we acknowledge Him as the provider. This is the reverse side of what the sages said in Berachot 35 that if someone enjoys the good things of this world without reciting a benediction of thanks it is as if he had robbed both G’d and the כנסת ישראל seeing that Solomon said: (Proverbs 28,24) “He who robs his father and his mother and says: ‘it is no offense,’ is a companion to vandals.” Failure to bless the Lord for His generosity in providing for us will result in a reduction of this abundance of good food, etc., and the individual -even the one who was not guilty of not reciting such benedictions- will suffer the fate of the majority seeing that in matters of livelihood the world as well as the individual is judged according to its or his respective preponderance of merits versus demerits (Kidushin 40). Seeing that this is so we can never be sure whether our next action does not place us in the minus column with all the dreadful consequences this may entail. We must therefore always behave as if our fate was in the balance and depended on our next action.
      A kabbalistic approach: the commandment “you shall bless the Lord your G’d,” means that this blessing is neither exclusively for the benefit of the person reciting it, nor is it exclusively an expression of gratitude; rather it is a formula depicting something additional, natural increase, etc., as we know from Exodus 23,25 וברך את לחמך ואת מימיך, “and He will bless your bread and your water.” [The assumption being that G’d will provide additional food and water. Ed.] 
  You must properly understand what the sages said in Baba Metzia 114 concerning a debtor on the verse in Deut. 24,13 that when the debtor who had to give the lender a blanket as a pawn is allowed by the lender to have it back so he can cover himself with it by night, that G’d will bless the lender who is so considerate even if the debtor will not. The Talmud says that the subject of the word וברכך in that verse is the one in need of a blessing, i.e. only human beings are in need of blessings as opposed to the Temple Treasury which is not in need of blessings. The Talmud there counters: how can you say that הקדש i.e. the Temple Treasury or any property belonging to the Temple does not qualify for blessings in view of our verse  that after eating and being sated one must bless G’d the provider? The Talmud answers that the reason pawns owned by the Temple Treasury do not have to be restored at night is that the verse ends “and it will be considered a charitable act on your part (if you give it back). Seeing the Temple Treasury is not in need of charity there is no need to return the pawn at night. It is evident from that passage in the Talmud that whereas the Temple Treasury is in need of blessings it is not in need of charity. The reason is that all charities emanate from G’d (the owner of the Temple treasury).   We have a still more direct proof of the fact that blessings do apply to G’d from the Talmud Berachot 7, where Acatriel, a high ranking angel asked Rabbi Yishmael to bless him, i.e. such blessings are applicable to G’d? We also find in Shabbat 89 that G’d reprimanded Moses for not “assisting Him.” Clearly, man’s blessing or assistance is of value even to G’d? The assistance meant there was a blessing. When we express a blessing for the Lord we add a dimension of Holy Spirit in the universe. Our blessing will become the cause of more of G’d’s creatures receiving His blessing.    The sages said also that G’d is desirous of the prayer of the righteous. If the meaning of the word blessing and prayer only referred to man thanking the Lord, why would G’d be interested specifically in the prayers of the relatively few righteous people instead of His desiring everybody’s prayer? Do we not have a principle that the glory of the king is expressed by the adulation of multitudes (Proverbs 14,28)? Clearly the very word ברכה implies that the one bestowing it adds an additional dimension to the recipient of the blessing. This is why in our prayers we mention  the words תתברך ותתרומם, “be blessed and (as a result) be elevated, our King, etc.” This is also the reason for the wording in the Kaddish: יתברך וישתבח ויתפאר ויתרומם ויתנשא, “Blessed and praised, glorified, exalted, extolled, proclaimed in His majesty, etc.” In addittion we find that the word ברך, knee, describes the One before Whom each knee bends, i.e. the word ברכה, blessing is directly related to a motion with his kness by the one proclaiming the blessing (compare Sefer Habahir item 4).
  
  Verse 11
  
   השמר לך פן תשכח את ה' אלו-היך לבלתי שמר מצותיו ומשפטיו וחקותיו, “Be very much on guard against yourself not to forget the Lord your G’d and to not observe His commandments, His social laws and His statutes.”You are aware already that throughout the Book of Deuteronomy Moses constantly speaks of the combined attributes ה' אלו-הינו, the ones we invoke each time we recite one of the blessings mentioning that we perform one of His commandments. The mystical dimension in that formula is that we address G’d both directly i.e. ברוך אתה, as well as indirectly 'אשר קדשנו וגו.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ורם לבבך ושכחת את ה' אלו-היך, “and your heart will be arrogant and you will forget the Lord your G’d;” pride is the principal cause of forgetting essentials. Due to the abundance of affluence, peace, tranquillity, etc., a person’s heart becomes haughty, smug, and his evil urge finds it easy to provoke him to follow the dictates of his heart without restraint. When that happens, heaven’s concerns become marginal for him. This is why Solomon felt prompted to say (Kohelet 10,4) “if the spirit of a ruler flares up against you, do not leave your place, for deference appeases great offenses.” Solomon referred to the power of the planet Mars as a “ruler,” seeing it is the instigator of all the troubles and unpleasant occurrences on earth; the evil urge  derives from that constellation. Solomon calls it רוח, spirit, seeing it personifies the spirit of impurity. The meaning of the whole verse is: “if this spirit of impurity wants to assert itself over you, do not prove agreeable, do not listen to it to put aside the concerns of the Lord in order to follow its call. Do not leave “your place,” seeing G’d is “the place” of the universe.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   למען ענותך ולמען נסותך להיטיבך באחריתך, “in order to afflict you  and in order to test you, to do good for you in the end.” All the tedium the people experienced during their trek in the desert was designed to subject them to a test to get them used to deal with such phenomena and to strengthen their faith when they would emerge from these tests each time. Faith in the Lord had to be instilled in them until it became their second nature (actually “first” nature). This is what David prayed for when he said in Psalms 25,5: “guide me in Your true way and teach me.” The word למדני, “teach me,” must be understood as similar to Jeremiah 2,24: פרא למוד במדבר, “a wild ass used to the desert” (trained in the desert). [The wild ass would not be wild if it had indeed been trained. The meaning is that it was unbridled and reflected the norms applicable in the desert. G’d used the Israelites’ desert experience to train them to cope with adversity by relying on their G’d in heaven. Ed.]. Hoseah 10,11 using the example of a heifer, makes a similar point. David asked for G’d’s assistance in training him to do His will until it would become his nature to do so, until it required little effort. We find the same wish expressed in Deut. 14,23 where the commandments of tithing and making pilgrimages to Jerusalem annually are used as prime examples of getting the Jewish people to “learn” to revere the Lord our G’d.   The reason why the Torah describes a people being fed manna from heaven as suffering, enduring an “affliction” in doing so is to teach that when someone does not have a food supply for a number of days ahead he is considered as enduring an “affliction.” The fact that the supply of manna was only sufficient for one day at a time and the people had to depend on G’d’s goodwill on a daily basis was an ענוי, a serious discomfort. Even the eating of such a limited food supply makes one conscious that there is nothing left when one has concluded one’s meal, a fact which lessens’ one’s enjoyment. Psychologically, this is similar to the blind who cannot see what they eat and therefore do not enjoy it. Peace of mind, and therefore enjoyment of what one has in storage depends largely on one’s ability to see and reassure oneself that one has no immediate worries. Scriptural proof for this is found in Kohelet 6,9 טוב מראה עינים מהלך נפש, “better what the eyes see than what the mind (only) imagines.”
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואמרת בלבך כחי ועוצם ידי, “and you will say in your heart: “My strength and the power of My hand, etc.” Moses says that possibly your arrogance will become such that you  ascribe your affluence to your horoscope. The word כחי would refer to influences from outer space, astrological in nature, the word עצם ידי would refer to sub-terrestrial influences, demons resident below earth.
  
  Verse 18
  
  'וזכרת את ה', “You shall remember the Lord your G’d.” He alone is the source of your good fortune because He has given you the strength to perform deeds of valour. In other words: “He handed over to you the power to overcome negative horoscopic influences, influences which G’d had created to perform His will in the terrestrial regions. None of these constellations have any power or influence over you and your fate. This is what our sages meant when they said אין מזל לישראל, “Israel is not subject to horoscopic influences” (Shabbat 156). This is also meaning of the end of our verse: “in order to maintain His covenant which He swore to your forefathers as of this day.” G’d, in His first appearance to Avraham, had positioned him above the stars, making him look down at the stars to teach him that his descendants’ fate would not be governed by such stellar constellations. (Compare Genesis 15,5 and Bereshit Rabbah 44,14 on that verse).     The expression הבט in that verse always implies “looking down on something.” 
  Although, technically, the wording there is in the singular, whatever G’d said to Avraham at the time was intended to cover the Jewish people as a whole not just the individual fate of Avraham. Our paragraph also commences with the singular but continues by using the plural אשר תשמרון לעשות.    You might argue that Moses addressed every single Israelite making his message relevant for all future generations and this accounts for the address in the singular, and the meaning of the verse would be: ‘’if you will say in your heart  that the wealth and affluence have been decreed from heaven for each Israelite individually rather than for the people collectively.” You would base this on the saying that: “there are no horoscopic forces which determine the fate of the Israelites collectively, though there are such forces at work determining the individual fate of the nation.” You might cite the statement that “economic success, the ability to have children, and the control over life and death do not depend on individual merit but on mazzal” (Moed Katan 28). This consideration might prompt you to ascribe your success to כחי “my personal mazzal.” In fact you would ascribe your success to a combination of the forces at work in outer space and those beneath the earth; Moses tells you here that you must not commit such an error but you must “individually remember (וזכרת את ה' אלו-היך), the Lord your G’d,” i.e. He gave you individually the strength to accomplish what you thought was decreed for you by the stars. Whereas G’d may have used intermediaries to channel success your way, were it not for the power He personally equipped you with, all the stars in the world would not have the power to influence your well being by one iota.   This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 22,2: “Rich man and poor man meet; the Lord made them both.” He meant that success and failure are occurrences; they encounter each other due to the motions of the planets in orbit, not because the people who appear to possess it have acquired it due to their superior intelligence or have failed to acquire it due to their inferior intelligence. Neither is the reason for acquisition of wealth due to more sustained effort by one party than the other. Having assimilated this lesson you might say that seeing that success is not due to effort why make any effort at all? It is all the doing of the horoscopic constellations!” To ensure that you do not reason in this fashion Solomon added: “the Lord makes them both.” Everything is the result of Divine decree, even if it sometimes appears as if it is accidental or due to independent power residing in stellar forces.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אש אוכלה, “consuming fire.” The meaning is: “like consuming fire.” The reason for the simile is that fire consumes instantly. This is why Moses adds: “you will dispossess them quickly and destroy them.”
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  . לא בצדקתך וביושר לבבך וגו'...כי ברשעת הגוים האלה, “not due to your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart, etc.,...but due to the wickedness of these nations, etc.” This verse causes us to think that if only the Canaanites had been righteous they would not have been dispossessed, would not have been driven out of the land of Canaan. In that event, what would have happened to G’d’s oath to our patriarchs? The situation is as follows: seeing that these nations are wicked they deserve to be exiled from that land. Even if they had been righteous they would not have been allowed to remain in that land seeing the land had been assigned to them only as a פקדון, an object to be held in trust for the real owners. Ever since the time of the patriarchs the “real” owners are their descendants the Jewish people. G’d, however, is able to give these people some other land seeing that the whole earth belongs to Him. This particular land they could not hold on to seeing G’d had already promised it to someone else. Therefore, regardless of the righteousness of the inhabitants of that land they would have to be transferred elsewhere.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום וגו'...נתן ה' אלי, “it was at the end of forty days,...that  the Lord gave to me the two Tablets of stone, etc.” We learn from this verse that on the very day that Moses received the Tablets the golden calf was made. Previously Moses had mentioned only: “G’d gave to me the two Tablets (verse 10), without mentioning a date. This is why here he repeats the receipt of the Tablets adding the date. This is also what Isaiah 17,11 meant when he said: “on the day that You plant you see it grow...but the branches wither away.” The word תשגשגי used for “growing” by the prophet is related to סיגים, “refuse, garbage.” This was a reference to the sin of the golden calf. Targum Yonathan there also translates Isaiah in that sense.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ואתפוש בשני הלוחות ואשליחם מעל שתי ידי , “I took hold of the two Tablets and threw them from my two hands.” Nachmanides writes that Moses describes that he placed his life in jeopardy smashing G’d’s Tablets for the benefit of the people. He considered it as preferable that the people committed infidelity while not married than to their being married at the time (if they had already received the Tablets).
  
  Verse 18
  
  . ואתנפל לפני ה' כראשונה ארבעים יום, “I threw myself down before the Lord as the first time, forty days;” The meaning of the word ואתנפל is that he fell on his face on the ground. Our sages derived from this wording the mode of our prayers which includes three positions, i.e. standing, sitting, and prostrating oneself. Moses mentioned all three of these positions when he referred to his sojourn on Mount Sinai. In verse 9 he referred to “sitting” on the mountain; in Deut. 10,10 he refers to his standing on the mountain, whereas in our verse he mentions prostrating himself.
      A Midrashic approach based on Midrash Tehillim 90,1: Rabbi Berechyah said that Moses did not leave a single corner of the celestial regions in which he did not pray for the Jewish people. We derive this from the words ואתנפל לפני ה' כראשונה , “in the presence of the Lord,” i.e. wherever His presence extended. 
      A kabbalistic approach: The reflexive form ואתנפל means that Moses offered two prayers. During a period of forty days he addressed a prayer to Hashem without informing us of the contents of that prayer. However, his words in verse 18: “because of your entire sin which you committed to do what is evil in the eyes of the Lord to make Him angry,” reveal that the second prayer concerned the fundamental sin committed by the people, a sin equivalent to cutting themselves off from G’d. It was this sin which caused anger to the attribute Hashem, not just to the attribute of Justice. The prayer Moses mentions in verse 26 was addressed to the attribute of Justice seeing Moses describes part of it as his saying: ”ado-nay elo-him,” i.e. (the attribute of Justice)  do not destroy Your people and Your inheritance, etc.” This was the same prayer he had mentioned in Exodus 32,11 beginning with the words למה יחרה אפך בעמך, “to what purpose will Your anger be aroused against Your people?”
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ובאהרן התאנף ה' מאד להשמידו, “ and against Aaron the Lord was very angry wanting to destroy him.” Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 10,5 explain that the word להשמיד in this verse refers to the death of Aaron’s children. They base this on Amos 2,9  ואשמיד פריו ממעל ושרשיו מתחת, “I destroyed his boughs above and his roots below.” As a result of Moses’ prayer on behalf of Aaron G’d carried out only half of His plan, allowing two of Aaron’s sons to survive. At any rate, this verse is testimony that Aaron was guilty of a great sin in connection with the golden calf, so much so that the penalty was loss of his children. Having read this, we must surely ask: “seeing that Aaron did whatever he did with the purest intentions, לשם שמים, “for the sake of heaven,” (compare author’s comments on Exodus 32,4) and even the text attributes to him only a deed which was wrong not a faulty intention, why would G’d be so angry at him?    The answer is that G’d measures great people by a most severe yardstick, according to Baba Kama 50 even deviating from the straight and narrow by as little as a hair’s breadth becomes a culpable sin. That wording is based on Psalms 50,3 וסביביו נשערה מאד, “and people close around Him will be judged even by a hair.” Even though Aaron’s deed was well intentioned, he personally not having sinned in thought, he became the instrument of the  Jewish people not only sinning but desecrating the Lord’s name in public. This is why when Moses confronted him he said to him: “How could you bring such a great sin upon this people?” (Exodus 32,21).   We find proof of the fact that Aaron personally had not committed a sin in Deut. 33,8: ”You tested him at the waters of Merivah.” Moses also called Aaron חסיד in that same verse, i.e. he had not been guilty of any personal sin other than not speaking to the rock or reminding Moses that he was supposed to speak to the rock. I will discuss this further when discussing the verse in question in detail.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  . ולא האמנתם לו, “and you did not believe Him.” This refers to the commandment to trust the Lord in your heart. ולא שמעתם בקולו, “and you did not hearken to His voice.” This refers to the action stemming from belief or non belief, as the case may be.
      It is possible that Moses alluded to the attribute Hashem when he said to the people: “you did not believe Him.” This is why he chose an unusual preposition, i.e. לו instead of the preposition ב which is usually associated with matters of אמונה, “faith.” Examples of the use of the preposition ב associated with the word אמונה are Exodus 14,31 ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, or Numbers 20,12 יען לא האמנתם בי, and numerous others. If the Torah had used this preposition here, there would not have been any need to write afterwards ולא שמעתם בקולו, seeing the word בו would already have referred to “His name,” and the word וקולו implies “His name.” In order to mention G’d’s attribute of Hashem specifically, the Torah first had to write לו when referring to האמנתם. The full meaning of the verse then is: ‘you rebelled against the command of the Lord your G’d  and did not believe Him, i.e. the Lord your G’d; neither did you obey the Lord your G’d.”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . אדני אלו-הים אל תשחת  עמך ונחלתך, “O G’d, attribute of Justice, do not destroy Your people and your inheritance!”  We discussed previously that this is a formula for the attribute of Justice. We encountered this already in Deut. 3,24 when Moses introduced his plea אתה החילות להראות with these words. I discussed this  formula in connection with Exodus 20,1.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  . והם עמך ונחלתך, “seeing that they are Your people and Your inheritance.” Moses means that “You” employed these two attributes when You took them out of Egypt. If You do not forgive them, the Egyptians will interpret this as inability on Your part to carry out Your plan. They will retroactively lose all the respect they gained for You as a result of the miracles You performed for the Jewish people.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בעת ההיא, “at that time,” at the end of the forty days when G’d was finally mollified and said: “carve for yourself!” 
     ועשית לך ארון עץ, “and make a wooden ark for yourself!”. Moses reports that he first made the ark (compare verse 3) and only after that did he carve out the Tablets. He followed this sequence in order to have a “home” ready for the Tablets when he would return with them from the mountain. If he had not first made the ark where would he put the Tablets when he arrived among the people with them? Our sages  have a tradition that the “ark” mentioned by Moses in verse 5 was the one that he had made immediately after receiving the instructions to carve out the second set of Tablets. In other words, this was not the same Ark which Betzalel was instructed to make for the Tabernacle in Exodus 25,10 (based on Tanchuma Eikev 10).    The ark which Moses made was strictly temporary in order to have a place for the Tablets to be put pending the instructions to build the Tabernacle and to make a permanent home for the Tablets. The wooden ark made by Moses was the ones the people would take with them when they went to war. The Ark made by Betzalel was removed from the Tabernacle (except during the journeys when the Tabernacle itself was dismantled) only at the express command of G’d when the people marched around Jericho with the priests carrying the Holy Ark in front of them (Joshua 6,12). When, several hundreds of years later, the sons of the High Priest Eli took it upon themselves to take the Holy Ark to war with them against the Philistines, the Ark was captured and the sons of Eli died as a punishment for their high handed action. (Samuel I 4,8 describes that although, initially the Philistines were frightened of the Ark, they fought the Israelites and were victorious, capturing the Ark).    The ark (box) made by Moses contained (initially) both the Tablets and the broken pieces of the original Tablets which Moses had smashed. After Betzalel made the Holy Ark for the Tabernacle the contents of Moses’ ark were transferred to it. This is the meaning of Exodus 25,16: “you will place inside the Ark the testimony which I shall give you.” Even though the Talmud in Baba Batra 14 states: “there was nothing inside the Holy Ark except the two Tablets,” this is not to exclude the broken pieces of the first Tablets, as whenever two restrictive clauses are employed consecutively, the meaning is that something additional is meant, in this case the remnants of the first Tablets. This was after the Temple of Solomon had been built. As long as the Tabernacle of Betzalel functioned as the Temple, the Holy Ark contained the second set of Tablets whereas Moses’ ark contained the broken pieces of the first set of Tablets. (Compare Tosafot Eyruvin 63. Tosafot base themselves on the verse quoted by the Talmud in Baba Batra which appears in Kings I 8,9.)
   I have already mentioned in connection with Exodus 16,32 that the Ark constructed by Betzalel was secreted inside the Temple (of Solomon) together with the bottle of manna and certain other sacred vessels at the instruction of King Yoshiah who hid them under an area of the Sanctuary known as מחילה. There was a special reason why these specific vessels were selected for hiding rather than others. The reason that King Yoshiah hid the Ark rather than most other sacred vessels was twofold; one reason was its superior holy status unmatched by other sacred vessels. Seeing that it was the first of the holy vessels to be constructed, its holiness was greater than the vessels fashioned later. It was perceived as a symbol of the celestial throne. As a result of such considerations it was feared that loss of the Ark would be equivalent to a departure of G’d’s presence from the land of Israel. The king knew that the state of Israel was going to be destroyed by Nevuchadnezzar as the prophets of his time had been threatening this if the people did not return to G’d wholeheartedly. It was clear to him that the conquerors would capture and take with them the holy vessels of the Temple to Babylon; this is why he was so concerned with the honour of the Holy Ark that he preferred to bury it and hide it.     The second reason was that the Holy Ark symbolized for him the journeys of the Jewish people. He experienced that the staves of the Holy Ark which protruded a long distance beyond either corner to enable it to be carried. [It was very heavy due to the outer and inner layer of solid gold plus the weight of the Stone Tablets. I have seen a calculation of the total weight of the Ark complete with contents in Eliyahu Ki Tov’s commentary on Parshat Terumah or Tetzaveh. If my memory does not deceive me the weight approximated 3 tons. (76,000 lbs) Ed.]     During the reign of King Yoshiah these staves became visibly shorter, making transportation by means of them impossible. They reverted to the size they had been in Moses’ time. The king viewed this as a bad omen. Originally, the staves could be seen protruding through the dividing curtain of the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies by causing the curtain to protrude into the airspace of the Sanctuary where it was pushed by these staves. The retraction in the length of these staves meant for King Yoshiah that the Ark was once more destined to travel, just as in the days of Moses. The Israelites, when looking into the open doors of the Sanctuary, could no longer perceive the curtain bulge at the point they were used to see it do so.   The king also saw that when the High Priest Chilkiyah came to perform the service in the Sanctuary (Kings II 22,8) that he found a Torah scroll on the side of the Holy Ark which had rolled into the Sanctuary  instead of remaining in its assigned place in the Holy of Holies on top of the Ark (compare Deut. 31,26 and Talmud Baba Batra 14). These occurrences meant for him that the Temple would be destroyed. This is the reason why Targum Yonathan renders Ezekiel 1,1 “it was in the thirtieth year” as a reference to the year that Chilkiyah found the Torah scroll we mentioned. When considering these various omens King Yoshiah decided to hide the Holy Ark so that it would not have to travel into captivity.    We have established that the sanctity associated with the Ark applied to the Ark made by Betzalel, not the box made by Moses to accommodate the Tablets when he would come down from the mountain many months before the Tabernacle had been erected. Moses’ “ark” was strictly a temporary housing for the Tablets pending the construction of the Tabernacle. Concerning the Ark constructed by Betzalel, the Talmud in Eiruvin 63 taught that whenever the Ark and therefore the Presence of the Shechinah were not in their assigned abodes the Israelites were forbidden to engage in marital relations with their wives. It is totally impossible to understand this statement of the Talmud as applying to the ark made by Moses, i.e. the ark that went to war with the people. Seeing that  the Holy Ark was held in captivity by the Philistines for seven months (Samuel I 6,1), we cannot assume that during all this time the people did not practice the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. [I do not understand the author here. He had previously accused the sons of Eli of taking Betzalel’s Ark to war without G’d’s authorization although normally only Moses’ ark would be taken to war. Moreover, note that in Samuel I 4, it is clear that it was not Moses’ ark the people took to war on that occasion. Ed.]     David is also reported to tell Uriah (Bat Sheva’s first husband) to go home and engage in marital relations, all of this while war was in progress (Samuel II 11,8). Surely the prohibition mentioned in the Talmud could have applied only to the Ark of Betzalel. The lesson the sages taught must have been “When the HOLY ARK was not ‘at home,’ i.e. G’d was not at home, how could the people feel “at home,” by indulging in marital relations and carry on “business as usual!”
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  . ובני ישראל נסעו מבארות בני יעקן מוסרה, “and the Children of Israel journeyed from the wells of Beney Yakon to Mosserah.” Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Sotah query this as the order of the journeys indicated that the people traveled in the reverse order, i.e. from Mosserah to Beney Yakon (Numbers 33,31). Another difficulty in this verse is the reference to Aaron having died there when we know that Aaron had died at Har Hahor. We find that there are 8 stations between Har Hahor and Mosserah. The correct interpretation of our verse is that although Aaron had died at Har Hahor and had been buried there, the eulogy and mourning for Aaron occurred at Mosserah, so that anyone watching this would have concluded that this was the place where Aaron died and was buried. This is also one of the rebukes of Moses versus the people. He reminded the people that at the end of 40 years when Aaron had died and as a result the protective cloud-cover they had enjoyed during all these years disappeared, they became afraid of the Canaanites, so much so that they had actually retraced their steps through the desert as far back as Mosserah. They had wanted to appoint for themselves a new leader who would lead them back to Egypt. Our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Sotah explain that the Levites fought against the people who wanted to return to Egypt at that time and killed many of them.
      The reason that this paragraph appears next to that of the smashing of the Tablets is to teach us that the loss of Torah scholars is as great a loss for the Jewish people as the smashing of the Tablets was at the time. Our sages in Eychah Rabbati 1,39  interpreted Isaiah 29,14: “truly, I shall further baffle this people with bafflement upon bafflement; and the wisdom of its wise shall fail, and the prudence of its prudent shall vanish,” as describing the  loss of its Torah scholars as twice as painful for the Jewish people as the destruction of The Temple. The  word הפלאה (bafflement) occurs in the curses of Deuteronomy only in a single form. Only in Isaiah, when referring to the Torah scholars is the word repeated, i.e. is the absence of such Torah scholars described as the greatest possible affliction for the people.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   בעת ההיא הבדיל ה' את שבט הלוי, “At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi.” The time frame described by Moses is when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf. At that time G’d separated the Levites who had not taken part in that sin from the rest of the people. The reason that all this is mentioned in connection with Mosserah is that on that occasion, 40 years later, the tribe of Levi again distinguished itself by not participating in the plan to return to Egypt and by opposing it actively.
     'לשאת את ארון ברית ה', “to carry the Ark of the Covenant with Hashem.” This refers to the Levites.    לעמוד לפני ה'  לשרתו, “to stand in front of the Lord to serve Him;” this refers to the Priests. ולברך בשמו, “and to bestow blessing in His name.” The priests were to bless the Israelites in Hashem’s name, as is written in Numbers 6,27 ושמו את שמי.
     עד היום הזה, “until this day.” Eleazar was pronouncing the blessing in lieu of his father Aaron who had died already at the time when Moses addressed the people. Eleazar had taken over all of his father Aaron’s functions as High Priest as is clear from verse 6 in our chapter.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . ואנכי עמדתי בהר כימים הראשונים ארבעים יום, “and I stood on the mountain just as during the earlier days, for forty days.” The Torah compared the last forty days to the first forty days; just as the people enjoyed G’d’s grace during Moses’ first sojourn on the mountain so they enjoyed His goodwill during these last 40 days that Moses spent on the mountain. This teaches that the second time Moses spent forty days on the mountain G’d was angry at the people. Moses had to keep praying for 40 days to overcome G’d’s anger on account of the sin of the golden calf.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
    ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלו-היך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה את ה’ אלו-היך, ללכת בכל דרכיו, ולאהבה אותו, ולעבוד את ה' אלו-היך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, “and now, what does the Lord your G’d ask of you except to revere the Lord your G’d, and  to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul.” Moses sums up that in spite of the fact that you have annoyed G’d so many times both at Chorev and in the desert, He is prepared to forgive you on the understanding that from now on you will display reverence for Him.
      Nachmanides writes that this verse is a long verse continuing until the end of verse 13 in our text, i.e. including the words לטוב לך, “for your benefit.” The message is that G’d does not require obeisance, service, love, reverence for His sake, but all of these requests are for your benefit. We have repeatedly explained the concept that seeing G’d owns the universe and all there is in it there is nothing that a creature can do to enhance His well being.
       Our sages in Menachot 43 use the words 'מה ה' to derive from here the requirement for each person to recite 100 benedictions daily. They read the words מה ה' שואל as מאה ה' שואל, “the Lord asks for one hundred (benedictions)”.
   The verse contains 99 letters. If you add the missing letter א to make up the word מאה, you will have 100 letters. We have another verse in Psalms 128,4 הנה כי כן יבורך גבר ירא ה', “this is the way a G’d-fearing man is to bless the Lord.” The numerical value of the combined words כי כן is 100. David introduced the rule to recite 100 blessings a day. It had been forgotten in the course of centuries until the Men of the Great Assembly reintroduced the practice 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   הן לה' אלו-היך  השמים ושמי השמים הארץ וכל אשר בה, “Behold! the heaven and the heaven of the heavens belong to the Lord your G’d, the earth and all that is thereon.” I believe that if all the verse was supposed to tell us was the superiority of the people of Israel over all the other nations, it would have been enough to simply write: “the earth and all that is thereon belongs to the Lord your G’d; however He took special liking to your forefathers, etc.“ There would have been no need  to mention “the heaven and the heaven of the heavens.”   It is more likely that this verse wanted to drive home the point that although G’d owns all the three regions mentioned in our verse, He considers the earth as the most important region. We have clear evidence of this already in the story of creation in Genesis  when the functions of the luminaries in the heaven are defined as providing light for the earth (Genesis 1,14). The verse means that although the planetary systems are very powerful creations, the reason they were created was only to enhance earth and life on earth. Even though the scientists of our day do not accept this opinion, we are bound by our Torah and tradition. Our sages are on record that “the righteous on earth are greater than the ministering angels” (Sanhedrin 93). We find similarly that David writes: הודו על ארץ ושמים וירם קרן לעמו, “His splendor covers earth and heaven; He has exalted the horn of His people for the glory of His faithful ones, Israel.” The psalmist means that G’d has elevated the people of Israel above all creatures in the universe both in heaven and on earth. We have another verse in Psalms 103, 20-22 in which the psalmist urges the following order: “bless the Lord, His angels, the mighty creatures, the ones who carry out His bidding; bless the Lord all of His hosts, His servants, the ones who perform His will. Bless the Lord, all of His (works) through the length and breadth of His realm.” David lists the worlds in descending order reserving the title “His works” for the terrestrial part of the universe. In other words: “terrestrial earth comprises all His works.” Tanchuma Vayikra 1, in commenting on Yoel 2,11 says that the words כי רב מאד מחנהו, “that His camp is indeed very great,” refer to the ministering angels, whereas the words וכי עצום עושי דברו, “and powerful are those who do His bidding,” are a reference to the people of Israel.    We have further proof from discussions of the philosophers who ask why a planet constantly describes the same repetitive orbit? If it has achieved its purpose, why does it keep repeating the same motion? Its motion, its orbit has then become a wasted effort. If it has still not achieved its mission after endless orbits, what good are its orbits? If it had really achieved something visible, how come we do not notice that our lives are constantly becoming more pleasant due to these efforts? The philosophers answer this seemingly unanswerable question by saying that these orbits of the planets are required in order to ensure the continued existence  the “lower” world, i.e. man on this terrestrial earth. This proves that even the scientists admit that man is the focal and pivotal creature in the universe. Once you admit it, it is a small step to understanding that all the seven fixed stars have as their purpose to guide our globe in such a way that it does not come to harm, that the laws of nature operate satisfactorily.
      However if you were to argue that the eighth and ninth star (planet) perform an independent function and have not been created for the sake of our globe there is no merit to such an argument. The fact is that all the planets are much like the skins around the onion, earth being the kernel, the innermost and most precious part, requiring the protection of all these outer layers. The orbital motions of each one of these layers is determined by the orbit of the planet closest to it.
   [The author continues in this vein citing allusions from Scripture, etc. Seeing all of this is pre-Corpernicus astronomy there is little point in pursuing these “philosophical” musings further. The same applies to the interpretation of “heaven” and “heaven” of heavens” respectively. Ed.] ...
  [...]
      A kabbalistic approach understands the words רק באבותיך חשק ה' as an allusion to the souls of the patriarchs as having been derived from higher emanations such as חסד גבורה, and תפארת respectively This is why upon their deaths the patriarchs became part of the מרכבה, the carriers of G’d’s Shechinah as if they and the emanations from which their souls had evolved were one and the same thing. This, of course, would account for the extraordinary degree of fondness of G’d for these patriarchs as described in our verse. This would also account for G’d’s close relationship with the descendants of these patriarchs.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם, “You shall ‘circumcise’ the foreskin surrounding your heart.“ The term ערלה is applied when the Torah or the prophet wants to describe a negative character trait, a trait which inhibits development of a personality to its full potential. Anyone who is burdened with such an impediment to his personality development cannot truly embrace the commandments we know as the מצות המושכלות and to understand their true value.
     וערפכם לא תקשו עוד, “and you will not continue with your stiff-neckedness.” Moses implies that up until now the people had been characterised by such a stiff-necked attitude. G’d Himself had accused them of this outright in Exodus 33,3.
  
  Verse 17
  
   כי ה' אלו-היכם הוא אלו-הי האלו-הים, “for Hashem your G’d He is the supreme G’d;” superior to the angels; (Nachmanides) ואדוני האדנים, “and the Master of masters;” a reference to the planets which have been appointed to run nature. ה-אל, “the Creator,” הגדול, "Who is great in the attribute חסד” הגבור “and in the attribute גבורה, Justice”  והנורא “and awe-inspiring,” in the way He practices the attribute רחמים, Mercy. The three attributes Moses referred to here are perceived as the אבות, the “patriarchs” of the attributes, the others being relatively junior to them seeing they are derivatives, תולדות. It is these three principal attributes which are meant when the sages speak about the מרכבה, the carriers of G’d’s glory. I have already explained on Exodus 33,6 that Moses meant to include all the thirteen attributes G’d had acquainted him with at the time when he now summarizes them as  גדול, גבור, נורא. 
     אשר לא ישא פנים, “Who does not show favour,” to the perfectly righteous, by overlooking a minor infraction. 
     ולא יקח שוחד, “and Who will nor accept a bribe, “i.e. offsetting one sin against 1000 merits so that the person concerned is left with 999 net merits and does not get punished for the one sin he committed. G’d will punish the individual for his one sin and leave the reward for the 1000 mitzvot fully intact.
  
  Verse 18
  
  . עושה משפט יתום ואלמנה, “He carries out judgment of orphan and widow.” Even though G’d is so high, exalted, He nevertheless concerns Himself personally with the most lowly one of His creatures. Our sages in Megillah 31 drew our attention to the fact that whenever G’d’s greatness is referred to in either the Torah, the Books of Prophets, or the Scriptures, you find side by side a reference to His “humility,” to the fact that He associates and takes a personal interest in the fates of the most humble. Our verse is one such example. Another example is found in Psalms 68,5 where David exalts G’d’s greatness, following with the words: “He acts as father for the orphans and as judge for the widows. A similar sequence of verses is found in Isaiah 57,15: “For thus said He Who high aloft forever dwells, whose name is holy: ‘I dwell on high in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit  reviving the spirits of the lowly.’”
       ואוהב גר, “and Who loves the proselyte;” seeing that G’d loves the convert, we are to love the convert also. We have another verse on the same subject in Leviticus 19,34 where G’d says: “love him as yourself.”
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   את ה' אלו-היך תירא, אותו תעבוד, ובו תדבק, ובשמו תשבע, “Revere the Lord your G’d; serve Him; cleave to Him and swear in His name.” The word תירא, means no to violate His negative commandments; the words “serve Him” refer to His positive commandments; “to cleave to Him,” means not to exclude Him from your thoughts .
      Nachmanides writes on this that it is possible that Moses speaks of people who have attained such high spiritual stature that they can claim this level of 'דבקות בה', “cleaving to G’d” even in their life on earth. They would be considered as already צרור בצרור החיים, the wish expressed by Avigail for David. These people are a domicile for the Shechinah even while on earth. Rabbi Yehudah Halevi alluded to this in his Kuzari 3,1.
      Our sages in Pesachim 22 commented that the word את which precedes the words ה' אלו-היך תירא is a reference to the Torah scholars, the religious authorities who are to be treated with a measure of reverence similar to that reserved for the Lord Himself.    This statement is attributed to Rabbi Akiva, who was eminently entitled to make such a statement seeing that he alone amongst the four sages who ventured into the Pardess, i.e. the realms of exploring the deepest mysteries of the Torah emerged from there whole in both body and spirit (Chagigah 14). Concerning Rabbi Akiva, Solomon said in Song of Songs 1,4 according to Chagigah 15 משכני אחריך נרוצה, “Draw me, we will run after You.”
      A kabbalistic approach: With these words in Song of Songs Solomon the wise Rabbi Akiva alluded to wisdom, seeing that we have a statement in Job 28,28 הן יראת אד-ני היא חכמה, “behold the reverence for G’d is wisdom.” Rabbi Akiva referred to the hidden wisdom possessed only by the select few on earth. In fact, when Rabbi Akiva said that every time the word את appears in the Torah  [when it is not grammatically necessary, Ed.] we must search for profound mystical meanings that the Torah alludes to by this word, he taught us a great lesson. To quote but one example: the Torah writes in Numbers 7,1 להקים את המשכן, “to erect the Tabernacle.” On the face of it the Torah only had to write להקים המשכן. The sages explain that the extra word את alludes to another (celestial) Tabernacle which was erected at the same time as Moses erected the Tabernacle in the desert.  Another example of the significance of the word את is found in Genesis 21,1 וה' פקד את שרה, “and G’d had remembered Sarah” (by making her pregnant). The word את in that verse is understood by the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 53,12 as including all the other women who had suffered from being barren at that time. There are numerous other instances where the otherwise extraneous word את affords us many insights which would have been denied us without that word. 
     ובשמו תשבע, “and in His name you are to swear.” Moses means that anyone who has first acquired the attributes listed is entitled to mention the Lord’s name when swearing an oath. Under certain circumstances it becomes a positive commandment to swear an oath, especially when it involves glorifying the name of the Lord. Examples of such circumstances are Elijah who decreed on oath that no rain would fall (Kings I 17,1) in accordance with G’d’s threat (in Deut. 11,17), and the sage Choni Hamagal who  swore not to leave the spot he was standing on until G’d would provide rain (Taanit 19).
      A kabbalistic approach: the words: “you shall fear the Lord your G’d” refer to a reverence for those aspects of G’d which are beyond human intelligence to unravel (the emanation כתר), on the other hand “Him you shall serve” refers to the next lower emanation חכמה, also described as Torah, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the Torah (wisdom) which preceded creation of the universe by 2,000 years. The word ובו תדבק, “and to Him you shall cleave,” refers to the next lower emanation בינה, the domain to which the souls (of the righteous) will return after death of their bodies. The words ובשמו תשבע are an allusion to the number seven, i.e. the lower seven emanations conclude the reference to all 10 emanations in this verse.
   [The author proceeds to list several additional verses from the Bible in all of which all of the ten emanations are alluded to, such as Chronicles I 29,11; Song of Songs 5,15; Proverbs 8,22. Ed.].
  
  Verse 21
  
   הוא תהלתך, “He is your praise;” according to the plain meaning of the text Moses means that it would be appropriate for you to consider Him as your praise, i.e. not to praise anybody or anything except G’d. It is also possible that what Moses meant was that the words  הוא תהלתך והוא אלו-היך refer to the attributes Hashem and Elohecha respectively. The verse would then make clear that these two attributes are the ones with which G’d relates to the people of Israel. 
      A kabbalistic approach focuses on the meaning of Deut. 26,19 ולתתך עליו לתהלה ולשם ולתפארת, where the word לתהלה would refer to the attribute Hashem and the word לתפארת to אלו-היך. [Basically, when applied to Israel,  the message is that either the attribute of Justice, diluted by the attribute of Mercy, or the attribute of Mercy, diluted by the attribute of Justice is applied to the Jewish people.] 
  [The author cites a number of apparently contradictory verses to prove that because of G’d’s eternal relationship with Israel He has to temper Justice with Mercy and vice versa or that premise of the reciprocal relationship of G’d and Israel would disintegrate. Ed.]
  
  Verse 22
  
    בשבעים נפש ירדו אבותיך מצרימה, “Your forefathers comprised only 70 people when they descended to Egypt.” Moses enumerates some of the great and wonderful acts performed by G’d for this nation. It is these which entitle G’d to be loved by this people. Although only 70 people emigrated to Egypt, their number by now had increased to be like the stars in heaven. This is why in the next verse Moses demands that the people love “the Lord your G’d and observe His commandments. Here Moses mentions the number of Israelites descending to Egypt as being 70 whereas if you will check the number given in Genesis 46,27 you will  find that actually only 69 are listed as leaving. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 94,9 have already pointed out that the discrepancy is accounted for by Yocheved, who was conceived by her mother on the way but was not born until Yaakov and family arrived in Egypt.    Some sources claim that the discrepancy is accounted for by Serach, daughter of Asher. They  base this on Samuel II 20,19: “I am one of those who seek the welfare of the faithful in Israel.” The words שלומי אמוני in that verse are understood as “completed their number.”   I have seen in Pessikta D'Rav Kahane  that it was the Lord Himself Who made complete the number 70 as He said (Genesis 46,4) “I am going down with you (Yaakov) to Egypt.” [In other words 69 members of Yaakov’s family as listed in chapter 46 in Genesis plus the Shechinah went down to Egypt. Ed.].  The author of that Midrash cites our verse: “for He is your praise  and your G’d,” in the same verse as Moses making reference to this number as proof that it was the fact that G’d personally accompanied the Israelites on their descent to Egypt as the reason that they can use Him as “their praise.” A similar approach is taken by the Midrash in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 39 where the words כשש מאות אלף, “about 600,000 foot soldiers” instead of “600,000 foot soldiers (Exodus 12,37) are also interpreted as the Israelites being 1 shy of that number with G’d Himself making up the number 600,000. If we accept this interpretation G’d made up the requisite number both when the Israelites descended to Egypt and when they ascended from Egypt. This would correspond to precisely what G’d said to Yaakov in Genesis 46,4: “I will go down with you and I will also surely bring you up.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וידעתם היום כי לא את בניכם אשר לא ידעו, “and you will know this day, that not with your children who did not know, etc.” This verse tells that all the wonderful deeds performed by the Lord which Moses speaks about are not events which will happen in the future [like the promises of prosperity in the land of Canaan he had told them about. Ed.] Rather, “you yourselves have seen all this with your own eyes.” Everything we read here is an introduction to verse 7: “for you have seen.” Moses recalls that the people (or most of them, those 40 years and over) have been witnesses to what he is describing. If we find Moses relating to Datan and Aviram and what happened to them while omitting mention of Korach who was the leader of that rebellion, the reason may well be that he felt ashamed that a member of his own family had become guilty of such a sin. Or, he may have singled out Datan and Aviram as they had exceeded everyone else in their demagoguery and their effrontery, strutting around cursing, etc. (compare Tanchuma Korach 8).
      You are already aware that the “hidden” miracles are performed by the attribute Shaddai, the attribute which G’d employed in His dealings with the patriarchs. That attribute is referred to here as the שם הנכבד והנורא  הזה, את ה' אלו-היך in Deut. 28,58. The “manifest” miracles are the ones orchestrated by G’d’s attribute Hashem, the tetragram. This is the attribute of G’d which manifested itself to Moses all the time. This is why you find at the beginning of this passage when Moses refers to all the miracles which affected the bodies of the people, i.e. “hidden miracles,” not dramatic changes in the laws of nature, that Moses employs the attribute ה' אלו-היך for the G’d who had performed them, just as Moses had done since the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy. When he switches to recalling “manifest” miracles, the ones which changed the laws of nature, such as the descent of people into the bowels of the earth after this event had been announced in advance, suddenly Moses mentions only י-ה-ו-ה, the attribute Hashem as orchestrating that event.
     את גדלו ואת ידו החזקה וזרועו הנטויה, “His greatness, His powerful hand and His outstretched arm” Every intelligent person knows that terms such as “hand,” “arm,” “mouth,” “nose,” etc., cannot be applied to G’d in the literal sense of these words. They merely represent celestial equivalents of extensions of the essence of G’d just as these parts of the body are extensions of the essence of people on earth, extensions which enable the essence to carry out its will. Every such term used by the Torah in connection with G’d describes a specific function such an extension performs. Just as we do not call a “hand” once “a hand,” and another time “a foot,”  the same is true of these terms when used in connection with G’d. We do not lump “arm” and hand together when describing these organs as part of a human being. Similarly, we do not do so when we describe them as extensions of the essence of G’d.    The definition of יד, “hand,” includes the surface of the hand up until the beginning of the fingers. The part from the wrist to the elbow is known as קנה, whereas the part from the elbow up is known as זרוע. This is the part of the arm on which we put the phylacteries. On occasion this is known as the higher region of the hand, the part on the same level as the heart. Concerning this arm the sages in Menachot 43 said that proof that Israel is beloved of the Lord is that He assigned this part of the arm for them to place the phylacteries of the hand, and the head to place the phylacteries of the head. The proof that the part of the arm above the elbow is called זרוע is found in Job 31,22 כתפי משכמי תפול ואזרועי מקנה תשבר, “may my arm drop off my shoulder; my forearm break off at the elbow.” Job enumerated parts of the arm beginning with his shoulder, followed by זרוע, continuing with קנה, the arm below the elbow, the part which links up with the hand.    We find similar terminology in the Mishnah in Oholot 1,8 where 248 limbs (bones) of man are enumerated, thirty of them being considered part of the פסת היד, ‘the hand;’ 6 of these bones of the hand are attributed to each of the fingers. The Mishnah enumerates 2 bones as being part of the forearm (below the elbow) and 2 more as part of the elbow, one in the upper arm and four in the shoulder. This Mishnah is proof that the part called קנה  are the bones linking the hand to the elbow. The term עציל is a word found in the Baraitha describing the word מרפק in the Mishnah (elbow). In Biblical language the עציל of the Baraitha is identical with אציל as described in Ezekiel 13,18 על כל אצילי ידי, “upon all my elbows.” Targum Yonathan clearly translates the word אצילי as “my elbows,” [in contrast to Rashi who considers it as “my armpits”. Ed.]   In Massechet Sofrim 3,15 we find the halachah “a man is not to place a Torah scroll upon his knees and hold it down with his elbows (so it does not fall) as it is unseemly (to place one’s weight upon the Torah scroll).” Having explained the difference between  יד and זרוע, the author of Masechet Sofrim continues: “it is a well known fact that the זרוע is “greater” (more powerful) than the יד, seeing the power of the hand is derived from the arm and not vice versa.” This makes it clear that whenever the Torah speaks of both hand and arm, the arm is always considered as describing something even more forceful than the hand. 
  Both the mention of G’d’s “hand” and mention of G’d’s “arm” are references to the attribute of Justice at work. The attribute of Justice operates on different levels of intensity, however. Just as red wine comes in different shades of red so the attribute of Justice becomes manifest in different degrees of severity. The manifestation of a weak form of the attribute of Justice presupposes that there must be a stronger form from which the weaker form derives its input. I have explained this in connection with the two letters ה in מי כמוכה in Exodus 15,11. This is also the meaning of Isaiah 53,1: וזרוע ה' על מי נגלתה, “against whom has the “arm” of the Lord become manifest?” When David (Psalms 44,4) speaks of כי ימינך וזרועך, “Your right hand and Your arm,” he also refers to G’d employing His power against the Canaanites as first relatively mildly, ימינך, followed by a stronger dose, i.e. זרועך. I have alluded to all this in my commentary on Exodus 14,31 “Israel saw the great hand, etc.”
      When the Torah speaks here of G’d’s “greatness, גדלו,” followed by His “strong hand, ידו החזקה,” and “His outstretched arm וזרועו הנטויה,” this is similar to what we read in 5,21. הן הראנו ה' אלו-הינו את כבודו ואת גדלו ואת ידו החזקה וזרועו הנטויה  describes “His strong hand and outstretched arm, The word כבדו describes the “weak” manifestation of the attribute of Justice, a manifestation containing also part of the attribute of Mercy. This fact is underscored by use of the tetragramצשאםמ for G’d in that verse. It is as if the Torah had written 'כי בי-ה ה' a combination of Justice, i.e. י-ה,and Hashem, i.e. Mercy. Solomon used similar terms when he prayed at the dedication of the Temple (Kings I 8,42) asking G’d to respond when the people would first hear G’d’s attribute of Mercy mentioned,שמך הגדול  followed by the attribute of Justice, i.e. את ידך החזקה וזרועך הנטויה.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . לא כארץ מצרים היא, “it is not like the land of Egypt;” a land which depends on manual irrigation, i.e. though water is always available it must be brought by man to the fields. The land of Canaan receives its irrigation directly from heaven, through rainfall, not requiring man to bend down and to do back-breaking labour. As long as you observe the laws of the Torah G’d will provide this rainfall for you and the land will produce its yield. If not, (verse 17) G’d will lock the heaven and there will not be any rain, hence no crops either. Even though G’d could have stopped the river flowing in Egypt if the Jews had remained there and failed to keep the laws of the Torah, Nachmanides already dealt with this by writing that G’d prefers to use minimal interference with natural events. Seeing that the land of Israel, as opposed to the land of Egypt, consists of mountains and valleys, an absence of rain means that whatever moisture there had been before will run off much faster than in a flat land like Egypt in which the moisture is retained longer. Sick people need to possess some merit in order to regain their health. Similarly, if Israel or the land of Israel becomes ”sick” as evidenced by an absence of rain, it has to acquire some merits to be healed, i.e. for G’d to make the rain descend again.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  'ארץ אשר ה' אלו-היך דרש אתה תמיד, עיני ה' אלו-היך בה, “a land which the Lord your G’d seeks out; the eyes of the Lord your G’d are upon it from the beginning of the year until the end.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses means that G’d’s supervisory activities are concentrated on this land more than on any other. Once G’d has found out what goes on in the land of Israel, His gaze extends further and further and encompasses the rest of the globe. The matter is similar to man’s organs. First and foremost the heart is examined to determine its condition, seeing that life or death depend in large measure on the condition of the heart, the centre of man’s organisms. Subsequently, a physician examines other limbs and organs which are more peripheral than the heart. The major point of our verse is that the condition of the land of Israel is not left to G’d’s agents, horoscopic influences, etc., but that G’d Himself super-vises this land on an ongoing basis.    This is also what David referred to in Psalms 87,7 when he said כל מעיני בך, “all My fountains are within you.”  The word מעין is perceived as related to עין, eye; David quotes G’d as saying that His principal supervision is concentrated on “you,” the land of Israel. From there it will extend throughout the rest of the world.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words ארץ אשר ה' אלו-היך דורש are a reference to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions. Concerning this celestial Sanctuary the prophet Isaiah 66,1 already quoted G’d saying that whereas the heavens are “My throne, the earth is  My footstool.” “Feet” symbolize a lower extremity. The reason Moses speaks here of two attributes, i.e. ה' אלו-היך, is because he wants to display the linkage between the terrestrial and the celestial Sanctuary, i.e. two extremities of the concept Sanctuary. The terrestrial Sanctuary is known as בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, “the house of our holiness and glory,” i.e. dedicated to the One Who is our Holy One and our glorious One. The word קדשנו refers to the attribute כבוד, and we find this reflected in Psalms 96,6 עז ותפארת במקדשו, “strength and glory are found in His Sanctuary.” 
  In this connection you must appreciate the previous verse (11) והארץ אשר אתם עוברים שמה, “and the land which you are passing over to, etc.” In that verse the Torah refers to the terrestrial land of Israel, the one on which the terrestrial Sanctuary is to be erected. To make this distinction clear Moses describes the mountains and hills in that land which receives its rainfall from heaven (obviously not heaven itself) as distinct from the celestial regions. However, the land mentioned in our verse (12)  is a “land” in the celestial regions, the “tenth” emanation as alluded to by the word תמיד better read as מדת י, “the tenth attribute, emanation.” Seeing that this is so, i.e. the correlation of the celestial Sanctuary and the terrestrial Sanctuary, “our” land is blessed with ten blessings as spelled out in Deut. 8,8 where we explained how, although only seven species are explicitly mentioned there, actually 10 are meant. This entire verse is an allusion to the word הארץ mentioned at the beginning of Genesis.
     מרשית השנה, “from the beginning of the year.” The word מרשית is spelled without the customary letter א after the letter ר [and can thus be read מתשרי]. This is an allusion to the New Year, the first of the month of Tishrei, anniversary of the creation, the day on which G’d sits in judgment of His creatures. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 8 see in this the source for G’d predetermining our fates for the whole ensuing year, based on our past performance.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ולעבדו בכל לבבכם, “and to serve Him with all your hearts.” Our sages in Taanit 2 ask rhetorically: “what kind of service can one perform for G’d with one’s heart?” They answer: “Prayer.” They prove this from Daniel 6,17: “your G’d, the one whom you serve constantly, He will save you.” Was there then a Temple for the Jewish G’d in Babylon where Daniel could have offered sacrifices?  Clearly the King must have referred to the G’d to whom Daniel prayed in his heart. In verse 11 of that same chapter Daniel is described as opening the window of his room facing Jerusalem when praying.  David also said in Psalms 141,2: “take my prayer as an offering of incense.” Moreover, our sages in Berachot 26 have said that the daily prayers nowadays are in lieu of the daily communal offerings, the תמידים.
      It is important to appreciate that the power of prayer is such that it can  bring about changes in the laws of nature, save people from mortal danger, and bring about cancellation of evil decrees by G’d. We know that it can effect changes in the laws of nature from Yitzchak whose prayer in the presence of Rivkah brought about the new-found ability of Rivkah to conceive (Genesis 25,21). She had previously been barren, and our sages explain that this was so as G’d wanted to encourage Yitzchak to pray to Him to reverse this situation. (compare Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,31). Our sages explained to us that the barrenness of our matriarchs was due only to the absence of the prayers of either themselves or their husbands.    Proof that prayer can save one from mortal danger is found in Psalms 107,23: “the ones who descend to the sea in ships.” We know that from when Jonah prayed inside the fish, surely a mortal danger if ever there was such. Not only this, but David continues in that psalm describing how the mariners in time of a storm pray to G’d Who saves them from these dangers. As a result of their prayers G’d silences these turbulent waters (verse 29).    Proof that prayer is able on occasion to reverse evil decrees by G’d is found in Isaiah 38,8 where G’d tells King Chizkiyah that his prayer has been granted that he will enjoy a 15 year extension of his lifespan after the prophet had told him in the name of G’d to make his last will and testament as he would not recover from his sickness. (Compare Berachot 10 on what the king told the prophet.) The Talmud tells us not to despair even if the sword is poised to fall on one’s neck, that G’d is still able to help. They quote Job 13,15 to prove their point. Incidentally, our sages there reveal that the power of prayer exceeds the power of prophecy.    In this connection we must remember that in the period between Moses and the men of the Great Assembly (over 900 years later) prayer was not formalized as it is nowadays. Every person formulated his prayers in his own words in accordance with his knowledge and ability. The men of the Great Assembly organised the formula which serves until this day as the principal prayer commonly known a the Shmone Esreh, (“18,” according to the number of benedictions which it contains). The main reason the men of the Great Assembly formulated this prayer was to ensure that everyone would learn it by heart and be familiar with it. This is why the language of that prayer is very plain and simple.     This would prevent people from becoming confused and making errors. The sages wanted the prayers of both fools and wise men to be identical so that the fools would not feel at a disadvantage.   These benedictions were composed with the utmost care and with regard to such formulas having proved successful. The introductory  benediction, known as אבות introduces the petitioner as a descendant of the patriarchs and as such entitled to a hearing. It is followed by a benediction known as גבורות, a declaration of our awareness of G’d’s mighty deeds. The third  benediction is called קדושה, a prayer in which we extol G’d’s Holiness. These three benedictions are followed by a string of בקשות, requests  (12 in all) which are arranged both in terms of our spiritual needs, our physical needs, our national needs and our individual needs. The final three benedictions consist of עבודה, a prayer asking for the restoration of the Temple and the sacrificial service in the Temple, followed by a benediction known as הודאה, thanksgiving. This is followed by the blessing by the priests, the prayer for peace, without which all the other blessings are short-lived.    If you will examine the letters in the tetragrammaton י-ה-ו-ה you will find that if the letters of that name are spelled in a different sequence you have a total of 12 variations, known as צירופים, permutations. An example of these variations is that starting with the first letter י you could follow it with either a ו followed by two letters ה, or by the letter ה twice followed by the letter ו. The three basic letters in the tetragrammaton, the letters י-ה-ו lend themselves to six permutations, i.e. יהו,יוה,הוי,היו,ויה,והי giving you a total of 6 such צירופים. The tetragrammaton, having four basic letters, doubles the number of permutations possible so that you wind up with basically 12 צירופים. [Some authorities speak about 24. Ed]. The number 12 corresponds to the numerical value of the word זה in the verse זה שמי לעולם, “this is My name forever” (Exodus 3,15).  The three first permutations, i.e. the ones using the letter י at the beginning, correspond to the first three of the benedictions representing אבות, גבורות, קדושה. The final three צירופים in that series correspond to the last three benedictions עבודה, הודאה, ברכת כהנים. The  6 permutations in the middle correspond to six of the 12 central requests, i.e. אתה חונן, השיבנו, סלח לנו, גאולה, רפואה, פרנסה. The other six benedictions do not have a specific permutation of the tetragrammaton assigned to them and one can perceive them as being used interchangeably. The reason that the 19th benediction, the one added by later sages as a request to ward off the potential damage caused to Jews and Judaism by its defectors and maligners cannot be assigned any of these permutations of the tetragrammaton is that this benediction is addressed in the first instance to the attribute of Justice, not the tetragrammaton as we want that attribute to neutralize these anti Jewish forces.     This nineteenth benediction and its significance has already been alluded to in Psalms 29 where after mentioning the tetragrammaton 18 times, David adds the words ואל הכבוד הרעים, in verse 3, a reference to the attribute of Justice. The only reason David changes the attribute he addresses there after having referred to the tetragrammaton 18 times is that he hints that this attribute ought to be poised, ready to strike these virulent anti-Semites unless they retract.   Another reason that David introduces an additional attribute of G’d in that psalm is that he conveys the message that not only our external enemies but our internal enemies, the evil urge, should be taken care of by the attribute of Justice. We encourage the attribute of Justice, so to speak, to vent its anger on our internal enemies. 
      Among the 12 requests we observe that 6 address human needs whereas the other 6 are the plea for the restoration of G’d’s kingdom on earth and His closeness to His people as it had been prior to the destruction of the Temple. By means of the addition of the 13th request, the one to liquidate the hostile heretics, we have a total number of 13 requests corresponding to the 13 attributes of Himself which G’d revealed to Moses after the episode of the golden calf. This is an allusion to the fact that all the good on earth, be it for the benefit of man or G’d Himself, is channeled our way by means of these attributes in one form or another. It is therefore incumbent upon us to address the Essence of G’d, Who operates by means of these attributes. This is what Moses had in mind when he quoted the Gentile nations (Deut. 4.7) as describing our relationship to that Essence as אשר לו אלו-הים קרובים אליו. The Gentiles felt that no other nation established such a close relationship to the Divine Essence, the tetragrammaton, by means of the attributes as did the Jewish people. This is conditional on בכל קראנו אליו, “providing that when we pray we always call out to Him, the Essence” (Deut. 4,7). The word אליו specifically excludes any of the attributes as being the address to which our prayers are to be directed.
  
  Verse 14
  
    ונתתי מטר ארצכם בעתו, “I will give the rain for your land at its appropriate time.” At the hours when it is most beneficial for newly seeded fields. You will be pleased with the timing of the rain, which, according to our sages in Taanit 22 and 23 will descend at night when it does not interfere with any of your activities. In Leviticus 26,3 the Torah words this blessing somewhat differently, writing  “ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם, “I will give your rains at their respective seasons.” Our sages interpret the wording there to mean that the rain will neither be sparse nor excessive. Too much rain soaks the earth so that it does not produce fruit. Another meaning of these words is that the word בעתם, refers to the nights from Tuesday to Wednesday and on Friday nights, periods when everyone is at home. We have a tradition that during the period of Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach  this blessing was fulfilled and the rains in Israel descended only on these two nights of the week. As a result, the wheat kernels were as big  as kidneys and the barley as big as the pits of the olives, and lentils grew to the size of golden dinars. Our sages used this period to illustrate to what extent sins by the people can reduce the fertility of the Holy Land. They used Jeremiah 5,25 to illustrate their point. The prophet wrote: “it is your iniquities that have diverted these things, your sins have withheld the bounty from you.” We also find that during the reign of Herod when the people were busy with major renovations of the Temple, rain descended only at night so as not to interfere with the work of restoring and enlarging the Temple. On the morning following such rain, the clouds would disperse quickly, the sun would shine and work could proceed without impediment. The people would rise at an early hour and go to work at the Temple site.
     יורה ומלקוש, “early (seasonal) rain and late rains.” The rain called יורה descends during the first quarter of the season shortly after sowing. It moistens the earth after a dry summer and provides critical moisture for the seedlings (Taanit 6). According to this view the word יורה is derived from רוה, “irrigated, well-watered.” Alternatively, the word may allude to “teaching”, forecasting a good year, i.e. if that rain materialises at the proper time in the proper quantities it is a good omen for the agriculture of the year which just commenced.    מלקוש is the rain which descends much later in the season shortly before the barley is ripe for cutting. The reason the Torah called it by that name is because it descends on מלילות, ears of corn already fully formed on their stalks. The second half of the word, קש, may be an allusion to the straw, part of the grain. At any  rate, it refers to the rain that descends near the end of the rainy season. It may be an allusion to the grain gaining volume while on the stalks. Onkelos also translates the word עטופים in Genesis 30,42 as לקישא, “born late.” It may also be an allusion to מל קשיותן של ישראל, that it “circumcises the obstinate posture of the Jewish people” [when they observe G’d’s blessing arriving on time. Ed.] Our sages in Taanit 6 interpret it thus: ‘when the rains are late in arriving the people will be motivated to pray for rain. They will also become penitents in order not to forfeit the needed rainfall’.
     ואספת דגנך ותירושך, “you will gather in your corn harvest and your grape harvest.” The sages (Berachot 35) ask how it is possible to reconcile the commandment that “the Torah should never be absent from your mouth” (Joshua 1,8), with these instructions to pursue an agricultural career, ploughing, sowing harvesting, etc.? They answer that there are times set aside for both of these activities. This is also what Kohelet 7,18 had in mind when he said: “it is best that you grasp the one without letting go of the other.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  . ונתתי עשב בשדך, “I will provide grass in your field, etc.” Moses attributed the provision of grass in the field to G’d personally in order to counter the opinions of the people that the world as we know it has been handed over by G’d unconditionally to planetary forces and terrestrial forces encouraging the growth of vegetation. Seeing this was a widely held view, the Torah had to phrase some things in such a way that people will remember that it is only He Who provides the celestial input without which no growth of any sort will manifest itself in our world. David also reminds us of this in Psalms 104,14: “Who makes the grass grow for the cattle, and herbage for man’s labour.” Just as the rainfall is attributed to G’d in verse 14, so the growth of grass is attributed to Him in this verse. The same idea is also expressed in Zecharyah 10,1
     ואכלת ושבעת, “you will eat and be sated.” These words refer to the earlier verse which spoke about the grain harvest and the grape harvest. They do not mean that you will eat grass. The words could also be understood thus: When I provide plenty of grass and grazing in the fields, the animals which fed on this and whose meat you will eat will be a source of satisfaction for you. Our sages in Berachot 40 derive a moral lesson from our verse. Seeing G’d speaks first about the feed for the livestock before assuring us that we will eat our fill, this teaches that we are not to sit down to eat until after we have made sure that our animals have food to eat.
  
  Verse 16
  
  . השמרו לכם פן יפתה לבבכם, “Be very much on guard that your hearts will not be seduced, etc.” The seduction might result from the very serenity and affluence of your existence in the land of Israel. You might, G’d forbid, become attracted to idolatry and depart from the path G’d has earmarked for you. If that were to happen, G’d will become very angry at you and lock the heavens so that there will not be any rain (next verse). The reason that Moses uses the example of absence of rain as indicating G’d’s anger is because the pagans attribute the very presence of rain to their worshipping their various deities faithfully. This is why it was important to point out to the Israelites that if they would depart from the path of the Torah the very opposite would occur; instead of their assuring themselves of their rain supply through idolatry they would lose that life-giving rain. Isaiah 30,22-23 is on record that when the Israelites who had been guilty of worshipping idols will throw out the silver overlays of these images they will be provided with rain as acknowledgment of their penitence. The prophet also picked rainfall as his example of G’d’s positive reaction to a penitent Israel to remind them that such basics as rainfall are provided only through the Lord our G’d. We have to pin our hopes on Him and not on anyone else.
  
  Verse 17
  
    ועצר את השמים ולא יהיה מטר, “He will lock the heaven and there will not be any rain.” This is a reference to verse 11 where the drinking of water is credited to the rain which emanates in heaven. The reason G’d did not provide the Israelites with a land irrigated by rivers is in order that such irrigation should not be dependent on their own labor and they would not feel dependent on G’d. A land which requires rainfall to provide its water resources is a land whose inhabitants must turn to G’d pleading for such rainfall to materialize.
      We find a disagreement between the scholars Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer in Taanit 9 as to the precise origin of rain.    Rabbi Eliezer holds that all the waters in our terrestrial universe originate in the oceans (and are recycled via the sky). He bases his opinion on Genesis 2,6 that a mist rose from earth before it had ever rained. Rabbi Joshua believed that the earth gets its rainfall directly from heaven, seeing the Torah told us in our portion “you will drink water which originates in the rain from heaven.” Each one of the scholars has weighty arguments. Rabbi Eliezer cites a powerful proof from Psalms 33,7: “He heaps up the ocean waters like a mound, stores the ‘deep’ in vaults. Who caused the vaults to be filled with water? The “deep”, i.e. the waters of the ocean.” This appears to be proof that rain water originates in the ocean. How do we account for the salt in the waters of the ocean and the absence of such salt in rain water? We assume that while traveling as clouds the waters that had emerged from the ocean are being sweetened.    Rabbi Joshua cites proof for his opinion that the rain waters originate in heaven from Psalms 104,13: “He waters the mountains from His lofts.” Rabbi Yochanan said that the word מעליותיו in that verse refers to “celestial lofts.” He quotes a Baraitha in Taanit 10: “the waters of the ‘upper’ regions are suspended by an utterance of G’d, their ‘fruit’ is the rain water.” We know this from Psalms 104,13 which describes them as פרי מעשיך תשבע ארץ, “by the fruit of Your works the earth is sated.” The words of these scholars are truly divinely inspired.” It is entirely possible that both scholars are correct and that sometimes the rain waters originate in the oceans whereas on other occasions they are of celestial origin. The key to understanding the phenomena in question lies in the use by the Torah of two different words for the word rain, גשם and מטר, respectively. The word גשם refers to something physical, i.e. rain originating in the ocean, whereas the rain originating in the celestial spheres is described by using both the name גשם and the name מטר, (compare Isaiah 5,10, or Deut. 28,12). When the deluge occurred we also find that it consisted both of מטר and of גשם, compare Genesis 7,4 and 7,12.
   I have found support for my thesis in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 5. The text there reads as follows: “the thick clouds draw their water from the ‘deep,’ i.e. oceans as we know from Psalms 135,7: “He makes clouds rise from the end of the earth.“ In every place where the King directs them they unload their rain and the earth immediately responds by becoming pregnant and growing vegetation much like a woman who was a widow and has become pregnant through engaging in harlotry.” However, when G’d really wants to bless the vegetation on earth the rain originates in the celestial spheres which are masculine regions. The earth then becomes pregnant immediately and produces vegetation which reflects G’d’s blessing. This is the meaning of Deut. 28,12: “may the Lord open for you His good store, the heaven.” Thus far Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer. 
  If you will peruse the Torah you will find that the word מטר, is associated with שמים, “heaven,” in most instances when it occurs. There is a considerable difference in the meanings of גשם and מטר respectively. The distinctions between different meanings as reflected by different words in a language reflect a deep-rooted wisdom. Consider for a moment the combination of the words וגשם מטר in Job 37,6. Elihu had previously said that the snow which originates beneath the throne of G’d’s glory returns to earth whereas the rain which is of physical origin turns into מטר, a most remarkable and inexplicable phenomenon. Our sages have already stated G’d turns flesh into streaks of lightning. This is the meaning of Psalms 135,7 “He turns flashes of lightning into rain.” If we were to accept the verse at face value the meaning is that rain should always be accompanied by lightning, something which contradicts our experience. We may therefore conclude that the מטר mentioned there is not a phenomenon visible on earth. Clearly, the only thing we can be sure about is that the terms גשם and מטר cannot always be used interchangeably.
     ואבדתם מהרה, “and you will perish quickly, etc.” if you were G‘d forbid to serve idols you will be exiled from Eretz Yisrael, a good land which does not tolerate sinners for long. We also have a verse in Isaiah 13,9 which states וחטאיה ישמיד ממנה, ”and it wipes out the sinners on it (the earth).” Our sages (Sifri Eikev on the word והשתחויתם) have illustrated this concept by a parable. A father leads his son on the way to a feast and warns him not to overeat there so that he would return home from the feast looking clean. The son paid no heed to the warning; he overate, vomited and returned home in utter disgrace after he had dirtied all the other participants at that feast. How did the other guests at that feast react to such conduct? They took  the son in question by his hands and feet and tossed him out of the palace.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ושמתם את דברי אלה, “you are to put these My words on your hearts, etc.” our sages in Sifri Eikev comment on this that even after you will be in exile you continue to be obligated to obey the commandments of the Torah. You are to put on the phylacteries, attach mezuzot to your houses, in order that all these commandments will not be strange to you when you return to your homeland. We have a verse in Jeremiah 31,20 reflecting this same theme when the prophet says הציבי לך ציונים, “erect markers, set up signposts!” The prophet means that though the performance of the commandments which require our bodies in order to fulfill them are applicable everywhere and therefore automatically obligatory in exile, the whole Torah was given primarily in order to be observed on holy soil (Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ולמדתם אותם את בניכם לדבר בם, “You shall teach them to your children to speak about them.” From the time your son (or daughter) is old enough to talk you must instruct him in Torah. One of the first lessons should be the verse תורה צוה לנו משה, as well as שמע ישראל .
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי אם שמר תשמרון, “For if you will surely observe, etc.” If you will observe the laws of the Torah Hashem will expel your enemies from before you, seeing you enter the land in order to fulfill the commandments.
      A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Bereshit 1): the reason the words שמר תשמרון are repeated is to tell us that the merit of the commandments which we fulfill will protect us, i.e. the Torah will protect us against our enemies. This is also the reason the previous paragraph commenced with the repeated והיה אם שמע תשמעו. The message is that if you will listen to G’d’s instructions He in turn will listen to your prayers. You may infer the reverse to be true in the event that we do not listen to G’d’s instructions.
  
  Verse 23
  
  .  והוריש ה' את כל הגוים האלה מלפניכם, “Hashem will drive out all these nations from before you.” This refers to the ones that reside near the Israelites’ present location. Afterwards He will also do so to the nations which reside further away, הרחוקים, i.e. wherever you will set foot. Seeing that G’d here indicates a certain order in which the conquest of the land of Canaan has to proceed, we know that David erred when he did not follow this sequence by first driving out the nations which lived further away from the Israelites such as Aram Tzovah, Aram Naharayim. He conquered the nearby countries only afterwards including Jerusalem, i.e. the Jebusite (compare Sifri Eykev 51 ). Our sages also ruled that lands conquered by an individual (with fewer than 600,000 Israelite soldiers) does not have the legal status of a conquest based on milchemet mitzvah. When the land is conquered in the true order, the conquered territories all become part of the Holy Land with all that this entails, i.e. the need to tithe its product, and to give the Levites and Priests all the gifts prescribed by the Torah. Lands conquered as כבוש יחיד, as the result of a private initiative is not subject to the Shemittah and Yovel legislation by Biblical decree. The Rabbis applied this legislation to such lands only so as not to encourage Jews to settle in such lands and to circumvent the intent of Torah legislation.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   לא יתיצב איש בפניכם, פחדכם ומוראכם יתן ה' אלו-היכם על פני כל הארץ אשר בה כאשר דבר לכם, “no man will remain standing upright before you (on account of you); the Lord your G’d will give the fear of you and the terror of you  all over the land on which you set foot, just as He has said.” This verse contains 72 letters corresponding to the 72 letters (number 72) in the tetragrammaton when spelled in a certain manner, adding the following letter to the original one. [י+יה+יהו+יהוה =72. Ed.]. This name is invoked by people familiar with Kabbalah when they want G’d to counteract fears experienced on journeys into uncharted territory. When Moses adds the words כאשר דבר לכם, “as He has said to you,” he refers to Exodus 23,27: “the fear of Me I shall send ahead of you.” This is also what Moses had prayed for at the end of the Shirah in Exodus 15,16: “may fear and terror fall upon them.” He wanted the attribute of Justice to be constantly poised against the enemies of the Israelites both then and in the future. This is also the method employed by G’d in His dealings with the righteous as we know from Psalms 91,11: “for He will order His angels to guard you wherever you go.” This is a reference to G’d’s “sword” which has 16 facets which are instructed to smite the adversaries. I have explained this matter in connection with Genesis 3,24. We have three veses in Scripture referring to this “sword of G’d” in Leviticus 26,25, Isaiah 27,1 and Genesis 3,24.    In our paragraph the Torah simply assures us that if we keep all the commandments He will deliver into our hands all the far more powerful nations surrounding us and that we would inherit their possessions. This is why the Torah also had to caution us not to be afraid of the pagans. Anyone who is afraid of someone made of flesh and blood is deficient in his trust in G’d’s promise. This is the reason why fear itself is one of the greatest obstacles our soul encounters in its effort to trust G’d absolutely. Such people may become the architects of their own misfortune although none had been decreed against them. People who are saved from all troubles are the ones who take to heart Deut. 20,5 and Psalms 40,8: “he puts his trust in the Lord.”
  
  
  Verse 26
  
     מחרף עצל לא יחרוש, ושאל בקציר ואין, “in winter the lazy man does not plough; at harvest time he seeks but finds nothing” (Proverbs 20,4). 
  Solomon has made it a point in the Book of Proverbs to explain the value of all the good character traits in order that we learn how to avoid the negative virtues. One of the positive virtues is זריזות, diligence, and eagerness to carry out one’s duties. Laziness, by contrast, is a negative virtue, one to be avoided. In fact, laziness is at the root of many of the problems one experiences in one’s life. There are different kinds of laziness. Some people’s laziness becomes manifest in the manner in which they neglect their homes, other people’s laziness we can recognize by the way they neglect their bodies. A third form of laziness is the way one relates to the requirements of one’s soul; a fourth kind of laziness involves one’s attitude to Torah study and performance of the Torah’s commandments. An example of laziness or slovenliness in one’s house is failure to repair a leaky roof during the summer. Not only will immediate steps taken to make the repairs presumably save one greater expense the longer one waits, but one will save oneself discomfort when it starts to rain. Concerning people who put off the inevitable such as the need to repair their roof, Solomon says in Kohelet 10,18: “through slothfulness the ceiling sags, through lazy hands the house caves in.”    Concerning laziness, i.e. neglect of one’s body’s needs it is well to remember that if one attends to the need to assure oneself with a livelihood and is satisfied if one attains an average standard of living without trying to attain what one does not need, one is liable to achieve what one sets out to do. This is the secret of “enjoying one’s share.” If one neglects one’s basic needs relying on miracles to happen instead, one is liable to die from hunger. Concerning people who are too lazy to fend for themselves and prefer to wait for miracles, Solomon writes in Proverbs 13,4: “a lazy man craves but has nothing; the diligent shall feast on rich fare.”  There are people whose laziness is manifest in the neglect of the requirements of their soul. Such people, though aware of shortcomings in their character, make no effort to correct these shortcomings. They forget that the soul has much in common with the earth;  some earth is easy to work and it does not take too much time to make things grow from such earth. Other parts of the earth are by nature hard, difficult to work; nonetheless the farmer must not abandon it in despair; he must invest extra time and will find that eventually even such earth will yield its produce. Concerning such “earth,” i.e. soul, Solomon says in Proverbs 18,9: “one who is slack in his work is a brother to a vandal.”. Some people (their souls) respond to minimal encouragement and discipline. Others require a great deal more. However, if the latter person makes an effort to respond to rebukes, teachings and exhortations he will find that eventually he will rehabilitate himself completely so that positive characteristics will become second nature for him. Concerning such a person (before rehabilitation) Solomon says in Proverbs 24,30: “I passed by the field of a lazy man, by the vineyard of a man lacking sense; it was all overgrown with thorns, its surface was covered with weeds.” In this simile Solomon compared greed and lust to a field seeing it is a derivative of raw material [I believe that by “raw material” the author means something physical, not divine such as the soul. Ed.]. If one does not treat raw material in the manner it is intended to be treated and used and allows one’s urges free reign one will wind up destroying both one’s body and one’s soul. When Solomon goes on in verse 31 to describe that he saw a stone fence lying in ruins, this describes the result of what happens to people who neglect body and soul.   There are also people to whom the negative virtue of laziness can be applied as they neglect Torah study and the performance of good deeds. If someone is guilty of this in this world how will he attain eternal bliss in the world to come? This is the person whom Solomon had in mind in our opening verse, “he who does not plough in the winter will surely have nothing to show in summer.” Solomon’s definition of laziness is not just failure to do one’s duties, but failure to do the requisite duty on time. There are times which are meant for certain activities. If one wastes these times by not performing the requisite activities such as plowing in winter, such failure will backfire. Solomon uses the farmer as his model par excellence for describing the results of laziness. He compares our life on earth to “winter” and the hereafter to “summer,” the time for reaping what one has sown. The winter is perceived as under the relatively weak domain of the moon whereas the summer is under the far more powerful domain of the sun. Everyone knows that in a comparison between moon and sun as luminaries, the sun is primary whereas the moon is secondary. Compare what Solomon wrote in Song of Songs 2,11: “here the winter  has passed, etc.” Our sages in Avodah Zarah 3 phrased it thus: “the present world is comparable to Sabbath eve whereas the world to come is comparable to the Sabbath itself.” They therefore ask: what is he going to eat on the Sabbath who has not toiled on the Sabbath eve?”    Amongst other things the sages explained to us by means of their simile that whereas the present world is one of מעשה, deeds, the world to come is one of מנוחה, “rest and compensation.” It is not a world in which activities which are meant to store for the future are performed. Searching for work in the world to come is a non-starter, אין, one will find nothing (if one had not amassed it previously).     Why does Solomon write: מחורף when speaking about the winter, instead of בחורף, as he does when speaking about בקציר, “at harvest time?” The word מחורף must be understood as מפחד החורף, “because of the fear of winter.” It is typical of lazy people to look for any excuse (including weather) to justify their putting off essential tasks which they ought to perform. An example of this is found in Proverbs 26,13: “the lazy man says: ‘there is a lion on the path, a fierce lion in the streets.” He excuses his failure to sow in winter by his fear of the inhospitable climate at that time. The reason that Solomon harps so many times on the subject of laziness is in order to thoroughly delegitimize such laziness in the eyes of people. He wants people to shun this negative virtue and to copy the ways of the ant instead. This is why he writes in connection with the ant: “go to the ant, you lazybones; study its ways and wise up!” (Proverbs 6,6) He means that although the ant is a most insignificant appearing little creature, even brainy man can learn a lesson from such a creature when he observes how the ant stores up food to be consumed at a time when it will not be found lying around ready to pick up. Not only this; the ant has sense enough not to collect its food immediately it has been made wet by the rain but it waits until the wind has dried it so that when it is stored it does not rot. When Solomon adds in 6,7 “which though having no ruler, captain, or overseer,” he means that the ant has no intelligence of its own which dictates its behaviour but is simply prompted by its instincts. It follows that creatures equipped with intelligence would do well to consider the ant as their model. The three words: קצין, שוטר, מושל, “captain, overseer, and ruler,” which Solomon says the ants do not have, correspond to three aspects of human intelligence, שכל, known as חכמה, תבונה, דעת, “wisdom, insight, knowledge.” All of these three attributes are only found in man. They are basically sub-categories of the same attribute. This is why Solomon uses three terms each of which represents different degrees of authority, in describing them.    By acquiring and nurturing the attribute of זריזות, diligence, man can assure for himself eternal life, whereas by indulging his laziness he is sure to forfeit such eternal life. The former characteristic prompts him to fulfill G’d’s commandments whereas the latter keeps him from doing so. After all, man has been given free choice and our salvation or otherwise lies in our own hands. We are to make the choice between good and evil and only by making the right choice do we qualify for the eventual reward promised by the Lord.. ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה, “See, I place before you this day blessing and curse.” The reason Moses commences with the singular ראה, followed by the plural form לפניכם is that he addresses everybody, both the individual and the community (Ibn Ezra), and because blessings and curses respectively are  influenced and channeled from two different attributes Justice and Mercy, both of which were active in creating the universe and both of which are capable of being appreciated only by a select few individuals. When addressing these select few, Moses says ראה, a reference to “seeing” with one’s mental eye. The word corresponds to Kohelet 1,16 ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה ודעת, “I have seen (acquired) great wisdom and knowledge.”   Seeing that the promise of a blessing and the threat of a curse are an important factor in encouraging observance of the commandments of the Torah by the people at large, Moses used the plural form when addressing the nation, i.e. לפניכם. We find that the Torah used this combination of singular and plural also in  Deut. 4,5: ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים, “See I have taught you statutes and social laws.” The singular form ראה was addressed to the individuals who have some appreciation of the statutes, whereas the plural form was used when speaking of the social laws whose merit can be appreciated by the whole nation. The word אתכם in the plural emphasizes that the entire Torah, all of its commandments were given to the masses, not to select individuals.    Our verse here makes plain that the right to choose has been given to man. If he wants to conduct himself in a manner acceptable to G’d he is free to do so; if he chooses to contravene G’d’s commandments he cannot be coerced by G’d. We have already referred to this in connection with Deut. 5,26: “who would give, etc.” We pointed out there that If G’d had not granted freedom of choice, He would not have to “wish” for the people to remain on a spiritual high but could legislate it. The whole premise of this freedom of choice is understood easily by the fact that G’d bothers again and again to command us what to do and what not to do. If we were not free to chart our own course, it would not make sense for G’d to have to give us all these commandments. All He would have to do is to program us according to His wishes. Seeing the principle of man’s freedom to choose is so fundamental, the Torah mentions it already at the beginning such as in Genesis 3,27 where G’d explains the need to expel Adam from Gan Eden by referring to his freedom to help himself to the fruit of the tree of life so that “he would live forever.” Had G’d been able to physically prevent Adam from reaching for the tree He would not have to had to place the tree out of reach for him. In the verse just quoted, G’d makes plain that as a result of having eaten from the tree of knowledge both good and evil have become viable options for man. The words הן האדם in Genesis 3,27 are G’d’s way of saying that man as a species is unique in the universe in that he possesses this freedom of choice. There is no other species like man in either heaven or on earth. The celestial beings have all been programmed by G’d to do His bidding with a minimum of delay and opposition. The reason that man is basically different is that he is the only species composed of both matter and spirit. The celestial beings are totally disembodied, whereas all other creatures on earth are earth-bound, equipped with a minimal “spiritual” equipment, one that merely strives to keep its body physically alive, i.e. the נפש of an animal.    At the end of the Torah too the theme of man’s freedom of choice is dealt with once more when Moses says: “see I place before you this day life and goodness or death and evil.” (Deut. 30,15.) Our verse here basically reflects a similar message. Concerning this whole subject of what G’d is able to do and how He has voluntarily limited His options, Maimonides in chapter 5,4 of Hilchot Teshuvah has this to say: “Do not be amazed that we read in Psalms 135 6: “G’d does all He wants to do in heaven or on earth, in the oceans and in the deep.” There is no question that everything He does, He does as a result of His will. This is so in spite of the fact that what we do is subject to our own volition. How do we illustrate that this apparent contradiction is in fact no contradiction at all? Just as G’d wants that fire and wind rise upwards whereas water and earth are programmed through the forces of  gravity to always strive downwards [the four basic raw materials the universe is made of], and the planets orbit in space around the globe, so all other phenomena in the universe behave in accordance with the way G’d has programmed them. Man’s freedom of choice is part of G’d’s expressed desire, i.e. this is part of how He decreed in His own free will that the universe should function. As a result of this system man is judged in accordance with his deeds. If he chooses the right way he will be rewarded, if not he will be punished. This is what the prophet meant when he said in Isaiah 50,11: מידי היתה זאת לכם, “Do you think this was decreed for you by ME?” The same theme occurs in Isaiah 66,3 גם המה בחרו בדרכיהם, “they have also chosen their own paths” Concerning the above Solomon said in Kohelet 11,9: “Rejoice young man in your childhood let your heart cheer you in your youth; but remember that for all these things G’d will call you to account.” Solomon warns that though it is within your power to do what you fancy and to lead a life of frivolity, remember that the day of accounting is not far off. Thus far the comment of Maimonides in Hilchot Teshuvah.
   ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה, “See, I place before you this day blessing and curse.” The reason Moses commences with the singular ראה, followed by the plural form לפניכם is that he addresses everybody, both the individual and the community (Ibn Ezra), and because blessings and curses respectively are  influenced and channeled from two different attributes Justice and Mercy, both of which were active in creating the universe and both of which are capable of being appreciated only by a select few individuals. When addressing these select few, Moses says ראה, a reference to “seeing” with one’s mental eye. The word corresponds to Kohelet 1,16 ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה ודעת, “I have seen (acquired) great wisdom and knowledge.”   Seeing that the promise of a blessing and the threat of a curse are an important factor in encouraging observance of the commandments of the Torah by the people at large, Moses used the plural form when addressing the nation, i.e. לפניכם. We find that the Torah used this combination of singular and plural also in  Deut. 4,5: ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים, “See I have taught you statutes and social laws.” The singular form ראה was addressed to the individuals who have some appreciation of the statutes, whereas the plural form was used when speaking of the social laws whose merit can be appreciated by the whole nation. The word אתכם in the plural emphasizes that the entire Torah, all of its commandments were given to the masses, not to select individuals.   Our verse here makes plain that the right to choose has been given to man. If he wants to conduct himself in a manner acceptable to G’d he is free to do so; if he chooses to contravene G’d’s commandments he cannot be coerced by G’d. We have already referred to this in connection with Deut. 5,26: “who would give, etc.” We pointed out there that If G’d had not granted freedom of choice, He would not have to “wish” for the people to remain on a spiritual high but could legislate it. The whole premise of this freedom of choice is understood easily by the fact that G’d bothers again and again to command us what to do and what not to do. If we were not free to chart our own course, it would not make sense for G’d to have to give us all these commandments. All He would have to do is to program us according to His wishes. Seeing the principle of man’s freedom to choose is so fundamental, the Torah mentions it already at the beginning such as in Genesis 3,27 where G’d explains the need to expel Adam from Gan Eden by referring to his freedom to help himself to the fruit of the tree of life so that “he would live forever.” Had G’d been able to physically prevent Adam from reaching for the tree He would not have to had to place the tree out of reach for him. In the verse just quoted, G’d makes plain that as a result of having eaten from the tree of knowledge both good and evil have become viable options for man. The words הן האדם in Genesis 3,27 are G’d’s way of saying that man as a species is unique in the universe in that he possesses this freedom of choice. There is no other species like man in either heaven or on earth. The celestial beings have all been programmed by G’d to do His bidding with a minimum of delay and opposition. The reason that man is basically different is that he is the only species composed of both matter and spirit. The celestial beings are totally disembodied, whereas all other creatures on earth are earth-bound, equipped with a minimal “spiritual” equipment, one that merely strives to keep its body physically alive, i.e. the נפש of an animal.    At the end of the Torah too the theme of man’s freedom of choice is dealt with once more when Moses says: “see I place before you this day life and goodness or death and evil.” (Deut. 30,15.) Our verse here basically reflects a similar message. Concerning this whole subject of what G’d is able to do and how He has voluntarily limited His options.
   Maimonides in chapter 5,4 of Hilchot Teshuvah has this to say: “Do not be amazed that we read in Psalms 135 6: “G’d does all He wants to do in heaven or on earth, in the oceans and in the deep.” There is no question that everything He does, He does as a result of His will. This is so in spite of the fact that what we do is subject to our own volition. How do we illustrate that this apparent contradiction is in fact no contradiction at all? Just as G’d wants that fire and wind rise upwards whereas water and earth are programmed through the forces of  gravity to always strive downwards [the four basic raw materials the universe is made of], and the planets orbit in space around the globe, so all other phenomena in the universe behave in accordance with the way G’d has programmed them. Man’s freedom of choice is part of G’d’s expressed desire, i.e. this is part of how He decreed in His own free will that the universe should function. As a result of this system man is judged in accordance with his deeds. If he chooses the right way he will be rewarded, if not he will be punished. This is what the prophet meant when he said in Isaiah 50,11: מידי היתה זאת לכם, “do you think this was decreed for you by ME?” The same theme occurs in Isaiah 66,3 גם המה בחרו בדרכיהם, “they have also chosen their own paths” Concerning the above Solomon said in Kohelet 11,9: “Rejoice young man in your childhood let your heart cheer you in your youth; but remember that for all these things G’d will call you to account.” Solomon warns that though it is within your power to do what you fancy and to lead a life of frivolity, remember that the day of accounting is not far off. Thus far the comment of Maimonides in Hilchot Teshuvah.
  
  Verse 27
  
   את הברכה אשר תשמעו, “the blessing, that you will listen, etc.” Interestingly, Moses did not use the conditional אם when speaking about the blessing, in contrast to his using this word when referring to the people not listening, i.e. את הקללה אם לא תשמעו, “the curse if you will not listen.” Seeing that the word אם implies that what follows is doubtful, Moses did not want the blessing to be associated with a word expressing doubt. The word אשר expresses that something is definite. This is why Moses chose to use this word as describing the blessing, i.e. its materializing.
  
  Verse 28
  
  . אם לא תשמעו אל מצות ה' אלו-היכם וסרתם מן הדרך, “If you will not listen  to the commandments of the Lord your G’d and you will deviate from the path, etc.” This verse teaches that anyone guilty of idolatry is as if he had abandoned all of G’d’s commandments. This verse also inspired the statement by our sages in the Sifri  that anyone who acknowledges that idolatry has any substance to it is considered as having denied all aspects of Torah.
  
  Verse 29
  
   את הברכה, “you will give the blessing, etc.”  The word “you will give” in this instance refers to something you will say. Pronouncing  blessing while standing on Mount Gerizim is equivalent to “giving” the blessing on Mount Gerizim. We have a similar construction In Leviticus 26,21 ונתן אותם על ראש השעיר, “he will place them (the iniquities) on the head of the billy goat.” [Clearly, Aaron could not literally place the peoples’ sins on the head of that he-goat. He consigned the sins onto the head of that animal so they would be removed when the he-goat was taken to the desert. Ed.]
     על הר גריזים, “on Mount Gerizim.” The meaning is not “on” but “facing” Mount Gerizim. The Levites would turn their faces toward Mount Gerizim and begin to pronounce the blessings. The reverse applies to the “curses” mentioned in Parshat Ki Tavo in connection with Har Eyvol, Mount Eyvol. The Levites would first pronounce the blessing before spelling out the curses for violating the eleven commandments listed there. 
  Nachmanides writes that possibly Mount Gerizim was to the south, i.e. the right of the people, whereas Mount Eyvol was on their left in the North. We have a tradition that evil, misfortune, always begins in the north (Jeremiah 1,14).
  
  Verse 30
  
    הלא המה בעבר הירדן אחרי דרך מבא השמש, “Are they not on the other side of the Jordan, far, in the direction of the sunset.” Moses gave the people a sign by which to recognize these two mountains. If they were to journey in its direction by bearing west they would find them in the land of the Emorite who dwells in the wilderness opposite Gilgal, close to Eloney Moreh.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אבד תאבדון, “you must surely destroy, etc.” The repetition of the verb אבד prompted our sages in Avodah Zarah 45 to say that when destroying idols, etc., one must do more than let the remains lie around, but must scatter them in the wind or drown them in the Dead Sea or a similar place.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   לא תעשון כן, “do not do likewise, etc.” You must not burn incense on the various mountains even to Hashem, seeing this was where the pagans offered their incense. The only place where G’d welcomes incense as an offering is the one designated by Him in the Holy Temple (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 5
  
   כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלו-היכם מכל שבטיכם, “except in the place which the Lord your G’d will select from amongst all your tribes, etc.” The place in question is Mount Moriah; it is well known among the Gentiles. They know of its spiritual advantages through tradition. There is no need to mention this location by name. The people all had a tradition that this was where their ancestor Yitzchak had lain bound on the altar. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim (3,45) that there were three reasons why the location of the future Temple was not spelled out at this point. 1) If the nations of the world had known that in that location prayers are answered positively by G’d and sacrifices are welcome to Him, every nation would have made a supreme effort to take possession of that site. This would have resulted in untold slaughter among the nations and ongoing strife among them. 2) If the Canaanites who dwelled in the land at the time Moses spoke these words had heard of them and they had realized that the Israelites would dispossess them and take over that site they would have utterly destroyed it before the Jewish people had a chance to conquer it. 3) Even the tribes of the Israelites would have argued among themselves in whose territory this site, would be located at the time the land was distributed among the tribes. Such a division among the people would have been even worse than the rebellion of Korach when the people were not prepared to recognize the preferred hereditary status of the Priests. For all these reasons Moses preferred not to spell out the exact location of where the Temple would be built in the future. If even the Jews did not know the location, it is clear that the Gentiles did not know it either. Although everyone knew of the significance of Mount Moriah in the past, they had no idea of what this meant in terms of its future religious significance, in terms of the place G’d would choose.
     לשכנו תדרשו, “you shall seek out His Presence.” You should seek out His attribute כבוד which first became manifest on Mount Sinai. In due course this Shechinah would be manifest in the Holy Land, originally in Shiloh (where the Tabernacle stood for over 390 years.). In this instance, seeing that Mount Moriah as the ultimate site of the Temple was not known yet, Moses has in mind the Tabernacle of Shiloh.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, “This verse addresses the problem of private altars which during the transitional 14 years of conquest and distribution of the land were still permitted as sites from which to present offerings, something which had been forbidden while the people were in the desert, seeing the Tabernacle was right in their midst and there was no need to travel in order to offer sacrifices in it.
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי לא באתם עד עתה, “because you have not come so far, etc.” This is a reference to the 14 years during which the conquest and distribution of the land of Canaan would take place  אל המנוחה, “to the temporary rest, i.e. Shiloh,” ואל הנחלה “and to the permanent inheritance, i.e. Jerusalem.” 
  We are entitled to ask why the Torah made reference here at all to Shiloh as it would have sufficed to allude to Jerusalem which is the principal inheritance. The reason that the Torah writes both מנוחה and נחלה is that  as long as the Israelites were in the desert prior to the erection of the Tabernacle everyone offered personal offerings on private altars, not subject to any rules and regulations. As soon as the Tabernacle was erected all private altars were banned (Zevachim 112) seeing the Torah writes in Leviticus 17,4 “if he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tabernacle he will be subject to the karet penalty.” Once the people entered the land of Israel and they arrived at Gilgal where the Tabernacle was put up private altars were once again permitted, seeing the Torah had linked the ban on private altars to the existence of “camps,” something which existed only in the desert. (compare Maimonides  Peyrush Hamishnayot Zevachim 14,5) based on Leviticus 17,3 אשר ישחט שור או כשב או עז במחנה, “who slaughters an ox, a sheep, or a goat in the camp;” in other words the insistence of the Torah that all sacrificial offerings be brought to the Tabernacle is conditional on there being different camps which surrounded the Tabernacle. As soon as the division of the people into tribal groups and camps was dissolved, the prohibition to offer sacrifices on the private altars was rescinded.
      It is well to remember that the Tabernacle in Gilgal was the very same which the Israelites had carried with them by dismantling it and putting it together again for the last 38 years. Once the people arrived at Shiloh we find for the first time that the “Tabernacle” is referred to as בית, “house” in Samuel I 1,24. [This “house” though it had solid walls as distinct from the Tabernacle in the desert, did not have a permanent solid roof. This is why it was also known as משכן as we know from Psalms 78,60: “He abandoned the Tabernacle in Shiloh, the tent He had set among men.” At that time private altars were forbidden once again. All of this is reflected in the two terms מנוחה and נחלה used by Moses in our verse. Had Moses not said that in the first instance the people would not come to מנוחה, we would not have had a source for permitting private altars while the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal. This was a period of 14 years. After the destruction of the Tabernacle/House in Shiloh, the Tabernacle which had served as such in the desert was erected in the towns Nov and Givon respectively where it remained for 57 years. The private altars were once again permitted during that period [seeing there were neither camps nor a “house.” Ed.]. Finally, when the Temple was erected in Jerusalem, i.e. נחלה, private altars were outlawed once and for all. By mentioning both the words מנוחה and נחלה, Moses indicates that in the interval between these two stages of “Rest” private altars would once again be permitted, i.e. during the period of Nov and Givon.    Our sages in Zevachim 119 explain the separation between the words מנוחה and נחלה by the word ואל as indicative of the permission to offer sacrifices on private altars during the periods between when the Temple stood in Shiloh and when it was built in Yerushalayim. The reason the Torah applied the term מנוחה to the period when the Temple/Tabernacle stood in Shiloh is that the verse (10) promising מנוחה from all our enemies (i.e. the end of the conquest) was fulfilled at that time. The reason that the word נחלה is used by Moses to describe the Temple in Yerushalayim is  that David speaks about G’d never abandoning (permanently) עמו ונחלתו in Psalms 94,14. Psalms 132,13 had already mentioned that G’d had selected Zion as His residence which He wanted. Another verse in Psalms 135, כי יעקב בחר לו י-ה לסגולתו, is interpreted by Maimonides as expressing the same thought.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   בכל מקום אשר תראה, “in any place that you see.” This is a negative commandment; however, at the bidding of a legitimate prophet, under special circumstances, sacrifices may be offered on an altar outside the Temple such as Elijah’s at Mount Carmel when the purpose was to delegitimize the prophets of the Baal. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  . כי אם במקום אשר יבחר ה' באחד שבטיך, “except in the place which the Lord will choose amongst one of your tribes.” The Torah speaks in general terms without specifying in whose tribal territory this place will be located. It turned out to be the territory of Binyamin (Zevachim 54). In verse 8 in our chapter the wording had been: מכל שבטיכם, “from among all your tribes.” How can we reconcile these two verses? When David purchased the threshing ground of Ornan the Jebusite, the site on which the Temple would be built, he raised the money for this from all the tribes, a total equivalent to six hundred shekel (in) gold (Chronicles I 21,25). On the other hand, the amount paid for that site described in Samuel II 24,24 was only 50 shekel silver. How do we account for this contradiction? The answer is that the 600 shekels must be divided into 12, (the number of tribes). The Book of Samuel informs us that each tribe contributed an amount of 50 shekel to the purchase of the site on which the Temple was built. The reason the number 50 is mentioned at all is that David personally handed over the share of the tribe of Yehudah consisting of 50 shekels.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  . כל ימיך על אדמתך, “all your days on your land.” The specific command not to abandon the Levite is applicable only in the Holy Land. Levites in the Diaspora do not enjoy preferred status regarding receipt of charity from their brethren.
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ואמרת אוכלה בשר, “and you will say: “I want to eat meat;” This verse teaches the lesson that only economically well-situated people should indulge in a meat based diet; this is why the paragraph is prefaced by the words כי ירחיב ה' את גבולך, “when the Lord expands your borders, etc.”
     בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר, “you may eat meat to your heart’s desire.” The Torah permits consumption of non-sacrificial meats with the people’s entry into the Holy Land. As long as the people had been in the desert, meat was basically the meat of the peace-offerings.
  
  Verse 21
  
  . וזבחת...כאשר צויתיך, “you will slaughter..just as I have commanded you.” According to the plain meaning of the text the words “as I have commanded you,” refer to the procedure of ritual slaughter which precedes the offering of animals on the altar. We do not find a single verse commanding slaughter of animals except in connection with sacrificial offerings (compare Leviticus 1,5).
      A Midrashic approach: Moses had received these instructions while on Mount Sinai though they were not part of the written Torah. He had been told that the windpipe and gullet of the animal has to be cut (most of it) during that procedure, whereas in the case of birds only the greater part of one of these pipes has to be severed (Chulin 28).
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, “only be strong, not to eat the blood, etc.” Seeing that in the past the Israelites had been consuming lots of blood as parts of the pagan cults they had worshipped while in Egypt, the Torah had to make a special appeal to them to resist the temptation to eat blood. The Torah had to especially legislate in Leviticus 19,26: “do not eat in the presence of blood,” i.e. not to eat meat before all the blood had been removed.   Similarly, sacrificial meat must not be eaten until after the animal’s blood has been sprinkled on the altar. In our verse the Torah again exhorts us to resist the temptation based on a long tradition to eat blood. Consuming blood is one of the ways through which the Israelites might suffer a relapse to the ways of paganism. The prohibition to eat blood occurs no fewer than seven times in the Torah. (Leviticus 3,17; 7,26; 17,12; 17,14; 19,26; Deut. 12,16; 12,23).    It is quite customary to repeat again and again injunctions against practices considered as especially objectionable in the eyes of the Lord. For instance, the work-prohibition on the Sabbath appears on 12 separate occasions. This is because the Sabbath legislation is considered as equaling in importance all other laws of the Torah combined (Maimonides end of Hilchot Shabbat). The subject of the Exodus from Egypt appears no fewer than 50 times in the Torah, showing how fundamental to Judaism this event is considered by the Torah.  Another possible reason why he Torah here uses the unusual phrasing of “only be strong,” is that seeing that it is a widespread perception that consuming the blood of an animal strengthens the body of the person eating it, it is natural for people to think that the whole purpose of eating meat is in order to make the blood part of one’s own body. The Torah therefore has to tell the Israelite that his body will become stronger if he does not eat the blood of the animal. The word רק in our verse exempts the liver, which is all blood, from the prohibition of eating blood. We find a similar exclusion in the words אך כאשר יאכל הצבי in verse 22 where the Torah exempts the consumption of חלב, certain fat parts of the animal reserved for the altar in animals fit as sacrifices from that general prohibition. In other words, חלב of free-roaming beasts such as deer is not forbidden for consumption by Jews. Our verse here was necessary as we might have drawn a parallel between the permission to eat חלב of animals which do not qualify as sacrifices for the altar with blood of animals which do not qualify as sacrifices. The Torah therefore had to repeat the prohibition once more in connection with meat consumed as meat which had not been consecrated first. Also, the Torah wanted to avoid our drawing the conclusion that just as the חלב of a free-roaming beast is permissible, so the חלב of a domestic animal not slaughtered as a sacrifice is permitted. Had it been the intent of the Torah to allow such a conclusion, the Torah would have had to write in verse  22 כל אשר יאכל בצבי  ואיל יאכל, “everything which is permitted to eat of the deer, etc. may be eaten (in all non-sacrificial animals).
     כי הדם הוא הנפש, “for the blood is equivalent to the life-force.” The Torah writes this here to provide a reason for this prohibition. I have discussed this at length in Leviticus 17,11.
     ולא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר, “and you are not to eat the life-force when you eat the meat.” The literal meaning is that you must not eat the meat which has been cut out of a living animal while this animal remains alive. Even if the animal from which this piece of flesh had been cut off died in the meantime, the piece cut off first is forbidden under the heading of אבר מן החי, “tissue from living animals”, a prohibition which applies to all of mankind as we know from Genesis 9,4. The reason is that inflicting such pain on the animal is an act of cruelty which will engender cruel traits in the person consuming such flesh. The Torah adds the words (apparently unnecessary) לא תאכלנו, “do not eat it” (verse 24), to tell you that you must not eat the blood which is slow in seeping out, (which we remove through salting the meat).
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   למען ייטב לך ולבניך, “so that it will be well with you and your children, etc.”  Our sages in Makkot 23 use these words to prove that there is a reward in store for keeping the commandments. They argue as follows: if the Torah promises such a comprehensive reward as it does in this verse where even the children of the person observing the commandments are included in the reward for merely abstaining from eating blood, something which disgusts most of us, how much greater must be the reward for performing commandments which really require an effort on our part.     Abstaining from sexual relations with partners forbidden to marry surely represents a greater effort and qualifies for even greater reward. The prohibitions of the Torah may be subdivided into three basic categories. 1) Prohibitions of things which human nature craves such as unrestricted sexual relations and robbery, acquisition of property belonging to others. 2) Prohibition of things which normal people do not desire anyway such as the consumption of blood or creeping things and insects. 3) Things which man relates to as neither repulsive nor especially desirable such as the mixing of certain seeds when sowing one’s field or vineyard, or the wearing of garments containing a mixture of wool and linen. Seeing that this is so, the person to whom such prohibitions apply must train himself to detest the matters the Torah has forbidden if they had been something he craved by nature. Seeing the Torah forbade them one must re-orient one’s attitude towards such things because the Torah has forbidden them. This is the meaning of Sifri at the end of Parshat Kedoshim: “a person should not say: ‘I am by nature incapable of eating pig;’ on the contrary, he must acknowledge that by nature he is perfectly capable of eating pig, however, seeing the Torah forbade it he retrained his nature.”
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
    כי יכרית ה' אלו-היך את הגוים, “When the Lord your G’d will destroy the nations, etc.” This paragraph warns man not to engage in idolatry supplying a rationale for this. The reason the inhabitants of the land of Canaan forfeit their land is that they practiced all the cults which are an abomination to the Lord. The very manner in which they practiced their idolatry was so abhorrent to the Lord your G’d, especially the cult of child-sacrifice. Even the inquiry into details of the former inhabitants’ religious worship is forbidden especially if it is conducted as a prelude to imitating them. One must not delude oneself that these practices were pleasing to the Lord. What these people did has been described in Psalms 36,3 as “because its speech is seductive to him till iniquity be found out and he be hated,” The author of Psalms describes the cumulative effect of Satan’s urgings. The arguments presented by Satan are so seductive sounding that parents take the most precious creature in the universe, their own children, kill them as an act of sacrifice and persuade themselves that they have thereby done the will of the Creator of such sophisticated forms of life as human beings. את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם, “the whole matter which I command to you;” this refers to sacrificial service and the Temple service. G’d sums up once more that He hates all aspects of pagan worship and none of it must be added to the ceremonies prescribed by the Torah.
      A Midrashic approach to the words כי יכרית, based on Tanchuma Re'ey 9: We may best understand the need for this paragraph by means of a parable. A king had planted a vineyard in his field, a field which also contained great cedar trees as well as thorns and weeds. The king cut down the trees, but left the thorns untouched. When his servants observed this they remonstrated with the king saying: “our Lord, the thorns which tore our clothing you left untouched whereas the trees which give shade, etc., you cut down!” The king replied: “if I had uprooted the thorns and left the trees standing what would I use to fence off my vineyard?” This would not have been an appropriate way of doing things. The way I have done things provided me with lumber for the fence and provided more sunshine for my vineyard to produce good grapes. Israel is viewed as G’d’s vineyard as we know from Isaiah 5,7: “for the house of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts.” When G’d made the Israelites enter the vineyard, i.e. the land of Israel, He had already cut down the mighty cedars, i.e. the Emorites who lived there, people as powerful as oaks (Amos 2,10), but He left the children and grandchildren of these powerful Emorites in the meantime until the Israelites arrived so that they would tend the land (the vineyard) pending the Israelites’ arrival. We know this from Judges 3,1: “and these are the nations which the Lord left alive there in order to test the Israelites (who had not been alive at the time of the war of conquest).” We find a similar verse in Judges 2,22: “for it was in order to test Israel by them (the remaining Canaanites) to see whether they would faithfully walk in the ways of the Lord or not.” If the vineyard would remain in place as a result of the Israelites observing the Torah the remaining Canaanites would become “burnings of lime, thorns cut down that are set on fire” (Isaiah 32,12).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי יקום בקרבך נביא, “When a prophet will arise among you, etc.” This refers to someone claiming to be a prophet, claiming that G’d had communicated with him either while he was awake or while he was dreaming.   ונתן אליך אות, “and he will produce a sign (miracle) for you,” something in heaven proving G’d had communicated with him (compare Judges 6,17).    או מופת, “or a miracle,” something occurring on terrestrial earth which defies the laws of nature. The Torah tells you that such miracles nothwithstanding you are not to listen to his instructions. (Rashi) If you will ask why G’d has empowered such a person to perform a miracle, the Torah answers that G’d will test your faith in Him by doing so.  [It is assumed that the so-called prophet uses the miracle to entice you to violate a law of the Torah you are familiar with, primarily forms of idolatry. Ed.] 
      Nachmanides understands the word אות או מופת as follows: אות is advance notice of an otherwise unexpected future event, the sort of thing Moses did when he announced the arrival and time of the plagues to Pharaoh beforehand. The Torah had referred to his staff as the instrument with which he would make these אותות occur. (Exodus 4,17) Isaiah 7,14 also uses the word אות to describes an event he had foretold. The word is derived from אתה, “i.e. to come, to arrive, to occur,” as in Deut. 33,2 ואתה מרבבות קודש, “He arrived with myriads of holy ones” (angels).  The word מופת on the other hand, describes a totally new phenomenon occurring on earth, such as when G’d said in Yoel 3,3 ונתתי מופתים בשמים ובארץ, “I will perform miracles in the sky and on earth.” The word מופת is an abbreviation of the word מופלאת,  (compare Job 37,16). In Egypt G’d had performed both אותות ומופתים as we know from Deut. 4,34. אותות were the ones Moses had announced in advance, whereas מופתים took the victims by surprise and also defied the laws of nature.
      It is a well known fact that one does not accept a person’s claim to be a prophet until he has legitimized himself either by an אות or by a מופת. Not only do the miracles he foretold have to occur, but they have to occur 100% as he had foretold, both regarding date, regarding extent, etc. If a single detail of what the claimant promised did not materialize it is certain that he is not a prophet. Once a person has legitimatized himself in that all the miracles he foretold occurred in accordance with his predictions, if he will foretell a disaster in the future and the disaster does not occur this does not mean that he is a fraud. The test of whether a prophet is real or an impostor is when he foretold something pleasant, something that people look forward to and all or some of it fails to materialize. It makes no difference whether his prophecy concerned an individual or a group of people; not a single detail of what he predicted is allowed to fail to come true. In Jeremiah 28,9 the prophet told Chananiah son of Azor, who claimed to be a prophet “if a prophet prophesies good fortune, then only when the word of the prophet comes true can it be known that the Lord really sent him.” When prophets predict disasters which do not occur, one does not suspect them but attributes this to other causes, primarily that the people warned of the disaster had repented. After all, the whole purpose of the prophet’s mission is to cause people to return to G’d in penitence. We have a rule that G’d never reconsiders the promise of good fortune (compare Maimonides Yesodei Hatorah 10,4). Proof that the failure of a prophet’s foretelling disaster does not disqualify him when it does not occur, is what happened a Nineveh. Jonah was not discredited by the people of Nineveh doing teshuvah. Had G’d wanted to destroy those people at that time why did He have to send the prophet to them in the first place? When Isaiah told king Chizkiyah מות תמות, “you will surely die,” it did not discredit the prophet when Chizkiyah was given 15 more years of life on earth. At the time Iaaiah warned Chizkiyah he was most certainly under divine sentence of death. G’d allowed Himself to be entreated by him; this did not make Isaiah a liar. The technical reason why such prophetic pronouncements can be canceled is that teshuvah, repentance, was created prior to the creation of the universe, i.e. it overrides anything created later. (compare Pesachim 54).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אחרי ה' אלו-היכם תלכו, “Follow Hashem your G’d!” This is an exhortation to emulate G’d’s attributes. The call by Moses here is similar to והלכת בדרכיו in Deut. 28,9.   ואותו תיראו, “and Him you shall revere.” Do no relate to Him by trying to investigate His essence but by assessing His manifest actions. 
     ואת מצותיו תשמרו, “and His commandments you are to observe.” This is a reference to the written Torah, the 613 commandments written therein.
     ובקולו תשמעו, “and to His voice you are to hearken.” This refers to the prophets and includes the oral Torah as we learned in Avot 1,1: “Moses received the Torah (orally) at Mount Sinai and handed it over to Joshua,” etc.
     ואותו תעבודו, “and Him you shall serve.” This refers to prayer. ובו תדבקון, “and to Him you shall cleave.” This means that even while you are preoccupied with matters other than Torah, matters which are your legitimate concern, such as working for a living, you shall still have G’d on your mind and not totally disassociate your mind from Him even at such times.
      Alternatively, the meaning could be that you should not ever entertain the thought to leave the service of the Lord. When someone is a slave, even if he is fortunate enough to have the most accommodating and sympathetic master, there are times when he wishes to be free, independent. A Jew is never to allow himself the feeling that he wants to be free of his obligations vis-a-vis the Lord. The affinity between Israelite and G’d should be one that neither party ever wishes to sever. The reason is that true freedom is this very cleaving to Hashem, the best insurance against being enslaved to the evil urge.
      It is also possible to view the words ובו תדבקון not so much as a command but as a promise. It is the promise of life in the world to come if we have fulfilled the instructions in the first half of the verse to emulate the attributes of the Lord, to revere Him and to serve Him by praying to Him and to observe His commandments, both the written ones and the oral ones (compare Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי דבר סרה על ה' אלו-היכם המוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים, “for he has spoken perversely against the Lord your G’d Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt.” In other words, the false prophet is guilty of insurrection against heaven even if he performed numerous miracles and placed the sun in the zenith of the sky (at morning or evening) and claimed that this was proof that G’d had instructed him to do so, so  that on that particular day we are to serve a certain planet or constellation of stars or other celestial manifestations. Such an impostor is guilty of death by asphyxiation. The reason is that by doing what he did he challenged Moses’s stature as G’d’s foremost prophet (compare Maimonides Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah 9,5). By claiming to have received such instructions from G’d he violated the second of the Ten Commandments that “you shall not have any other deity.” All of the people of Israel had heard this commandment directly from G’d with their own ears. How could anyone come later and claim that G’d had suspended this commandment even for a day?! All of Israel were witnesses against this so-called prophet even before he spoke. This is why the Torah decrees that such a person must be executed seeing all the “so-called” miracles he performed were not real but were deceptions of his audience, sleight of hand, power of suggestion, mass hypnosis, whatever you want to call it.
      What we have said so far applies only when such a “prophet” asks the people or some of them to commit an act known to be forbidden as idolatrous. If however, a prophet, who had legitimised himself and had been proven to be a legitimate prophet for an extended  period of time, will call on the people to temporarily disregard one of the other commandments of the Torah we must listen to him and continue to believe him and to follow his instructions seeing he made it clear that the  suspension of the particular commandment he called for was only temporary. This is the meaning of the words אליו תשמעון, “to him you shall hearken” in Deut. 18,15 where the subject of prophets occurs once more. [if the prophet merely called upon you to perform the commandments of the Torah, the Torah would not have had to tell us that we must be “listening to him;” we  would be listening to G’d directly, without the need of a prophet’s call. to do so. Ed.] If we do rely on the miracles performed by such a prophet and do not treat them as deception and sleight of hand this is because he has a חזקה, an established reputation, of being a true prophet. If for some reason unknown to us such a prophet becomes a renegade, the Torah does not consider our being misled by him as our fault, but wrote in Deut. 29,28 הנסתרות לה' אלו-הינו, “hidden matters are G’d’s problem” (not our province to investigate). On the other hand הנגלות לנו ולבנינו , “matters which can be clarified by our using our means of detection, we ourselves are held responsible for.” Man must judge by what his eyes see, only G’d is able to look into a man’s heart (compare Maimonides Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah end of chapter 7). The Talmud Sanhedrin 90 also rules that when an established prophet such as Elijah at the time calls upon you to repair a private altar in order to discredit the priests of the Baal, we are to listen to such a prophet. The exception is if such a prophet were to ask you to commit an act of idolatry. The fact that Elijah offered a sacrifice outside the Temple, something prohibited in Leviticus 17,4 and 9, was prompted only by special circumstances.     Anyone arguing that a commandment should be canceled permanently is a false prophet seeing the commandments of the Torah (unless otherwise stated) are permanent This is the meaning of the last half of the verse we quoted from Deut. 29,28 לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת, “for us and for our children to carry out all the words of this Torah forever.” What the sages said in respect of Elijah at Mount Carmel is applicable in all similar situations when prophets cancel Torah injunctions as an emergency measure. When Joshua (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 14,5) violated the Sabbath when the priests carrying the shofarot and the Holy Ark marched around Jericho for seven days in a row, he did so at the express command of G’d. This was an emergency. We encounter a similar occurrence with the prophet Elisha in Kings II 3,25 when the Israelites in their battle against Moav cut down fruit-bearing trees and stopped up wells. Although the Torah had expressly forbidden this in Deut. 20,19 the prophet used his authority to set aside this injunction on a temporary basis. If the prophet gives such orders and they sound as if they are meant to be permanent he has discredited himself and people must not listen to his instructions. This is the meaning of a statement in Yevamot 102: “if Elijah were to come and tell you that the rites of chalitzah are performed with a shoe known as מנעל one follows his instructions; if he were to instruct that this procedure must not be performed with a sandal instead, one does not follow his instructions.” [The original practice had been to use a shoe known as מנעל. At the time of the Talmud, sandals had been in use for this for hundreds of years already. Even this established custom a prophet must not cancel permanently. Ed.]    The Talmud in Berachot 24,2 quotes a scholar saying that even if the greatest authority of his time had told him that it was permitted to recite the kriat shema in an otherwise unfit location by placing his hand over his mouth first, he would not obey this scholar in this matter. Moreover, the Talmud is also on record that even when such instructions are issued by means of a bat kol, a heavenly echo, this is without halachic significance when it involves permanent changes of Torah law. Prophecy is a higher authority than a בת קול and all the laws of the Torah have been communicated by the father of all prophets, by Moses. Rabbi Joshua used this latter statement in Baba Metzia 59 to aver that halachic decisions are arrived at by a majority of the competent scholars of their time and are not subject to divine interference (at a time when  we have no prophets).
  
  Verse 7
  
    כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך, “if your brother, the son of your mother tries to seduce you, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text  the wording means that “even if the seducer is a brother, son of the same mother, you must not protect him against justice“ (Ibn Ezra). 
      A Midrashic approach based on Kidushin 80: even a brother who does not share the inheritance with you seeing he is only the son of the same mother and there is therefore no natural jealousy between them must not be protected, nor must one allow oneself to be seduced by him into idolatry. This is all the more so if the brother is one with whom one shares the parental heritage, when there is reason to suspect that he is being given bad advice for ulterior motives.
     אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבותיך, “whom neither you nor your fathers have known of.” Rashi comments: “consider for a moment how despicable such advice is. He tells you to abandon a deity whom you and your fathers have served successfully, and suggests you try something totally unknown.”
      It is also possible that the Torah here alludes to two separate aspects of faith. One is based on tradition, the other on intelligence. If someone believes because he has a tradition from his parents, this is a good form of faith though it is not perfect as he did not examine the premise this tradition is based on. Such a person lacks wisdom and is like someone who is blind and walks in the company of more blind people. They appear to get to their goal because each one holds on to the hand of his nearest companion. As long as this column of blind people have one seeing person at their head they will travel a well paved road seeing they all follow the seeing person. This is what happens to us if we rely completely on the faith handed down by our ancestors. Seeing that Moses was “seeing,” as long as we follow the tradition of Moses we cannot go wrong, seeing we heard the instructions from Moses directly and our fathers have told us about it if we were not around at the time. However, such a faith is not perfect. The problem with such a faith is that when the believer is challenged by people presenting a different viewpoint, a person who does not possess wisdom will be shaken in his belief, become unsure of himself and his forefathers as they did not equip him with the answers to the new challenges. A physically blind person no less than a spiritually blind person is by definition unsure of himself and a potential victim of the seducer mentioned in our verse. This is why it is not enough to accept the tradition handed down by our fathers but one must study it and thereby develop the insights necessary to counter arguments presented by theologians of different religions. Only in that way will one acquire a perfect אמונה, faith. This is what the sages in Avot 2,19 had in mind when they said: “try and study Torah in depth so that you will know how to answer the heretic.” This is why  the Torah refers here to two aspects of אמונה, one which lacks ידיעה by yourself, the other a faith not even handed down by your fathers.
  
  Verse 8
  
   הקרובים אליך או הרחוקים ממך, “the ones close to you, or ones which are far removed from you” The Torah draws a comparison between the religions which are practiced by people physically near you to those practiced in distant countries. Just as you know that there is no substance to any religion of the pagans near you, there is no more substance to religions practiced by people further afield.   מקצה הארץ עד קצה ארץ, “from one end of the globe to the other end.” An oblique reference to sun and moon each of which travels from one end of the earth to the other. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  . כי הרג תהרגנו, “you are to surely kill him.” Seeing that the words of Torah all express mercy of one kind or another, it is not possible to understand the words הרג תהרגנו as an instruction to take revenge on the individual who is to be executed. If that were the purpose of the execution the Torah would actually train us in developing a cruel streak in our character; this is clearly at odds with all the Torah wishes to teach us. The consideration underlying the Torah’s insistence is the mercy and loving concern the Torah extends to all those who know the guilty party. If he were allowed to get away with it many more people would follow in his footsteps with terrible results for them. To make this whole point clear, the Torah first wrote: “you shall not be compassionate with him;” afterwards the Torah explains its concern for the people by writing that the execution of such a seducer will cause the survivors to relate to G’d with the proper degree of reverence so as to preclude the need for any executions in the future.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . יצאו אנשים בני בליעל, “lawless men have emerged from your midst;” the word בליעל means “not capable of rising spiritually to the domain of G’d.” Alternatively, the word is not connected to על but to עול, “yoke,” people who refuse to wear the yoke of any restrictive legislation, rejection of the authority of heaven. Our sages understand the emphasis on the word אנשים to mean that the legislation spelled out here does not apply if the instigators were women (compare Sanhedrin 111). The words יושבי עירם, “inhabitants of their city, are also understood restrictively, i.e. only if they misled people of their own city does this city have to be destroyed.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ודרשת וחקרת, “you will have to seek out and investigate thoroughly.” Witnesses who testified in capital crimes were subjected to questioning on seven cardinal points. 1) in which Shemittah cycle did the offense take place; 2) in which year; 3) in which month; 4) on which day of the month; 5) which day of the week; 6) what time of day or night; 7) where did the crime occur? These questions are known as חקירות. In addition the witnesses have to answer questions known as בדיקות, questions which do not pertain to the substance of the testimony and which do not invalidate the testimony if the witness is unsure of some of the answers. Examples of these בדיקות are: what kind of garments did the killer and the victim wear, i.e. white or black? What was the color of the earth on which the victim was found white or red? It happened once that a witness testified that he had observed the crime being perpetrated at a certain place under a fig tree. The judges asked the witness to describe the color of the figs, whether the figs had long or short stalks (compare Maimonides Hilchot Eidut 1,6). The mystical dimension of the requirement for the 7 חקירות is that they are perceived as representing the six extremities on the globe with the Holy Sanctuary at the centre of the globe, i.e. the opposite end of each extremity. [In baseball jargon, this could be described as “covering all the bases.” Ed.] The center is the point at which the truth emerges.
  
  Verse 16
  
   הכה תכה, “you shall surely smite.“ The Torah means that if one is unable for one reason or another to execute the inhabitants of this town by judicial process one must see to it that the people are killed even by other than accepted judicial procedures. This is why the verb הכה is repeated here (compare Baba Metzia 31).
  
  Verse 17
  
    ואת כל שללה תקבוץ, ”and you are to collect all its loot (all the possessions).” Our sages in Sanhedrin 111 say that the word שללה “its loot,” excludes “the loot belonging to heaven” [a reference to donations the citizens had made to the Temple Treasury. Ed.] These are to be subject to redemption just like הקדשות of ordinary people in other towns. They are not to be burned. Included in such שלל שמים is the second tithe which normally is taken to Jerusalem to be consumed there by the owners (or its proceeds). Neither are holy writings such as Torah scrolls subject to this provision of all the possessions of the people in that city having to be burned. They need to be buried (Sanhedrin ibid.)
     כליל לה' אלו-היך, “completely for the Lord your G’d.” All of it henceforth belongs to G’d; no one has the right to use any of it for deriving any benefit from it whatsoever. On the same folio in Sanhedrin 111 Rabbi Shimon is quoted as saying in the name of G’d: “if you carry out the provisions written here concerning such an עיר הנדחת, a city which has to be obliterated, I will consider it as if you had offered a burnt-offering which the Torah describes as כליל לה'.” He based this on Exodus 32,29: מלאו ידכם היום לה' כי איש בבנו ובאחיו, “dedicate yourselves to the Lord this day, for each has opposed his son and his brother.”
  
  Verse 18
  
   למען ישוב ה' מחרון אפו, “so that the Lord will turn back from His burning wrath.” In this instance, though the Torah speaks only of Hashem, the attribute of Justice is meant. The mystical dimension of the עיר הנדחת is referred to by the woman from Tekoah (Samuel II 14,14) [who pleaded that David allow Avshalom to return from exile by describing a fictional event. Ed.]. She said (amongst other things) וחשב המלך מחשבות לבלתי ידח ממנו נדח, “(G’d will not take away the life) of one who makes plans so that no one may be kept banished.” The people of the עיר הנדחת had been cast out from the celestial domains. Burning all their former belongings was part of their expiation, just as we find that the congregation of Korach was not only killed by G’d but their belongings were burned (compare author’s comments on Numbers 16, 31-32). The site where this city used to be located will be a ruin forever never to be rebuilt even at the time when the Jewish people will experience resurrection of the dead. 
  When the Torah continues ונתן לך רחמים “that the Lord your G’d will grant you (the survivors) mercy, etc.,” this is similar to the promise by Yaakov (prayer) to his sons that on their second journey to Egypt the ruler (Joseph) should release Shimon and allow Binyamin to return home also. (Compare author’s comments on that verse in Genesis 43,14). The words 'כי תשמע בקול ה' are to be understood as “in order that you will hearken to the voice of Hashem Who is your G’d, and observe all of His commandments; then you will do what is right in His eyes,” i.e. in the eyes of Hashem the attribute known as the tetragrammaton.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בנים אתם לה' אלוקיך”You are children to the Lord your G’d.” The reason this paragraph follows immediately after the paragraph dealing with the עיר הנדחת is that it is forbidden to observe rites of mourning on behalf of any of the people of that city that have been executed, just as it is forbidden to observe mourning for anyone executed judicially by the court. The Torah continues to describe mourning rites which are forbidden to observe even for people for whom it is incumbent upon us to observe mourning under normal circumstances.    The Torah forbids incisions in one’s flesh, לא תתגודדו, as a pagan rite of mourning practiced by the Emorites. They did this because they considered life on earth as the principal life of a person; therefore, they had no reason to consider his departure from earth as a promotion to a higher form of life in the celestial regions. Emorites were therefore correct to mourn their family members as losses never to be restored.     The Torah tells us here that our whole outlook on life is so radically different that we have nothing in common with them seeing that “you are children of the Lord your G’d.” It is customary for a father to leave his son as a bequest something which was very dear to him. Seeing that we are G’d’s children and He is our father, He leaves us the bequest of the world to come as His portion for us. Seeing Jews who die have such a bright future to look forward to in the hereafter it would be most inappropriate to overreact to our loss and ignore their promotion by making painful incisions on our flesh. Pulling out one’s hair and other such symbols of our grief are equally out of the question. The Torah adds: “for you are a holy nation;” the meaning of קדוש is “separate, apart,” i.e. of all the nations of the world you have been set apart in that we receive the reward for good deeds performed in this life in another life, a life which commences with the death of our bodies.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא תאכל כל תועבה, “Do not eat anything which is an abomination.” The reason the prohibition to eat certain creatures follows here is that this is part of the definition of maintaining a level of holiness. When the Torah spoke about the Jewish people being a holy nation (verse 2) this meant that this holiness has to be manifest both in deed and in the way one uses one’s mouth (Ibn Ezra). Our sages in Chulin 114 explain the above words to mean that G’d is saying: “anything which I described as abominable you must not eat.” This includes even matters which though permitted for consumption individually, separately, are forbidden as a mixture such as meat and milk. [This is an expansion of the meaning “abomination,” i.e. anything forbidden automatically comes under the heading “abominable.” Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
   שור שה כשבים ושה עזים, “an ox, sheep, and goat.” The three mentioned so far are צאן, domesticated animals kept in flocks or herds. By adding איל, צבי, יחמור,אקו דישון, תאו and זמר we get an additional 7 species making a total of ten categories of animals fit for consumption by Jews. The last-named seven, while permitted for private consumption, are not permitted as offerings on the altar. (Zevachim 34) Any free-roaming animal, חיה, is by definition not permitted as a sacrifice. [How could it serve in lieu of man who has not tamed it and exercised his authority over it? Ed.] The names of the seven last named animals reveal that they are “pure” i.e. possess the physical features described by the Torah as making them fit to eat. In Song of Songs 2,7 the first word השבעתי if read with the dot on the left side of the letter ש means that G’d provided as food ample supplies of  איל and צבי, proving these animals chew the cud and have split hooves. The יחמור is alluded to in Chabakuk 3,15 where it is compared to many waters, something which is ritually pure. [I confess I do not follow this since in that same verse horses are compared to the ocean which is equally pure, whereas horses do not have split hooves. I will leave untranslated the balance of this paragraph as I do not understand it. Ed.]
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   השסועה, “which is split.” Our sages in Chulin 60 understand this word to refer to a species of animal having two spines and two backs. [I suppose the clue to this is the tone sign <i>tipcha</i> under the word הפרסה which precedes it and which separates it from the word השסועה. Ed.] This species chews the cud. Seeing that the list of animals permitted to eat, etc., has already been provided by the Torah in Leviticus chapter 11, why is it repeated here once more? The sages in Chulin 60 suggest it is because of the addition of the השסועה amongst the mammals and the ראה amongst the birds (Bechorot 6). On the other hand, the list of birds mentioned in Leviticus has a bird called דאה which is absent here. (Leviticus 11,14) The reason this bird is called ראה is supposedly because it has exceptionally good eyesight. According to Chulin 63 this bird can locate a carcass in the land of Israel while flying in the skies of Babylon. The Talmud also considers the names איה and דיה as two names for he same species of bird. Seeing this species is known by two names, the Torah repeated the entire list of birds here once more. Had it not done so, some people might consider the species not listed in Leviticus as permitted to eat, whereas others would reason that the species not mentioned in Deuteronomy is permitted to eat. The reason that the list of birds are the ones forbidden to eat, whereas the Torah listed the mammals which are permitted to eat  is that there are far more species of “pure” birds, i.e. the ones we may eat than forbidden ones, whereas with mammals the situation is the reverse. Our sages base themselves on the model of the Torah when they say that when teaching people one should always endeavor to be concise, brief (Chulin 63). The species of bird known as שלך is called thus as it catches fish in the water with its beak while they are swimming (שלה, “to extricate, to draw out”). The דוכיפת is a form of wild turkey, apparently it has sort of a double “chin” (from the Hebrew כפות, “twin, double,” like כפות תמרים, the palm leaves which fold over).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “Do not boil  a kid in the milk of its mother.” I have explained the meaning of this verse in detail in Exodus 23,19. The reason it is written three times is that once it refers to the prohibition to eat such a mixture, once to the prohibition to merely boil it together, and once to the prohibition to derive indirect benefit from the result of boiling milk and meat together (Chulin 115). On folio 113 of Chulin the Talmud sees in the word גדי a restrictive clause, i.e. the prohibition does not apply to free-roaming beasts or to birds or to mammals of the kind which are forbidden for consumption by Jews. None of these are subject to this prohibition as a Biblical law though the Rabbis included the prohibition to cover all these cases (Maimonides Hilchot Maachalot assurot 9,4).
  
  Verse 22
  
  . עשר תעשר, “pay both tithes.” According to the plain meaning of the text: “after you set aside and gave to the Levite the first tithe, set aside the second tithe for yourself and take it to Jerusalem to consume it there.
  
  Verse 23
  
   למען תלמד ליראה, “so that you will learn to revere, etc.” When you will meet priests and Levites in Jerusalem, scholars who teach you Torah you will learn to revere the Lord.    The Talmud Taanit 9 quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying about the words עשר תעשר that the Torah implies you should give your tithe עשר, in order that as an eventual result תתעשר, you will become wealthy (i.e. read as if the dot is on the right side of the letter ש.) Actually the wording does not contain an allusion to עושר, wealth, seeing both the letters ש have their dot on the left side, imply passivity. What Rabbi Yochanan had in mind was not עשר בשביל שתתעשר, but עשר בשביל שתעשר, “give your (first time) tithe so that you will enjoy many years when you have what to tithe.” [When understanding it thus the dots on the letter ש remain on the left side. Ed.]. This then is the “wealth” Rabbi Yochanan was speaking about. (Based on Raav’ad, but never printed separately in this form.)     This is certainly something in the category of an experiment, i.e. appears to violate the commandment not to “test the Lord” (Deut. 6,16). Our sages in Taanit 9 were quite aware of this and this is why they quoted Malachi 3,10 where the prophet apparently allows this one exception to the rule not to test the Lord.
      A Midrashic approach: The repetition of the words עשר תעשר are a veiled warning; if you do not give your tithes you will become impoverished rather than remain more wealthy by withholding the amount in question. The wording also contains a hint that people who travel overseas should donate 10% of their profits to the people who toil studying Torah (Tanchuma Re'ey 18). Another meaning of these words (Yalkut Shimoni  892): it is customary that when a person rents a field he has to give the owner at least a third or even half of the harvest. Seeing that we are “renting” the land from G’d and He provides rain clouds, dew, manure, etc., and demands only 10% of the harvest as His due we really have nothing to complain about. Considering all these facts Moses warned the people to be careful to observe this commandment meticulously. There was a farmer once who fulfilled his duty and tithed his harvest properly. As a result he was left  with  a net amount of 1000 measures of grain. When he was about to die he told his son to be careful to observe this commandment meticulously. He told him how much a particular field yielded annually and to be sure to give 10% of that amount to a Levite. He also told him that he himself had been able to subsist comfortably on the harvest of that field after he had set aside the tithe. The son, a miser by nature, sowed the field and in the first year it yielded the amount his father had told him about. After the first year’s harvest came in the son dutifully set aside the 10%. In the second year, he was too miserly to do this and set aside only 9% instead of 10%. He found that in the third year this field yielded only 90% of the regular harvest. Becoming upset about this he again decrease the amount he set aside for the tithe until after a number of years of such miserly conduct the field yielded only the amount which his father had given away to the Levite as a tithe. When his relatives and neighbors became aware of this they all dressed in white garments and approached this farmer. When he saw them, the son of that original owner was upset that these people apparently celebrated his misfortune [wearing white is a symbol for celebrating. Ed.] The neighbors said that they certainly did not come to gloat but seeing that in the past he had been the owner and G’d the priest (the recipient of the tithe), now the tables had been turned and this farmer had become the priest (requiring the handout) and G’d had become the owner. This is what Moses meant when he warned: עשר תעשר את כל תבואת שדך, “if you do not give the tithe you will eventually have to be the recipient of a tithe (handout).”
     היוצא השדה, “which the field produces.” Tanchuma Re'ey 18 comments that “if you merit it you will go out and sow your field. If not היוצא השדה, the one known as “going out into the field,” (the Torah’s description of Esau) will harass you (compare Genesis 25,29).
     תבואת זרעך, “the produce of your sowing.” if you merit it the reason you go out to your field will be to examine if it needs rain and if so you will pray and G’d will respond. If you do not merit it the reason you will go out to the field will be to bury your dead. [The whole line is based on the words היוצא השדה really meaning “he who goes out to the field,” not “what comes out of the field.” Ed.]. 
     מעשר דגנך תירושך, “the tithe of your grain harvest, your grape harvest, etc.” It is only “your” grain harvest, if you tithe it; if not it is “My” grain harvest. The same applies to the grape harvest and the “oil” harvest. This interpretation is based on Hoseah 2,11: “Assuredly I will take back My new grain in its time and My new wine in its season, etc.”   שנה שנה, “year after year.” This means that one may not tithe from one year’s harvest for the following or the previous year’s harvest. Each harvest has to be tithed separately.
     ובכורות בקרך, “and the firstborn males of your cattle.” This does not mean that the (ordinary) Israelite is allowed to consume its flesh, seeing that first born male animals may be consumed only by the priests. It means that the people designated to eat these animals are encouraged to do so. 
  We have to remember that such firstborn animals are perpetually sacred, i.e. even nowadays when there is no Temple and even in the Diaspora. Such animals may not be shorn, used as working beasts, and may be eaten only if they developed the kind of blemish which disqualifies them as a potential offering for the altar. This view does not correspond to that of Maimonides who wrote in Hilchot Bechorot 1,5 that the law of the sanctity of a firstborn male animal is not applicable nowadays except in the land of Israel. Raav’ad already attacked this comment of Maimonides stating that even according to the view of Rabbi Akiva who did hold this way he meant only that the firstborn male animal nowadays cannot be offered as a sacrifice. This does not mean, however, that the firstborn male animal does not have a sacred body even nowadays and even in the Diaspora and it is out of the question to permit it to be eaten unless it developed the blemish we mentioned. The proof for this view is cited from Sanhedrin 5,1 where Rabbi Chiyah said to Rav, the son of his sister that seeing his nephew decided to emigrate to Babylon whether Rav would ordain him to make rulings there? He was told that whereas he was authorized to make rulings in matters of foods which are forbidden or permitted and in judicial matters, his authority would not extend to make rulings concerning the status of such firstborn male animals. Clearly, Babylon is considered part of the Diaspora. The reason Rabbi Chiya’s nephew was denied such authority was that these laws of sanctity did apply there. If not, why did the question arise? There is yet another proof that this sanctity applies even in the Diaspora from Bechorot 31.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  . מקצה שלש שנים, “at the end of three years, etc.” If a farmer had not allocated the tithes of the first and second year of the Shemittah cycle but had let them accumulate in his house, he has to remove them from there to Jerusalem in the third year, the year when the tithes for the poor are due (Rashi). Concerning the tithe of the first year he must recite the confession found in Deut. 26,28: “I have removed all sacred matters from my house.” The Levite may then help himself to the tithe from the first year, whereas the poor, etc., help themselves to the tithes which accumulated during the year of מעשר עני, the tithe for the poor was due (the third year). The owner is not permitted to eat the second tithe in Jerusalem as he had been allowed to do had he brought it there during the first or second year of the cycle. [The wording of our author in this paragraph is inaccurate, but I do not take it upon myself to correct it. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמיטה, “At the end of seven years you will institute a remission.” Several commentators including Kimchi and Ibn Ezra understand the word מקץ as “at the beginning of a seven year cycle.” They base themselves on the fact that everything has two extremities, i.e. קצוות. They cite as proof for such a meaning of the word Exodus 26,28 מן הקצה אל הקצה, “from one extremity to the other extremity.” This proves that the word קץ is applicable both to “beginning” and to “end.”   Our sages in Sifri Re'ey 111 do not agree with their view and claim that the verse means “at the end of a seven year cycle.” Had the Torah written מקץ השנה השביעית, we could have understood our verse as speaking of the beginning of a cycle, i.e. at the first extremity. The wording being what it is, however, it is clear that the last extremity, i.e. the end of the cycle is meant.    This is also what our sages in Erchin 28 said  when they ruled that the remission of debts occurs only at the end of the seventh year. This is also how Onkelos renders our verse when he translates the word as מסוף. Our sages in Erchin 11 have a tradition that the destruction of the (1st) Temple occurred at the conclusion of the last year of the Shemittah cycle. They invoke the principle of מגלגלין זכות ליום זכאי וחובה ליום חייב, “if a day has a tradition of being a harbinger of evil tidings one arranges disasters to occur on such a day, whereas when a day has a tradition of being a day well remembered for fortuitous events, such a day is chosen to be the day on which other fortuitous events will occur. The destruction occurred on the eve of the ninth of Av. About the destruction of the second Temple we learned in Avodah Zarah 9 that this occurred 172 years before the end of the fourth millennium, seeing that  the first Temple was destroyed in 3421 after the creation. (The second Temple stood 420 years.) This is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam whose view is best supported. Even though the greater part of the year was spent in building the Temple we count the year as belonging to the period when the Temple was destroyed seeing that this was the cataclysmic event during that year. [The author now switches to the time he lived in. Ed.]. Today we are in the 52nd year of the sixth millennium. If we add these 52 years to the 172 prior to the conclusion of the fourth millennium, we have 1223 years that have elapsed since the destruction of the second Temple. If you deduct 24 Yovel years from that total, i.e. 2 years per century, seeing that this year is counted double, i.e. as belonging both to the just concluded cycle and as the first year of the new cycle, the number 23 will be expanded to 47 years resulting in the fact that 2 years from the time of writing will be a Shemittah year i.e. in the year 5053.    According to the view held by Rashi that the Temple was destroyed in the year 420 (of its existence) the next Shemittah year will be in the year 5052.
      The expression תעשה שמטה, “make a remission,” refers to the soil which should be permitted to have a rest. The concept of Shemittah is the same whether applied to years or to the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day is a “shemittah” of days, whereas the seventh year is a Shemittah of years. I have already explained this on Leviticus 25,2
  
  Verse 2
  
   וזה דבר השמטה, “and this is the matter of the remission;” our sages in Sheviit 10,8 explain that the lender tells the borrower who comes to him after the Shemittah year has elapsed (and he had failed to repay his loan on time), “I am releasing you from your debt.” If the borrower wants to voluntarily repay the sum he owes, the lender may accept it, seeing that the Torah did not forbid the borrower to repay his debt as opposed to loans with interest where the Torah specifically forbade both the payment of and the accepting of interest on loans between Jews (Deut. 23,8). In the case of the Shemittah, the Torah imposed restrictions only on the lender, i.e. he must not harass the borrower to pay him. The concept is that during that year we must not act as if we owned the earth but must demonstrate our awareness and agreement that the earth is the Lord’s by our behavior in practice. This is the meaning of כי קרא שמטה לה', “for he proclaimed it a Shemittah for the Lord.”  Our sages in Sheviit 10,9 have said that when someone (a borrower) repays the lender what he owes him even though the Shemiitah year has elapsed, the Rabbis will relate very positively to such a person. On the other hand, if the borrower does not repay his debts even though he is legally in the clear, he risks that the lender will shame him by spreading the word that this borrower took advantage of the good nature of the lender and simply ate up his money.    There is a halachic provision whereby the borrower makes a declaration (entirely voluntarily) prior to receiving a loan that he waives his right not to repay the loan if for some reason he is unable to repay it before the Shemittah year ends. We have a general rule that all mutually agreed conditions involving money matters can override what the Torah wrote. Moreover, the lender is allowed to demand repayment during any time of the Shemittah year provided the year has not come to a close. This is why the Torah writes מקץ, “at the end.”    If someone who is owed money which should have been repaid prior to the Shemittah year hands over the I.O.U he is holding to a court of law asking the court to act as his collector, he cannot subsequently release the debtor from his debt seeing that the debtor is already considered as having been harassed, נגוש, so that the Torah’s warning not to harass the borrower can no longer be fulfilled. In such a situation the lender foregoes the right to ask for repayment (personally) as soon as the Shemittah year ends. (unless he had made an agreement with the borrower concerning this eventuality). Orphans who are of age (by the end of the Shemittah) and who are in possession of I.O.U.’s left to them by  their father  do not need to prove that the borrower had waived his right of non repayment of the debt at the end of the Shemittah year (Choshen Mishpat 67,29). These orphans are considered as if they actually had the requisite documents in their possession (Shevuot 45).    The laws pertaining to the release of overdue debts in the Shemittah year apply world-wide, as opposed to the laws pertaining to the earth and orchards, etc., which apply only in the land of Israel. The Rabbis decreed this in order that the whole concept of the Shemittah legislation not be forgotten during the long years of exile of the Jewish people.   The reason that the sheviit, seventh year, is capable of overriding  certain oaths, is because the Torah writes here וזה דבר השמטה, using the word דבר, word, i.e. something uttered by the mouth. If someone swore to his creditor that he would pay him back the loan even though the Shemittah year would occur prior to the date of his repayment, even if he confirmed it in writing, etc., he need not keep his oath (Choshen Mishpat  67,6).    There is a conceptual linkage between the shemittah of lands, etc., and shemitat kesafim (monetary debts) seeing the Torah writes  the word תשמטנה; in Exodus 23,11 the Torah had already spoken of releasing land, i.e. agricultural harvests, from the claims of ownership. It is fairly clear that in our portion another kind of shemittah, i.e. monetary debts, are referred to. Seeing that the applicability of this rule in the Diaspora is only rabbinic the Rabbis permitted the פרוזבול, the writing over of the debt to the Bet Hadin, court of law, as otherwise there would not be any people ready to extend interest-free loans which would prove uncollectable also. If someone borrows a sum of money for ten years the lender does not need to forgive the loan in the first shemittah year seeing it had not become due yet; you cannot release something to which you did not have a claim yet. If the loan is unpaid when the second shemittah year comes around, its laws apply  to that loan.
  
  Verse 3
  
    ואשר יהיה לך את אחיך תשמט ידך, “whatever you have a claim on, if it is in the possession of your brother, remit it.” Sifri Re'ey 113 infers from the wording <i>“if it is in the possession of your brother”</i> that when your brother has a claim on something which is in your possession, i.e. you have a pawn belonging to the borrower in your control, this law does not apply, i.e. you do not have to release it to him as part of the shemittah legislation.
  
  Verse 4
  
    אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, “However, may there be no destitute person among you.” When the Torah commanded you not to demand repayment from the borrower at the end of the Shemittah year, this will be of relevance only if you do not observe G’d’s commandments. If you do, there will not be anyone unable to repay his debts so that you would have to forego that money. Everybody will be wealthy and no one will have to borrow any money.
     והעבטת גוים רבים, “you will lend to many people.” The literal meaning is: “you will take pledges from them to protect your loans;”     כי לא יחדל אביון, “but the destitutes will not cease from your land, “if you fail to keep the laws of the Torah.”
     כי ברך יברכך ה' אלו-היך בארץ אשר ה' אלו-היך נותן לך, “for the Lord your G’d will bless you in the land which the Lord your G’d is about to give to you.” The mystical dimension of this verse is quite clear, and is based on the fact that you are a holy nation to the Lord your G’d Who has chosen you to be His special nation. It is always this attribute of G’d, the Essence, that dispenses this blessing.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . לא תאמץ את לבבך, “do not make your heart hard;” do not fail to also try and speak soothingly to those less fortunate than you. Our sages in Baba Batra 9 said that comforting someone with words is the greatest gift of all.
     ולא תקפוץ את ידך, “and do not close your hand into a fist.” For he is your brother, he is destitute, and in need of everything.
  
  Verse 8
  
   כי פתוח תפתח את ידך, “you shall keep on opening your hand for him,” even a hundred times (Sifri Re'ey 116). והעבט תעביטנו If he does not want to accept handouts, give to him in the form of a loan so as to preserve his self respect.   די מחסורו, “enough to cover his requirements.” You are not obligated to make him rich.   אשר יחסר לו, “in accordance with what he lacks.” Even if he needs a horse to ride on or a servant to run in front of him (to maintain his standard of living). לו, even if you have to get him a wife (based on the wife of Adam being described as אעשה לו עזר כנגדו in Genesis 2,18.)
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   נתון תתן לו, “You shall surely give him, etc.” The reason the Torah repeats the word נתן is to tell you that if you will give the poor in adequate measure, the Lord in turn will give you in adequate measure. Our sages interpreted the words to mean that even if you are called upon 100 times to support the same individual, do not refuse. The latter demand is based on your not having given the poor enough support the first time.    Concerning this subject Solomon said in Proverbs 21,26: “while the righteous man gives without stint.” Solomon means that the righteous does not allow any considerations to deflect him from giving charity. Another nuance included in the wording of the Torah נתון תתן is that one should give charity in a pleasant manner, not grudgingly. Neither should one do so in an arrogant manner. By following all these implications contained in the Torah’s wording, one may merit that one’s own wealth will endure. Concerning this Solomon said in Proverbs 13,8: “the poor never heard a reproof.” When does a man retain his own wealth? When he does not make the poor believe that his misfortune may be of his own doing, and one gives charity with a pleasant countenance. This is reflected in the story told by our sages about Rabbi Yannai who said to a wealthy man who publicly gave an alms to a poor man: “it would have been better if you had not given to this man at all instead of publicly embarrassing him” (Chagigah 5).
     כי בגלל הדבר הזה  “for on account of this matter, etc.” Our sages in Shabbat 151 said that the reason the Torah did not use the word למען but בגלל is an allusion to the גלגל, “the wheel of fortune,” i.e. horoscopic influences which govern the way money travels from one person to another. G’d is threatening here that “if you do not share your wealth with the poor by giving charity generously, I will give the wheel of fortune a spin so that the wealth which devolved upon you up until now will devolve upon someone else. We have a verse in Scripture on this subject in Psalms 75,8: “for G’d it is Who gives judgment, He brings down one man and He lifts up another.” Our sages on the above mentioned folio of Shabbat say that a man should pray especially concerning this attribute of G’d, [that he should not be made to suffer from it. Ed.] for even if he himself may not suffer from it his son or grandson may be made to suffer from it.
     יברכך ה' אלו-היך, “the Lord your G’d will bless you;” the Torah set aside a special blessing for people who perform the commandment of being charitable. Solomon went so far as to say (Proverbs 11,24) “some people, though they appear to be wasteful with their money actually increase their wealth.” I want to urge you to appreciate another important principle concerning this most important and noble commandment which we have inherited already from our patriarch Avraham. He provided the foundation for the organized giving of charity and its mystical dimension.     We must appreciate that poor people, by reason of their dissatisfaction “spread around” the presence of the attribute of Justice so that it is poised over Israel ready to strike. This is what the psalm 102,1 תפלה לעני, “prayer of the poor,” is all about. The very word תפלה [as opposed to תחנה, בקשה and similar words, Ed.] represents a struggle, a wrangling. It has a negative connotation, is used when two litigants strive against one another. This is what prompted the sages to say that a poor man is considered like a dead man (Nedarim 64). The wealthy man, by contrast, spreads around the attribute of Mercy seeing wherever he goes he reflects blessings received. He may be compared to the sun which enables the moon to at least shine with reflected light. He who dispenses charity is as if illuminating the eyes of the poor when the latter receives his blessing through the rich man. This is why the Torah warns that all the paths of Torah should be paths of loveliness and peace, that people who claim to be Torah-oriented should practice the virtues associated with Torah, and by giving charity in the manner prescribed enable the attribute of Mercy to abound on earth. By doing so he will ensure that the attribute of Mercy at least becomes an integral part of the attribute of Justice which is already poised. This is what ensures the continued existence of the universe. The world cannot exist unless both these attributes are working side by side (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15).   You are aware (of the kabbalistic concept) that the performance of acts of charity on earth will have impact on the attribute tzedek in the celestial regions. According to Zohar Bechukotai 113 the tree of knowledge represents death whereas the tree of life represents life. Giving charity (for the right reasons) saves from the clutches of death and results in the opposing forces of צדק and מלכות being able to function together in harmony for the benefit of all of mankind. Isaiah 1,21 speaks of צדק ילין בה the attribute צדק which once resided in Jerusalem being replaced through the murders committed in that city. The prophet tells the people how to rectify this situation where the Shechinah cannot feel at home anymore in Jerusalem, saying בצדק תכנני “you can be rehabilitated through charity.” (Isaiah 54,14). This attribute צדק is mystically identified with the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of “Israel.” It is also the “mate” of the “Sabbath” (compare Bereshit Rabbah 11,9). All of the above explains Moses’ concern with warning the people to be concerned with  fulfilling this מצוה very meticulously.    If someone gives charity on earth he influences the relative position of the emanation צדק=מלכות, bringing it closer to the emanation צדקה=רחמים or vice versa. Concerning this phenomenon we must understand the statement by the Kabbalists that גדולה צדקה לשמה, “that charity when performed for the appropriate reasons is a great thing.” They meant that the emanation חסד also known as גדולה will pour out blessing on the terrestrial part of the universe, i.e. the emanation מלכות. In Psalms 119,48 David phrased this as ואשא כפי אל מצותיך אשר אהבתי, “I stretch out my palms to fulfill Your commandments (charity) which I love.”
      You also find a statement in Midrash Tehillim which is an allusion to this (Midrash Tehillim 17,14) on the verse אני בצדק אחזה פניך, “I will be able to behold Your ‘face’ by means of charity (performed).” The author writes: “observe the power of charity; a person donates a copper coin to a poor person and as a result he merits a vision of Shechinah,” whereas according to the norms prevailing in our world when a lady of great social standing wishes to welcome the king in her home, she makes elaborate and expensive preparations to demonstrate her regard for the honored guest. Only after such elaborate preparations will she be able to entertain the king. Jews, by comparison, only have to make a minor contribution to charity or a person in need of charity, and already they are admitted to the king’s presence. The author of the Midrash proceeds to quote verse 14 in that chapter as proof.   The reason this paragraph began with the words: “in one of your gates in your land,” and the paragraph also concludes with the words “in your land,” teaches that the Torah places the major emphasis on charity performed in Eretz Yisrael. Chapter 12 already started with the words: “these are the statutes and social laws which you are to observe and carry out in the land which the Lord your G’d gave to your ancestors.” Performance of the commandments of the Torah in the Diaspora basically only serves as a preservative measure, i.e. to ensure that during the long years of exile we do not forget the Torah and its commandments. This is the way Sifri explains Deut. 11,18: “put these My words on your heart;” The Torah refers to times when G’d’s words are incapable of being carried out except with our hearts, periods when we are exiled from Eretz Yisrael. We are to continue to lay Tefillin, put a mezuzah on our houses, etc., etc., in the Diaspora to ensure that we do not forget these laws.   An alternative way of understanding the words: “in your land” is: even when you are in your land. “ Even in your land where you already demonstrated that you believe that the earth is the Lord’s through releasing debtor from debts, allowing all and sundry to pick the harvest of “your” field every seventh year, the Torah still commands you to perform deeds of charity as outlined in our paragraph. If you have to perform charity even in an environment where you demonstrated the virtue which charity symbolises, then when you are in the Diaspora and you cannot demonstrate this virtue in any other way you are most certainly obliged to practice charity even more meticulously. The commandment of charity is one that is called מצות הגוף, a commandment to be performed with one’s body, i.e. personally; as such its application is world-wide regardless of whether the Temple is standing or not.”
      The meaning of the subordinate clause introduced by the words (verse 9) “be on guard against yourself, etc.” i.e. that the Torah has to warn that we are urged to be meticulous with this commandment even in Eretz Yisrael, is to head off certain thoughts that might occur in your head. You might reason to yourself that seeing you have to release debtors from their debt to you, have to relinquish your field for a whole year, how could you be expected to fulfill the commandment to give charity according to the standards demanded by the Torah? Surely this will cause you to end up in the poor house yourself! In order to head off such thoughts the Torah promises  that on the contrary, G’d will extend His blessing to you precisely because you have meticulously performed these commandments, not in spite of it. If you were to allow the needy to appeal to G’d (instead of to you who has denied him) then, and only then will you be guilty of a sin. The Torah concludes by saying בארצך, “in your land,” meaning “even in your land,” where you have already given up so much of what you would normally consider yours, you are not to withhold your generous contributions to the poor. It follows that your duty to be generous to the poor while you are in the Diaspora is even greater as you have fewer means to demonstrate this good virtue. In other words, the word בארצך here is not to be understood as something restrictive, applying only in Eretz Yisrael.    Had the intention of the Torah been to use the word בארצך restrictively, the paragraph should have commenced with the words והיה כי תבואו אל הארץ, “it will be when you come to the land, etc.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי ימכר לך אחיך העברי או העבריה, “If  your brother the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman will be sold to you, etc.” Although the laws applying to Hebrew slaves (servants) have already been outlined in Exodus chapter 21,2-11, the Torah repeats the legislation here as it contains a new element telling us that a woman also leaves her employer by right at the conclusion of six years’ service. Also, the instruction to give the departing servant a stake to help him gain financial independence was not mentioned in Exodus.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  . הענק תעניק לו, ”make generous provisions for him, etc.”  The word הענקה describes “something beautiful.” The idea is that the released servant’s new status should be visible to all so that he will enjoy a standing in the community. The word appears in the sense of jewelry in Proverbs 1,9. Alternatively, the word is related to ענקים, giants, and the meaning would be to give him great gifts.
  
  Verse 15
  
  . וזכרת כי עבד היית, “You shall remember that you yourself used to be a slave;” G’d equipped you generously when you left Egypt, and when you gathered the loot  at the sea.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואף לאמתך תעשה כן, “and also to your servant maid you shall do likewise.” These words do not refer to the piercing of the ear-lobe of a female servant seeing there is no such procedure applicable to a woman. The words apply to the requirement to equip an outgoing female servant with a generous stake, not less than that of the male servant. Similarly, the words: “if he (the master) did not do either of these three things for her,” (Exodus 21,11) do not refer to the words כסות ועונה which appear next to it, but apply to the words אשר יעדה והפדה. A third example of the Torah writing words out of the immediate context is found in Exodus 22,2 אם זרחה השמש עליו, where the words שלם ישלם refer to the previous verse that four or five-fold payment has to be made, and not that payment depends on the deed having occurred in daylight.
  
  Verse 18
  
    כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך שש שנים, “seeing that for six years he served you twice as much as a hired hand would have done.” Normally a person does not hire himself out for more than three years  (compare Choshen Mishpat 333,14: it is forbidden to hire himself out for more than three years). We have an allusion to this in Isaiah 16,14: “in three years, fixed like the years of a hired laborer.” Our sages derive from our verse that the Hebrew servant serves his master both by day and by night, seeing the master is allowed to give him his gentile slave-woman for him to sire children by her [a form of service, seeing the children will not be his. Ed.]. This is why the Torah described him as having performed double duty (compare Sifri Re'ey 123).
  
  Verse 19
  
  .כל הבכור אשר יולד בבקרך ובצאנך הזכר תקדיש לה' אלו--היך, “every firstborn male animal which will be born among your cattle or sheep you shall sanctify for the Lord your G’d.” Although the firstborn animal already is holy from birth without need to be so designated, seeing the Torah makes its sanctity dependent on it being פטר רחם, “the opening of the womb,” the Torah wants the owner to also sanctify the animal by declaring it sacred with his mouth. (Erchin 29) The commandment includes use of the name of the Lord to Whom the animal is consecrated. If we find a verse (Leviticus 27,26) where the Torah writes: “a firstling which is the Lord’s  cannot be consecrated by anybody,” this means that it cannot be consecrated to serve as a different kind of offering.
  
  Verse 20
  
   בשעריך) תאכלנו), “you may consume it in your cities.” The Torah refers to people who are authorized to eat it (priests). שנה בשנה, “year by year;” this does not mean that it is forbidden to eat it after it has attained its first birthday as it has been compared elsewhere to the second tithe (Deut. 14,23), but it means that preferably it is to be eaten before it has attained its first birthday. אתה וביתך, “you and your house,” i.e. the household of the priest.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  בשעריך תאכלנו, “you may eat it inside your gates;” a reference to the priest who may eat it outside the Temple. הטמא והטהור. “the ritually impure together with the ritually pure,” an exclamation, referring to the word תאכלנו, “you may eat it,” telling the priest that even if he is in a state of ritual impurity he is allowed to consume this animal. If the meat of the animal is ritually impure however, eating it is forbidden on pain of the karet penalty (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 23
  
   רק את דמו לא תאכל, “only its blood you may not eat.” The reason the Torah repeats this prohibition which was all inclusive anyway, is so that the priest should not think that seeing the whole subject is one dealing with something that had been originally forbidden [while the animal had been unblemished, Ed.]. becoming permitted, that this change in status included also the consumption of blood (compare Rashi).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . שמור את חדש האביב, “you shall observe the month of spring.” This is the month of Nissan during which the Exodus from Egypt took place. Our sages (Sifri) elaborate that the exhortation of the Torah means that we must make preparations for this month beforehand so that its arrival should coincide with the arrival of spring, a time when the offering of the first ripe barley is to take place on the 16th of that month. If this does not (at least) coincide with the spring solstice, the sages are to insert an extra month so that the spring solstice occurs before the 16th of Nissan
     ממצרים לילה, “from Egypt at night.” The actual departure was by day as we know from Numbers 33,3 that “the Israelites left on the morrow after the Passover.” Moreover, the Torah adds in Exodus 12,41 that בעצם היום הזה יצאו, “they departed on that very day,” i.e. during the hours of daylight of the 15th of Nissan. Why then does the Torah speak here about the Israelites departing at night? The answer is that seeing that permission had been given for them to depart they are considered as having left the state of enslavement already. Exodus 12,31 reported that Pharaoh called upon Moses and Aaron during the night and told them: “arise and leave!” Onkelos translates our verse here ועבד לך נסין בלילה, “and He performed miracles for you at night,” so that you should not be misled into thinking that the departure took place at night.
  
  Verse 2
  
    וזבחת פסח לה' אלו-היך צאן ובקר, “you will slaughter a Passover for the Lord your G’d, flocks and herd.” The word צאן, meaning sheep, refers to the mandatory Passover offering, whereas the word בקר, “cattle,” refers to the peace-offerings which every Israelite was to offer on the holiday. This was necessary so that the Passover offering could be eaten in a satiated state (compare Pesachim 70).
  
  Verse 3
  
  . לא תאכל עליו חמץ, “Do not eat any leavened matter with it.” This refers already to the time when the Passover sacrifice may be slaughtered, i.e. about midday. At that time one must no longer own anything leavened (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   בערב, כבוא השמש מועד, “in the evening, as the sun sets, the appointed time;” the Torah here mentions three separate times: 1) “in the evening;” the Passover is to be slaughtered beginning with a period which can be termed “evening,” i.e. after noon. 2) “when the sun sets,”  this is the time when you may eat it. 3) “at the time you left Egypt (dawn);”  at this point any leftovers have to be burned (Berachot 9).
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובשלת ואכלת, “you are to boil it and eat it.” The word ובשלת in this connection means “to barbecue it on a spit over an open fire” as we know already from Exodus 12,8. The word בשל occurs in the sense of “ripening, becoming ready for its destiny,” already in Genesis 40,7 when the butler described his dream with the grapes. Similarly, the meaning of Chronicles II 35,13 ויבשלו את הפסח, does not mean that the people boiled the Passover in water, but that they made it ready for eating.
     ופנית בבוקר, “you may turn (homeward bound) in the morning.” The second morning is considered a regular day, not part of the festival and its restrictions. If you live close to Jerusalem you may return home on that day. From there you may go to any part of the country  (Ibn Ezra verse 7). Our sages derive from this verse that the first night of the holiday must be spent inside Jerusalem (Sifri Re'ey 134). This is a display of respect for Jerusalem and the importance of the commandment of Passover.    Our sages in the Sifri also derive from the words ופנית בבקר that departures from the Temple should always occur no earlier than in the mornings. The word לאהליך, “to your own tents, dwellings,”  is a kind of justification for the departure of the pilgrim already on the second day of Passover. If his “tent” i.e. residence were at the farthest corner of Israel he would have to leave that soon in order to make the next pilgrimage to Jerusalem in time for  Shavuot. This is the reason this legislation is written in connection with Passover, seeing that there is only a short interval between Passover and Shavuot. [The following is an illustration of the slow travel in those days. Ed.] The sages described the area of the land of Israel being 400 by 400 parssah. (400 times 4,45 km). The Temple is perceived as located at the center of this area (Tanchuma Kedoshim 10). It follows that the person living furthest from the Temple had to travel a distance of approx. 900 km in one direction to get to Jerusalem. Assuming that one can cover a distance of 10 parssah per day (based on Pessachim 94) he would have a total of 49 days minus 8 Sabbath days between Pessach and Shavuot leaving a maximum of 40 days for travel The person in question would require the entire interval for traveling home and back again to Jerusalem.
  
  Verse 8
  
    ששת ימים תאכל מצות, “for six days you shall eat unleavened bread.” How do we reconcile this verse with verse 3 earlier where the Torah commanded that in connection with the Passover we are to eat unleavened bread for seven days? Our sages in Pessachim 120 explained that the reason that the seventh day has been exempted from the general rule, meaning that eating unleavened bread on the seventh day of Pesach is not an obligation but is voluntary, derives from the fact that leavened bread is prohibited. The exemption is used as a model, teaching that just as it is not obligatory to eat unleavened bread on the seventh day, so what is written in our verse about eating unleavened bread during six days of the Passover holiday is also voluntary (though highly recommended). The only time the consumption of unleavened bread is obligatory is on the first evening when the Passover lamb is being consumed. This is why this legislation appears already in that connection in Exodus 12,18.
     וביום השביעי עצרת, “and on the seventh day is a concluding festival.” The reason the Torah chose the word עצרת to describe this day is that the people are perceived as “detained” by G’d for another day. They are all gathered in the various synagogues  and houses of study (compare Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 23,36). The people are detained in the sense of being unable to perform their regular activities, i.e. due to the work prohibition.”    Onkelos translates the word as כנישו, ”festive assembly.” We (author) have explained the deeper significance of the word (and the meaning of the day) under the heading: a kabbalistic approach on Numbers 29,38 [see translation there]. 
     לא תעשה מלאכה, “you are not to perform  work.” Whereas in connection with the Sabbath the work prohibition is described as “you must not do “any” work, the word “any” does not appear here. It could not have appeared seeing that on festivals preparation of food and work connected with it is permitted (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 9
  
   שבעה שבועות תספר לך, “you are to count for yourself seven weeks.” The Torah here lists the three pilgrimage festivals in their consecutive order, Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. The holidays of New Year and Day of Atonement are not mentioned here as on those days the people did not assemble in the Temple. This is also why nowadays in our Mussaph prayers on those days we do not include the line: “we are unable to make the pilgrimage to the House of our Chosenness there to be seen, etc.”   The reason the Torah wrote: “count for yourself” in the singular, whereas in Leviticus 23,16 the same directive is written in the plural, תספרו חמישים יום, is simply that the Torah often alternates between the singular and the plural. We find this especially if originally the law was addressed to the multitude, in the plural. The idea is that an individual should not have an excuse to say that as long as the community has fulfilled the commandment in question that he is covered by this seeing he is part of the community. He might reason that he would escape punishment for non-performance. The Torah therefore repeats the commandment using the singular to disabuse such an individual of the idea that he could use the community as his shield. Another prominent example of this is found in Numbers 15,38  in connection with the law of tzitzit where the Torah wrote  “they shall make as part of the fringes a tassle of blue wool;” subsequently in Deut. 22,12 the law appears as addressed to the individual, i.e. גדילים תעשה לך על ארבע כנפות כסותך, “make fringes for yourself on the four corners of your garment.” We find these switches from plural to singular and vice versa even within the same verse describing a single commandment. Leviticus 19,9 is one of numerous such examples.    There is another reason why the Torah switches from plural to singular. If the Torah would write the commandment only in the plural I might conclude that the commandment was addressed  exclusively to the court. This is why the commandment also had to be formulated as addressed to individuals. We have an example of this in the commandment of using the four species of plants on the first day of Sukkot. The Torah writes in Leviticus 23,40 (using the plural) “take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of the tree called Hadar,” etc., etc. Nowhere is mention made of this commandment in connection with an individual. I would have interpreted this commandment as subject to performance only by members of the Sanhedrin were it not for the fact that the Torah adds: “you shall be joyful in the presence of the Lord your G’d” (Deut. 16,12). Clearly, the commandment to be joyful cannot be meant for the members of the Sanhedrin only but must be meant for each and every individual Israelite. Moreover that part of the commandment has also been formulated in the singular in 16,14. If other commandments had been formulated only in the plural we would indeed have understood that they apply only collectively, to the Bet Din in its capacity as representatives of the people.    Concerning the commandment to count from Pessach to Shavuot, our sages in Chagigah 17 said that the fact that the Torah speaks both of counting days and of counting weeks means that there are actually two commandments (according to some authorities). Some hold (“Sefer HaMaor” end of Pessachim) that the “week” needs to be mentioned only after the previous week has been completed whereas others hold that as soon as the first week has been completed mention of the week is mandatory every evening, side by side with mention of the day of the count. The “weeks” are understood as an allusion to the seventh millennium and this is why it must be mentioned every evening (Ibn Ezra). [Bet Yosseph on Tur 489 brings an opinion quoted by Avi Haezri that only the weeks have to be counted.  (mentioned in Rabbi Chavell’s glossary)]
     מהחל חרמש בקמה תחל לספור, “you are to start counting from the time the sickle will begin cutting the standing crop.” This teaches that cutting the barley and beginning the count of the seven weeks is to occur simultaneously. Our sages (Sifri Re-ey 136) add that I might have thought that whereas the cutting and the counting have to occur simultaneously, offering of the “Omer” could take place whenever one wanted; to ensure that we would not understand the commandment in this way the Torah added מיום הביאכם, (Leviticus 23,15) that the day we start counting is to coincide with the day the offering is presented on the altar.    The meaning of the words מיום הביאכם could also be that reaping, counting and presenting on the altar should all take place simultaneously, and  this is why the Torah does not write ביום, “on the day,” but מיום, “from the day.” The cutting and counting are to take place at night, whereas presentation of the offering on the altar takes place by day. The Torah wrote that “they shall be seven complete weeks” (Leviticus 23,15). They can only be complete if you start counting in the evening.  Our sages also explain that the word בקמה, “in the standing corn,” may be read as בקומה, ‘that the counting of the days and weeks has to be performed while one is standing. [Presumably the word בקמה was considered redundant otherwise as one always cuts standing corn, not “lying” corn. Ed.]  There are a total of four commandments which have to be performed while standing: עומר, ציצית, מילה, לולב.  [The common denominator of these four commandments is the unnecessary word לכם. Seeing that we derive “standing” from the commandment of עומר, the Rabbis applied that rule to other commandments featuring that word לכם.]
  
  Verse 10
  
   מסת נדבת ידך אשר תתן כאשר יברכך ה' אלו-היך, “offering your voluntary contribution commensurate with your individual generosity and the blessing the Lord your G’d bestows on you.” The word מסת means במסת, “according to.” The meaning of the phrase is that “your voluntary offerings shall correspond to your personal generosity combined with the blessing the Lord has given you.” This is why the word תתן, “you shall give,” was placed between the words מסת נדבת ידך and the words כאשר יברכך — according to your wealth and generosity you should bring Shelamim offerings and invite people to share in the meat.
  These directives are not exclusive to the festival of Shavuot, but apply equally to all the other festivals. The reason that the Torah wrote this instruction here in connection with Shavuot may be  that seeing Pesach is a festival which lasts 7 days and Sukkot also lasts seven days whereas Shavuot is only one day, I might have thought that it does not rate the same stringent laws as do the other festivals. The Torah therefore  told us that our obligations regarding voluntary offerings on Shavuot are no less than on the other festivals.    The people whom we described as the ones to be invited to share your meals, especially the sacrificial meats of the שלמי חגיגה, the peace-offerings in honor of the festival, are: the Levite, the proselyte, the widow and the orphan. When the Torah speaks about the גר, the “stranger,” it refers to a stranger who converted to Judaism. Just as the Levite is a בן ברית, the convert is no less a בן ברית, member of the eternal covenant between the Jewish people and G’d.     Our sages said: G’d said: “four belong to Me parallel to four who are yours. The four who are Mine are the Levite, the proselyte, the widow and the orphan; the four who are yours are your son, your daughter, your servant, and your servant maid. If you ensure that those who are Mine can enjoy the festival, I in turn will make sure that those who are yours will enjoy the festival.” This is the meaning of the verse (11) “you shall enjoy the festival in the presence of the Lord your G’d; you, your son, your daughter, your servant and your maid servant, and the Levite in your gates, and the proselyte and the orphan and the widow who is among you, etc.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
    ושמחת בחגך, “you shall be joyous on your festival.” Our sages in Moed Katan 8 state that from the words “be joyous on your festival” one can infer that one should not get married on the intermediate days of the festival, as that would be mixing two kinds of joy together, something not appropriate. The Torah mentions here that the joy it has in mind is the joy with G’d’s blessing, for it adds: “for the Lord your G’d has blessed you with all your harvest,” etc. You will observe that the expression שמחה does not occur in connection with the Pessach festival. Neither is mention made of the word ברכה, blessing, in connection with that festival. The reason is that on the other two festivals different parts of the harvest are already at hand, i.e. G’d’s blessing has become manifest, something not yet apparent on Pessach. Seeing that on the other festivals the harvest is in the home it is possible to share it with the four categories of people mentioned in the Torah. This adds to the joy of the festival.   On Pessach, not only has the new harvest not yet been brought in but the old harvest is just about depleted. It is therefore difficult to provide joy for the people with whom the Torah wants us to share our joy. By not demanding joy from us on Pessach, the Torah displayed a deep psychological insight into the minds of most of us, who, even though we might share with the Levite, etc. even at that time, would not do so joyously.   Another reason why joy has not been mentioned by the Torah in connection with Pessach though it does appear in connection with Shavuot, and on Sukkot the Torah mentions joy no fewer than three times, is in line with the statement in Rosh Hashanah 16 that the world is judged on four occasions during the year, On Pessach G’d decides if the harvest (grain) will be bountiful; on Shavuot G’d decides if the harvest of the orchards will be bountiful; on Sukkot G’d decides on the water supply for the coming year, whereas on Rosh Hashanah G’d judges the fates of every individual for the forthcoming year. Seeing that Pessach is not only a day of judgment, but we do not know yet how this judgment will manifest itself  seeing the year is still ahead, it is not yet time for rejoicing (Pessikta d'Rav Kahane 29). By the time Shavuot occurs it has already become clear that the barley and wheat have matured, etc. There is therefore ample reason for joy. By the time Sukkot comes around the other three judgments have also been seen to have been favourable; therefore the Torah mentions joy three times in connection with that festival.
      A kabbalistic approach: The three festivals listed here in their proper sequence correspond to the three patriarchs who represented the three attributes of חסד, דין, רחמים, “loving kindness” (undeserved), “Justice,” “Mercy” (allowance being made for man’s inadequacy). Pessach symbolises  that on the one hand G’d practiced judgments on the Egyptians when He killed their firstborn, whereas at the same time He extended kindness to us by “passing over” the houses of the Jewish people. [Remember that G’d did not entrust this task to an angel, as angels do not have the latitude to extend this kind of kindness when it is not warranted by some merits. Ed.]  Onkelos translates the word ופסח, which we normally translate as “he passed over,” (Exodus 12,23) as ויחוס, “He displayed loving kindness.” This is also reflected in Psalms 136,10: “Who struck Egypt through their first-born, His steadfast love is eternal.” Whereas this plague was judgment meted out to the Egyptians, it was a great act of kindness for the Israelite firstborn.     Shavuot corresponds to the attribute of Mercy, an attribute which usually reconciles the opposing demands of the attributes of Chessed and Justice respectively. This is why the sages in Berachot 58 consider the term והתפארת  in Chronicles I 29,11 as referring to the giving of the Torah. The Torah was given under the exclusive aegis of the tetragram. Sukkot on the other hand, corresponds to the attribute of Justice.   The very word סוכה is interpreted in Megillah 14 as “Holy Spirit” [Avraham was told by G’d to submit to the dictates of Sarah known already as יסכה when introduced in  Genesis 11,29. She was covered like a סוכה with Holy Spirit.] When  David writes in Psalms 68,18: “the Lord is among them (the myriads of chariots) at Sinai in holiness,” he referred to the difference between סיני בקדש and בקדש סיני respectively. Had the Torah written the latter formulation I would have thought that a place was assigned to the Lord. As it is, it is the reverse. He determines “place,” no one determines a place for Him. He is the “place” of the universe. Even the (whole) universe is not “His place.” The meaning of מקום עולמו is similar to בית עולמו. We find that בית is an allusion to חכמה already in the very first letter ב in the Torah, at the beginning of the Torah. Just as חכמה is known as בית, so סוכה is known as בית (compare Genesis 33,17); in other words סוכה symbolizes חכמה. Solomon reinforces this concept in Proverbs 24,3: “a house is built by  wisdom.” The symbolism is extended by our author to include the three walls which the סוכה has to have and which are symbolized by the shape of the letter ב which is closed on three sides. [Although the author sees the festival Sukkot as representing the attribute of Justice, presumably because it follows the activity of that attribute during the early part of the month of Tishrey, he goes out of his way to equate the procedures of building a Sukkah with the emanation חכמה which is only one rung below the highest emanation כתר, and several rungs above that of דין, Justice. Observance of the commandments then signifies that we have successfully contended with that attribute with the conclusion of Yom Kippur.  Ed.].
  
  Verse 15
  
    והיית אך שמח, “you shall be completely joyous.”  Seeing the Torah had already written: “you shall rejoice on your festival,” why did it have to add the above words? It means that the joy shall extend throughout the whole seven days of the Sukkot festival. The numerical value of the letters in the word אך is 21; you are to maintain this level of joy until the 21st of the month of Tishrei, inclusive.
      An alternative meaning alluded to by the word אך which is always diminutive, restrictive, may be that joy in this world is never complete joy. Even while rejoicing on the festival we must remain conscious of the limitations of this terrestrial universe. The reminder is especially timely seeing that starting with Pessach followed by Shavuot we experience increasing amounts of joy seeing more and more of the life-sustaining harvest is secured, we might delude ourselves of reaching a state of serenity, living a life without challenges. The wording of the verse is designed to teach us to temper our joy in this imperfect world, the life our sages call חיי שעה, “a life of only hours.”    Even while preoccupied with the fulfillment of the command-ments which ought to be fulfilled in a spirit of joy, we must never exclude the emotion of trembling that we are in the presence of our Creator. This is how our sages in Berachot 30 understood the call of Psalms 2,11: “serve the Lord in awe, tremble with fright.” The very word גילה, a form of joy, mentioned in that verse, embodies also a feeling of “fright.” The reason for all these negative sounding emotions is the fact that this world is inhabited also by the evil urge who constantly lies in wait for us. He is so consumed with seducing us by painting a picture of “joy” (joyous abandon) that we must be on our guard that what commences as the joy of performing מצות does not degenerate into something totally secular. True joy is reserved for the world of the future. This is what Isaiah 29,19 had in mind when he wrote: “then the humble shall have increasing joy through the Lord, and the neediest of men shall exult in the Holy One of Israel.”
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
      דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום, “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. (Proverbs 3,17). 
  Solomon informs us in the verse just quoted that the foundation of the Torah and its ongoing concern is peace. We find this demonstrated already at the very beginning of the creation and this is why the sages in Chulin 60 have taught that all phenomena were created as completed, matured phenomena at the very outset. They base this on Genesis 2,1 וכל צבאם, “complete with all their accessories.”    It is well known that the heavens were created first and that unless peace reigned in the universe this could not have succeeded seeing heaven is made of two opposite elements, “fire and water.” They could not coexist unless G’d had seen to it that peace reigned in the universe. This is why we read in Job 25,2 עושה שלום במרומיו, “He makes peace in His lofty heights.” One of G’d’s names is שלום, Peace, as we know from Judges 6,24 ויקרא לו ה' שלום, “he (Gideon) called the altar “G’d Who is peace.” We have a verse in Song of Songs 1,1 in which the Talmud interprets the words “Song of Songs by Solomon” to mean that the poem is dedicated to the Lord Who personifies “peace,” שלמה (Shevuot 35). G’d chose the Jewish nation from among more than 70 nations all of which are His, and called us שולמית, (compare Song of Songs 7,1) where the author calls on the Jewish people to return to G’d, addressing it as שולמית, the nation representing peace. It is the nation that harbors within it the concept of universal peace. G’d gave the Torah to the Jewish people seeing that the Torah personifies the ideal of peace. This is the gist of our opening verse above, that ”all its paths are peace.”    All the commandments in the Torah are aimed at ensuring peace for the body as well as for the soul. We know that the commandments are designed to provide peace for the body from Exodus 15,26: ”if you will heed the Lord your G’d diligently, doing what He says and what is upright in His sight, giving ear to His commandments and keeping all His laws, then I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I the Lord am your healer.” Proof that Torah also provides peace for the soul is derived from Psalms 19,8: “the Lord’s Torah is perfect,  restores the soul.” Performance of the commandments of the Torah enables the soul at the end of its sojourn in a body to return to its roots in a state of purity. The attribute of peace constantly yearns for the return of these souls to its domain. This concept enables us to understand the meaning of Ketuvot 104, that when the wicked die the angels of destruction “welcome” them by saying: “there is no peace for the wicked, says the Lord” (Isaiah 48,22) [in other words, there is no room for you in My domain. The Talmud is a little more elaborate. Ed.]    The attribute of peace is the greatest of all the attributes in that it is used as a “seal” on all requests and documents. It is the final benediction in our principal prayers, a thought inspired by the sacrificial offerings which the prayers try to emulate, the daily communal prayers known as תמידים.  When you observe the list of sacrificial offerings whose rituals are prescribed at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus you will find the שלמים, “peace-offerings” mentioned last. (Leviticus 7,18) Our sages in Torat Kohanim comment: “why were these offerings called “peace-offerings?’ They answer that the reason is that these offerings re-establish peace in the universe.” We find that Solomon “signed” (concluded) his Song of Songs with “peace,” seeing he wrote in 8,10: “I was in his eyes like someone who had found peace.” In Kohelet Solomon also refers to peace in the “times” he describes in chapter 3, concluding with “a time for peace.” Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 9,9) commented on this that peace is a requirement even in time of war as we know from Deuteronomy 20,10 that “when you approach a town (during war with a view to conquering it) you must first offer it “peace.” There is no need to emphasise that our terrestrial world is sorely in need of peace if even the celestial regions are in need of it as we know from Job 25,2: המשל ופחד עמו עשה שלום במרומיו, “Dominion and Dread are His; He imposes peace in His heights.” Our sages interpret the word המשל as a reference to the archangel Michael, whereas the word פחד refers to the archangel Gavriel. G’d Himself must make peace between these two angels. This is something which is easy to understand seeing that if there is need to establish (and maintain) peace in regions and domains which are not subject to competition and natural mutual animosity, this holds true even more so in regions and domains where such competitive forces are at work all the time.    When G’d is described as “making peace in the heavens,” this includes not only peace between forces at work in the celestial regions but the celestial regions themselves, seeing they are composed of raw materials which clash, such as fire and water. Seeing that Michael is the presiding angel in the celestial spheres he is referred to in Job as “the Dominion;” he is the one who asks Mercy for Israel. There is no need to mention that the living are in need of peace seeing that even the dead are in need of it (Sifri Shoftim 199). We know this already from when G’d said to Avraham (Genesis 15,15) “as for you, you will come to your fathers in peace.” The attribute of peace was granted especially to Aaron (Sanhedrin 6,2) and by means of this attribute his descendants merited to be priests for all generations and to bless the people wishing them that G’d grant them peace (Numbers 6,26). Aaron himself exploited this attribute to keep people alive and to restore peace and harmony between feuding parties.    You have learned that it is the attribute peace which ensures the continued existence of the world. Not only peace but also justice is an important factor in ensuring the continued existence of the universe. Were it not for the meting out of justice people would steal from each other, rob each other, and kill each other. As a result the world would perish. This is what the sages meant in Avot 1,12 that “the world endures owing to three things: judgment (justice), truth, and peace. We learn this from Zecharyah 8,16: “truth, justice and peace you shall judge within your gates.” The word  שעריכם refers to the judges, seeing it is they who ensure that a “formal” kind of peace reigns in civilized society, the lowest level of peace which the existence of mankind depends on. This is why the Torah commanded us to appoint courts in every “gate,” i.e. in every city.
   שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך אשר ה' אלו-היך נותך לך לשבטיך ושפטו את העם משפט צדק. “Judges and law enforcers you shall appoint for yourself in all your towns which the Lord your G’d is about to give to you to your tribes, and you shall judge the people with fair judgment.” The reason that this paragraph follows the paragraph dealing with pilgrimage festivals  is to tell us that even though the Israelites make three pilgrimages annually to Jerusalem where there many priests well versed in justice, Levites, and Torah teachers, and the pilgrims can get instruction from these scholars how to conduct themselves, clearing up many matters about which they entertain doubts, this does not relieve them of the duty to appoint local courts throughout the land. Each city must have such a court. The judges are appointed on the basis of their knowledge of the law. The people called שוטרים in our verse are those who ensure that the judges’ decisions are carried out. Basically, the שוטרים are policemen equipped with batons, leather belts, to apply physical force when necessary. They patrol the cities and have authority to deal with obvious infringements of the law. They can challenge fraudulent weights and measures. They do all this after having been told to by the judges (Maimonides Hilchot Sanhedrin 1,1).
      The judicial system is divided into three levels: there is a court comprising 71 judges, known as Sanhedrin. There are courts comprising twenty three judges. Finally, there are courts comprising three judges. The courts of only three judges were instituted for communities numbering fewer than 120 Jews. (Sanhedrin 2). Our sages have said that a court cannot have fewer than three judges in order to enable there to be a majority and a minority and in order to prevent a tie vote between the judges. (Sanhedrin 3). The sages deduced all this from the mention of the word elohim three times in Exodus 22,7, Exodus 22,8 and Leviticus 19,15 when courts and judges are mentioned. Even though, a learned individual may hand down rulings by himself as a Biblical law, seeing that the Torah (Leviticus 19,15) wrote בצדק תשפוט עמיך, ‘judge your people fairly,’ (singular) the Rabbis amended Biblical law not to judge matters single-handedly (unless they did not involve a dispute such as releasing someone from a vow). It is considered arrogant to shoulder the entire burden of justice by oneself, something reserved only for G’d Who is alone and does not need advice. If however, the two litigants agree on a single individual to be their judge this is permitted.   The competence of such a court of three judges includes only matters involving financial damages. When two judges sit in judgment and hand down a decision such a decision is invalid. (Sanhedrin 6). The Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1,11 points out that even the Lord Himself does not make judicial decisions single-handedly as we know from Kings I 22,19: “and all the hosts of heaven stood by Him.” [The prophet Michayu describing heavenly judgment on King Achav. Ed.]. According to the Talmud, the angels on the right voiced arguments in defense of the king whereas the angels on the left of G’d voiced arguments supporting the prosecution’s case. Although G’d does not make decisions single-handedly, He does seal the decree all by Himself. We know this from Daniel 10,21.  The court consisting of 23 judges is a Biblical institution known as the small Sanhedrin. Every town of over 120 Jewish people must arrange to have such a court. Its deliberations take place near the gate of the city, (Maimonides Hilchot Sanhedrin 1,3) i.e. in public as we know from Amos 5,15: “and establish justice in the gate.” Such a court is empowered to try cases involving capital punishment. No court in which fewer than 23 judges are present has the authority to hand down death sentences. This is based on a number of verses such as Numbers 35,24 ושפטו העדה, “the congregation shall judge,” and  Numbers 35,25 והצילו העדה, “the congregation shall save.” A “congregation” must number at least 10 male adults. In other words, unless there is at least one quorum of judges who could free the accused and another quorum who could vote guilty, the proceedings are invalid. In order to avoid a tie vote, the Rabbis added another 3 judges so that under all circumstances there would be a majority to exonerate the accused. Seeing that we need a majority of at least two votes to hand down a death sentence, a minimum of 23 judges is required (Exodus 23,2).   The Supreme Court, Sanhedrin haGadol, comprises the 71 finest scholars of the nation The wisest of them is appointed president of this court, known a נשיא, “prince” in the language of the Mishnah and Gemara. He functioned in lieu of Moses in his time. The second-most revered person was called אב בית דין and used to sit on the right hand of the president. The other members of the court would all be given seats in accordance with their rank as scholars. The seating arrangement was similar to that of an orchestra nowadays, open semi-circle in three rows of 23 judges each, facing the president and vice-president to ensure that the president could observe the mien of each one of them during the deliberations (compare all of the above in Maimonides).
      A Midrashic approach to the words שופטים ושוטרים, based on Tanchuma Shoftim 2. The judges and enforcers needed each other. Law enforcement (policemen) without judges is a non-starter, whereas “justice” i.e. a judicial system without an apparatus to enforce such decisions is a mockery. If the people during the time of King David had not feared the authority of Yoav his commander-in-chief, David could not have dispensed justice. This is why the prophet (Samuel II 8, 15-16) describes the system in these words: “David would mete out justice and righteousness to his whole people while Yoav, son of Tzeruyah, was in charge of the army.” David and Yoav acted in tandem. Anyone who did not accept the judgment handed down by David would be handed over to Yoav. The judgment would then be enforced. We have a verse in Job 29, 16-17 in which Job describes his function during his days of prominence, saying: “I was a father to the needy, and I looked into the case of the stranger. I broke the jaws of the wrongdoer, and I wrested prey from his teeth.” Job meant that even prey which had already been consumed by the robber who had been sentenced to make restitution he would try and recover.    The power of justice is great seeing that as long as men sit in judgment judging crime G’d (the attribute of Justice) does not bother to sit alongside of them but judges them by means of the attribute of Mercy. Should the system of justice on earth become corrupt, the attribute of Justice will judge mankind instead. We find an allusion to this in Psalms (Midrash Tehillim 62) ‘when justice is not practiced on earth it will be practiced in heaven;’ when it is not practiced on earth G’d will have to exercise His “vocation” of being a Judge. When man enacts Justice G’d is relieved of this duty. In appreciation of being relieved of this task G’d judges mankind with the attribute of Mercy. This is the deeper meaning of Leviticus 26,3: “if you will walk in My statutes....I will give your rain at its appropriate time.”
     תתן לך, “you shall appoint for yourself.” Seeing that Moses had risked his life in order that justice be performed on earth, the Torah associates the establishment of a judiciary with Moses personally, i.e. לך (Tanchuma Beshalach 10). He had killed the Egyptian who had slain a Hebrew man in Exodus 2,11-12. On another occasion Moses risked his life for the Torah and the Jewish people when he spent 40 days on the mountain trying to get forgiveness for the people and linking his survival on earth to the people being forgiven (Exodus 34,28; 32,32.). As a result of these various acts of selfless devotion the prophet Zecharyah speaks of remembering the Torah of “My servant Moses” (Maleachi 3,22) and G’d describes the Jewish people as Moses’ people in Exodus 32,7 when He said to Moses: “your people have become corrupt.” Here the judges also are described as belonging to Moses, hence the wording תתן לך, “appoint for yourself.”
     ושפטו את העם משפט צדק, “they shall judge the people with fair judgment.” This may be either a warning to the individual judge or to every individual Israelite not to appoint a judge who is not righteous as well as competent. If they fail to do so each Israelite will be an accessory to perversion of justice if and when it occurs.” The judgment is to be absolute. It is to correspond to Leviticus 15,15 בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, “you are to judge your fellow with righteousness.” Sanhedrin 6,2 phrased this as יקוב הדין את ההר, “let the judgment bore a hole into the mountain.” Rabbi Akiva adds that one does not mix mercy with justice (Ketuvot 84). [The aforementioned quotes mean that the time for possible arbitration is before a matter comes to court; once it has come to court only legal considerations are relevant. Ed.]. The wordמשפט  implies something “in the middle,” i.e. a clear-cut decision between opposing claims. Compare Psalms 112,5: ”he conducts his affairs with equity.” Jeremiah 30,11 speaks of ויסרתיך במשפט, “He will discipline you with justice.” These applications of strict yardsticks are valid in the dispensation of justice by a human tribunal.     The expression צדק which also appears in our verses is reserved for application by G’d. G’d combines both attributes when He sits in judgment. This is why we find David say in Psalms 99,4: משפט וצדקה ביעקב אתה עשית, “justice and charity You applied in judging Yaakov.” משפט is known in kabbalistic terms as the קו האמצעי the “middle” line on the diagram of the emanations, and Yaakov is the patriarch who represents this line [to the left of חסד on the right, Avraham’s attribute, and to the right of גבורה ,דין Yitzchak’s attribute. Ed.]. This enables us to understand Jeremiah 10,24: יסרני ה' אך במשפט, אל באפך פן תמיעטני, “chastise me o Lord, but in measure; not in Your wrath, lest You reduce me to naught.” The prophet says that the attribute of Justice which is part even of the tetragrammaton should not be applied to him as otherwise he would not survive the chastisement. [The prophet utters a prayer by his people who are aware that the enemy army is close to capturing Jerusalem. Ed].  משפט as distinct from דין, is perceived as the mild aspect of justice at work, whereas אפך is the harsh aspect of justice at work. Tzedek is the attribute of Justice applied to the world, as we know from Psalms 9,9 והוא ישפוט תבל בצדק, “and He will judge the universe by employing צדק.” This attribute receives its input from a higher source known as elohim. This is the meaning of Psalms 58,12 אך יש אלו-הים שופטים בארץ, “there is indeed divine justice on earth.” The word שופטים in that verse in Psalms and the word שופטים in our verse here are mystically linked together. The Torah’s instructions here are to establish the mechanism demonstrating that there is divine justice on earth. If it sounds as if justice is to be tempered with mercy in a court of law, this is misleading. The truth is if the guilty receives sentence the innocent is exonerated and feels that righteousness has been done for him whereas justice has been done to the other litigant.
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא תטה משפט, “Do not pervert judgment.” This is both a warning to the judge as well as to the individual not to appoint corrupt judges as otherwise they would become accessories to a system of perverted justice. Knowingly appointing a man unfit as judge is equal to building a grove for the worship of an idol. This is why the next verse spells out the prohibition to plant such an idolatrous tree (compare Sanhedrin 7). You will find 6 negative commandments in this paragraph (16,19-171). The sages of Devarim Rabbah 5,5 referred to the six steps leading to the throne of King Solomon (Chronicles II 9,18) claiming that the announcer at the lowest step would proclaim (quoting our verse) “do not pervert justice.” The announcer flanking the second step would proclaim the verse: “do not respect someone’s presence. The announcer flanking the third step would proclaim: “do not accept a bribe.” The announcer flanking the fourth step would proclaim: “do not plant an idolatrous tree.” The announcer flanking the fifth step of Solomon’s throne would proclaim: “do not erect for yourselves a pillar” (verse 22), whereas the announcer flanking the sixth step would proclaim: “do not slaughter a blemished animal” (17,1).
     לא תכיר פנים, “do not recognise a person.” In practice this means that a wealthy man should not be offered a chair while his counterpart the poor litigant is made to remain standing. The demeanour of the judge vis-a-vis each of the litigants must be the same as otherwise this would disorient people‘s arguments.
     ולא תקח שוחד, “and do not accept bribes.” Even in order to hand down a true verdict. The reason is that once one has received the bribe one can no longer be neutral, objective, or as the Torah calls it: “the bribe blinds even the eyes of the wise.” Our sages in Ketuvot 105 dissect the word שחד into שהוא חד, meaning once one accepts a bribe the giver and the recipient become as one. After that the judge cannot recognise incriminating argu-ments against the giver. The recipient is called a רשע, a wicked person, as we know from Proverbs 17,23: “a wicked man pulls a bribe out of his bosom.” We also have another verse in Proverbs 21,14: “a bribe in private (bosom) pacifies strong rage.” A third verse compares bribes to stones; Proverbs 17,8  reads: “a bribe seems like a charm, אבן חן, to its owner.” The reason the bribe is compared to a stone, אבן is that whenever it falls it breaks (Tanchuma Toldot 8).
  
  Verse 20
  
  צדק צדק תרדוף, “Righteousness, righteousness, you shall pursue.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warns (by repeating) that one must strive to be righteous both in word and in deed. These are the two ways in which one may potentially inflict harm upon both oneself and upon others. Everyone who speaks righteously reflects the fact that his deeds are most likely righteous also; this is why it behooves every Jew to be both righteous in his speech and in his deeds. This sentiment is reflected in Tzefaniah 3,13 when he said of the remnant of the people of Israel that “they shall do no wrong or speak falsehood; a deceitful tongue shall not be in their mouths.”    Alternatively, our verse addresses the people who are subject to litigation and exhorts them to strive for righteousness regardless of whether this will be financially beneficial or harmful to them. This is why the Torah repeats the exhortation.
      A kabbalistic approach, based on Nachmanides: the reason for repeating the word צדק is that the Torah reminds you that righteousness emanates from the emanation צדק. It promises the judge that if he strives to dispense the kind of justice which reflects righteousness, he in turn will be the recipient of input from that emanation. It is something like Exodus 15,16 where Moses prayed (in the song) תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “may fear and trepidation fall upon them” (the Gentile nations). The letter ה at the end of the word אימתה which is not really necessary, is an allusion to the final letter ה in the tetragrammaton, the source of this fear in the part of the tetragrammaton which represents the attribute of Justice. [Being imbued with such fear of the attribute צדק is not a threat but a promise in this instance. It is as if judges who practice righteousness will be rewarded with יראת שמים as a result. Ed.]. You will find this approach echoed in the Sefer Habahir items 74-75 where the author, in commenting on the sequence of צדק צדק תרדוף למען  תחיה וירשת, explains that the repetition of the word  צדק reflects what is written in Psalms 18,13 מנגה נגדו, i.e.[a repetition of נגה and גחלי אש which are two different forms of intense heat, the latter one a weaker reflection of the former one] that the first time the word appears it refers to true righteousness, whereas the second time it is like an echo of the original righteousness practiced. He who strives to perform righteousness will find that it echoes all around him. The reason we call a proselyte who has sought to place himself under the כנפי השכינה, the protective wings of G’d’s presence, a גר צדק is that he has acquired the trepidation for this attribute of Justice which we normally refer to as יראת שמים, “awe of heaven.” [Perhaps this point must be emphasized especially with the convert as he may think that conversion bestows only the welcome acceptance by the attribute of Mercy without simultaneously submitting to G’d as the attribute of Justice. Ed.]. By submitting to that attribute one has embraced Judaism in the full meaning of the word.
     למען תחיה, “so that you will live,” a reference to the hereafter within the realm of the צדק עליון, the “attribute” צדק in the celestial regions. This region emanates the brilliant light reserved for the righteous.   וירשת את הארץ, “and you will take possession of the land.” a reference to the echo of צדק available in our terrestrial world. Eretz Yisrael is perceived as “opposite” the region of the “true” צדק in the celestial regions. Concerning this concept, Solomon said in Proverbs 21,21 רודף צדקה וחסד ימצא חיים צדקה וכבוד, “he who strives to do righteousness, good deeds and kindness, attains life, righteousness and honor.” The meaning of this verse is that if a person while on earth endeavors to live by the standards of the attribute of חסד ה', he will find that he attains the true צדק in the celestial regions, i.e. eternal life.
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא תטע לך אשרה, “do not plant for yourself an idolatrous tree.” How can a tree be idolatrous? The meaning is that the tree is intended to serve as a focus of worship. The new twist of our legislation here is that the Torah prohibits already the planting of such a tree on pain of the penalty of 39 lashes even if the tree had never served as an object of idolatry (compare Rashi). Isaiah 66,17 severely condemns people who engage in sanctifying themselves before entering such groves (in order to worship the trees). [In other words, the practice of worshipping nature in such a manner was quite widespread.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
    כי ימצא בקרבך, “If there will be found in your midst,” etc. Mention of the word בקרבך both here and at the end of this paragraph (verse 7) reflects the fact that most sinners try and commit their sins in secret; this is why extensive investigations have to be made to bring the facts to light. Once found out, these sinners who are equated with the evil they did have to be destroyed like the leavened matters before Pesach which has to be cleaned out of all the cracks in the walls and in the floor. This is why the Torah writes ובערת, “you are to destroy,” coupled with the word מקרבך, “from deep inside you.”   It is also possible to understand the word מקרבך as an allusion to the relatives of the sinner, as if the Torah had written מקרוביך, “from among your kin.” When someone observes a family member sinning (purposely) he is to shame him and be the first one to administer the punishment when it is imposed; he must neither allow feelings of kinship nor embarrassment  to cause him to cover up such sins. This is the meaning of Psalms 15,3: “he must not be afraid to bear reproach for his relative’s acts and therefore cover up for him” (compare Rashi).
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולשמש או לירח או לכל צבא השמים אשר לא צויתי, “and to the sun or the moon or any host of heaven which I have not commanded;” it is so well known that G’d did not command us or anyone to worship idols that the Torah does not need to write this line. The words: “which I have not commanded” therefore must have a different meaning. 
  The plain meaning is that seeing that the people who do perform acts of worship for sun, moon, etc., believe that by honoring G’d’s agents they honor Him and please Him, the Torah has to go on record that such thinking is erroneous. G’d never ordered acts of deference to be performed for any of His servants.   Another meaning of these words  could be that that they have to be understood as if the Torah had written אשר צויתי לא, “which I expressly commanded not to.” The words are a repetition of part of the second of the Ten Commandments not to bow down to any of these phenomena. We have a parallel meaning of such phrasing in Deut. 32,5: שחת לו לא. This means that mankind and Israel has corrupted itself by means of לא, by violating the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge. We will elaborate when discussing that verse.
      A kabbalistic approach. The additional words: “which I did not command,” are to be in contrast to what G’d did command, i.e. to observe and carefully preserve His covenant as mentioned in the previous verse where violating the covenant is the subject dealt with. The verses may be understood in this sequence: “who has done evil by violating His covenant concluded at Sinai when G’d said: “now when you do hearken to My voice and observe My covenant” (Exodus 19,5). The covenant referred to in that verse is the one embracing both the attribute of “Day” and the attribute “Night.” The meaning of this is: “although, when I commanded you concerning the daily communal offerings that you should take two sheep, one for the morning (corresponding to the attribute “Day,” and one for the evening, corresponding to the attribute “Night,”) the attributes which exercise their influence on the light of Day and Night respectively, this does not mean that I commanded you to worship these luminaries.”
  
  Verse 4
  
   ודרשת היטב, “you shall investigate thoroughly;” the numerical value of the word היטב equals the numerical value of the letters in the tetragrammaton, i.e. 26. It is as if the Torah had written  “you shall investigate him in your capacity as the agent of Hashem.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   על פי שנים עדים, “on the basis of the testimony of two eye-witnesses, etc.” It is well known that two witnesses carry as much weight as 100 witnesses (Makkot 5). Seeing that this is so, why did the Torah have to write that evidence by three witnesses is acceptable? If the Torah wanted to tell us that only one judge suffices to accept the testimony of the two witnesses, there is no hint of this in the verse in front of us. The verse does not address the question of who accepts the testimony but  who testifies.    Nachmanides explains our verse as meaning that even though the whole proceedings have been concluded with the testimony of two witnesses (including capital crimes involving the death penalty), if there is another witness or two or three whose testimony has not been heard yet, the judges are to send for these witnesses and hear and examine their testimony. The assumption is that the more witnesses testify the clearer the facts will become. However, the verse reminds us that if there are only two witnesses or these two witnesses had already gone home when additional witnesses showed up, we rely on the testimony of the original two witnesses.
      Our sages in Makkot 5 explained the wording of our verse as follows: the Torah wanted to compare the validity of two witnesses to the validity of three or more. The testimony of three witnesses is a single unit, just as the testimony of two witnesses is a single unit. If the unit proves defective, all parts of the unit are considered as invalid. If one out of five witnesses who have come forward to give testimony on the same case contradicts himself, the testimony of the other four witnesses who were part of that group is disregarded also. The Talmud adds that the reason the Torah mentions a third witness is in order to tell us that if all three witnesses testified falsely, the one who was examined last cannot claim that seeing the testimony of his colleagues had already been disqualified his own testimony did not make any difference and he should not be considered liable as a false witness. Based on what we read here we have the authority to punish all three witnesses equally. The moral lesson learned from this verse is that if one is in the company of sinners one is liable to be punished in the same way as the sinners are punished. This piece of logic prompted Rabbi Akiva to say that even people who are merely fellow travelers of sinners are punished as if they had committed the same crimes, then people who keep the company of pious people should be given the reward as if they themselves had performed the good deeds performed by the pious people whose company they keep. Rabbi Akiva based himself on the principle that מדה טובה מרובה על מדת פורענות אחת על חמש מאות, “that the attribute of benevolence which G’d employs is 500 times stronger than the attribute of vengeance, retribution. We know this from Exodus 34,7 where G’d promises to favorably remember good deeds for 2,000 generations whereas in the same verse G’d is described as remembering the sins of the fathers for only 4 generations.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   כי יפלא ממך דבר, “if some matter  is hidden from you;” the word יפלא describes something concealed as we know already from Genesis 18,14 where the Torah makes the point that no future event (or past) is concealed from Hashem.   בין דם לדם, “between blood and blood,” i.e. someone who shed blood and is guilty of bloodshed and someone who shed blood and is innocent (self-defense, for instance).   בין דין לדין, “between justice and justice,” in disputes concerning  financial matters; (Ibn Ezra).   בין נגע לנגע, “between plague and plague;” injuries and liability for compensation for them (Ibn Ezra).  דברי ריבות, “conflicting arguments;” this applies to all the above.
  
  Verse 9
  
    ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים, “you will come to the priests, the Levites, etc.;” they are the teachers of the Torah.   ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם, “and to the judge who officiates in those days;” the only judges who have authority to deal with your problems are the ones who are alive and officiate during your lifetime. A judge, such as Yiftach in his generation, (though he was relatively ignorant) has as much authority as the prophet Samuel in his period (compare Rosh Hashanah 25); this is why the Torah wrote here: “who will be in those days;” it would not have required superior intelligence to know that one cannot submit a claim to a judge who is dead. The authority of a legally appointed judge is such that if he declares right (what you considered to be right) as being left or vice versa, you have to accept his decision. It goes without saying that if such a judge declares right to be right and left to be left, that his decision must be accepted.
      Nachmanides writes that there was a great need to legislate this commandment. The Torah that we have received was received in written form. We know that among us humans there are many shades of opinions concerning the same problems. If each Rabbi were allowed to hand down decisions in accordance with his subjective understanding of the Torah it would not be long before we would have many different documents each claiming to be the original Torah. It was imperative therefore for the Torah to legislate that there is a supreme authority in each generation which bases its decision upon an historically valid tradition going back to the time of Moses. This is why the Sanhedrin described in this paragraph is depicted as having its offices in the presence of the Lord your G’d. They are qualified to interpret what is written in the Torah even if you think that their interpretation differs from the truth as much as left from right. You must remember that the members of that Supreme Court are endowed with Holy Spirit so that they enjoy a divine assist in arriving at the correct decisions.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון, “and the man  who will act deliberately contrary, etc.” the Torah refers to a judge, however competent,  who after the Sanhedrin has ruled on a matter under dispute hands down a dissenting decision. The matter under dispute concerns violations for which the karet penalty applies if they were committed deliberately. Such a judge or elder is known as זקן ממרא, “a rebellious Elder.” He becomes guilty of the death penalty by asphyxiation.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . וכל העם ישמעו וייראו, ”and all the people shall hear and be in awe,” at a time when all the people are present in Jerusalem, i.e. one waits with the trial until one of the pilgrimage festivals  (Sanhedrin 89).
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ככל הגוים אשר סביבותי, ‘like all the nations around me.” The reason for the word סביבותי, “surrounding me,” is that seeing the land of Israel straddles the “middle” line of the terrestrial, lower world, this means that all the other nations are situated all around that nation. We find a verse expressing a similar thought describing “Jerusalem as amid the nations I have placed it and the nations are all around it” (Ezekiel 5,5). If this is correct then the Jewish nation dwells literally surrounded by  the seventy nations which populate the globe. This is why the Torah wrote here ”like all the nations around me.” David also employs such wording in Psalms 118,10: ”all the nations who are around me (threateningly), by the name of the Lord, I will cut them down.” This refers to the fact that both on earth and in the celestial regions Israel is located centrally, surrounded in those regions by the seventy protective angels of those nations who flank the כנסת ישראל from all sides. This reflects a statement by Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 24 that G’d invited the 70 ministering angels which surround His throne to confuse the language of the various nations. This is the vision (Kings I 22,19) described by the prophet Michayu: “I saw the Lord seated on His throne with all the host of the heaven standing around Him to the right and to the left of Him.” This was a reference to these 70 angels who represent the nations of the world. The ones on the right of the throne represent celestial forces who cite Israel’s merits whereas the ones on the left are perceived as citing demerits. Psalms 89,8 reflects a similar thought when David says: “held in awe all around Him.” Keeping all this in mind David said in Psalms 118, 8-10: “it is better to put one’s trust in the Lord rather than in man; it is better to take refuge in the Lord rather than in the great; all the nations which surround  me have beset me; etc.“ The nations besetting me” are these seventy Gentile nations. G’d will cut them all down, i.e. "“in the name of the Lord I will cut them down.”
  
  Verse 15
  
   שום תשים עליך מלך, “You shall surely appoint a king over yourself.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah commands the people to appoint a formal king at some time in the future. It is one of the three commandments which take effect after the people enter the land of Israel (Sanhedrin 20,2). Maimonides bases this on our verse here and states that the purpose of the election of this king is that he will lead the fight to exterminate Amalek (Deut. 25,19). The commandment becomes effective after G’d has given the people rest from all its surrounding enemies (ibid). The commandment to build a permanent Temple was implied in Deut. 12,8: “you shall seek out His presence, His residence.” This appointment of the king is to be accomplished before the building of the permanent Temple. Samuel makes this quite clear when he said to King Shaul: “G’d has appointed me to anoint you as king, now go and wipe out Amalek” (Samuel I 15,1). It is clear that the destruction of Amalek had to precede the building of the Temple from Samuel II 7,1-2: where David said to the prophet Natan that he thought the time had come for the Ark of the covenant to be accommodated in a building with a solid roof, seeing that he himself lived in a solid palace.    This commandment is an example of G’d accommodating Himself to the wishes of the Jewish people. G’d knew that in the foreseeable future the people would demand to be ruled by a king of flesh and blood; although, basically, G’d prefers to be the direct king of the people of Israel. Seeing that only He can traverse all their camps and benevolently supervise the fate of every individual, there certainly is no objective need for a king of flesh and blood whose reign, however well intentioned, cannot match that of G’d Himself.    This feeling that the wish of the people to have a king of flesh and blood was perceived by G’d as an insult directed at Him rather than at the prophet Samuel, was made clear to the prophet in Samuel I 8,7. Although G’d did give the people (through His prophet Samuel) King Shaul, this did not represent G’d’s first choice. In the event that we do not realise this, read Hoseah 8,4: “they have made kings, but not with My sanction; they have made officers but not of My choice.” We have an even more outspoken verse on the subject in Hoseah 13,11: “I give you kings in My anger, and take them away in My wrath.” The word באפי, “in My anger,” refers to King Shaul the first king, whereas the words ואקח בעברתי, “and I will take away in My wrath,” refer to Tzidkiyahu, last King of Yehudah. He was taken into captivity by Nevuchadnezzar who was granted permission to do that only because G’d was angry.     It would do well for us to study our history and to learn what happened to the Jewish people during the centuries when their political system was headed by a king of flesh and blood. Devarim Rabbah 5,11 sums it up in these words: the Jewish kings caused many of their people to fall in battle because of their faulty policies. Shaul caused many casualties at Gilboah (Samuel I 31,1) David caused a plague (Samuel II 24,15). Achav, King of Israel, became the cause of the three year famine (Kings I 17,1). Tzidkiyah’s policies became the immediate cause for the destruction of the Temple .    How was it that the entire people [who had experienced a tremendous renaissance under the leadership of the prophet Samuel.  Ed.] agreed to ask for a king? The Talmud Sanhedrin 20 dissects the wording in Samuel I 8, pointing out that the elders of the people were motivated by pure considerations asking that the purpose of the king be “to judge us,” (rather than Samuel’s sons whom they did not consider fit). The common people were motivated by the desire for their king to be a general who would lead them in war, and their sin was in saying “like all the nations.” They spelled this out in greater detail in verse 20 of that chapter. The people were agreed that they wanted a king, but they differed regarding the tasks of that king.
      A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 20: the emphasis in the line שום תשים עליך מלך, “be sure to appoint a king over yourself,” is that the fear of the authority of the king should pervade the people. One would not be allowed to ride on the king’s horse, sit on his chair, use his scepter or his crown, or any of the garments or implements used by the king; even if the king was modest and did not insist on these appurtenances of office to be his exclusively, i.e. was מוחל על כבודו, he was not allowed to waive his privileges and anyone violating these rules was guilty of insulting Royalty (Ketuvot 17). When the king died, all the utensils, garments, etc., which he had used would be burned so as not to be used by his successor. Only a successor king would be allowed to employ the servants of the former king. This is why Avishag, the woman from Shunem was permitted as a wife for Solomon whereas she was forbidden to Adoniah (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 2, 1-2). Even a prophet would have to remain standing in the presence of the king and bow his face to the ground in deference. When there was a need for the High Priest to consult the urim vetumim, the king could remain standing in his presence (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 5,2).
      A kabbalistic approach: it is well known what the power of a king consists of, seeing he is perceived as the fourth leg of the merkavah, the “chariot supporting the Shechinah, i.e. he represents the emanation מלכות. The concept of the merkavah is comprised of the three “crowns,” כתרים, i.e. the heads, (like the highest emanationכתר). In that concept the “crowns” are the patriarchs who support three “legs” of that “chariot.” (the lowest in the list of ten emanations is מלכות, “kingdom,” whereas the highest is כתר, “crown”) A king of Israel is supposed to act as this fourth leg of the merkavah, i.e. מלכות which is also known as צדק. We have an explicit verse in Isaiah 32,1 הן לצדק ימלך מלך,  i.e. that the purpose of a king’s rule is to ensure righteousness and fairness in his kingdom. Concerning such a kingdom (king) David said in Psalms 18,2: “a stone which had been rejected by the builders (as useless) has become the ‘chief cornerstone’.” This is the stone which completes the whole building. The “builders” who had rejected this stone are the אבות, the patriarchs, who were on such a high spiritual level, (higher emanations) that they did not think they needed that emanation מלכות, “kingdom,” and what it represents. In order for David to turn the stone which the builders had rejected into something fit to support the merkavah, he took excess spiritual values of the various patriarchs and distributed that excess to form part of the emanation מלכות, so that the excess plus the “king” together would form the fourth leg of the מרכבה, “the chariot” which  supports the Shechinah.   Even though the king symbolizes a higher level than the emanation מלכות, we do find that on occasion מלכות is equated with מלך such as in Isaiah 44,6 מלך ישראל וגואלו ה' צבאות, כה אמר ה', “thus says the Lord, the king of Israel and its redeemer the Lord of hosts,” as well as in Psalms 145,1 ארוממך אלוהי המלך, “I wish to exalt my G’d the King.” In both of these instances the concept of מלכות (represented by an attribute of G’d) is elevated to the level of מלך. When the word אלוהי in Psalms 145 is spelled with the letter ו, (something most unusual) this shows that the attribute of G’d meant by this word had to be “elevated, raised in spiritual stature” in order to be on the same level as מלך.     All the foregoing shows that the appointment of a king over the people of Israel is to be viewed as a positive development, a step in raising the Jewish people as a whole to a higher spiritual level. The proviso is that such an appointment is meant to further the interest of G’d, of heaven, not G’d forbid, to further the secular ambitions of the people.     We might have thought that the meaning of the words שום תשים, may either be “elect” or “appoint.” Actually, it is derived from סם, “quintessence, an elixir,” and hints to us that the king is supposed to be the elixir of life. Alternatively, -if the king does not live up to his task- he can turn into being the סם המות, the elixir of death, seeing he is the quintessence of everything. The repetition of the words שום תשים then are an allusion to the dual role of a king, depending on his character. If he is appointed from a sincere desire to advance the spiritual level of the Jewish people he will be an elixir of life, if not, G’d forbid, he will symbolize the opposite.
     אשר יבחר ה' אל-היך בו, “whom the Lord your G’d will choose.” This verse teaches that in the final analysis both the monarchy and the other lofty positions are all a reflection of the will of heaven. The “election” of which the Torah speaks was decisively influenced by divine forces. This is why our sages in Baba Batra 91  say that even if the king is someone appointed as leader of totally ignorant uncivilised people, he was placed in such a position by an act of G’d. This is also the meaning of Daniel 5,21: “until he knew that the Supreme G’d rules in the kingdom of men and sets over it whom He wishes.”
     מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך, “from amongst your brethren shall you appoint a king for yourself.” Our sages in Sotah 41 conclude from the wording that both the king’s father and the king’s mother must be Jewish  (compare Tosafot). Anyone who is not your brother is not an Israelite, and anyone who is not an Israelite is described as נכרי, alien.
  
  Verse 16
  
   רק לא ירבה לו סוסים, “only he shall not amass for himself horses, etc.”  The Torah now proceeds to list differences between Gentile kings’ prerogatives and those of a Jewish king. Jewish kings must not make the acquisition of many horses and chariots their policy. Neither must a Jewish king amass gold and silver or even wives. Gentile kings see in the acquisition of these possessions an end in itself and treat these possessions as the measure of their success instead of as something secondary as Jewish kings are asked to do. A Jewish king is to make preoccupation with the Torah his principal concern. This is why the Torah not only demands that he write (2) Torah scrolls but also that he read in it daily; this will teach him reverence for the Lord (verse 19) and will ensure that he remains on the throne for many years.    Sanhedrin 21 interprets the words “that he do not amass many horses” to mean that he should not amass more horses than he needs for transportation for himself and his soldiers. He should not have a selection of chariots at his disposal to ride in and alternate between them. The reason for these restrictions is spelled out, i.e. not to bring the people back to Egypt, the country from which horses were exported in those days. We read in Kings I 10,29 that the cost of a chariot imported from Egypt in those days was 600 silver shekels whereas the price of a horse was 150 shekels.
     וה' אמר לכם לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך הזה עוד, “and the Lord has said to you: “you shall not return again on this way.” This commandment was valid only during the period when it was promulgated. It was intended to ensure that Israelites traveling to Egypt would not learn to copy the abominations practiced in that country as the Torah spells out in detail in Leviticus 18,3. This does not mean that there is a permanent prohibition for Jews to reside in Egypt. Had the Torah intended these words as a permanent prohibition it would be inconceivable that so many Torah scholars, pious individuals, made their home in Egypt after the destruction of the Temple. Even if individual Jews had ignored this prohibition and settled in Egypt, the sages would have spoken out against this and we would have records of their protest. The only people who were forbidden to dwell in Egypt were Jews who left the land of Israel to do so.
  Others say that the prohibition applies even nowadays, but only to to one who has settled in the land of Israel. This is evidenced by the wording of our verse "you shall not return again on this way" indicating that it refers to one who has made a journey similar to the one traveled by the Jews in the desert, i.e. to the land of Israel.  [The Sefer HaYereim quoted in Semag, (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol negative commandment 227) is one of the sources upon which the second view above is based on. The words “to return on this way,” are interpreted to mean that people who have left Egypt to settle in the land of Israel are forbidden to return there. Proof for this opinion is brought from the  Talmud (Sukkah 51b) which quotes Abbaye as describing the extermination of the Jewish community in Alexandria by Alexander the Great as punishment for violation of the commandment in our verse. The scholars who disagree with Abbaye cite the fact that Daniel went to live in Egypt as proof that it was permitted. ] 
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ולא ירבה לו נשים, “and he shall not have too many wives.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 21) put the number of wives a king may have at 18. They base this on the number of wives David had, six of whom were mentioned by name (Samuel II 3,2-5). It says there: “if this is insufficient, I will add  for you כהנה וכהנה “twice more the same number,” i.e. another 12 (Samuel II 12,8). The reason the Torah gives for this limitation is: ולא יסור לבבו, “so his heart will not go astray.” It is assumed that a woman may seduce a man to turn from being G’d-fearing, seeing that the original woman Chavah had done exactly that when she seduced Adam into eating from the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3,6).
     וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד, “and he must not amass too much silver and gold.” Sanhedrin 21 defines the permissible amount as “sufficient to entertain visitors.” They mean that the king may amass sufficient money to pay the salaries of his servants, his soldiers that are employed by him on a year round basis. He must not, however, amass wealth the purpose of which is simply to lie in vaults, money not employed for a useful purpose. The reason for this limitation is to prevent the king from becoming arrogant vis-a-vis his fellow Jews. This latter reason (verse 17) applies to all three restrictions listed in our paragraph. People who amass excess wealth have a tendency of putting their faith in their wealth and simultaneously diminishing their reliance of G’d. A king is in greater danger of doing that as he is privileged. This is why he must make G’d his treasury and his fortress. Job 22,24-25 illustrates this when we read there (Eliphaz speaking) “if you regard treasure as dirt, Ophir-gold as stones of the wadi, and Shaddai be your treasure, and precious silver for you;”
      Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra says that the prohibition not to amass too much silver and gold is intended to lessen the tax burden on the people as this would be the source of the king’s wealth. Historically, we find that Solomon who was immensely rich, had imposed a heavy burden of taxes on his subjects. Wealth is compared to fire. The more wood the greater the flame of the fire. We find that the people were resentful of the tax burden and they said so to Solomon’s son Rechavam (Kings I 12,4). The matter became such a burning issue that they murdered the king’s tax collector Adoniram in his own house (Kings I 12,10). In order to appreciate the concerns of the Torah all we have to do is look at the wisest of kings, Solomon, (may be even wisest of men) who fell victim to all three of the prohibitions of the Torah mentioned here. He had no fewer than 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariotry (Kings I 5,7); He had 700 wives and 300 concubines (Kings I 11,3). He was so wealthy that silver is described as meaningless in terms of wealth during his reign (Kings 10,27). Silver was treated as if it were merely stones. He had thought that due to his superior wisdom he would not fall victim to the warnings expressed by the Torah. Alas, he was wrong.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו, “in order that he may enjoy a long reign, etc.” The Torah, while emphasizing the positive, also implies the negative consequences if the king will fail to heed the Torah’s instructions. The best example is the first king of Israel, Shaul, who on account of a relatively minor sin, lost his kingdom and dynasty. The prophet Samuel had told him to wait for seven days for his arrival. Shaul failed to do so, (during the last hours of the seventh day) and the prophet not only chided him but told him that on account of this insubordination (described as foolishness) his kingdom would not endure (Samuel I 10,8 and 13,13-14). 
       הוא ובניו, “he and his sons, etc.” This verse teaches that the succession is by heredity and that there is no need to anoint the son of the previous king (Horiot 11). However if there should break out a quarrel involving the succession, the choice that the people agree on will require anointing. This is the meaning of the words בקרב ישראל, i.e. if there is no dispute and all agree who should ascend the throne after the death of the previous king — only then is anointing not required. The reason Solomon had to be anointed was precisely because there had been a quarrel about which of David’s sons should rule after him (compare Horiot 11).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ונחלה לא יהיה לו, “He shall not have an inheritance with Israel.”  The word נחלה in verse one refers to distribution of the land of the seven Canaanite tribes being dispossessed in the immediate future, whereas the same word in our verse refers to the land of the remaining three Canaanite tribes, the Kenizi, Keyni, and Kadmoni, which will become part of the land of Israel only in the future.    בקרב אחיו, “among his brothers;” this is a reference to his “full” brothers the other sons of Leah.   ה' הוא נחלתו, “the Lord is his heritage;” Levi was the tenth of the brothers if one counts from the youngest to the oldest something I have elaborated on in Numbers 18,19. This is why this tribe is described as G’d’s heritage, and this is why the tithes are given to this tribe.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, “and this is to be “dues” of the priests.” The reason this paragraph follows the previous one is that in that paragraph we have been told already that the Levites have no regular heritage, i.e. that they do not share in the distribution of the land. Now the Torah tells us that the statutes defining the portions of the animals slaughtered and the harvest allocated to the priests are in lieu of the “landed heritage” allocated to the other tribes. Our sages in Chulin 132 interpret the words מאת העם, from the people, as “exclusive of the priests.”
     מאת זובחי הזבח, “from the  animals fit to be eaten;” the priest claims his respective portion from the slaughterer of the animal. אם שור אם שה, “be it an ox or a lamb;”  to exclude free-roaming animals from claims by the priests. הזרוע, “the front leg,” of the body, the two upper parts of that leg to the ankle. הלחיים, “the cheekbones,” including the tongue. והקבה, “and the stomach;” some of the interior parts of the animal, i.e. the fourth of the four stomachs. All of these parts are totally devoid of sanctity. This is the reason that these gifts were not listed in Numbers 18,1 where the priests’ shares are listed. In that chapter the Torah discussed matters which had some degree of sanctity, especially animal parts which were part of sacrificial animals. Even though the items listed here were not mentioned specifically in that chapter in Numbers, we can find allusions to them even there. We read in Numbers 18,12: ראשיתם אשר יתנו לה' לך נתתים, “their first which they give to Hashem, to you I have given them.” Sifri Korach 117 understands the word ראשיתם  in that verse as applying to the first shearing of the wool of the lambs, whereas the additional words אשר יתנו, “which they are to give,” is interpreted as referring to the parts of the animal mentioned in our verse here; the word לה' is understood as referring to חלה, the part of the dough given to the priests. The significance of just these parts of the animal being given to the priest is as follows: the foreleg represents the hand. The Torah, when describing Pinchas’ deed (Numbers 25,7) which saved the people of Israel, writes ויקח רומח בידו, “he took a spear in his hand.” The hand which performed the deed qualifies for the foreleg of the animal. The cheekbones symbolise the organ used for prayer. Pinchas prayed as we know from Psalms 106,30. Finally, the stomach is the organ which suffered the fatal blow as described in Numbers 25,8. (compare Sifri Korach 117).
   Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 3,39 describes all three of these organs as being ראשית, something primary of the particular parts of the body.  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    לעמוד לשרת, “to stand and perform service.” This verse teaches that service in the Temple must be performed while standing. The reason the Torah  adds the word בשם before writing the tetragram is that the word בשם is a reference to the attribute of Justice. It occurs in that form repeatedly, such as in Exodus 20,21 אזכיר את שמי, “I allow My name to be mentioned,” or Deut. 12,11 לשכן שמו שם, “to provide a residence for His Name there.”    Onkelos also feels that every time that the word שם appears in connection with the name of G’d it indicates the Shechinah, i.e. a form of the attribute of Justice. This verse (“to stand and serve”) is the source of our sages saying that the High Priest would pronounce the 42-lettered name of G’d on the Day of Atonement seeing that day is one when the attribute of Mercy is co-opted to the attribute of Justice. The letter ב and מ in the word בשם equal 42, whereas the letter ש =300 is the numerical value of the tetragrammaton when the aleph bet is read backwards i.e. א=ת, ב=ש, ג=ר, etc. (We have mentioned repeatedly that whenever the letters in the tetragrammaton appear in the reverse order this signifies the Justice aspect of that attribute. Here you would get מצפ'ץ). You will note that this paragraph has 42 words, just as the first benediction of the Shmoneh Esreh prayer (better known as עמידה), prayer-service to be performed while standing.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words mean that the priests shall eat all that is given to them and share it out equitably among themselves, including the skins of the burnt-offerings, and the meat of the sacrifices which were not burned up totally.
     לבד ממכריו על האבות, “except for transactions which had been arranged by the forefathers.” If a priest has sold his house which he had inherited from his parents as described in Leviticus 25,33, the other priests cannot deny him his place in the משמר, roster, by saying that seeing he had sold his house and was relatively affluent he was not entitled to share the sacrificial meats with them. This is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of these words. As to the beginning of the paragraph commencing with the words: “when the Levite will come” (verse 6), this refers to a priest who is a member of the tribe of Levi. The verse does not speak at all about a Levite who is “only” a Levite, seeing the words: “who stands and performs service” could not apply to a mere Levite. When verse 6 continues ובא בכל אות נפש, “and he may come whenever he likes to the place, etc.,” this teaches that a priest may offer his personal sacrifices even out of turn, during the roster of other priests. Similarly, during the pilgrimage festivals Pessach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, every priest is entitled to participate in the sacrificial service and offer the respective offerings of his own on the festival. (Sifri Shoftim 168)
      A Midrashic approach:  the words חלק כחלק יאכלון mean that the priests share equally, as we pointed out already. This might lead me to believe that on the festivals all the priests are entitled to share equally also in such sacrifices as the daily public offerings, offerings which have nothing to do with the festivals. To tell us that this is not so the Torah added the words לבד ממכריו על האבות, i.e. except for the matters which were sold already in the days of the forefathers, i.e. at the time when King David organised the division of the משמרות, the “rosters,” i.e. that the priests have to take turns, each one belonging to one of 24 groups each of which had 2 weeks of service in the Temple allocated to it. At that time the priests were considered as “having sold” the rights to certain weeks of service to each of these various groups, rosters. (compare Sukkah 55-56). They would say to each other: “you serve during my week and I will serve during your week.” The “sale” was not one in which money changed hands. 
      We have to ask ourselves that seeing originally every priest was allowed to perform sacrificial service whenever he wanted to, what prompted King David and Samuel to change a system which had been functioning for 400 years? Why did they institute these  rosters which limited the periods of service by each priest to 2 weeks a year of which each priest actually served only on a single day of ‘his week?’ Besides, what was the reason for dividing these rosters into 24? According to the Talmud this division was so  absolute that a priest could under no circumstances switch, or exchange his membership in one roster to becoming a member of a different roster. We know of the absolute rigidity of this order from Sukkah 56  where the exact division of who was entitled to what is discussed if the festival occurred in the middle of the week, depriving at least one roster of part of its exclusive claim to that week.    The place in the courtyard of the Temple where the members of the roster divided their shares was allocated in such a way that all the onlookers could know which roster was the incoming one and which was the outgoing one. The members of each roster were known by names identifying their roster so as to enable easy identification. The Talmud relates that it happened that a member of a roster called Bilgah disgraced itself and that henceforth the authorities punished the entire roster by allocating a place to it during the entire week it was performing its service which made it appear as if this roster was about to finish its service on that day. It appears that the hands of the authorities were severely limited in the kind of punishment they could administer for laxity or deliberate misconduct by its members as these 24 rosters were perceived as paralleling similar rosters among the angels performing the service in the celestial counterpart of the Sanctuary on earth. According to the Sefer Habahir (item 107) there were 3 times 24 such rosters in the celestial regions corresponding to the three verse in Exodus 14, 19-21 each one of which has 72 letters, each if read vertically representing one of the 72-lettered name of G’d. It appears that whereas the “rosters” i.e. procedures in the celestial regions were fixed, G’d created new angels every day who would sing His praises prior to disappearing. The forefathers, i.e. David and Samuel (Taanit 27), in their wisdom decided to pattern service in the terrestrial Sanctuary to reflect as much as possible what they knew about what went on in the celestial spheres. The blessing pronounced by the members of the outgoing roster for the incoming roster included the following passage: “may the One who resides in this House  ensure that there is peace and mutual goodwill among you just as peace and goodwill prevails in the celestial regions where there is no jealousy or hatred between the angels, but they all co-exist in peace and comradeship” (Berachot 12). At any rate, we have seen that a great deal of thought was invested by the leaders of earlier generations in arriving at the arrangement of who does what and when in connection with the Temple service.
  
  Verse 9
  
   לא תלמד לעשות, “You shall not learn to do, etc.” Our sages in Sifri Shoftim 170 construe the word לעשות, “to do,” as limiting the injunction of this verse to actually carrying out such abominations. It is permitted to study and investigate the abominations practiced by these pagan nations. One may even teach the subject matter (as theoretical knowledge). We find that the elders of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin, had to be familiar with all these abominations, even with witchcraft, how else could they have been able to convict people of practicing these arts of wrongdoing? Lack of knowledge of even a single such discipline would disqualify the elders from judging such a case.
  
  Verse 10
  
   לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש, קוסם קסמים, מעונן, נחש, ומכשף וחובר חבר, ושואל אוב וידעוני, ודורש אל המתים. “There shall not be found among you one who causes his son or daughter to pass through the fire; one who practices divinations, an astrologer, one who reads omens, a sorcerer. Or, an animal charmer, one who inquires of Ov or Yidoni, or one who consults the dead.” These two verses enumerate nine different varieties of תועבות, abominable practices which the Canaanites were in the habit of relying on.  The Torah lists the practice the Moloch cult first, which involved exposing one’s children to the fire in order to assuage that deity’s feelings. There is no more despicable form of idolatry than to sacrifice one’s own flesh and blood to such cults. Seeing that this practice is so distasteful to G’d, anyone who is guilty of it is subject to the karet penalty (compare Leviticus 20,3). People who violate Torah law by committing any of the other abominations listed here only qualify for 39 lashes, i.e. corporal punishment. After the Torah concluded by warning us not to become guilty of such practices, the Torah continues by emphasising the positive, i.e. asking us תמים תהיה עם ה' אלו-היך, “you shall be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d” (verse 13).    The expression מעביר used by the Torah describing the Moloch cult, means that the father makes the child walk between two columns of fire; I explained this already in connection with Leviticus 18,21.
     קוסם קסמים, “practicing divinations;” this is a person who takes a staff in his hand and says: “I will go to a certain place, or I will not go to a certain place” as the case may be; this is what the prophet Hoseah spoke about in Hoseah 4,12: ”My people, it consults its stick, its rods direct it.” [The idea is that decisions are based on the stick falling in a certain manner, pointing in a certain direction. Ed.] מעונן, the word can have one of three meanings; 1) it is derived from עונה, a certain period of time. 2) it is derived from עין eye; 3) It is derived from ענן, cloud. If it is derived from עונה this is the way Rabbi Akiva understood it, i.e. that the person (astrologer) says that certain dates in the calendar are propitious whereas others are not. People determine when to engage in certain enterprises and when not, based on such predictions. The sages who differ with Rabbi Akiva claim that the people who practice the form of sorcery described as מעונן engage in sleight of hand, i.e. they deceive our eyes. The third view, relating the word to ענן, cloud,  claim that the people engaging in this practice consult cloud patterns and presume to foretell future events based on this.  מנחש, “someone who interprets signs,” such as if one’s bread fell out of one’s mouth, what does this portend? Or, if a deer crosses one’s path what does this signify? Some explain the word to mean that such people look at birds and their wings or try and interpret the twittering of the birds. They believe that when Kohelet 10,20 speaks about “for a bird of the skies may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter,” that Solomon spoke of people who through interpreting the movements of such birds could divine their message.
     ומכשף, “a sorcerer.” Nachmanides writes as follows concerning this term: “the Torah includes many different kinds of sorcery all under the heading of מכשף. The following words, i.e. חובר חבר, שואל אוב, שואל ידעוני, דורש אל המתים, are all sub-categories of the heading “sorceress.” It is prohibited to consult any of the above regarding one’s future or how to conduct oneself.    It is important to appreciate in the context of this whole subject matter that when G’d created the universe out of “nothing,” He made the celestial beings into leaders of the terrestrial creatures who were below them. He established a kind of hierarchy in which “lower” creatures were subjected to input by “higher” creatures. Eventually, at some point, even these higher creatures become subject to direct input by totally abstract beings, angels, which have been assigned certain tasks by G’d. These angels, when they represent the nations on earth, for instance, may be perceived as the “soul” of their terrestrial protegees. This system is permanent for the duration of the terrestrial universe and the commander-in chief of these angels who represent these nations is the Lord Himself. However, G’d allowed these “protective” angels of the nations to “reverse direction,” (turn their faces around) on occasion in order to head off certain dangers threatening their protegees as a result of planetary, horoscopic forces. Just as the word ענג, “pleasure” when spelled נגע means “plague,” i.e. the reverse of its original meaning, so, without affecting any real changes, by merely turning their faces in a more propitious looking direction, these angels exert positive or negative influence on the fate of their protegees. This concept is reflected in Daniel 2,21 והוא מהשנא עדנ-יא וזמניא, “and He alters times and seasons.” Amos 5,8 spells out an example of this when he says: “who made Pleiades and Orion, who turns darkness into dawn and darkens day into night; who summons the waters of the sea and pours them out on the earth.” His name is “the Lord.” The prophet does not refer to regular phenomena, but to occasions when G’d exploits certain constellations and their relative positions to one another to effect changes for the benefit or detriment of His creatures on earth. By allowing such angels to “turn around” as it were, He minimizes the need for overt interference in the laws of nature.  The following is an excerpt of the Sefer Halevanah published by Bergamantzia and explaining the relevance of astrology, that if we observe [over a period of time Ed.] that when the moon faces in a certain direction that our undertakings prosper whereas when the moon faces in a different direction similar undertakings commenced at that time fail, then this is not proof of the independent power of the moon to influence events on earth but reflects indirect guidance by G’d of events on earth as opposed to direct guidance of events which the Jewish people enjoy, i.e. without the need to rely on intermediaries such as horoscopic constellations and what they appear to presage. The fact that G’d equipped the angels presiding over the nations with this ability to “turn their faces” in different directions at different times enables sorcerers to create the impression that they can foretell future events or even influence them. [The author discussed this in connection with Bileam’s prophetic powers, i.e. to be alert to times at which G’d would be angry, so that a curse which came true  would be attributed to his powers.] Similarly, expert astrologers who have a high rate of success in their predictions simply exploit the latitude G’d granted to these “agents “ of His in the universe to “turn their faces around” in order to meet the requirements of their protegees on earth. [I trust I portrayed the gist of this correctly. Ed.]. If our sages accused sorcerers of “denying the system of celestial hierarchies,” what they meant is that they ignore G’d’s direct guidance of events in favor of indirect guidance of events by means of intermediaries such as the planetary system, etc. We can understand therefore why the Torah had to prohibit sorcery. Although whatever information these sorcerers come up with, is not an outright falsehood seeing that it is based on known forces in the universe which G’d had created, and they are aware that G’d had created them, sorcerers try to relegate G’d Himself to the farthest  domains of heaven. They do not allow for G’d’s benevolent direct supervision of events in this universe.  Such considerations also are at the root of the prohibition of כלאים, mixing of certain species. By grafting species which were meant to be separate inviolate species, new forces are added to the universe, forces which may have beneficial or destructive influences on nature, apart from constituting changes in the hierarchy prevailing in this universe. Thus far Nachmanides.
       I have read in a volume of astrology published by current astrologers called “letter of Galinus,” that if someone makes an iron replica of the planet Saturn, he should do so at a certain date and time of day or night when the horoscope is in a certain constellation, and if such a person will bury it beneath the store of a certain merchant, that that merchant will lose all his profit from the store. If the person who has constructed such an image at such a time as we mentioned buries it beneath the house of the owner of that store, all that owner’s affairs will turn sour. Anyone with eyes in his head knows that this “science” will lead to destruction of the world as we know it, and that the only way to live on earth is by allowing the forces of nature to guide us instead of trying to bend them to our will. These forces were provided by G’d for the benefit of mankind. (This is part of the quotation from “letter of Galinus).” The author of that volume writes further: “if someone is interested in attracting to himself the spiritual influence exerted by the planet Shabbtai (Saturn), a planet which exercises its domain on the Sabbath, he should eat a minimal amount of meat, diet very frugally, abstain from marital relations, wear black garments, construct a picture of a lion made out of copper and at the hour when the constellation of Saturn and that of the lamb intersect he should slaughter a cat. If he then approaches that idol and serves it and consults it concerning his future he will be given such information. Thus far the “letter of Galinus.” (Compare also Parshat Vayishlach, Genesis 32,30 where the author copied  from books on philosophy.)    It is clear that the Torah, which is most certainly concerned about our welfare and well being, commands us to do exactly the opposite of what is written in the “letter of Galinus.” On the Sabbath we are to eat well (meat) and drink well (wine), to dress in finery, to engage in marital relations with our wives and in general to call the Sabbath ענג, “a delight,” (Isaiah 58,13). Whereas the philosophy preached by Galinus results in man becoming depressed, adopting the ways of the Torah results in man becoming a happy personality. Instead of wearing black garments, we wear colored garments in order to lift our spirits. Our sages base this on Isaiah 58,13 וכבדתו מעשות דרכיך, a references to garments which lend the wearer distinction in the eyes of others. Rabbi Yochanan, in Shabbat 30, used to refer to his clothing as מכבדי, “that which bestows honor upon me.” Thank the good Lord for having given us enough common sense through study of His commandments, thus saving us from falling victim to such foolish philosophies as those espoused in the book of Galinus. This same Torah has warned us not to pay heed to the constellations in the skies when it wrote (Deut. 4,19) “lest you raise your eyes towards the sky and behold the sun and the moon.” He has, instead, given us the heritage of His commandments, observance of which will result in our accumulating a great reward.
     וחובר חבר, “or an animal charmer.” According to Ibn Ezra this is someone who assembles demons and unites them, i.e. charms them; alternatively, it may be a snake-charmer, i.e. someone who can attract all these animals to one single location [pied piper of hamelin. Ed.] (compare Sifri Shoftim 172).  ושואל אוב, “one who inquires of Ov.” a type of sorcerer reputedly able to establish contact with the dead and have them manifest themselves on earth. The dead appears to speak out of the armpit of such a person (Kimchi on Samuel I 28,25). There are many differing opinions regarding the authenticity of necro-mancers. Some hold that the story described in Samuel where King Shaul spoke to a manifestation of the dead prophet did not take place, that it is quite impossible to resurrect the dead in such  a fashion and that the woman in question recognised King Shaul immediately and put on an elaborate charade. She did not want to let on, and that is why she said to Shaul: “why did you try to trick me seeing that in reality you are King Shaul?” She demonstrated by her remark that when she had “conjured up” the image of the long deceased Samuel she had done so merely by employing her wisdom and knowledge of psychology.  It is the manner of every woman practicing this art to hide a live human being who will speak solemnly and with a low voice  from his hiding place as described by Isaiah 29,4: “and you shall speak from below the  ground, your speech shall be humbler than the sod, your speech shall sound like a ghost’s from the ground.” The woman in the story in Samuel had hidden someone and told Shaul that the speaker was Samuel. When she made that hidden person say: “because you did not execute G’d’s wrath against Amalek,” this was something which was common knowledge and did not prove that Samuel was the speaker. When the Book of Samuel reports Shaul as “speaking to Samuel,“ this only describes that Shaul thought that he was speaking to Samuel. [Actually the Book of Samuel does not even quote Shaul as addressing Samuel at all in these words.] When the woman told Shaul that: “tomorrow your sons and you will be with me,” (i.e. dead) this was all part of her psychology; she had previously instructed the person whom she hid to make this statement as she was well aware that the battle was going badly, and she knew that Shaul was being punished on account of his failure to heed the instructions in his war against Amalek. She considered it likely that he would fall into the hands of the Philistines as an act of retribution. 
      Others quoted by Rashi believe that the encounter described in the Book of Samuel between King Shaul and the spirit of Samuel was real and that Samuel indeed told Shaul all that is reported there in the text. Our sages in Chagigah 4 agree with the latter opinion. The problem with that interpretation is that if indeed Samuel really appeared to Shaul, how is it that a woman such as this necromancer was able to resurrect the dead by using the “science” called here שואל אוב?   The opinion of both Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Saadyah Gaon is that the woman claiming to be a necromancer most certainly did not resurrect Samuel, but that G’d did so. They write as follows according to Kimchi on our verses (end of commentary on verse 25) in the Book of Samuel. This is what the gaonim are reported as having said: it is quite far-fetched to assume that the woman knew the future nor that she knew how to resurrect the dead using methods attributed to necromancers. G’d revived Samuel in order for him to tell Shaul what would happen to him. The woman knew nothing of this at all. This is why she became so frightened and exclaimed: with a loud voice (verse 12-13) “why did you trick me when in fact you are Shaul?!”...she then said: “I have seen “elohim” rise from the earth.” The fact that she had asked in verse 11 “whom shall I raise for you?” was a figure of speech used by necromancers all the time and did not mean that they had the actual power to do so. So far the quote of Rabbi Saadyah Gaon in the commentary by Kimchi.
      The text appears to agree with both the opinions expressed in Chagigah and those expressed by these gaonim as well as by what our intelligence dictates, i.e. that Samuel was alive while he spoke to Shaul and that the woman had not brought him to life, seeing that it is not within the power of any ordinary human being to perform such an act. Only G’d Himself, or a prophet especially granted such a power can do this. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also agrees with this view.
      There is still another view held by a few of the scholars of the Talmud according to which necromancers are indeed able to bring back the dead during the first 12 months after they had died [or at least they know at what time the souls return to those bodies]. We find the following story in Shabbat 152: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avuhu: “seeing that you people claim that the souls of the righteous are stored beneath the throne of the Lord, how could Samuel appear to Shaul as described in the Book of Samuel? Rabbi Avuhu answered this heretic that what is described in the Book of Samuel took place within less than 12 months after Samuel’s death, and we have a Baraitha according to which the soul of the departed commutes to the body of the righteous departed during the first 12 months after it had left that body. After that time the body disintegrates so that there is nothing for the soul to return to.”  You should know that the commuting of the soul described in the Baraitha does not depend on the state of preservation of the body. Even if the body has completely rotted away during the first three days after death, the soul still does the commuting described in the Baraitha. By the same token, if the body has been embalmed and therefore remains intact way beyond the 12 months described in the Baraitha, the soul still ceases commuting to it. The meaning of the words in the Baraitha “its body remains intact,” is simply “the body that the soul was used to inhabit.” It had been its container. This affinity comes to an end after 12 months.
    וידעוני, this refers to the skill of introducing the bone of an animal called ידוע into one’s mouth and making it appear as if it could talk independently, using some means of witchcraft to do so (Sanhedrin 65). This animal is also known as בני השדה and is referred to as such in Job 5,23: “for you will have a pact with the rocks in the field and the beasts of the field will be your allies.” The letter א in the words אבני השדה in that verse is superfluous, leading to this interpretation, i.e. that the true reading ought to have been בני השדה.    ודורש אל המתים, this refers to people who lift the skull of the dead when consulting them as if they were oracles (compare Sanhedrin 65).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  . כי תועבת ה' כל עושה אלה, “for anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem;” anyone of the nine cults mentioned previously. ובגלל התועבות האלה, “and on account of these abominations, etc.,” with which the people perpetrating them disgust the Lord your G’d Who is above all such forces as the planetary constellations and disciplines concerning their movements and influences on terrestrial earth, the very planetary system, גלגל, is apt to be upset. The word בגלל is chosen by the Torah to remind us of the planetary systems. According to Shabbat 151 the function of these systems is to revolve in their orbits without deviating from their assigned paths. The expression also occurs in connection with צדקה, the practice of charity (Deut. 15,10) where we already mentioned that money has a way of “orbiting” from one person to another, especially if the owner is not charitable. The lesson to be learned is that we must detest anything of which we know that G’d detests it. We must be wholehearted in our service of the Lord as per verse 13. This means to serve the Lord without any intellectual reservations, both by fulfilling His positive commandments and by refraining from violating any of the negative commandments. The expression תמים means that one’s exterior, the visible part of a person, should reflect his interior. The verse also implies reciprocity by G’d. If we behave towards G’d sincerely, then He in turn will reciprocate, as for instance in Exodus 34,28: “G’d remained with Moses.” We have a similar verse in Daniel 2,22: “He reveals the deep and the mysterious, knows what is in the dark, and light dwells within Him.” Midrash Eychah Rabbati 1,51 views this as a promise to people who have attained the level of “being wholehearted” with G’d. King David also referred to this theme in Psalms 41,13: “You will support me because of my integrity and let me abide in Your presence forever.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואתה לא כן, “as for you, not so.” Moses means: “you who are part of G’d’s direct supervision, are not dependent on all these intermediaries, you have no call to resort to sorcerers, diviners, etc. If you need to know something about the future, G’d will provide a prophet from among your own people (next verse).
      This is a tremendous advantage. There is no true prognosis of the future which will not prove deceptive in that it disappoints the people to whom it has been promised except positive promises made by a prophet. This is why prophecy has been compared to grain which has already been sifted from the straw. This is the meaning of Jeremiah 23,28: “how can straw be compared to grain, says the Lord of Hosts?” The prophet compares false prophecy to straw, which, though it may contain a few ears of wheat, is mostly useless, whereas true prophecy is compared to wheat. The reason the prophet does not choose the word חטה, wheat, or דגן, corn, etc., is that the word בר is related to ברר, sifting, separating. In true prophecy the truth has been distilled already, whereas in false prophecy a little truth is submerged in a lot of untruths, chaff.   Seeing that when G’d created the universe He divided it into three parts, the תחתיים, the “lower” terrestrial universe, the middle region consisting of the atmosphere and the planetary system, and the “higher” universe containing only disembodied beings, He made man as a combination of all three parts of the universe with input from each. He did so as He wanted to give man wisdom which would enable him to have some knowledge of the future of all parts of the universe. Each part of the universe is equipped with media through which some of the future is disclosed. In the case of terrestrial earth certain birds and demons have been equipped with some such knowledge. Man derives some knowledge of the future originating in the universe of the planets by means of “seers” (astrologers); he derives information about the future derived from the “higher world” by means of the prophets who receive their information of future events through the angels inhabiting those celestial spheres. All prophets except for Moses received their information by means of these celestial intermediaries (Maimonides Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah 6,6).    Future events predicted by the “seers” are unreliable; in the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 85,2 based on Isaiah 47,13 החוזים בכוכבים מודעים לחדשים מאשר יבאו עליך, “the scanners of the heaven, the star-gazers, who announce month by month some of what will come upon you.” The word מאשר instead of אשר means that only part of the forecasts of these astrologers will come true. There is no need to tell you that future events divined by means of birds or demons are even less reliable. The only reliable forecast of future events is that made by authentic prophets, seeing that they receive their input from the “highest world.” Seeing that G’d will provide us with such prophets you have no need to consult the dead, etc., to tell the living what is in store (compare Isaiah 8,19).
      You should know a general rule, that each part of the three worlds receives whatever knowledge of the future it secures only from the next higher world. The power of being a “higher” world is manifest in that world being able to influence “exchange information” concerning the events in the next lower world. This concept is alluded to in Genesis 28,13 where Hashem is described as standing on top of the ladder. The ladder is a simile for the three levels of the universe. we described. (Compare our author’s commentary on Genesis 28,12 “a rational approach.”) You will then understand why predictions based on demons or birds are inferior, less reliable than those of astrologers, and why predictions based on astrology are less reliable than those of an authentic prophet. The only exceptions to the reliability of authentic prophets are when catastrophes or tragedies are predicted such as by Jonah concerning Nineveh and Isaiah concerning King Chizkiyahu. Such predictions were subject to change as they related to the conduct of the people about whom they were made. If an authentic prophet promises something positive it is 100% reliable. 
  
  Verse 15
  
   נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמוני, “A prophet, from among your brethren, like me.” Moses referred to Joshua, seeing he said: “listen to him.” We find that the Book of Joshua 22,11 reports: “the Children of Israel  listened to him.”    Alternatively, the word נביא in our verse is to be understood as a plural, in which case the additional definition כמוני,” such as myself,” is to exclude prophets who are from the descendants of Esau or Ishmael. We do find that the Israelites described the Edomites, the descendants of Esau as אחיך, “your brethren,” (Numbers 20,14) and therefore there could have been a misunderstanding. The word כמוני, precludes prophets of any but Jewish birth. Prophecy does not exist amongst those nations.   There are a total of four distinctions which have been reserved exclusively for the Jewish people; the gift of prophecy; the Torah; Eretz Yisrael; resurrection of the dead. I plan to elaborate on this when discussing the last Parshah on the Torah, seeing that three out of these four distinctions are mentioned in that portion.    Another meaning of the word כמוני, is restrictive. Any prophet should emulate me by neither adding nor subtracting anything from the Torah except if he is an established prophet and does so only as a temporary emergency measure. If the prophet declares any Torah law as permanently abrogated the people must not follow his instructions seeing that our faith in prophets is not based on the miracles they perform (Sanhedrin 90, Maimonides Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah 9,1). The reason we acknowledge Moses as a true prophet is that he communicated to us the word of G’d as spelled out in the Torah (Exodus 19,5) (G’d speaking) “Here I come to you in the thick cloud in order that the people hear when I speak to you and they will have enduring faith in you (Moses).” This is the way Maimonides understood this verse.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שלש ערים תבדיל לך בתוך ארצך, “Three cities you shall set aside for yourself in the midst of your land;” together with the three towns which Moses had already designated as cities of refuge on the east bank of the Jordan as reported in Deut. 4,41-43, this makes a total of 6 such cities. It is essential that these cities are regular, populated cities with all the normal amenities of a city, seeing the Torah wrote in verse 3 תכין לך הדרך, “prepare the way for yourself,” and the Talmud Makkot 10 understands these words to mean that signs with the word מקלט, “refuge,” must be posted on all the roads leading to such cities. This is in order for the unintentional killer not to lose time while trying to escape the vengeance of the slain man’s family. On Psalms 25,8: “Good and upright is the Lord; therefore He shows the sinners the way,” the sages say that these signs are designed to help unintentional sinners seeing their sin was inadvertent. We have another verse along similar lines in Job 36,22: “See, G’d is beyond reach in power; Who governs like Him?” The author refers to the unique attribute of G’d who helps the inadvertent sinner to rehabilitate himself. 
      The reason why the Torah continues with: “you shall divide your territory into three parts is that the cities of refuge should be situated so that their location effectively divides the land into three parts which are equi-distant from one another. 
  We should appreciate that the total number of 6 such cities reflects the principle of the 6 extremities of terrestrial earth (six directions) which we discussed already repeatedly. The first three cities which Moses set apart for this purpose on the east bank of the Jordan were quite unable to fulfill their function until they had been joined by these additional three cities on the west bank of which the Torah speaks here and which are as yet unnamed. There is a mystical element connected to this number 6 which also symbolizes 6 extremities in the celestial regions of the universe in which the soul of the sinner will have to receive his pardon from the loving kindness extended to it by Hashem.   Although the three cities which Moses had already set aside were by themselves incapable of performing their function until there were six such cities, when Moses designated them as such he had in mind that they should represent the three letters in the tetragrammaton י-ה-ו. We find that seven letters in the aleph bet are described in the Sefer Yetzirah as כפולות, as having a dual function. In chapter 4, Mishnah 12, of that book we read: “whereas with two stones one can only build two houses, with three stones (read letters) one can build six houses, whereas with four stones one can build 24 houses.” [Although I do not profess to understand the deeper meaning of these progressions, or צירופים, permutations, as they are called in kabbalistic terms, it is clear that our author means that the three original cities set aside by Moses enabled the other three cities to become operational when they would be established and as such perform a dual function also. Mishnah 13 in Sefer Yetzirah chapter one, deals with the permutations of the three letters of the tetragrammaton. Ed.] It appears that whereas three cities are intended as a refuge for the body, the other three complement the whole function by being a refuge for the soul. In terms of what happens to the person who killed unintentionally when he arrives in the hereafter then, it is essential that at the time when he was in a city of refuge on earth there had been 6 such cities (although the killer can only live in one of them.) [I am omitting the balance of this paragraph (6 lines) as I do not understand it. It describes the progression of the souls in the hereafter from one part of “Gan Eden” to another. Ed.] The words תכין לך הדרך, are perceived as a preparation for such killers to escape this world for the world to come.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ושלשת את גבול ארצך, “you shall divide the territory of your land into three sections.” The simile continues, i.e. in order to make a total of six cities of refuge together with the three on the east bank; they are to correspond to the six extremities in our universe.  The author understands this division in terms of the three parts of the universe we described earlier. The celestial regions are perceived as the topmost of these three parts of ארצך. Having attained that level in his penitence, the unintentional killer will begin his ascent to spiritual rehabilitation. This is the meaning of והיה לנוס שמה כל רוצח, the letters of the tetragrammaton are perceived as “open” letters, allowing easy access for the fleeing killer. [I believe the whole allegorical approach is based on the fact that this legislation had been spelled out in Numbers 35,9-34. The author may feel that the repetition is meant to allude to the mystical element of how it is possible to completely rehabilitate oneself for killing a person seeing one cannot bring him back to life. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואם ירחיב ה' אלו-היך את גבולך, “and if the Lord your G’d will expand your borders, etc.” This paragraph is a promise pertaining to the more distant future. It deals with aspects of what G’d had promised Avraham at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,18: “to your descendants I have given this land from the river of Egypt until the great river, the river Euphrates.” In that connection G’d mentioned ten tribes all of whom would be dispossessed in favor of the Israelites. Seven of these nations were dispossessed in the days of Joshua whereas the other three the Keyni, Kenizi, and Kadmoni have never been conquered by the Jewish people, though they will be conquered in due course.     In this instance the word ואם at the beginning of our verse is not to be understood as something conditional but as definitive. We must translate it as “when G’d will expand, etc.,” not “if G’d will expand.” The proof that this is the meaning of the word ואם in our verse are the words כאשר נשבע, "as He has sworn.” There was never anything “iffy” about this oath by G’d to our patriarchs. This is not the only instance in which the word אם means “when” instead of “if.” Another example is Exodus 20,22:ואם מזבח אבנים  תעשה לי, where the meaning is: “when you make an altar of stones for Me;” a third example of the word אם meaning “when,” is in Exodus 22,24 אם כסף תלוה את עמי, where the meaning is not “if you will lend money to My people,” but “when you will lend money to My people.” Still another example of this meaning of the word אם is found in Leviticus 2,14 ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים, “when you offer a meal-offering of first ripe grain, etc.” (compare Mechilta בחודש 11 Parshat Yitro).
  
  Verse 9
  
  . ויספת לך עוד שלש ערים, “then you shall add three more cities to these three.” A third group of three cities of refuge in addition to the two groups of three already established (in the territory which used to belong to seven of the ten tribes).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . וכי יהיה איש שונא לרעהו וארב לו וקם עליו והכהו נפש, “if there will be a man who hates his fellow and he sets an ambush or him and rises up against him and strikes him fatally;” because he hates him he eventually spills his blood; he started with the relatively minor offense of hating a fellow Jew which led to the serious offense of murder (compare Sifri Shoftim 186).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  . לא תחוס עינך עליו,”your eye shall not pity him,” that you refuse to hand him over to the blood-avenger. You should not argue: “what is the point in another person being killed seeing the first one cannot be brought back.” This is one instance when pity is not only misplaced but is a form of cruelty.
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תסיג גבול רעך, “do not move the boundary of your fellow.” According to Rashi the meaning of our verse is moving markers between fields, etc., surreptitiously depriving one’s neighbour while enlarging one’s own property. This prohibition, though spelled out separately, would be part of the general prohibition not to rob. The Torah repeated this only to tell us that when one moves such borders inside Eretz Yisrael one has violated two commandments instead of merely one. This is why the Torah added the words בנחלתך אשר תנחל, “in your inheritance which you shall inherit.”
      Nachmanides writes that this is a warning not to tamper with the distribution of the plots of land within tribal boundaries which had been allocated by lottery, The tribal chief was in charge of these distributions to individual families. The Torah warns that one must not defy the tribal chief’s decisions in this matter. This is why the Torah added the words אשר גבלו ראשונים, “which the earlier ones had determined,” the “earlier ones” being  the tribal chiefs in the days of Joshua whose decisions were made with the approval of the High Priest Eleazar and the national leader Joshua. The reason why this commandment has been recorded is to teach that a person does not have the right to accuse the people who had made the original delineation as having erred.
      It is also possible to understand the whole verse in terms of whether the universe as we know it preceded G’d. Anyone who believes this is described as משיג גבול, “having the wrong priorities.” He turns the clock backward (philosophically speaking), seeing that he makes G’d the totally free and unlimited, subject to the limitations of time and space. The ראשונים mentioned in our verse are none other than the אביך וזקניך, “your father and your elders” mentioned in Deut. 32,7 who have taught you in response to your inquiry that G’d preceded all phenomena which we call universe. There is no need for that verse to testify to the truth of Moses and his prophecy seeing the people had been eye witnesses to that. Why would they have had to ask their fathers and elders? The reason the verse adds here בנחלתך אשר תנחל, [an obvious reference to something which is yet to happen, Ed.] is to stress that the whole focus of our existence on earth is ארץ ישראל which is the אמצעות העולם, “the centre of the universe.”    The reason why this verse was written immediately following the discussion of murder, etc., is to remind us that just as such border violations will eventually lead to murder, i.e. a situation described in verse 11 as והכהו נפש, “he will kill a soul (deliberately), and will have no place to escape to, so heretical views about the universe having preceded the Creator will also result in the soul of a person believing this not having anywhere to escape to. The six extremities (boundaries) of both the physical and celestial world will not find room to accommodate the soul of such heretics.
  
  Verse 15
  
   לא יקום עד אחד באיש, “A single witness shall not stand up against any man, etc.;” this verse follows the legislation about moving boundaries to teach that if an owner of a field accuses his neighbor of having moved the mutual boundary between their  fields, he has to bring no less than two witnesses to substantiate his accusation. The words of a single witness have no value as testimony, neither when matters of corporal punishment nor monetary punishment is involved.   לכל עון ולכל חטאת, “for any iniquity or for any error;” such as if the single witness testifies that the party he has seen committed a sin against the Lord, such as a violation of the Sabbath, be it intentional or unintentional.   בכל חטא, “of any sin.” This refers to sins involving only words between himself and his fellow. אשר יחטא, this refers to sins involving money between one person and another. In all of these situations the testimony of a single witness is legally meaningless. Only the testimony of two witnesses can result in the accused being punished.    Our sages in Shevuot 40 interpret the words לכל עון ולכל חטאת restrictively, i.e. only in order to testify concerning sins committed by an action is a single witness useless; however regarding matters of oaths, the testimony of a single witness is not irrelevant at all. Example: Reuven claims that Shimon owes him a sum of money and Shimon denies it. A single witness, Levi, testifies that Shimon does owe Reuven the money. In that instance the testimony of Levi is enough for Shimon to have to repeat his denial on oath.
     על פי שנים עדים, “according to two witnesses, etc.” our sages in Gittin 71 interpret the words על פי in our verse as meaning only oral testimony; written depositions are not acceptable as valid testimony. How do we reconcile this with the halachah that money may be extracted by the court on the basis of the signature of witnesses on a document such as an I.O.U? This is a Rabbinic decree designed to help potential borrowers obtain loans. If the Rabbis had not made this concession, many lenders might refuse to lend fearing that when the time comes there would be no witnesses around to testify orally on their behalf. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  . כי יקום עד חמס באיש, “If a false witness stands up against a man, etc.;” whenever the Torah speaks of עד without identifying the number of witnesses, 2 witnesses are meant. The meaning of our verse is that if two false witnesses testify against someone, i.e. claiming that something had been done which had never occurred that is the meaning of the word סרה, i.e. the witness is removed, הוסר, from such testimony. For instance, if two witnesses confront the original witnesses saying “how could you testify to an occurrence in such and such a place on such and such a date when in fact you were in our company on that date in a totally different place?” (Makkot 5)
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ועמדו שני האנשים, “then the two men shall stand, etc.” the “men” are the witnesses. The verse teaches that testimony has to be given while standing. Also, the word האנשים means that women do not qualify as witnesses.
     אשר להם הריב, “the ones who have a grievance;” the litigants. לפני ה', “in the presence of the Lord.” The Torah warns the parties that when they are in court before a judge or judges they should consider themselves as standing in front of the Lord. This is why Assaph says (Psalms 82,1) בקרב אלו-הים ישפוט, “G’d is present among the judges.” Had the Torah here meant that G’d, i.e. the Sanhedrin, must judge every case it should have written בקרב ה' אלו-הים ישפוט, Had the Torah used the attributes ה' אלו-הים here as it does throughout the Book of Deuteronomy, I would have concluded that all litigants have to go to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for every case of litigation. This would have been the meaning of the words לפני ה' אלו-היך. The words (pertaining to the court)) אשר יהיו בימים ההם, “who (pl) will be in those days,” makes it clear that any of the courts in the various cities is included in that description. The words לפני הכהנים לפני ה' are all designed to prevent us misunderstanding what is meant. We find already with Moses that people seeking out his advice or judgment are described by the Torah as והיה כל מבקש ה', “anyone seeking the Lord.” (compare Exodus 33,7) at a time when Moses had put up his tent outside the camp of the Israelites. Even the angels are occasionally referred to by the tetragram, such as in Exodus 20,3 and 33,7 as I have mentioned on several occasions.
  
  Verse 18
  
    ודרשו השופטים היטב, “and the judges shall investigate thoroughly;” by means of the second set of witnesses who claim that the first witnesses could not have witnessed what they say they did. They employ the means of investigation we have described in detail  in 13,15.
      והנה עד שקר העד “and it emerges that the original witnesses were liars.” They were both lying.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם, “you shall do unto them as they had planned to do.” The testimony of the second set of witnesses is believed even if the original witnesses numbered 100 (compare Makkot 5). This is something very peculiar. What logical reason is there to trust the testimony of the latter witnesses more than that of the first? It appears to be an arbitrary decree by the Torah. Actually, the reason may well be that the two groups of witnesses do not contradict each other on the substance of the testimony. If they did, there is no question that their testimonies would cancel each other out. The second group of witnesses do not dispute the facts of the case; all they dispute is the ability of the first witnesses to testify to something they could not possibly have witnessed.   Our sages in Makkot 5 also comment on the peculiar wording כאשר זמם, “as they had planned;” they derive from there if the plan of the first set of witnesses, namely to cause the execution of the person or persons whom they accuse, has already been carried out by the time the second set of witnesses arrive and testify, no action is taken against the second set of witnesses even if they turn out to have been false witnesses. If the second set of witnesses arrived before the execution, they are executed instead if they had tried to frame the first set of witnesses, if also their testimony is contradicted by another set of witnesses.   The reason for this strange-sounding procedure is that we rely on the Holy Spirit which is present when the judges of the Sanhedrin conduct their deliberations. It is presumed that this Holy Spirit would not allow them to become guilty of spilling innocent blood, i.e. if they ordered the accused to be executed, he must have been guilty of a capital crime (even if not the one for which he was executed). When there has been such an evident involvement by G’d in this judgment, we leave the second set of witnesses alone, assuming that they may even have spoken the truth. However, assuming that the executed person had really been innocent, we know that G’d has many agents and that sooner or later He will take care of these lying witnesses on the basis of whose testimony we executed someone. At any rate, on the basis of כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא, that in the final analysis judgment belongs to G’d, the lying witnesses had actually testified against a “dead man,” i.e. someone guilty of death. Seeing that they had been the ones on whose account the accused had been executed there is no point in executing them as a preventive measure.
      One may raise the following objection to this whole process of reasoning: granted that the party who was executed was in fact guilty though not proven guilty by judicial process of law, what does his guilt have to do with the testimony of the עדים זוממים who have in the meantime been found liars and who by rights ought to pay the penalty for framing someone? Our sages simply feel that we have no authority to execute them seeing the Torah phrased the legislation in such a way that only “what they planned to do” makes them subject to our retribution by a human tribunal.
      One of the Tosafists, the Ri (Rabbi Yitzchak ben Shmuel) claims that  the reason for the principle of הרגו אין נהרגים if the testimony of the עדים זוממים resulted in their victim’s execution they are not executed themselves is that we are dealing here with three groups of witnesses. 1) The final group of witnesses have claimed that the second group were liars. The testimony of the first group of witnesses has never been refuted except that their testimony was not the kind that could convict. Moreover the original accused most certainly claimed to be innocent. Seeing that we wind up with four litigants, i.e. 2 sets against 2 sets, we must disregard the entire testimony now and cannot convict the second set on the basis of the last set of witnesses. The witnesses who were executed were in the minority of 2 against three. [This whole argument is most amazing after we have learned that there is no difference between 2 or 100 witnesses to the same facts. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  כי תצא למלחמה על אויבך, “when you go out to war against your enemies;“ this verse speaks of what is known as מלחמת מצוה, an obligatory war, usually a defensive war against invaders. The paragraph follows one which  demands from us not to display pity, detailing “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, or leg for leg.” The message of the Torah writing this sequence is that people who are minus a leg or eye, etc., do not go to war (compare Rashi). [In this instance the definition of מלחמת רשות would apply only to expansionary wars such as the ones conducted by David. Campaigns designed to forestall invasions threatened by enemies, even if waged outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael would come under the heading of מלחמת מצוה. The difference is who has to be mobilised. (Compare Malbim on our verse). Ed.] Another message implied by the sequence of what is written here is: “if you will practice righteousness and justice, then, if you have to go to war you will certainly be victorious.”
     לא תירא מהם כי ה' אלו-היך עמך, “do not be afraid of them for the Lord your G’d is with you.” It is important that the fear of G’d should be stronger than the fear of the enemy nation. The Torah elaborates on this fear of opposing nations in verse 3 when we read: ‘do not be afraid and do not panic.’ Anyone fearing creatures of  flesh and blood is considered as having forgotten the Almighty. This is what the prophet Isaiah 51,12-13 had in mind when he said: “what ails you that you fear man who must die, mortals who fare like grass? You have forgotten the Lord your Maker, etc.” Solomon is also on record on this subject when he says in Proverbs 29,25: “a man’s fears become a trap for him, but he who trusts in the Lord will be safeguarded.”
  
  Verse 2
  
   ונגש הכהן, “the priest shall approach;” this is the משוח מלחמה, the priest anointed for this task in war. ודבר אל העם, “and he shall address the people,” in Hebrew (Sotah 42).
  
  Verse 3
  
  . שמע ישראל, אתם קרבים היום למלחמה, “Hear o Israel! Today you are approaching battle.” The priest implies that the intoning of the Keriyat Shema will be a major factor in securing victory as this paragraph deals with the Oneness, Uniqueness, and Unity of Hashem. אל תיראו, “do not be afraid,” in your heart. ואל תחפזו, “and do not panic.” This is an expression describing an accelerated heartbeat due to fear. The word  appears as meaning speed in Samuel I 23,26 נחפזת ללכת, “you were in too much of hurry to go.” ואל תערצו, “and do not become broken,” i.e. physically.
  
  Verse 4
  
  . להושיע אתכם, “to save you.” This promise refers to total salvation, i.e. that the Israelites would not suffer casualties in their war of conquest against the seven Canaanite nations. It will be just like the punitive campaign against Midian when not a single Israelite soldier was even hurt (Numbers 31,49). It is customary that even victorious armies sustain many casualtis in battle. A war fought as a divine commandment is one when the people carrying out the commandments will prove immune. This is why Joshua was so upset when in the first battle of Ai his army sustained 36 casualties (Joshua 7,5-7). Actually, according to a commentary in Sanhedrin 44, the “36” casualties were merely a single soldier named Yair ben Menashe, who was such an outstanding person that he was considered as equivalent to 36 members of the 71-member Sanhedrin.
  
  Verse 5
  
   מי האיש אשר בנה בית חדש ולא חנכו, “who is the man who has built a new house and has not yet consecrated it?” The expression חנך used here by the Torah for moving into one’s private home is the same as that used by the Torah for the consecration of the Altar in the Tabernacle, i.e. חנכת המזבח.     Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes: “seeing such a man’s heart and his craving is so dedicated to consecrating his new house he cannot concentrate on the battle as a soldier should. He may therefore become a liability by fleeing, and other comrades may follow his example, the result being demoralization of the army.”   In connection with the new vineyard the Torah speaks of it not having been חללו instead of חנכו. The word חללו is similar to חליל, flute; it was customary to dance to the accompaniment of flutes when the first harvest of a new vineyard was brought in.    Our sages in Pessikta Zutrata, quoted by Rashi, understand the word as חולין, “secular, profane  i.e. after the grapes during the fourth year were holy, now in the fifth year they were available, freely, to the owner for the first time. In the previous year they could be eaten only after having been redeemed, etc.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  . פן ימות במלחמה, “lest he die in battle.” The Torah refers to his premature death. This is clear proof that all the people who die in battle died before the time allocated as their life span at birth. We have still more direct proof of this in Samuel I 26,10: ”or his ‘day’ will come and he will die, or he will go down to battle and will die.”
  
  Verse 8
  
  . מי האיש הירא, “who is the man who is afraid?” to kill others; ורך הלבב, “and faint of heart,” to be killed (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 9
  
   ופקדו שרי צבאות, “and the commanders of the armies shall take command.” The term פקד means the same as מנוי, “appointee,” according to Ibn Ezra. These officers were to be at the head of the army, marching in front. Although, from an onlooker’s point of view, the Jewish army did not seem too different from any other conquering army, G’d performed “hidden” miracles which determined the outcome of the battles.    The three types of property mentioned here as causes for deferment of the recruit, i.e. a new house, a new vineyard and a fiancee, represent man’s most cherished accomplishments. They are likely to change a person’s focus so much that by thinking about them his mind cannot be on the requirements of battle. An army, in order to maintain its morale, must first and foremost concentrate wholeheartedly on its immediate objective in order to perform at its optimum. Being burdened with “soldiers” whose mind is preoccupied with personal concerns does not only not improve the strength of an army but, on the contrary, weakens its collective resolve. 
      If you will examine this paragraph more closely you will discover that it also contains a mystical element. House, vineyard and wife are allusions to the “structure, בנין” of the letters in the Holy name, and their ramifications. You may understand the words of the verse as: “who has built a house and not consecrated it,” as “who has built the house of the Lord and not yet prayed in it?” Such a person should return home and properly dedicate his house so that he will not be struck for his negligence by the attribute of Justice while in battle. His soul would then have to be assigned to another body for the new person to fulfill that soul’s task on earth. Similar considerations apply to people who have planted a vineyard. They  have not yet learned that though the Presence of G’d may make its residence on earth, this is in order for us to elevate ourselves to holiness, not for holiness to “descend” to our level. If someone has betrothed a wife to himself but has not yet consummated the marriage, he too has not yet had a chance to translate that union into a higher spiritual level. During the period of betrothal, instead of elevating himself though his marriage to become a whole person, enabling him to pursue דבקות ה', cleaving to Hashem, he has taken only a preliminary step which actually represents a הפרדה, separation from Hashem.    When the priest continues calling out: “who is afraid, etc.,” this is an allusion to the sins he knows he is guilty of; seeing he has not expiated for them he is afraid of falling victim to the attribute of Justice when he is in danger anyway while engaged in battle. He is sent home to rehabilitate himself.
      The priest whom we described as the הכהן המשוח, is one who has been anointed with the same oil as the High Priest. The anointing ceremony was as if conferring a crown on his head, just as the Kings of Yehudah would be anointed with such oil on  their heads. Compare Numbers 7,7 where the Torah uses this expression “crown” in connection with the procedure of anointing.    This priest would expound and explain how the help from G’d would be channeled to the soldiers through a number of channels by means of which G’d instructs His agents to do this. The meaning of ופקדו שרי צבאות בראש העם, is that after receiving all these lessons by the כהן המשוח, the “real” commanders of these soldiers would be the angels appointed by G’d who would lead them into battle.
  
  Verse 10
  
   כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום, “when you approach a city against which you are planning to make war, you shall (first) call to the city to (surrender) peacefully.” In this instance the Torah speaks about a war which, though it has been sanctioned by G’d via instructions given to the High Priest, is not an obligatory war. The standard name for such a war is מלחמת רשות. In such wars, peaceful surrender is offered first. When confronting the seven nations residing in Canaan, which the Israelites were under orders to conquer, no such peaceful surrender is offered first (compare Rashi).    The fact is that the Torah does not spell out here whether a מלחמת רשות or a מלחמת מצוה is referred to in our paragraph. I am certain that any city in any war is included in this legislation, that peaceful surrender must be offered first with the exception of the wars against Ammon and Moav, concerning whom the Torah specifically wrote that “you must not seek their peace or their welfare” (Deut. 23.7). If, however, Ammon or Moav to whom no peaceful overtures are to be made by the Israelites volunteer peace, such overtures are accepted (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 6,6). All of this teaches how powerful an objective peace is.
      The whole paragraph is to be understood as a warning to the Jewish people not to launch an attack on any nation unless they had first explored the chance to settle their differences peacefully. If these people accept the offer of peace and take upon themselves to observe the 7 Noachide laws, none of them is killed. This applies both to מלחמת מצוה and to מלחמת רשות. They must also agree to pay taxes imposed by the Jewish King. This is based on verse 11 “they shall pay taxes to you and serve you.”    The “tax” spoken of in this chapter is that they are prepared to serve the king both with their bodies and their possessions. Examples are: participation in building walls around the cities, reinforcing watchtowers, and building the king’s palace. This too is spelled out in Kings I 9,15: ”this was the purpose of the forced labour which Solomon imposed. It was to build the House of the Lord, his own palace, the Milo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and to fortify Chazzor, Megiddo, and Gezer.”    If the people under threat of attack from the Jewish army would refuse  to make peace or would be prepared to make peace without obligating themselves to observe G’d’s seven basic laws, then, in the event of a מלחמת רשות, their adult males would be killed, as the Torah writes in verses 12-23. (our chapter) Minors and women would be spared as the Torah spells this out, i.e. “only the women and the children and the livestock and everything that will be in the city, all its booty, may you plunder for yourselves” (verse 14).     However, in the case of a מלחמת מצוה against any of the seven Canaanite nations of which the Torah writes that “any of their cities of the nations which the Lord your G’d gives to you (verse 16),” the Torah stipulates לא תחיה כל נשמה, “you must not let a single soul remain alive.”    The reason for the distinction is that in a מלחמת רשות our objective is to exploit our right to vanquish the power of the horoscopic forces protecting these nations. We are not allowed, however, to uproot the celestial protective angel representing these people in heaven. These people must only become subservient to us.     When dealing with a מלחמת מצוה, a war which we have been commanded to engage in, the underlying purpose is to uproot the  protectors, representatives of these nations in the celestial spheres. In order for G’d to completely neutralize the celestial influence of these people, we ourselves must eliminate them completely  in the terrestrial spheres. This is why the Torah made these distinctions between  what is called מלחמת רשות and what is called מלחמת מצוה. 
  If your heart is revolted by the instructions to kill “innocent” children who have not done any harm to anyone, remember that this is a heavenly decree. G’d does not need to take us into His confidence of why He legislated this.    Furthermore, seeing that G’d destroyed any power these people enjoyed in the celestial spheres, it is clear that whatever we do to them on earth is meaningless as their fate had already been sealed. When we kill them we kill in effect people who are already as good a dead though they may still go through the motions of “being alive.”    Sanhedrin 96 describes the process of killing them as “grinding ground flour.” As a result, no injustice has been done to these children seeing that G’d has already decreed that they should die forthwith. Even if we do not avail ourselves of this argument, the fact is that minors are considered as shoots off the main trunk. In this instance they are part of a trunk which has gone rotten and we may assume that if allowed to live these shoots will take after their original trunk. The Torah even spelled this out when it wrote in verse 18: “so that they will not teach you to commit all their abominations.” In other words, Torah psychology foresees the sinister historical effect of allowing the spiritually depraved children of such parents to live. If you were to argue that if raised in a Jewish society these children when they grow may embrace Judaism and keep G’d’s commandments, you only need to reflect who it is who instructed us to spill their blood. It is none other than G’d Himself. Surely He knows if any moral/ethical adults will grow out of these children. He decreed their death because He knows that they will not become penitents. Consider the following verse in Isaiah 14,21: “prepare a slaughtering block for his sons because of the guilt of their father so that they will not arise and possess the earth and fill the face of the earth with cities.”    In view of the foregoing, the Canaanites whom the Israelites allowed to survive became a source of terrible physical and spiritual damage to the Jewish people. It is no more than logical that people prefer to do things which result in potentially smaller damage than that they take a chance by exposing themselves to greater damage. A man trapped in a blazing building will rather jump out and risk breaking his bones than face certain death by burning. A person will rather drink a terribly tasting medicine than put up indefinitely with a debilitating sickness. In fact, drinking such a medicine is at least not doing violence to himself, whereas refusing to drink it is equivalent to inflicting harm upon oneself. Seeing that one cannot force a person to inflict harm upon himself, ordering him to let these children survive [especially when they will become aware that you have killed their parents, Ed.] it is certainly better to commit minor damage in order to forestall larger damage at a later stage.
      At any rate, the permission to kill women and children is applicable only when these people did not initiate or respond to your offer of peace (as the case may be). If they did, subject to the conditions we outlined, they may live, even if they were members of the seven Canaanite nations as we know from Joshua 11,19-20. It is clear from there that just as the Chivites, inhabitants of Giveon, who had made peace with the Israelites were allowed to live, (including the men even though they had tricked the Israelites) so would the other tribes have been allowed to live under similar circumstances. G’d had allowed these pagans to be obstinate enough not to use the escape route offered by Torah law which would have enabled them to survive.   We read the following on this subject in Jerusalem Talmud Shevi'it 6,1: “Joshua sent three letters before entering the Holy Land. In the first letter he suggested that they come forward and submit to Jewish sovereignty and the conditions we described earlier. In the second letter he offered that anyone wishing to emigrate from Canaan would be allowed to do so. In his third letter he wrote that those who wanted to fight him were welcome to do so. The Talmud reports that whereas the Chivites from Giveon responded positively to Joshua’s first letter, the tribe of the Girgashite decided to emigrate. We know what happened to the remaining tribes, i.e. 31 kings fought Joshua and lost and were wiped out.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כי החרם תחרימם החתי והאמורי, ”rather, you shall utterly destroy them; the Chivite, the Emorite, etc.” In this instance the Torah enumerated only six of the seven nations omitting  the Girgashi, either due to it's small size, or, as our Sages have explained, seeing they had emigrated as we mentioned earlier.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
    ואותו לא תכרת כי האדם עץ השדה, “but it (the tree) you must not cut down for is then the tree a man?” Ibn Ezra and other commentators understand the lines as “for man’s life and livelihood depends on the trees in the field.” It is comparable to Deut. 24,6 כי נפש הוא חובל, “for he would take as a pledge something his life depends on.” This is the reason the Torah commands us not to destroy fruit-bearing trees, as it would be equivalent to destroying G’d’s blessing.    Personally, I believe that the word האדם belongs to the earlier part of the verse and is part of the instruction “do not cut down.” The meaning of the whole verse would then be: “for the trees are not man that you could cut them down as if they were your enemies. It is not the mark of an intelligent people to destroy something which does not confer any benefit on it by doing so. This is why you must not only not destroy such trees but do whatever you can to preserve them and their usefulness. You are to eat its fruit, not destroy the tree. Our sages in Taanit 7 interpret the words כי ממנו תאכל, “for you eat from it,” as an allusion to the Torah scholars whose words of Torah are comparable to the fruit yielded by fruit-bearing trees. If such a Torah scholar does not conduct himself in the manner a Torah scholar should, abandon him. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כי ימצא חלל באדמה, “If a slain person is found lying on the earth, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the legislation about breaking the neck of the עגלה ערופה, the calf the Torah commands to be killed publicly and to be thrown into a virgin valley, is supposed to be a great trick designed to reveal the identity of the murderer. Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 3,40 writes as follows: “the people killing this calf are from the town nearest where the murdered person has been found. In most instances the murderer is a local resident. The elders of that town testify that they had not been negligent in maintaining all the services which are part of a civilised town. It is hoped that the publicity which this procedure attracts will lead to information disclosing the identity of the culprit.”   The sages are already on record that even an unsubstantiated statement by a lowly slave-woman claiming that a certain person is the murderer is sufficient to halt these proceedings (Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9,1). If the identity of the murderer was known but the townspeople were part of a conspiracy of silence, and they have the audacity to testify in front of their Creator that they did not know the identity of the murderer, this is a great sin and anyone (from outside) who acquires knowledge is called upon to make public what he knows, so that the guilty party will be dealt with either by a court of law, the king, or the relative who is the blood-avenger. The whole incident assumes additional significance in that the site where the calf was killed will forever have to remain virgin earth so that people who observe that this earth is not being used for anything will make inquiries about this. Thus far Maimonides.    The expression וערפו means that they are to remove the neck of this calf (Ibn Ezra). The reason why all of this has to take place in the town nearest the slain person is that in our estimation the murderer comes from that city, or that people of that town had been guilty of a similar crime; otherwise such a disaster would not have happened near their town.
      Some explain the words נחל איתן, as a place of דשן ושמן, a very fertile valley. Now that this tragedy has occurred, the Torah forbids us to again make use of that land. Our sages in Sotah 15 also understand the words אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע as referring to the future; after the calf has been killed there, this site is to be treated as if out of bounds completely.    The Mishnah in Sotah 45 says that although this site is forbidden to be sown, one is allowed to comb flax on that site or to chisel stones there seeing that these activities are not performed with the actual soil. According to this latter explanation every one of us must be careful to maintain roads in such a condition including security patrols, so that murder cannot occur and the murderer escape. Once a property owner knows that if such a murder has occurred nearby they may all forfeit use of their property as a result he will cooperate in supervising his town and what is around it (Based on the father of R' David Kimchi in the Sefer Hashoroshim).
      A Midrashic approach to the subject of עגלה ערופה, based on Sotah 46: G’d said: “let the yearling calf whose neck is broken serve as a symbol and have her neck broken in a place which will not produce fruit (any produce) in order to atone for the slain person whose life has been cut short so that he will no longer be able to produce “fruit.”    Other commentators dealing with the legislation surrounding the עגלה ערופה claim that the reason the calf in question must be one that has never born a yoke or performed labor for man, and that it has to be brought to a valley which has no traces of ever having been worked by man is so the calf will not recognize the site. There is to be no paved path through that valley so that the calf is not tempted to leave that area. The priests would hit it on its neck in order to encourage it to escape that valley and show us the way to the murderer. This is the meaning of the words (verse 4) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל. Prior to that the elders of the town washed their hands over the calf, saying: ”our hands have not spilled this blood.” The priests would then respond: “grant atonement for Your people Israel.” The expression כפר in this instance includes a request for the facts to come to light, for the murderer to be found. If the Israelites of that generation were generally Torah-observant, the calf would walk to the house of the murderer, stop, and the priests would proceed to kill the calf at that spot. This is the meaning of the words: “and the blood shall be atoned for them.”   If the people of that generation were generally not Torah-observant, and therefore entitled to identify and deal with the murderer, and as a result the calf would not seek out a specific house before coming to a halt, the priests would hit the neck of the calf with an axe, severing the neck. This is the meaning of ונכפר להם הדם, “the blood (guilt) will be atoned for them.” G’d would have to do the atoning then.
      A rational approach to this legislation: the calf which is being killed, עגלה ערופה, is a similar phenomenon to the שעיר לעזאזל, the scape-goat, which is killed after it (symbolically) carries the sins of the entire Jewish people (Leviticus 16,10). Both wind up in a totally barren environment. Something similar happens to one of the birds offered by the person who has been declared cured of the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. It is released into the air after its partner has been slaughtered and the surviving bird’s blood has been dipped in the blood of the bird which has been slaughtered (Leviticus 14,51-53). The surviving bird is perceived as carrying the guilt of the person for whom it atones into certain nether regions inhabited by demons and the like. All of the three phenomena we listed have as their purpose to blunt possible accusations by spiritually negative forces which abound in the world and which look for any excuse to assume the role of prosecuting attorney against the Jewish people.   From a technical point of view it would have been enough for the Torah to write that the valley in question should be one which has neither been worked nor sown, i.e. לא יעבד ולא יזרע. Why did the Torah add the extra word בו (verse 4)? The Torah wanted to make clear that not only the valley but also the calf itself must not have performed any kind of work. By being so totally undomesticated, the animal is perceived as (still) belonging to the domain of the forces appointed by G’d to rule in the desert and similar inhospitable places (as we explained on other occasions). When the calf’s neck is broken then it occurs in the domain of these demonic forces. The very word איתן implies that the valley is very harsh, hard, tough.   The reason that the Torah spelled the word שפכה with the letter ה at the end, instead of the letter ו which we would have expected, may be an allusion to the fact that if one kills a person one deprives him of his five senses. By doing so, the murderer has destroyed an entire world. The world had been created with the last letter ה of the tetragrammaton (Bereshit Rabbah 12,9). The reason for this somewhat exaggerated sounding description of the murder of a single individual is the fact that G’d created only a single human being at the beginning. If he had been killed prematurely, the human race would have been exterminated as the result of such a single act of killing.     The reason for the words כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ה', “provide atonement for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed o Lord” (verse 8), is simple. The procedure of killing this calf resulted in our providing these demonic forces with a delight. This enhances the power of these forces to act as advocates for the prosecution against Israel. As a result, we have to ask forgiveness, כפרה, from Hashem for having been forced to make use of this legislation. Similar considerations are valid  in connection with the שעיר לעזאזל. In Leviticus 16,33, at the conclusion of the whole procedure, the Torah writes: “He shall bring atonement upon the Holy of Holies, and upon the Tent of meeting and the Altar; he will bring atonement for the priests and all the people.” In other words, after the whole Yom Kippur service has been dealt with the Torah had to write these words to show that having somehow caused satisfaction to the Azzazel, the people and all concerned are in need of atonement for this.
      There is yet another aspect embodied in the procedures of the עגלה ערופה, and that is that the procedures teach us something about the nature of a murdered person. The procedures leading to atonement of this crime comprise three elements. 1) the breaking of the calf’s neck; 2) the location where this has to take place, i.e. a totally barren area, one which has never been useful. 3) the recital of a confession by the priests: “our hands did not spill this blood. Please atone for Your people of Israel.”    Every intelligent person realizes that the murderer achieved his objective only by means of separating, detaching his victim from three “souls,” life-forces. He separated him from the animalistic soul, from the soul which enables vegetable matter to grow, and, finally, he separated him from the נפש השכלית, the abstract life-force we call “soul.” We know that the first soul which departs from the slain person is the animalistic soul. This is why the Torah selected a calf for this procedure, seeing that it (the mother) symbolizes animalism. Killing it removes that “soul.” The location, i.e. one that does not produce any growth, symbolizes the “vegetable” soul, i.e. its absence. Finally, the confession and request for atonement symbolise the loss of the abstract soul of the slain person.    I have heard that the carcass of the calf generates worms which will attack the murderer wherever he is. This is a mystery of nature related to the barren valley, the domain of the demons we mentioned.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the whole procedure of “sacrificing” the עגלה ערופה to the attribute of Justice in its most severe manifestation aims at preventing this attribute which is poised to strike the community in whose proximity the murder occurred from causing harm. The reason the neck of the animal was chosen as the point of death is that it represents the “hardest,” most unbending part of the personality. Seeing that at this time G’d, as it were, turns His back (neck) on us, this calf does not have its throat slit as do the animals which are ritually slaughtered. The reason why this whole legislation is described in such detail is that the murder has occurred in Eretz Yisrael, on holy soil. The reason the Torah added the word בקר to the word עגלת בקר (a calf is always a junior בקר) is that this animal symbolises the חיה with the face of an ox in the prophet’s vision in Ezekiel 1,10. Sometimes the חיה described there as on the ”left,” does appear on the right, i.e. represents the attribute of Mercy.  Although the calf must not have been worked, borne a yoke, it may impose such a yoke, burden on others (symbolically speaking).    As to the words והורדו, “they shall bring it (the calf) down” (verse 4), this means that the elders shall drag the calf down to that valley. The words וערפו שם, reminds us of Genesis 49,24 משם רועה אבן ישראל, [if I understand correctly a reference to Joseph dragging down his family to Egypt, Joseph representing the “ox,” בכור שורו. Ed.]. The words  את העגלה בנחל, mean that the calf is to be submerged in the waters of the brook of that valley. These waters are called נחלי אל, a reference to the emanations. The reason the Torah refers to the murdered person as חלל, usually understood as an empty space, is that he has been deprived of his souls, thus effectively making him “empty,” חלול.   The word is also related to חולין, something profane, devoid of sanctity. The procedure is designed to eliminate the spirit of impurity outside the town in the field. This is why the Torah emphasizes נופל בשדה, “fallen in the field” (verse 1). The word חלל is an allusion to orbit, i.e. the revolving planets in their orbits; the slain person is perceived as having been on earth before in a different body. This may be the reason the Torah speaks of חלל באדמה instead of חלל בארץ.   This whole procedure was performed by the priests, the Levites, seeing it is their function to settle strife and plague (verse 5). The words ריב and נגע refer to strife both in the terrestrial regions and in the celestial regions. The waters with which the elders wash their hands (verse 6) represent the waters of the attribute חסד which have their origin in a domain above that of the עגלה. The washing of the hands is to ensure that the elders will not be harmed by the attribute of Justice.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וענו, “they shall respond;” the priests, speaking in Hebrew. ואמרו, they shall say ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, “our hands did not spill this blood.” The prayer of the priests was addressed to the attribute Hashem, the attribute which had orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt. This is why the words אשר פדית ה', “which You, the attribute of Hashem have redeemed,” are appended to the priests’ prayer for atonement. When they continue: ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל, “do not place innocent blood in the midst of Your people of Israel,” is an appeal to the attribute of Mercy not to allow the attribute of Justice to go into action on account of this murder.
  
  Verse 8
  
  . כפר לעמך, “grant atonement for Your people.” According to Pessikta (and Sifri) on our verse the word כפר refers to the living who can attain atonement by means of their money. The words פדית, “whom You redeemed,” refer to the already dead who will achieve their atonement by charity given by the living (in their name). The verse teaches that  the donations made to the Temple treasury by the living on behalf of their dead accomplish something. This is so in an increased measure if the son donates in his father’s name; it is considered a merit for the departed father. The same applies to the recital of Kaddish by the son for his father. The concept is based on the fact that the son “eats” the “fruits” of his father. The same applies to the son acting as reader in the synagogue during his year of mourning. There is a Baraitha in Massechet Kallah Rabbati chapter 2 involving Rabbi Akiva rescuing the soul of a departed from purgatory through the son becoming pious, etc., although the father of that child had been the worst kind of sinner.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואתה תבער הדם הנקי, “and you shall remove innocent blood from your midst.” You are to remove the threat of punishment for innocent blood having been spilled. Alternatively, ”you are to destroy the one who has spilled innocent blood if possible.”  'כי תעשה הישר בעיני ה', ”when you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.” In the eyes of the Lord Who took you out of Egypt on condition that you do not allow innocent blood to be spilled, and generally do what is right in His eyes. We encounter here again the absence of the expression ה' אלו-היך as the redemption from Egypt took place under the aegis of the attribute of Mercy, i.e. Hashem (only).
      It is also possible to interpret this verse as a promise for the future. G’d is saying: “if you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord there will not be any murders of innocent people.” This in turn will serve to hasten the arrival of a period when murder, warfare, etc., will be banished from this earth. At that time the prophecy of Isaiah 2,4: ”and they beat their swords into plowshares,” will be fulfilled. People will no longer teach the art of warfare; no nation will raise a hand against its neighbor. There will be an abundance of peace and serenity, as alluded to in Song of Songs 7,1. People will offer their sacrifices to the attribute Hashem which is also known as שלום as we know from Genesis 32,18 ויבא יעקב שלם. The author cites a few more verses implying that G’d’s name is שלום.
  
  Verse 10
  
    תנה בני לבך לי ועיניך דרכי תצורנה, “Give your heart to me my son, and let your eyes observe my ways.” (Proverbs 23,26)  
  In this verse Solomon warns that we should devote our hearts to the service of the Lord, and distance ourselves from the allurements of this world, the ones to which the heart and eyes are so attracted. This is why he says: “give your heart to Me:, i.e. to the part of the world which concerns service to your Creator and not to the alternative, the transient pleasures of terrestrial earth. Seeing that we do possess these urges, we are asked to channel them into permissible paths, i.e. service of the Lord. When we do this (wholeheartedly, not merely ‘giving to religion its due’) then our service to the Lord will be received with goodwill, seeing it reflects true reverence and love for G’d. Use of the pleasures of this world should be designed only to better serve the Lord and to better understand His Torah, at least the מושכלות, the laws accessible to our intelligence. Since many of the pleasurable experiences in this world are directly connected to the performance of commandments, what matters is the intent which governs the use one makes of these pleasures.     David summed up his own lifestyle and what prompted it in these words: ה', נגדך כל תאותי, “Lord, all my (natural) desires are focused in Your direction.” He complimented himself that he had been able to sublimate the enjoyment inherent in partaking of the pleasures of this world so that they became religious experiences for him. It is a well known fact that the various organs, limbs, in our body are agents of the heart and the eyes. They merely carry out what the eyes and heart desire. Of the two, the heart is the primary element. If one’s heart is whole with Hashem, everything is wholehearted. If the heart is not wholly devoted to G’d everything one does is blemished. This is the meaning of רחמנא לבא בעי, ‘G’d requires one’s heart’ (Sanhedrin 106).    A Midrashic approach understands the verse in Proverbs as an admonition by G’d to the  people of Israel. G’d says to Israel: “if you will give me your heart and your eyes, I will know that you are truly Mine. If not, you are not Mine.” The essence of all this is that the heart and the eyes are the true root which determines either our rapprochement to G’d or vice versa. They are the “brokers” of the sins We know this from Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 1,8: “proof that the heart and eyes are the “brokers” of sin is what the Torah writes in Numbers 15,39: “do not explore after your hearts and after your eyes which you tend to stray after.” The expression זונים , “straying,” is the same as זונה, a harlot, a woman who strays after men not her husband. By using this term the Torah makes it plain that whoever is motivated in his actions by the dominance of his heart or his eyes is equated with a harlot. He allows himself to be seduced by his evil urge, as does a harlot. When Solomon follows up in Proverbs 23,27 with “for a harlot is a deep pit, a forbidden (alien) woman is a narrow well,” he suggests that he who approaches the entrance of the house of a harlot will not escape the trap and damage which harlotry entails, just as someone who falls into a narrow well will not escape some damage. The same happens to anyone who gives in to the dictates of his hearts and eyes.     The simile of the alien woman being compared to a narrow deep well means that even if the alien woman is not engaged in promiscuous sexual activity, the fact is that if someone has his eyes on that well (woman) all the time and draws water from it, it is in the nature of things that the water he draws will be replaced by other water, perpetuating the inquisitiveness of the person confronted with the narrow well.    Solomon defines the allure of a woman as initially the making of conversation, שיחה, i.e. spelling the word שיחה (with the dot on the right side of the letter ש with a <i>sin</i> instead). Having engaged in conversation with such an alien woman, the next step is to look at her, followed by desiring her in one’s fantasies; this will eventually result in one’s touching such a woman, and the next step is the reversal of the<i> sin</i> again to a <i>shin</i>, i.e. שיחה, meaning “pit,” the pit of sin. Solomon wrote these two verses sequentially in order to drive home the point to the people that they should devote their hearts and eyes to the spiritual part of life, to G’d and not to the material part of life characterized by our cravings. It is these cravings, or rather our giving in to them, which result in people forfeiting both their life on earth and their hereafter. The brief enjoyment resulting from indulging one’s cravings is not worth what we have to give up in exchange.    The Torah goes to great length in legislating against anything which could result in harlotry as the sexual promiscuity and perverseness of the Canaanites was proverbial. Even the army of the Jewish people had to maintain standards of sanctity in war, so much so that the Torah did not permit the converting of prisoners of war to Judaism (for the purpose of marriage) until after a whole string of special conditions had been met.
  כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך ונתנו ה' אלו-היך בידך ושבית שביו, “When you go into battle against your enemies and the Lord your G’d delivers him into your hand and you take as (its) prisoner.” We would have expected the Torah to write ונתנם, “and He will deliver them into your hand,” instead of “and He will deliver him into your hands.” The Torah means that the defeat of your enemies will be so drastic as if they had all been only one man. Alternatively, the word ונתנו refers to the protective angel of the enemy nation in the celestial regions. The words ושבית שביו refer to the enemies here on earth.
  
  Verse 11
  
   אשת יפת תאר, “a woman of beautiful form.” The reason the Torah writes the word אשת i.e. the possessive form, is that even if the woman in question had been married already it is halachically permitted to marry her after proper conversion and marriage ritual; the reason is that sleeping with a Cannanite is not forbidden on account of her marital status which halachah does not recognize (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 8,3). Her conversion is valid even if due to fear rather than a genuine love of Judaism.
     והבאת אל תוך ביתך, “and you will bring her into your house.” Our sages teach, based on this verse, that the soldier must not rape this prisoner as an act of war, but must conduct relations with her on a basis of mutual consent in a private location. Only the first such sexual relation is permitted. Any subsequent sexual relations with the prisoner may only take place after she has converted and become the soldier’s wife. (compare Kidushin 21 and 22) This is what is meant by 23,15 ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, “He will not see a shameful thing among you.”     The reason the Torah did permit the first sexual encounter with the Gentile prisoner prior to her conversion is an accommodation to the evil urge. The Torah, the master psychologist, recognized that if it did not make this concession to the infatuation of the soldier he would ignore the prohibition and not pay attention to all the other strictures imposed by the Torah in the next several verses either. This is why the Torah prefaced these rules with the words: “when you bring her to your house.” [According to this view,] the Torah assumes that prior to the soldier bringing his prisoner to his house he had not slept with her. He is now permitted to sleep with her once, after which all the details about the woman in question shaving her hair, cutting her nails, mourning her parents for a month, etc., all take effect. During this entire period her captor is not allowed to touch her.    This is the reason why Tamar was legally permitted for Amnon son of David to marry, seeing that her mother Maachah had become pregnant by David from a sexual relation prior to her becoming converted so that she was not really a sister or half-sister to Amnon. This is why she had said to Amnon (Samuel II 13,13) “speak to the king; he will not refuse me to you.” Unless her mother had not been Jewish at the time she was conceived, how could she have made such a statement! (compare Sanhedrin 21). Technically, she was a בת כותית, Gentile, and our sages have ruled that “the son of your son born of a Gentile mother is not considered your son but her son” (Kidushin 68).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
    ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה ירח ימים, “and she shall weep for her father and mother for a month.” According to the plain meaning of the text there are a number of advantages in the Torah setting aside a whole month for this mourning period. 1) During this period the prisoner may observe the mourning rites of the Jewish people if she heard that father or mother had been killed during that war while she was still of prisoner status (i.e. not Jewish). Any normal human being, Jewish or not, is supposed to observe the commandment to honor father and mother both while they are alive and after they have died. 2) The Torah hopes that during the period of 30 days the infatuation of the Jewish soldier for his prisoner will cool, especially when he observes her daily without the benefit of makeup, etc., deprived of her hair, finger nails, etc. [Some say that the nails have to be allowed to grow. Ed.]. Being dressed in mourner’s clothing also does not add to her allure for her captor. When he observes the woman cry and generally deport herself as unhappy in her new environment the ardor of her soldier-suitor may evaporate and he may send her home. 3) During that period her pagan mannerisms and expressions may be uprooted and she will gradually forget her past and adjust to her new environment and the fact that she has found a future. She will learn to appreciate her good fortune compared to her compatriots and resolve to become a dutiful wife to her captor. She will then be ready to immerse herself in a ritual bath and recite the appropriate benediction accompanying her conversion.    As to why the Torah does not make any mention of this immersion in a ritual bath, this may be explained by Numbers 31,19 where the immersion of the prisoners in a ritual bath has already been standardized.
      A Midrashic approach found in the Sifri: the purpose of the line: “and she will weep for her father and mother,” is a reference to her saying good-bye to paganism. We find that pagan deities are referred to as “parents” in Jeremiah 2,27: “they say to wood and stone ‘you are my father, you have given birth to me.’” In Yevamot 48 Rabbi Akiva also said that these words refer to weeping for Avodah Zarah, the same verse in Jeremiah being quoted. I believe that the point the Midrash wanted to make was to account for the periodירח ימים  a “lunar orbit.” This round number includes the various repetitive cycles. The sun orbits daily, the orbits of the seven fixed stars are counted in terms of each dominating one day of the week. The moon orbits in 30 days (approx.) All of these phenomena are reminiscent of one kind or another of idolatry based on celestial phenomena. The woman prisoner is given a month to divest herself of this philosophy. The word: “her father,” is a simile for the sun, whereas the word: “her mother,” is a simile for the moon. The word את each time includes the various stars-planets which also are part of these patterns of idolatry. According to this view, the woman has to observe this month of mourning and weeping even if her biological parents are known to be alive still. Her new status (impending) demands that she put a full stop to all previous connections with idolatry (including her biological parents). Seeing that as a member of the Gentile nations she had not been forbidden to acknowledge these intermediaries as her deities previously, she is allowed to take official leave of her former religion.
      A rational approach (allegorical philosophy): This whole paragraph contains distinct allusions to the evil urge. It is this urge which causes man to sin on an ongoing basis and it usually approaches him in the guise of some irresistible female. This allure is employed by the evil urge to lure men into satiating their various cravings for the forbidden. When our sages in Kiddushin 21 said לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע, “that the Torah (in this paragraph) addressed specifically the danger of being seduced by the evil urge,” this is what they had in mind. They perceive the אשת יפת תאר as the personification of the evil urge. The Torah provides the antidote to the lure of the evil urge in the manner it suggests it be treated. One way of ridding oneself of it is that man strips the evil urge of his physical power which is represented by his hair (as we know from Samson). This is why the Torah commands that  we shave off the hair of  the יפת תאר. The word גלוח suggests destruction of the hair so that it does not grow back again. Prior to Adam’s sin, his clothing consisted of nails (a tough skin). When the Torah speaks about the אשת יפת תאר having to “do her nails,” this is an allusion to man’s objective to regain the status of Adam who wore “nails.” The contrast is the removal of the garments of the אשת יפת תאר, read: “evil urge. One is not to indulge in any of the pleasures of this world, unless they are specifically permitted, gratifying only those urges that are condoned by the Torah. The words וישבה בביתך, “she will sit in your house,” are a simile for keeping tight control of these urges just as one keeps control of everything under one’s roof. The way to accomplish all this is to first weaken the urges, i.e. to “weep for father and mother for a whole month.” Having sufficiently weakened these cravings, the words ואחר כן תבוא אליה apply, i.e. you may then gingerly make use of these urges provided it is within the framework of what is permissible under Torah law.
  
  Verse 14
  
    לא תתעמר בה, “you shall not enslave her.” The meaning of this word with the letter ע is the same as the similar sounding word with the letter א, i.e. תתאמר. We find the word in a similar meaning in Deut. 26,17: את ה' האמרת היום, “you have enslaved yourself to the Lord this day.” It is not unusual for the letters א and ע to be used interchangeably. Not only in scripture but also in the language of our sages are the letters ע and א used interchangeably such as in עריס or אריס, both being given as “tenant-farmer.” The prisoner who originally was captured for the sake of becoming the soldier’s wife must not be demoted to be treated as a slave in his household once his infatuation for her has waned. It is morally not acceptable This is a basic moral lesson the Torah teaches us here.
      The next paragraph which describes a situation in the home of someone who has two wives one of whom he loves whereas he harbours hostile feelings towards the other, teaches that the Torah did not easily agree to permitting the אשת יפת תאר to the Jewish soldier, seeing it foresaw that introducing her into the soldier’s household was likely to result in friction in that home. Had it not been the Torah’s wish to help the soldier sublimate his carnal lust for that woman, the Torah would not have done so, seeing the chances that her husband will eventually hate such a woman are statistically quite high. Moreover, if he has a son from her, the chances that the son will become a delinquent (בן סורר ומורה), [even if not in the strictly halachic sense of the word. Ed.] are not insignificant. This is why the paragraph about such a delinquent follows in short order.    We find that the Torah’s psychology was justified when we look at the life of King David (compare Tanchuma Ki Teytze 1). He had taken Maacha, the daughter of Talmai, the King of Geshur as one of his wives (Samuel II 3,3) after he had gone out to war against him. She bore Avshalom for David. Avshalom rebelled against his father and tried to kill him; he slept with David’s concubines. He murdered one of David’s sons, and generally became the focus of political strife in Israel and responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Israelites. The prophet Nathan was told to tell David that G’d would make evil arise against David out of his own house (Samuel II 12,11, see commentary by R' D. Kimchi).    Another paragraph which is appended to the foregoing one because it is a warning, is verse 22 in which the procedure of preserving even the dignity of the body of someone who has been legally executed for a crime committed is discussed. The sequences of our passages in this chapter are reminiscent of Isaiah 24,18 where the prophet tells us that when one has managed to escape one kind of terror, one will find oneself entrapped by a different kind of trap. The sum total of the moral/ethical teaching of these verses is that even marriages which are permitted by the Torah are not necessarily suitable unions. The marriages to prisoners of war are a prime example of such unions.     Even though the women in question have converted to Judaism, this is not considered a complete (ideal) conversion. It is assumed that the woman in question converted out of fear, i.e. physical fear of otherwise being executed. Even when someone volunteers to become a proselyte with no pressure from any causes which we can detect, the sages (Yevamot 47) have instructed the judges performing the conversion to carefully examine the prospective proselyte’s background to determine if  he or she is converting for ulterior motives, i.e. not because of genuine religious conviction. Money, position, etc., may all be reasons which attract a Gentile to become Jewish. In the case of males more likely than not they have their eyes on a Jewish girl whom they wish to marry.   Judaism is different from other religions which are soul-snatchers, missionary by definition. The reason is that we are a national religion, not one which wishes to embrace all of mankind. Some of the other religions, Islam in particular, are imbued with the fervor to ram their beliefs down the throats of people whom they perceive to be pagans. [In some editions the author refers to “two” religions, i.e. Christianity also. Ed.]. Sometimes all kinds of enticements, both material and spiritual, are offered to the potential convert in order to get him to embrace a particular new faith. This is what Daniel already prophesied about (Daniel 7,20) “and a mouth speaking haughty words.” Daniel 7,25 also deals with the same phenomenon describing efforts at converting others to one’s belief being made my leaders of religious cults. In Daniel 11,36 Daniel harps on the same subject once more.    Once the prospective convert to Judaism has been checked out and no ulterior motives have been discovered which would make us doubt his sincerity, he is advised of the yoke of Torah legislation and what is implied by joining the Jewish people (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14). All of this is designed to make the prospective convert reconsider his plans to become Jewish.    During the reign of David prospective converts were rejected as it was suspected that these converts were inspired by fear of the growing power of the Jewish state. In Solomon’s time they were also not accepted as it was suspected that they were motivated by the affluence and security offered by King Solomon’s empire (compare Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14-15).   Despite these rulings, there were many converts during the reign of David and Solomon, and once local courts had conducted such conversions and the converts had undergone ritual immersion the higher courts did not revoke these conversions. Although Solomon who married numerous women of pagan ancestry converted all them of them prior to marrying them, and Shimshon too did not marry until after the lady had been converted, seeing these conversions were due to ulterior motives, scripture continues to describe the women in question as if they had remained Gentiles and sleeping with them was forbidden. The outcome of these “marriages” testifies to the fact that they were flawed from the beginning. The Book of Kings accuses Solomon of building altars for the former deities his various foreign-born wives served, although he personally did nothing of the sort. The fact that he did not interfere with such goings on is placed at his doorstep (compare Kings I chapter 11).    In view of all the above we can understand the statement of our sages in Yevamot 47 that converts are as serious a plague for the Jewish people as is the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. The reason for this attitude is that experience has shown that the majority of converts abandoned their former religion only because of material advantages to be attained by becoming Jewish. Not only that, these converts have a habit of leading natural born Jews astray. Once these people have become legal converts it is practically impossible to isolate them and to ostracize them. The first time such converts led the natural born Jews astray was during the episode of the golden calf, whereas a short time later the same thing occurred in Numbers 11,4 when a group of people described by the Torah as אספסף instigated the craving for meat as a result of which tens of thousands of Israelites died a miserable death. Sifri Behaalotcha 86 attributes all this to these converts. Time and again such fair-weather converts have become the bane of our people.    Just as we learned from the order in which these last few paragraphs have been arranged that one sin brings in its wake another sin, we can learn from another sequence of paragraphs that one commandment meticulously observed will bring in its wake the fulfillment of other commandments.    In 22,6 we read about the commandment to release a mother bird before taking her chicks, followed by the commandment to install a railing on the roof of a new house. Following this the Torah instructs us not to mix certain species of seed, etc., etc. The message is that once we observe one commandment it will be easier to observe other commandments. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, “When a man has a son who is wayward and rebellious, etc.” The expression סורר is also found in Hoseah 4,16 כפרה סוררה, “like a wayward cow.” It refers to an animal which refuses to respond to training. The word מורה means to be rebellious with words and doing the reverse of what his father tells him.
      Nachmanides writes: that this boy is guilty of being punished for two misdemeanours. 1) He ignored his father’s instructions thereby insulting him. 2) He stole wine and meat from his father and ate like a glutton and drank like drunkard. He violated the commandment to honour his father (Exodus 20,12), and he also violated the commandment to “be holy” (Leviticus 19,2). The meaning of “to be holy” is to abstain from indulging one’s cravings. Also, we are to endeavour to understand the ways of the Lord G’d in all His ways. Anyone who is a glutton and a drunkard has no idea of the Lord’s ways.    Seeing that at this time the offenses committed by this boy are not deserving the death penalty, the Torah does not order him executed because of the severity of his sin but because it wants his death to serve as a warning to the community at large. This is the reason why the Torah adds: “all of Israel must  hear about it and be afraid.” You find a similar verse after the Torah describes the execution of the rebellious elder, זקן ממרא. There, too, the offense committed by the man is certainly not a capital offense by itself. Seeing that his execution is of a deterrent nature for other potential dissident scholars, the Torah demands that the people all be informed of what happened. Dissent from recognized authority must be discouraged most emphatically once it exceeds the academic level and threatens the executive branch of the rule of law. A third instance where the Torah demands the widest publicity for an execution based on similar considerations are the עדים זוממים, witnesses who framed someone but who at the last moment have been found out. The facts to which they claimed to have testified have not actually been disproved but their evil intent makes them liable to such punishment that although their intended victim went free they must be made an example of. The same is true of the מסית, the person who tried to seduce family members into serving idols. He is not executed for a deed but merely for abuse of his tongue. Here too the Torah demands the widest publicity for his execution in order to deter others from ever engaging in such a crime.
     ויסרו אותו, “and they shall discipline him.” They administer corporal punishment after having duly warned the guilty party of what is in store for him if  he persists (Sanhedrin 71).
  
  Verse 19
  
  . ותפשו בו אביו ואמו, “his father and his mother are to take hold of him, etc.” The procedure suggested by the Torah can be enacted only if both father and mother are willing to testify against their own son before the court. If either father or mother forgive their son, he goes free (Sanhedrin 88).
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ואמרו אל זקני העיר בננו זה סורר ומורה, and they will say to the elders of the city: “this son of ours is wayward and rebellious.” At the beginning father and mother bring this child to a court composed of three judges. They produce two valid witnesses that he has stolen from his father and used the proceeds to buy meat and wine and that he has consumed same. The court sentences the boy to corporal punishment of 39 lashes if he had been duly warned. If he repeats the crime the parents take the boy to a tribunal of 23 judges who have authority to preside over capital offenses, and they bring their witnesses with them. His trial is then concluded and the boy will be stoned to death (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,7).
  
  Verse 21
  
    ורגמוהו כל אנשי עירו, “and all the men of his town will stone him, etc.;” in this verse the Torah tells us only of the penalty. Where did the Torah spell out the prohibition, i.e. the warning? After all, we have a principle that the death penalty by man can be enacted only if we have both the warning not to commit the sin in question as well as the penalty spelled out in the written Torah. The verse applicable is the warning not to eat something על הדם, “the result of which could be blood-guilt,” i.e. death by execution (Leviticus 19,26). No one other than the בן סורר ומורה is in line for execution for merely eating a forbidden meal. This is the meaning of the words זולל וסובא, that he ate meat to the value of 50 dinars in a ravenous manner, and washed it down with half a log of wine in the manner of drunkards.
      A tradition going back to the time of the prophets teaches that the בן סורר ומורה is not guilty of the death penalty until he has stolen money from his father and spent it on the food and drink we just described and has eaten it outside the premises of his father in the company of other people all known to be useless members of society, and the meat he ate was half raw, partially cooked in the manner thieves who are in a hurry cook their meat. Also the wine must have been only partially diluted, i.e. show evidence that the person who drank it was in a great hurry, revealing that the person drinking it was unable to temper his craving.    If, however, the son had obtained the father’s permission to consume this food, or he had stolen the money from someone other than his parents, or he ate the meat completely raw and drank undiluted wine, he is free from the penalty prescribed by the Torah. The reason is that this is a method which is most unlikely to become habitual. The son cannot always find strangers to steal from, etc. He can however, go on stealing from his father and indulge himself. The period during which the execution of a בן סורר ומורה is theoretically possible is only when he is between 13, and 13 years and 3 months old. (Compare most of the details mentioned in Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim chapter 7 and in Sanhedrin 70). This is based on the Torah writing: כי תהיה לאיש בן. This means that until the boy is at least of age (13) he is not subject to this penalty. At the same time, the Torah does not punish an adult son at the instigation of his father, seeing he is no longer under the authority of the father. Therefore the sages in Sanhedrin 69 accepted it as given that the Torah had in mind only a thirteen year old who had demonstrated proof of puberty and was not yet more than 3 months past that time. Once he had brought evidence of puberty he is fit to father children and the fetus which he helped conceive becomes visible after 3 months pregnancy of the potential mother. Seeing that the Torah wrote “when a man will have a son,” etc., this precludes someone already capable of being a father. The word בן also excludes בת, i.e. the legislation discussed here does not apply to females, to daughters. The reason is simply that girls are not in the habit of indulging such cravings for eating and drinking intoxicating liquids.
     וכל ישראל ישמעו וייראו, “and the whole people of Israel shall hear and become afraid.” The judgment of such a wayward son would be proclaimed publicly throughout the country giving name, time, and place of the execution and the sin the execution was for (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,13).     We have a Baraithah in Sanhedrin 71 according to which the execution of a בן סורר ומורה never occurred; similarly there was never such a thing as an עיר הנדחת, nor would there ever be either phenomenon. The Torah wrote the legislation for both as hypothetical scenarios only in order for the people studying them to accumulate the merit of having studied it. If that is so, we are entitled to ask why was it so important for the Torah to record such hypothetical legislation at all? However, this is part of the divine wisdom of the Torah to teach the people to what extent they must love G’d. There is no greater love than a father and a mother have  for their son. If their son violates a commandment of G’d it is the usual practice of parents to excuse such behavior by their children as due to foolishness. If the Torah demands that parents overcome their love for their son and hand him over for the ultimate punishment because he violated a relatively minor rule of the invisible G’d, this is proof that these parents are truly devoted to Torah and G’d.    This kind of obedience for G’d has already been demonstrated in practice by Avraham at the Akeidah when he had to demonstrate that he was ready to kill his son at G’d’s command, although Yitzchak had not been guilty of anything at all! Seeing that Avraham’s love for G’d was so absolute, exceeding his love for his only son, G’d described him as אברהם אוהבי. (Isaiah 41,8) After Avraham had done this his overriding love for G’d became world-famous. This is why the sages said concerning the hypothetical legislation involving execution of a wayward son at the instigation of his own parents that the purpose of the Torah is to make us study these laws and their moral implications. This is what I have heard from my teacher Rabbi Shlomo Aderet may he live long!
   We must, however, contrast this with an opinion offered by Rabbi Yonathan on the same folio as the Baraitha we quoted. Rabbi Yonathan testifies that he personally had sat on the grave of a person who had been executed as a בן סורר ומורה, as well as on the site which had once been part of an עיר הנדחת. Either Rabbi Yonathan did not consider the Baraitha as authentic, or we would have to say that the grave of the בן סורר ומורה upon which Rabbi Yonathan sat was not that of a בן סורר ומורה in the precise meaning of the term, but that it was someone more like Avshalom, i.e. a wayward son who had indeed been executed, but for more serious crimes and at an older age.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
    לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, “Do not leave his body on the gallows overnight.” This is a warning that the body which was hanged after execution should not be allowed to remain on display overnight. Our sages used this verse to expand the law that a dead person should not remain unburied overnight (Sanhedrin 46). Sifri Ki Teytze states flatly that leaving a body unburied overnight is an infringement of the law not to leave the body of an executed person on the gallows overnight. It would be a double insult to leave man on the tree seeing the tree was meant in his honor, i.e. to provide the coffin for his body. Unless leaving the body overnight in order to supply it with shrouds, a coffin, etc., it would be an infringment of the law not to allow a dead corpse to remain unburied overnight.   The general rule applicable to this commandment is that in the land of Israel if one leaves a person on the gallows overnight one has violated both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is spelled out here in the words לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, whereas the positive aspect of the commandment are the words כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you are surely to bury him on that day.”    It seems to me that seeing Adam’s sin had been the cause that he did not spend the night in Gan Eden as we know from Psalms 49,13 אדם ביקר בל ילין, “Adam does not even spend a single night in the precious place” (as interpreted in Sanhedrin 38), man should not have qualified for all this consideration, but, on the contrary, his body deserved to be displayed overnight. The Torah teaches us with this legislation that despite such considerations it applies different yardsticks in its immeasurable wisdom as explained by the words    כי קללת אלו-הים תלוי, “someone left hanging is a curse in the eyes of G’d.” According to the plain meaning of these words the implication is that it is proof that the person whose body has been hung must have blasphemed G’d the Creator, or he must have been guilty of serving idols. Otherwise he would not have been on display overnight. [Legally speaking, according to the majority opinion in Sanhedrin 45, only the body of a blasphemer was hung on the gallows for the balance of the day of his execution. Ed.]. We may therefore understand the word קללת as having a dual meaning, i.e. קללה, “curse,” and קלה, “treating lightly, as being of no value, belittling.” He who serves idols treats the Creator as if He were irrelevant.   Our sages in Sanhedrin 46 describe a person when he is in a depressed state of mind as saying קל עלי עלמא, “the world is ‘light’ for me,” as really meaning that the world is too heavy for him, but he does not want to utter something that could be self-incriminating. Similarly, here. The Shechinah does not want to “incriminate“ itself. Therefore the Torah phrases this sentiment as if it were bemoaning its own fate, whereas in reality it is expressing its pain at the fate that befell one of its creatures. G’d experiences pain when man has to die. We know this already from Exodus 3,7 where G’d tells Moses concerning the pain experienced by the Jewish people כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “for I am keenly aware of its pains.” Another verse testifying to this empathy of G’d with the pain of the Jewish people is found in Isaiah 63,9 בכל צרתם לו צר, “in all its troubles, G’d is troubled.” We have to understand the words קללת אלו-הים in a similar fashion, describing G’d’s empathy with this particular individual’s fate.    The Talmud in Sanhedrin raises questions against the peculiar wording saying that if indeed this is the correct interpretation the Torah should have written קלת instead of קללת. The answer given is that the reason the Torah wrote the extra letter ל was to give the word both meanings (as we already mentioned) .
      Ibn Ezra writes that the words קללת אלו-הים תלוי mean that any area adjacent to the body on the gallows will be a source of negative fallout for anyone coming into contact with it so that the sooner the body is removed the safer the area will be for people. G’d uses the body to disseminate these negative vibes, poisons, etc. Furthermore, writes Ibn Ezra, there is a mystical element attached to the life-force of a person (נפש) which causes infection? This is the reason why the dead cause ritual impurity. And this is why the Torah writes that we must not cause such impurity in our land by allowing corpses to remain above ground overnight. [In other words, the legislation is less for the sake of the body of the sinner who has been executed, than for preserving the land of Israel in its purity. Ed.].
      A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 46: This can be compared to two brothers who were very much alike. One of them became king, whereas his brother was caught as a robber and hung. Seeing that they look so much alike, passers-by seeing the hung body will think that the king had been hung. 
      A Kabbalistic approach: the meaning of the verse and the parable mentioned in the Midrash is that the “king” described there represents the attribute כבוד, better known as צלם אלו-הים, “the image of G’d.” In other words, the “image” is separate from the essence, i.e. it is an עבד אלו-הים, “a subsidiary of the Lord.” Seeing that the body hung on the gallows was someone symbolizing this צלם אלו-הים, he would become a קללת אלו-הים a provocation to the negative side of Elohim, unless buried on the day he was executed and not left there till night time which is the domain of the attribute of Justice; it is presumed therefore from the wording of the Torah that leaving he body there only during the day would not provoke the attribute of Justice.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   השב תשיבם לאחיך, “be sure to restore them to your brother.” The Torah commands that we be very cautious to observe the commandment to restore lost property to its owners. Concerning the repetition of the words השב תשיבם, “be sure to restore,” our sages in Baba Metzia 30 explain that one has to keep doing this even 100 times if necessary. All of this is part of the paths of mercy and kindness which we are to practice vis-a-vis each other seeing we are all the sons of one father. As such each one of us is vitally interested in what is useful for his fellow. We express our pity for lost property of our brother in practical terms by restoring it to him whenever possible. It matters not whether our brother has lost inert possessions or livestock such as his ox or donkey. Any kind of lost property is included in the Torah’s directive to restore it to the loser. This wording refers to minor utensils worth less than a garment, livestock, etc., which we have found and which can be identified by the loser. The positive commandment is followed by the negative one not to try and escape this obligation by turning a blind eye and not picking up the lost object for oneself either.    There is more to the commandment to restore lost property than merely the act of restoring it. If a person is in a position to perform a useful service for his fellow and to thereby protect his fellow against financial loss, this is all part of the commandment under discussion here. All of this is part of the “umbrella” commandment in Leviticus 19,18: “love what is your fellow’s as if it were your own!”   Concerning the practical ramification of the words: “you must not hide yourself” (from your brother’s lost property), and the subsequent semi phrase (verse 4) “you may hide your self from them,” the sages in Sifri have this to say: if the finder is an aged individual, a scholar, and it is not in keeping with his dignity to carry a bulky object in order to fulfill the commandment (personally) to restore this object to its owner, the Torah permits such a person to turn a blind eye to the object he has found. Ordinary individuals, on the other hand, are not permitted to use this ruse.
      A Midrashic approach. The words: “you will hide yourself from them,” refers to what you may succeed in doing vis-a-vis your brother, vis-a-vis human beings; the words: “you must not hide yourself from them,” refer to G’d who knows your motivation and whom you cannot fool by pretending not to have found the object or animal the return of which would cause you inconvenience or expense.
      If you investigate this commandment still further you will derive from it encouragement regarding the subject of the resurrection. G’d will practice this commandment personally by restoring the souls of the departed bodies to their original owners in due course after the redemption and the arrival of the messiah. Each person will resume his or her original role in the universe. At that time “lost” property will truly be restored to its original owner. The most recent owner of that property will give it to the previous owner and so forth until it will be eventually restored to the very first owner [who had not deliberately abandoned it, Ed.]. This is what is alluded to in Psalms 139,16: ”your eyes saw my unformed limbs.” David describes that Adam’s mental eye had been shown every human being ever to be to be born. [G’d had shown him the history of mankind in capsule form prior to his sin. This is why he donated 70 years of his life to enable David to be born alive at all as he had been shown a stillborn David. Since G’d had foreseen it, it was included in the book of the descendants of Adam he showed to Adam. The entire verse in Psalms 139,16 deals with this phenomenon. I refer the reader to an analysis by Rabbi Moshe Alshich in his commentary on Tehillim, this editor’s translation page 1005. Ed.].    It is not clear whether at that time the original wife will be restored to her original husband [assuming she had remarried, or to her last husband on earth, or, whether G’d will add to such bodies by splitting the raw material much as we know that a light can be split].  All our sages are agreed that the commandment to restore lost property applies only to property belonging to Jews, not to that belonging to Gentiles. This is why the Torah stresses repeatedly אבדת אחיך, “lost property of your brother,” and “restore it to your brother.” Gentiles are perceived as part and parcel of אלו-הי נכר הארץ, part of the alien deities of “earth,” a system of life which does not know of an hereafter or resurrection, etc. The Jewish people who are “G’d’s share and inheritance,” have a claim to eternal life and therefore it is mandatory that seeing their property is not lost permanently, that it be restored in due course. Regarding the resurrection of the dead, the Jewish people have been told (Isaiah 26,19) “Oh, let your dead revive, let corpses arise!” whereas in verse 14 of that same chapter the prophet says “they are dead, they can never live; shades, they can never rise” (referring to the Gentiles).    Seeing that in connection with lost objects or animals the Torah employed the expression נדחים, “cast off, rejected,” the Torah continues in verse 3 with the statement: “you must not hide yourself (if you found it). The moral lesson is: “do not hide yourself from the Lord, so that when the time comes He will not hide Himself from you,”  i.e. become someone whom you have “lost” (compare Samuel II 14,13-14).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . לא תראה את חמור אחיך, “You must not see the donkey of your brother ..fall;” in a similarly worded commandment in Exodus 23,5 the Torah uses the expression חמור שונאך, “the donkey of one who hates you.” The promise contained in our verse is that if you assist your enemy with his falling donkey he will eventually appreciate you and become אחיך, “your brother.” When you assist him he will forget the “hatred” between you and only remember the bond of love that unites brothers.
  
  Verse 5
  
   לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “male apparel shall not be on a woman.” The principal concern of our verse is to deny the woman the right to bear arms (Sifri 227, Nazir 59). She is not to go to war and become a cause for immorality rampant during war. Similar considerations, i.e. the prevention of creating opportunities for sexual promiscuity- are the reason males are forbidden to wear women’s garments. Both of these apparent role reversals of the sexes are an abomination to the Lord.     Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6,1 understand this wording to mean that “garments which will result in, or lead to abominations being perpetrated are forbidden” (compare Yoreh Deyah 156,2). Jewelry which is associated specifically with women is forbidden to be worn by men, as are mannerisms practiced especially by women, such as looking in the mirror. Seeing that they were one of three things which the rabbis had to give a special dispensation to for the household of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, it is clear that generally speaking male Jews are not supposed to admire themselves in a mirror. If a barber, in order to trim the client’s hair, needs to look into the mirror to better see the hairs he is looking for, this is in order. If a person was sick and he wishes to reassure himself that he is on the way to recovery by consulting a mirror and confirming that he looks healthier, this too is in order. The last mentioned examples are not uses for the enhancement of one’s exterior, for “dolling oneself up.” Our sages in Shabbat 94 also stated that if one picks a single white hair out of the black hairs in one’s beard one is guilty of violating the basic prohibition not to wear women’s clothing. A further illustration of this subject is found in Yalkut Shimoni on Judges  item 56, that the reason Yael slew Siserah with a nail instead of with a knife was that she did not want to violate the commandment of using implements reserved for males.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, “you must be sure to send away the mother and take the young for yourself.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah’s directive here is designed to protect the species from extermination. Even though the Torah permitted slaughtering of living creatures for the enhancement of man’s lifestyle, the Torah did not mean to give a carte blanche for exterminating any species thereby. If one were to take both mother bird together with her young (and eat them) it would be symbolically similar to exterminating that particular species (Nachmanides). The Torah adds the words: “in order that that it will be good for you,” i.e. if you will display concern for the survival of the species of these birds, G’d in turn will display His pity for you and will increase your days on earth as compensation for not having wiped out that family (species) of birds (Ibn Ezra).   When the Torah chose the expression והאם רובצת על האפרוחים או על הביצים, “and the mother is roosting (reclining) on the chicks or the eggs,” (verse 6) the Torah revealed to us by that  that the “eggs” mentioned here are equivalent to the “young ones” mentioned in verse 7 seeing that eventually the young chicks will emerge from these eggs. This also teaches that the command to dispatch the mother bird is applicable only when the eggs have advanced to the stage where it is practically certain that healthy young chicks will emerge from them (Chulin 109). If the eggs are broken or otherwise show signs that they will not be hatched, there is no need to send away the mother bird in order to take the eggs. The reason the Torah mentions both the chicks and the eggs in the plural is because this is the normal scenario. Even if the mother bird is brooding over only a single egg or chick the same legislation applies (Chulin 109). 
      Maimonides, in his More Nevuchim 3,48, offers the following rationale for this commandment: The Torah does not want the mother bird to experience the anguish of watching to see herself being deprived of her chicks. The situation is analogous to the prohibition of not slaughtering the calf and its mother on the same day (Leviticus 22,25), so that the cow does not watch the death of its calf. The love of a mother animal for its young is not determined by intellectually rationalised feelings but by something more profound in the psyche of the animal. It reflects its power of imagination. If the Torah is so concerned with the feelings of birds and four-legged domesticated animals, how much more is it concerned with the feelings of human beings! The legislation therefore is designed to teach us not to practise cruelty even when such cruelty is only of an emotional nature.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Ki Teytze 2:  There is no commandment which is easier to fulfill than sending away the mother bird. Compare the reward offered by the Torah for a commandment which requires so little effort to fulfill: “in order that it will be good for you and will prolong your days.” We may appreciate this better by reference to a parable. A king employed a number of labourers to work in his field to plant there and he did not tell them exactly what their wages would be. In the evening, every labourer who had planted a tree was given one gold coin. When the labourers observed this (extraordinarily large payment) they were amazed and concluded that if planting a single tree, an undemanding task,  was worth a gold coin to the king, how much greater would be the payment for labourers who planted a number of trees per day. The commandment of שלוח הקן, the sending off of the mother bird, is similar. It does not require financial cost in order for us to fulfill it and yet the reward is great. We may extrapolate from that what kind of reward G’d will grant us for the fulfillment of commandments which require the spending of a lot of money, physical exertion, and possibly involve saving someone’s life. The reason that G’d spelled out the reward for only a few of the commandments is to encourage us to fulfill all of them. We may compare the commandments to trees producing fruit. Some tree may produce a fruit which is superior to the fruit of another tree. Similarly, there are commandments the reward for which is greater than the reward for fulfilling some other commandment.    We know, for instance that the reward for being hospitable and providing food and shelter for strangers is having children. We have proof of this from our matriarch Sarah (Genesis 18, 6-10) and we also know this from the woman in Shunam who was blessed with a child by a promise from the prophet Elisha whom she hosted on a regular basis (Kings II, 4-16). Other commandments such as honoring father and mother are rewarded by long life (Exodus 20,12), as is the commandment to send away the mother bird even though the principal meaning of  this long life is understood to refer to life in a world beyond this terrestrial life on earth,     [In the following list of verses from scripture the author illustrates allegorically the eventual fate of the Gentile nations as retribution for their not having observed this commandment in their relationship to the Jewish people. Ed.]. Isaiah 16,2 writes: “like fugitive birds, like nestlings driven away, Moav’s villagers linger by the fords of Arnon.” The prophet refers to Jeremiah 17,11: “like a partridge hatching what she did not lay, so is one who amasses wealth by unjust means, in the middle of his life it will leave him, and in the end he will be proved a fool.” Immediately after this Jeremiah continues: “O throne of Glory exalted from of old. Our sacred shrine! O Hope of Israel, O Lord!” How do these verses form a continuation from what the prophet wrote before? The partridge brings eggs belonging to other species of birds and broods on them until they hatch from their shells. When these chicks hatch, the chicks feed on the partridge plucking its feathers and making it defenseless until they eventually devour it. Who is the cause of the partridge’s misfortune? None other than the partridge itself. If it had not stolen other birds’ eggs this would never have happened to it. This is what is going to happen to the nations of the world who dared stretch out their talons against the throne of G’d, i.e. destroy our Temple. They destroyed and burned G’d’s Sanctuary, exiled the Jewish people and, as a result, in the words of Tzefaniah 2,9, “Assuredly, as I live, declares the Lord of Hosts, the G’d of Israel: ‘Moav shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah; clumps of weeds and patches of salt and desolation evermore. The remnants of My people shall plunder them, the remainder of My nation shall possess them.’” Thus far the Midrash.
      We find that Solomon drew a comparison between two commandments, treating them as one. This is what he meant when he said in Proverbs 30,17: “the eye that mocks a father and disdains homage due a mother, the ravens of the brook will gouge it out, young eagles will devour it.” Concerning the above verse the Jerusalem Talmud Peah, chapter 1 declares that the eye mocking the father is a reference to the commandment to honour father and mother. The words “and disdains the homage due a mother” are a reference to the commandment of dispatching the mother bird prior to taking her young. Whereas in the Torah we read about the reward for observing these commandments, Solomon informs us about the punishment in store for violating it. 
      An investigative/scientific approach: the reason behind the commandment to dispatch the mother bird is to teach us empathy and to encourage us to turn our backs on all forms of cruelty. The latter is a negative virtue. The commandment is parallel to that of not slaughtering the calf on the same day as its mother. It is in line with what we learned in the oral Torah that the reason ritual slaughter of animals has to be performed by cutting the animal’s throat is because this is the least painful method of killing the beast. Killing the animal by hitting it on the neck (such as the עגלה ערופה)  is much more painful. The foregoing is the opinion of Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim, and I have already mentioned part of it earlier.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words שלח תשלח את האם are a reference to the emanation בינה, the source from which the lower seven emanations derive their spiritual input in every seven year (שמטה) cycle to renew  the face of the earth. The earth is the קן העולם, the nest of the world. It is known as אם העולם, “mother of the nest (world),” like the “mother bird,” seeing it hatches all creatures.    You will find the following comment in the Sefer Habahir item 104:  Rabbi Rechumai said the reason that the Torah commands שלח תשלח את האם, “be sure to dispatch the mother,” whereas it does not say that one must dispatch the father bird, is to render recognition and give honor to the “mother” of the world seeing that the emanation בינה is perceived as the emanation everyone calls out for as we know from Proverbs 2,3 כי אם לבינה תקרא, “for you call out for insight.” [This may also be an allusion to Proverbs 1,8: ואל תטוש תורת אמך “do not abandon the teachings of your mother.” Ed.]    The emanation בינה as the emanation immediately “above” the lower seven emanations each of which symbolizes one of the seven days of creation, is perceived as the mother, i.e. the one giving birth to these other seven emanations.    Concerning the words ואת הבנים תקח לך the same Rabbi Rechumai writes that it refers to the בנים she has raised. This is a reference to the seven days of the week and the seven days of Sukkot. Thus far Sefer Habahir.   The dispatch of the mother bird legislated here applies only to pure birds, i.e. the ones permitted for consumption by Jews. This is a compliment and a form of religious service for these birds as they are considered above and beyond the domain of the seven days of creation, a domain which has not been completed (limited) by a number being given to it. [The reference appears to be to the emanation בינה, which is “higher” than the seven emanations below it. Ed.] A parallel to this is found in Psalms 147,8 ולתבונתו אין מספרת, “its insight has not been assigned a number such as have the days (which would limit it). Not only the emanation בינה but also the tenth emanation מלכות, (from כתר down) is known as אם as we know from the fifth commandment כבד את אביך ואת אמך, a commandment addressed to people in that sphere. [I assume that the word ואת in that commandment provides the linkage between בינה and מלכות. Ed.]    Our sages in Berachot 35 citing Proverbs 28,24 where Solomon lambasts those who rob father and mother, speak about man robbing G’d (in connection with enjoying food etc., without first reciting a benediction). The reason the simile is extended to both father and mother [who cannot both represent G’d. Ed.] is that “father” refers to Hashem, whereas “mother” refers to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the people of Israel.    The Torah promises long life as the reward for fulfilling both the commandment of honouring father and mother and the commandment of dispatching the mother bird. The only difference in the wording of the reward is that in connection with honouring father and mother the “long life” is promised על האדמה, an expression repeated in connection with having true weights (Deut. 25,15). In connection with our commandment the words על האדמה “on the earth” are missing, suggesting that the Torah speaks of extra terrestrial life in the hereafter, or as the sages put it “in a world which is all long life.”    The meaning of the words והארכת ימים is a reference to the תאריך אף מן הימים, “you will also enjoy other days,” i.e. after the world limited to ששת ימים, the six days of creation has come to an end.
      There is also a different approach concerning this commandment, i.e. that the reward promised extends to the entire world seeing that the very chasing away of the mother bird awakens feelings of concern, worry and pity in her seeing she suspects something will happen to her chicks. It is these feelings and the appeal to G’d which they engender that triggers G’d’s largesse for His creatures on earth. Seeing that the mother bird is trying to take her own life due to her anguish, the angel in charge of all the birds is aroused asking G’d’s mercy for her. At that point, Hashem, Who is known as רחמיו על כל מעשיו “extending His mercy to all His works,” (Psalms 145,9) is activated to extend this mercy in increasing amounts to all creatures experiencing anguish. Looked at from this vantage point, you may conclude that the effects of fulfilling this commandment are indeed very far ranging, so much so that it triggers mercy for all the inhabitants of this world. This is the extended meaning of the words למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים, i.e. the dispatch of the mother bird will be good for you in that it results in your life span being extended. An extension of one’s life span is always due to the attribute of Mercy having been invoked.
      I have found the following in Devarim Rabbah 6,3: “the reward for fulfilling the commandment of dispatching the mother bird are children (being granted them).” G’d formulated this reward as follows: ‘if you presently do not have children, I will grant you children.’ How is all this contained in the wording of the text? The Torah writes שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, “if you will surely dispatch the mother you will be able to acquire the children for yourself.” This Midrash alludes to the mystical aspect of this commandment I already discussed.    This also clarifies that the emanation (attribute) בינה is the one responsible for the granting or denying of children. This is the meaning of the peculiar expression ותתפלל על ה' reported in Samuel I 1,10 where Channah is described as praying for children. We would have expected the text to say ותתפלל חנה אל ה', that Channah prayed “to the Lord,” not על ה'. The expression על ה' suggests a domain above that of the seven lower emanations, a domain of a world which is totally good, totally enduring, everlasting. This is implied in the words והתענג על ה', (Psalms 37,4) where the psalmist says: “seek favour of the Lord and He will grant you the desires of your heart.” If one penetrates to that emanation, to that attribute of G’d, one will have one’s wish for children granted.    Seeing that this is so the legislation before us concludes with the words למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים, “so that it will be good for you and you will enjoy long life.” We have learned in Niddah 70 “what is a person to do in order to be endowed with wisdom?” Let him ask for mercy from the One Who owns wisdom, for it is written וה' יתן חכמה, “the Lord will grant wisdom” (Proverbs 2,6). The Talmud there continues: “what is someone to do who yearns to have children?” “Let him ask for mercy from the One to whom the children belong.” as we know from Psalms 127,3: “sons are the provisions of the Lord, the fruit of the womb, His reward.”    It is worthwhile to analyse in this saying how the sages arranged the requirements (objects of prayer) in the descending order of the emanations. [Wisdom is stored in the higher emanation חכמה, followed by the next lower emanation  בינה, which is the source of children. Ed].   This commandment belongs to the category we described earlier as מקובלות, [the author had divided the commandments into three groups, מושכלות, מקובלות,חוקים, compare beginning of commentary on Parshat Chukat Ed.] Normally, the sages instituted a benediction to be recited prior to the performance of any of the commandments which the  author described as מקובלות. We do not know of any such benediction before the performance of this commandment. Why is this so? The reason is that it is not one of the commandments man should strive to fulfill, seek out opportunities to observe. If the occasion arises, the commandment needs to be fulfilled. This is why the whole paragraph is introduced with the words כי יקרה, “if it so happens.” Even if the opportunity arises, this commandment applies only if the finder wants to take the eggs or chicks for himself.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ועשית מעקה לגגך, “you are to make a railing on the roof of your house.” According to the plain meaning of the text the commandment is an example of how one is to guard against dangers to life and limb posed by one’s property. It is similar to the general statement in Deut. 4,9: “only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your life.” Seeing that such considerations are  a major concern of the Torah, the Torah here legislates the affixing of a railing to the edge of one’s roof so that if someone falls off it the owner cannot be accused of negligence. The sages taught us as a corollary of this commandment that if someone  raises a dog trained to bite in his house, or he puts a shaky ladder inside his house (for climbing the upper floor)  he is liable for harm caused thereby (Ketuvot 41).
      A Midrashic approach based on Shabbat 32, the sequence of the words ועשית מעקה לגגך ....כי יפול הנופל ממו, “you shall erect a railing on your roof....so that if someone falls  from it.” These latter words mean that if someone falls from that roof this has already been foreseen since the days of creation, i.e. he would not fall unless that was his fate. However, you have to do your  duty so that you will not be perceived to be the cause of his fall. What this Midrash is trying to illustrate is that all creatures at the time of their creation which occurred in accordance with their will and their aspirations, were informed by G’d at that time of all that will befall them in the course of their lives. Similarly, He informs them of the number of years they are going to live and what the manner of their death is going to be. They are also informed if they will enjoy an easy livelihood, or if they will have to fight and suffer in order to eke out a living. G’d tells them if they will be dependent on handouts or will be able to make a living by their own skills and labours. This is also what the sages had in mind (Chulin 60) that all creatures were created with a complete itinerary for their lives mapped out. (my translation Ed.) The sages based this on Genesis 2,1 וכל צבאם “complete with all their hosts,” At that time those creatures were all satisfied with what fate was to have in store for them. This is the meaning of: “he had been programmed to fall from this roof ever since the six days of creation.” In spite of people having been programmed, it is a great sin if by failing to erect a railing someone fell to the ground from that roof and was killed. This is quite independent of that person having been meant to die in such a fashion on such a date. Seeing this is so the legislation makes sense, after all.
      A Kabbalistic approach: seeing that in connection with the commandment to dispatch the mother bird the Torah had alluded to the emanation בינה which presided over the other seven emanations as does a mother who has raised seven children, it had now become necessary to mention the emanation חכמה and יראה in connection with this commandment in order to complete the cycle of ten emanations. These latter two emanations are closely linked to the emanation of בינה. The railing on the roof is a symbol of something which embraces all the other things within it. It is a reference therefore to a very lofty source. The roof needs to be enclosed by something of a lofty nature so that all that is within it does not separate and disintegrate into separate parts. This is what is meant when David said (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', that the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord, i.e. the recognition of the highest emanation כתר the אין סוף which surrounds all. This is what is meant when the author of the Yetzirah (1,4) speaks of עשר ולא תשעה, ”Ten, and not Nine.” [I believe the author means that if one forgets for even one moment the existence and function of the tenth and highest emanation, the result will be heresy and the blood guilt resulting from that. Hence the need for the linkage between the emanation בינה which was central to the last-mentioned commandment, and the emanations חכמה  and בינה alluded to in this commandment. Ed.] The words כי יפול  תפול ממנו, are a warning of what would happen to the spiritual niveau of a Jew who fails to keep such considerations uppermost in his mind. It is an indirect reference to Elisha ben Avuyah who became a victim of this failure to heed David’s warning about the primacy of יראת ה'. [I have paraphrased the author in this paragraph. Ed.] (compare Chagigah 14). Even though Elisha ben Avuyah did not literally “fall off a roof,” seeing that he lost his faith in the nether regions, this is all the same thing and the “roof” is merely a convenient symbol for affixing a railing and “keeping it all together.” 
  
  Verse 9
  
   לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “Do not sow additional species of seed in the midst of your vineyard.” According to Kiddushin 39 culpability for violating this commandment does not start unless one has taken wheat and barley in one’s hand together with kernels of grapes and flung them into the ground. The wording of our verse may be interpreted as follows: the word כרמך refers to the kernels of the grapes; the word כלאים refers to the mixture of wheat and barley. The reason the sages read this into the text is that the Torah wrote לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, instead of writing כרמך לא תזרע כלאים. They took their cue from Leviticus 19,19 where the Torah wrote שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “your field you must not sow with a mixture of different species of seeds.” Had the Torah used a similar way of phrasing our verse, I would have understood that throwing grain seed into an existing vineyard or one which had already been sown with grape-seeds makes the party doing that culpable for violating this prohibition.    If someone sows the three kinds of seeds we mentioned simultaneously he will be receiving 39 lashes twice, once because he violated the prohibition in Leviticus 19,19, and once for ignoring the prohibition in our verse here. Sowing grain seeds of different kinds in the earth is culpable only if this is done in Eretz Yisrael, whereas the prohibition of mixing grape kernels with other seed is world-wide, at least as a rabbinic decree. This is based on the additional words in our verse פן תקדש, “lest it become forbidden, out of bounds” (like sacred things). Our sages in Kidushin 56 read the words פן תקדש as if the Torah had written פן תוקד אש, “lest it will have to be burned in fire” (seeing its use is totally forbidden). The reason behind the prohibition of mixing these species reflects that what we do on earth has its impact in the celestial regions and will result in changes in those regions also. I have elaborated on this in my commentary on Leviticus 19,19 את חקותי תשמורו.
  
  Verse 10
  
   לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור יחדו, “You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” The Torah merely uses the most likely example of pairing animals together which are mismatched, one being much weaker than the other. Any animals of two different species must not be used to jointly pull wagons, etc. (Sifri 231). 
  Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for this commandment is G’d’s concern and pity for His creatures, seeing that the physical strength of a donkey cannot be compared to that of an ox. According to his words our verse speaks only about donkeys and oxen not being paired together, not other animals. Ibn Ezra’s view does not coincide with that of our sages in Sifri. The principal reason of this commandment is that pairing different species in such a fashion leads to their mating (compare Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim 3,49), something that is an abomination in the eyes of G’d. It is customary for the farmer to bring his team of animals to a common stable which would facilitate mating and even giving birth to bastard animals (mutations) as a result of such mating. All such activities directly contradict G’d’s revealed plan for His universe when the Torah describes all the species as having been created למיניהם, למינהו, למינה, i.e. strictly in adherence to their genetic properties. Further evidence that this must be the reason which prompted the Torah in formulating this legislation is the fact that it is sandwiched between two commandments concerned with maintaining the purity of species, i.e. men and women remaining distinguishable by their clothing, and the subsequent prohibition of mixing wool and linen.     The prohibition dealing with not mixing different species extends to three spheres. 1) the soil, i.e. not  planting species together, or grafting species onto one another; 2) not to try and mate different species of animals together [even if the vast majority could not produce offspring from such mating due to genetic incompatibility. Ed.] 3) mixing flax and wool in clothing. In Leviticus chapter 19 all these three categories appear in a single verse (19) “You shall observe My statutes; you shall not mate your animal to another species; you shall not plant your field with mixed seed; a garment which is a mixture of combined fibers (of wool and linen) shall not come upon you.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  .לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו , “Do not wear a mixture, i.e. wool and linen together.” The Torah forbids this mixture only when woven together or sewn together. This is the meaning of יחדו. It is perfectly in order, however, to wear a linen shirt underneath a woolen jacket (Maimonides Hilchot Kilayim 10,11). It is also permitted to sew together the skins of animals producing wool with linen threads, seeing that this does not constitute a garment. We discussed the mystical aspects of this commandment in Leviticus 19,19.
  
  Verse 12
  
   גדלים תעשה לך , you shall make for yourselves twisted threads;” here the tzitzit are referred to as gedilim. Our sages in Yevamot 4 cite a tradition that the appearance of this commandment in a positive connotation immediately after the prohibition of mixing wool and linen is to teach us that for the purpose of tzitzit this prohibition has been waived. The Talmud concludes that the appearance of certain legislation immediately after another legislation has halachic implications and is a legitimate exegetical tool (דרשינן סמוכים). The reasoning goes as follows: “if the Torah had not wanted to permit a mixture of wool and linen threads as the integral parts of the tzitzit, why would the prohibition of kilayim have to be repeated here? We already discussed the mystical aspect of the commandment of making and wearing tzitzit in Numbers 15,38.    The expression גדלים chosen by the Torah here to describe these tassels, fringes, is an allusion to Psalms 104,1: ה' אלו-הי גדלת מאד הוד והדר לבשת, “O Lord, my G’d, You are very great; You are clothed in glory and majesty.” When someone wears tziztiyot, i.e. 32 twisted threads, this is an allusion to the 32 paths of wisdom (discussed in the latter part of Numbers 15,38)
     על ארבע כנפות כסותך “on the four corners of your garment.” Seeing that in Numbers 15,38 the Torah wrote vaguely that the tzitziyot should be על כנפי בגדיהם, “on the corners of their garments,” I would have thought that every garment is to have tzitziyot. This is why the Torah had to be more precise here and tell us that the legislation applies only to garments with four corners. Any garment having fewer than 4 corners is not subject to this legislation, whereas any garment having more than four corners requires to be equipped with tzitziyot in order that it may be worn (Maimonides Hilchot Tzitzit 3,3). Our sages in Menachot 46 derive this from the additional words אשר תכסה בה, “which you cover yourself with.” The reason these words are not used to include three-cornered garments which are large enough to cover you is that four is not part of  three, whereas four is part of five. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולקח אבי הנערה, “the father and the mother of the girl shall take.” if they are alive; if the girl is an orphan, an appointee of the court performs the services of father and mother (Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ופרשו השמלה, “and they will spread out the sheet.” According to Rashi the word “sheet” is to be understood allegorically; i.e. the parents bring proof of their daughter’s virginity by all the means at their disposal.
      Nachmanides understands the word שמלה, literally, arguing that if it were not so why would the mother come to court at all, it would be enough for the father to come to court to defend the honour of his daughter. True, the mother is not a litigant in the matter. However, precisely because the word “sheet” is to be understood literally, and women are more experienced in interpreting stains on sheets than are men, her explanations are relevant. We must understand the preceding verse (15) ”the father and mother of the girl take her and display evidence of the virginity of the girl in the presence of the elders of the city, to the gate (court).” At that point the Torah mentioned both the father’s and the mother’s presence at court, whereas in verse 16 only the father speaks to the elders of the city. Subsequent to this, in verse 17 both father and mother are involved i.e. ופרשו in displaying the sheet. The physical evidence is submitted after the father had presented his arguments in the absence of the mother. Thus far Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  וענשו אותו מאה כסף,  Concerning the penalty of 100 silver pieces levied against the husband who slandered the reputation of his bride, Maimonides writes in Moreh Nevuchim 3,49: “seeing that the standard dowry of a virgin is 50 silver pieces (verse 29) and this husband had tried to make her lose her כתובה, her marriage settlement and wanted to divorce her without paying her a penny, the Torah treats him like a thief who has to make restitution of twice the value of the object he has stolen” (Exodus 22,8). Even though, in this case, the husband did not get to carry out his intention, we have a precedent of other witnesses being punished in accordance with the damage they wanted to cause the intended victim in Deut. 19,19 where the Torah discusses עדים זוממים. The corporal  punishment administered to him reflects the fact that he tried to assassinate her character, to demean her; therefore her husband is being demeaned by having this corporal punishment inflicted upon him publicly. Seeing he wanted to betray her, divorce her without compensation, he is not allowed to divorce her ever, the opposite of his intent.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ומתו גם שניהם האיש השוכב עם אשה , “they shall both die, the man who sleeps with a woman.” if the woman was a married woman at the time. The word והאשה “and the woman,” which appears superfluous seeing the Torah wrote that “both are to die; is to tell us that the man is considered more guilty than the woman. If she had been considered equally guilty, the Torah should have added the word הנשכבת, “who had been slept with.” This is the opinion of Nachmanides.   Our sages in Kidushin 10 understand the words ומתו גם שניהם to mean that both man and woman are equally guilty, i.e. both are adults. If the woman was a minor, she is not to be executed. In Erchin 7 these words are interpreted as referring to any fetus inside the woman. If a woman is pregnant and her labour pains have commenced before she has been sentenced, the court waits until after she has given birth before carrying out the sentence. If she had not reached that stage in her pregnancy her status does not result in a delay of her execution. [The reason is that once the baby (fetus) showed signs of wanting to move out of its mother it is considered a separate body.]
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   על דבר אשר ענה, “on account of his having violated (raped) the wife of his fellow.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “on account of his having slept with his fellow’s wife.” If he had to use force to make her submit, she is a victim of violence and innocent. How then could the Torah punish her with death by stoning? The reason the Torah describes the man as having violated her, forced her, is that the Torah considers the male as if he had raped her, whereas she is considered as if she had been quite willing to engage in this encounter. Seeing the incident occurred in town where her cries for help would likely have resulted in her being rescued she is guilty of death for failing to cry out. The man, on the other hand, is treated as if he had violated her against her will instead of having merely seduced her first, and we apply the death penalty to him.    If the Torah mentions “city” and “field” as the locations where these illicit sexual unions take place, this is not to be understood literally, i.e. that only adultery by consent in the city makes the woman guilty of the death penalty, whereas she is free from guilt only if she had been raped in the field. The words “field” and “city” are illustrations of a likely scenario. If a woman was raped in the city she is most certainly not convicted, whereas if she chose to commit adultery in the field she is most certainly a candidate for the death penalty. In the final analysis both parties’ fate depends on the testimony of the witnesses.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
    כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו, “for like a man who rises up against his fellow,” in Sanhedrin 74 our sages explained to us why the Torah describes the situation of the נערה המאורסה, the betrothed girl who became the victim of a rapist in the field, in such a cumbersome fashion, using such a parable comparing the situation to murder. We would have assumed that all the Torah had to say is that she cried out to no avail  According to the Talmud, the Torah wanted to teach us that the two crimes, murder and rape, have features in common which enable us to apply the law applicable in one situation to the other situation in a reciprocal manner, i.e. the language of our sages: הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד. The law of the murderer contains elements which are applicable to the law pertaining to rape, whereas the law of rape contains elements which we can apply to the law about murder.   Just as one must prefer to suffer death rather than commit the sin of murder based on the dictum of Rava: ‘who said that your blood is redder than that of the person you are asked to kill in order to stay alive,” so if someone threatens you with death unless you rape a woman you must rather suffer death than commit that crime. This law applies even if the woman to be raped is not married.    Our sages in Sanhedrin 75 tell of an incident when some man  became love-sick over unrequited love. When his family turned to the doctors to ask how he could be cured, the doctor said that until he would have his craving indulged, i.e. sleep with the woman in question, he could not be cured. The Rabbis ruled it would be better that he die than that the woman submit to his sexual advances. In reply to the question whether at least he could have his libido assuaged by seeing the woman in question in the nude, the Rabbis were adamant, refusing that the woman in question expose herself to that man. In answer to the further question whether the woman could talk to that man from behind a fence, the rabbis did not even permit this either. (There is a dispute in the Talmud whether the lady in question was married or not.) Nonetheless, the reason given by the scholars who refused the girl in question to even speak to the infatuated man from behind a fence gave as their reason  that it is not permissible to expose the girl’s family to shame on account of someone who cannot control his libido. Even speaking to the individual from behind a fence is considered as equivalent to closeting herself with him.    Seeing that the Torah adds the comment that there was no one to act as the rapist’s victim’s savior, it appears that had there been such a person nearby he would have been obligated to save the girl from being raped even if the savior would have had to kill the rapist to be. The same holds true, of course, in the case of saving a potential murder victim from his assailant by killing him. When one observes a situation which will result in murder unless one stops the murderer by any means available one must use all such means including killing the potential murderer.
   This is also the reason why when a woman who is in labor and is likely to die unless the baby about to be born is killed, must be saved at the expense of the life of the infant about to be born. The general rule is that it is permissible or obligatory to kill a רודף, someone clearly intending to kill an innocent person. The latter rule obtains only until the baby’s head and the greater part of its body has left the mother’s womb. Once this has happened halachah treats both mother and baby as separate lives and it is forbidden to save one at the expense of the other. We have confirmation of these rulings in Oholot 6,6 where the Mishnah teaches that in order to save the life of a mother in distress due to difficulty in giving birth one may remove organs of the fetus piece by piece from the womb seeing her life takes precedence over that of an unborn child. However, if the greater part of the baby had already emerged, one may not decide which life to save and has to leave this to natural forces.
      The question is asked in the Talmud there: “why can we not save the life of the mother in the aforementioned situation seeing that we have a rule that if a minor is a potential murderer, in the act of perpetrating murder, that he may be stopped at the cost of his life? Why is this infant different from that situation? The answer given is that the infant in the process of being born is not viewed as someone bent on murder as it is his natural function to emerge from the womb for the sake of its own life. He is as if programmed by heaven to be in a life-threatening position vis-a-vis his mother.    The reason that the Torah in our verse describes the victim of the rape as צעקה, having cried out for help, (when in fact this is merely a presumption) is that she is viewed by the Torah as if she had cried out, i.e. the Torah gives her the benefit of the doubt (Ibn Ezra). Alternatively, the meaning of the words is ”if she had cried out there would have been no one to help her.” In other words, she is not charged as even if there is evidence that she had not called out this was due to the knowledge that it would have been useless.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  . לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, A man must not marry the wife of his father.” The reference is to a woman whom his father had once raped. This explains why this verse is appended to the subject of rape just discussed.
     ולא יגלה כנף אביו, ”and he shall not uncover the robe of his father.” The reference is to a woman who is slated to become his father’s wife as she was widowed from a brother of his father who had no children.
  
  Verse 2
  
   פצוע דכה, “someone whose testicles have been crushed;” even if only one of his testicles has been crushed. (Yevamot 75).    וכרות שפכה, “or whose male organ has been severed.” The reason the Torah employs the word שפכה, “poured out,” is that this organ serves to discharge either urine or semen.
     'בקהל ה', “into the congregation of Hashem.” This does not refer to his religion but to the fact that such a person must not consider himself entitled to marry a natural born Jewish woman (Ibn Ezra). The reason is that his physical condition prevents him from fulfilling the primary function of marriage, that of begetting children. In the words of Isaiah 45,18: “G’d did not create earth in order for it to remain void; rather He created it in order to be populated.”  Seeing the type of injuries mentioned here preclude the husband from fulfilling this commandment the marriage would be deemed futile from the start.
      Seeing that the Torah writes that such people must not come בקהל ה', “into the congregation of the Lord,” it would appear that they may marry a woman who does not fulfill that criterion, i.e. a convert or a freed slave (Yevamot 70). Had the Torah wanted to forbid marriage outright for these people whose virility is impaired it would have written: “he must not marry a woman.” Had the Torah used such terminology I would have concluded that any sexual intercourse which is not potentially capable of resulting in the woman becoming pregnant is forbidden. Now that the Torah prohibited only בקהל ה', it is clear that sexual intercourse is permitted even if its purpose is not to perpetuate the species.
  
  Verse 3
  
  'לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה', “A bastard must not enter the congregation of the Lord.” He is not allowed to marry a natural born Jewess but is permitted to marry a convert (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Biah 15,7), seeing the Torah only forbade entry into קהל ה',  and a congregation of converts is not considered קהל ה'.  A “bastard” is someone born of the type of illegal union which is punishable by the penalty of karet according to Torah law, or people who sired children after having been legally sentenced to death by a Jewish court (the exception is the child born from a union while the mother was menstruous). The term ממזר is a contraction of the words מום זר, “a blemish making him an outsider” (compare Jerusalem Talmud Kidushin 3,12).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים, “because of the fact that they did not meet you with bread and water.” It is elementary courtesy to welcome people who are journeying with offers of food and drink. It is irrelevant that the Israelites did not lack any of their basic needs while they were in the desert. After all, the manna descended for them daily, and Miriam’s well traveled with them wherever they moved.
      Nachmanides writes as follows: the Torah made sure that there is a clear separation between these two brothers (Ammon and Moav) on the one side and the Jewish people on the other, seeing these brothers who owed their very existence to the acts of charity and kindness performed for their father and mothers by Avraham, founder of the Jewish people who had battled the mightiest kings of his time merely to get Lot released from captivity (Genesis 19,29). How did they repay that favor? One of them hired the prophet Bileam to curse the Jewish nation and the other failed to offer the basic necessities of life to the people who were their cousins travelling through the desert. Of the two, Ammon had sinned more greatly against the Jewish people seeing that the Moabites as well as the Edomites (who knew that G’d had forbidden the Jewish people to harass them) offered food against payment (Deut 2,29). Ammon did not; this is the meaning of “for they did not meet you with bread and water.” The Torah therefore mentions Ammon first (although historically he was junior to Moav). The Torah also lists Ammon’s sin first and only afterwards reminds us that Moav had hired Bileam to curse us .   Our sages in Yevamot 76 conclude that this exclusion from becoming members of the Jewish people is applicable only to the males of that nation, i.e. מואבי ולא מואבית. The reason is that it is the custom for men to extend greetings with bread and water, whereas it is the custom of the women to be busy in their homes.    This accounts for the fact that Ruth, the Moabite, was allowed to convert. As a result, eventually, David was born.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   לא תתעב אדומי, “Do not abhor the Edomite.” The Torah implies that though we would have reason to abhor this people seeing that they assumed a threatening posture against us (Numbers 20,18) nonetheless we are not to hold this against subsequent generations of Edomites. seeing there is a blood bond between our two nations, both being descendants of our patriarch Yitzchak. Neither must we detest the Egyptians although they drowned our boy babies; the fact remains that at a crucial point in our history Egypt offered a home to our people at a time when Yaakov’s family was in reduced circumstances (compare Rashi). Seeing that each of these nations had been guilty of grievous sins against the Jewish people only the third generation (after the Exodus) of these people are potential candidates for conversion to Judaism. By that time they may have become more refined. We are to detest  Ammon and Moav, by contrast, seeing they seduced the Jewish people into sin, The Torah goes out of its way to prohibit us from seeking the welfare of these nations.   These verses gave rise to our sage in Sifri 252 to rule that seducing someone into sin is a more grievous sin that killing him seeing that the murderer robs the victim only of life on this terrestrial sphere whereas the seducer robs him of his eternity.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
    ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, ”you shall guard against anything evil.” This is a warning not to insult the sanctity of the Holy Ark, (which while in the Sanctuary was automatically protected against such improper behaviour by the walls of the Sanctuary). When in the camp of the soldiers during war it was not surrounded by walls shielding its sanctity (Numbers 31,6).
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the words מכל דבר רע mean: “against anything which the Torah has prohibited.” When the Canaanites went to war all their normal restraints against unbridled behaviour were suspended during the period of the war. They would behave in a totally irresponsible manner, The Jewish people have to be reminded that even in war, their camp is a holy camp as opposed to the Canaanites.   Our sages in Sifri 254 understand the words מכל דבר רע as directed at sexual licentiousness which is so often the mark of soldiers in war. Another meaning of דבר רע, is “using one’s tongue loosely, irresponsibly, לשון הרע, badmouthing others.” They derive the warning against sexual licentiousness from the words ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, the word דבר being an allusion to that verse 15. The connection with לשון הרע is based on the word רע in our verse. Instead of דבר רע, assume the spelling would have been dibbur ra, “wicked talk.” The reason this verse warns specifically against these two sins is that each one is an extremely serious sin and the Presence of G’d, the Shechinah is apt to withdraw from the camp on its account.   Our sages in Avodah Zarah 20 also comment that the wording of that line suggests that one should not have sinful (lewd) thoughts by day which would result in one’s having nocturnal emissions of semen during one’s sleep. This is why the next verse discusses such an occurrence and the need to purify oneself as a result.   Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair (the epitome of piety) derives from the sequence of our verses here that care not to violate a negative commandment will lead to a person becoming eager in striving to fulfill positive commandments. This is turn will lead to one becoming ritually pure of body. The next stage of one’s spiritual ascent will be פרישות, suppression of sinful thoughts. This in turn will lead to a state of purity of spirit followed by the attainment of a level of sanctity. Having attained that level one will graduate to יראת חטא, an abhorrence of sin, which in turn will lead to the virtue of humility. Once a person has acquired this virtue he will progress to the virtue of piety which in turn will enable him to acquire holy spirit. In the foregoing the venerable Rabbi listed ten virtues, five of which involving one’s body, the other five involving one’s spirit, one’s mind. All of them are leading up to the tenth attribute, i.e. holy spirit.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “you are to have a shovel in addition to your gear (weapons).” The letter א at the beginning of the word אזנך is an addition, not part of the root. The basic word is זין, weaponry. The shovel is supposed to be an integral part of your equipment in war, no less important than your weapons. This commandment reflects he spiritually high level of a Jewish camp. It reflects the awareness by the Jewish soldiers that the Shechinah is in their midst. At the same time, the need for the shovel indicates that the Torah speaks of a period when the people had already become guilty of sins seeing that during the years when they did not sin there was no need for a shovel as the manna was completely absorbed by their bodies so that there was no excrement which had to be covered up. Not only that, but it also absorbed the taste of other foods. After the Israelites had begun to sin, they did need shovels to clean up after themselves. I have already discussed this matter in Numbers 11,5.  Our sages in Yuma 75 explain that when the Israelites defecated they did not do so sideways or forwards but behind themselves so as not to expose their excrement to the clouds of glory which accompanied the Israelites on both their flanks and in front of them.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו, “Do not extradite a slave to his master.” The master the Torah speaks about here is a Gentile. The slave has fled from outside the boundaries of the land of Israel and sought refuge in the land of Israel. It is forbidden to hand over such a slave to anywhere outside of Eretz Yisrael out of love and fondness for the land of Israel. The court, or other authorities, force the owner to write a document releasing the slave in question and to free him to an Israelite. The former slave will sign a document in return obligating himself to compensate his former master accordingly (compare Gittin 45).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  . לא תהיה קדש, “there must not be a harlot amongst the daughters of Israel.” This is the prohibition for women not to be sleeping around, and the second half of the verse applies equally to men and is an instruction to the court not to allow men or women to offer their sexual services on the streets. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
    לא תשיך לאחיך, “Do not pay interest to your brother.” This is a warning (prohibition) for the borrower not to pay interest for a loan received from a Jew. The corresponding prohibition for the lender not to charge interest on loans to Jews is found In Leviticus 25,37: “do not give him your money against interest.” The reason that interest is called נשך by the Torah is the verse in Kohelet 10,11 אם ישוך הנחש, “if the snake bites;” that it is something which “bites” the borrower. It is as poisonous as a snake bite, i.e. נחש. Just as the poison of the snake enters the victim and afflicts his various organs so agent chosen as  punishment for this sin will attack the property of the lender as tit-for tat.   נשך כל דבר, “interest of any kind.” Even words could be understood as interest payments or charges. This is how the Talmud in Baba Metzia 75 describes it: “how do we know that if someone has extended a loan to his fellow, and the borrower had not been in the habit of greeting the lender when he saw him on the street, that it is forbidden for him to make a point of being the first one to extend a greeting to the lender? it says ‘interest of any kind.’” Even using words to ingratiate oneself with the lender is forbidden. It is an overriding rule concerning anything of direct or indirect benefit to the lender that it is forbidden for the borrower to do now that he is a debtor.
  
  Verse 21
  
   לנכרי תשיך, “to the Gentile you may (or must) charge interest.” The prohibition of charging a Jewish borrower interest is at the same time a positive commandment to charge a Gentile interest on loans extended to him. Maimonides, in Hilchot malveh veloveh 5,1 rules that our verse is definitely a positive commandment, not merely permission to accept interest from a Gentile borrower. Others, such as Ibn Ezra, interpret our verse as merely granting permission to charge interest to Gentile borrowers. This statement is supposed to be similar to that of ששת ימים תעבוד, “during six days you are to work” (Exodus 20,9) which is a permission. The Torah permitted loans to Gentiles, and it permitted charging interest on those loans.   When the Talmud in Makkot 24 states that the words בספו לא נתן לנשך, “he has never lent money at interest” (Psalms 15,5) includes that the person referred to has not charged interest to a Gentile, this is not to be understood as a prohibition but is a voluntary restriction imposed upon himself by the lender. A person practicing such virtues will attain the spiritual level described as desirable in that psalm.    A statement by our sages in Baba Metzia 71 that it is forbidden to lend to a Gentile against excessive interest except if the lender was a Torah scholar, has to be understood against the following background. [The whole passage is strange, compare Rashi and Tossaphot. It is assumed that the Gentile had called the Jew “wicked,” had insulted him. Ed.]. Ordinary Jews may not charge an amount of interest which would reduce the income (net) of such a Gentile by more than a third. The restriction is designed to ensure that Jewish lenders do not learn bad habits from the Gentiles. Torah scholars are not presumed to copy such bad habits. When the Sifri writes that the words לנכרי תשיך are a positive commandment, the meaning is not that the Torah imposes an obligation on an Israelite to grant loans to, and to charge interest to Gentiles, but it addresses itself (obliquely) to the Israelite charging interest on a loan to a fellow Jew as also being guilty of violating a positive commandment, (not merely a negative commandment). The verse contrasts conduct vis-a-vis a Gentile with that towards an Israelite. The words “to a Gentile you must charge interest,” are a restatement of the prohibition not to do so to a fellow Israelite. It is something called לאו הבא מכלל עשה, “a negative commandment implied in a positive commandment.”    In a similar fashion we find that Sifri Re'ay 103 understands the commandment  “these you may eat” dealing with permissible fish  (Deut. 14,9) as meaning that all the fish not enumerated in that verse as possessing certain identifying marks such as fins and scales are forbidden for Jews to eat. The line: “these you may eat,” certainly does not mean: “these you must eat.” The Torah simply says that if we eat fish which do not have fins and scales we have  violated a positive commandment called “these you may eat.” At the same time one has violated the negative commandment “these you must not eat,” which is appended to “all those which do not have, etc.” The same holds true for the commandment dealing with interest in our Parshah. Our sages interpret the words ולאחיך לו תשיך, “and to your brother you must not charge interest,“ as referring to people acting like your brother, i.e. including recent converts, people who have now become like your brother seeing they are bound by the same rules of conduct as your brothers. At the same time this phraseology excludes the descendants of Esau as, though they are biologically related, they do not adopt the rules of conduct of your brethren. Hence one may or must charge interest on loans made to Edomites. Although in Numbers 20,14 Moses had described the Jewish people as “your brothers,” when speaking to the Edomites, the legal status of these people changed after they demonstrated that they did not consider themselves as “brothers.” It became perfectly permissible to charge interest on loans to Edomites. There is a statement by the prophet Ovadiah 11 ”on that day when you stood aloof, when aliens carried off his goods, when foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were as one of them.” This underscores the point we just made.     The whole reason for the prohibition of charging interest is based on our obligation to keep fellow Jews alive, to relate to them with deeds of loving kindness seeing the Torah wrote וחי אחיך עמך, “ensure that your brother will be able to live alongside you” (Leviticus 25,36). No such directive exists concerning Gentiles. A Jew who has decided to practice idolatry is also not subject to the law not to charge interest on loans to him. Seeing that the Torah made it clear that such a person’s very body is unprotected by Biblical injunctions, his property is most certainly not protected by Torah law! We find confirmation of this in Avodah Zarah 26: “one may push drowning idolaters (Jews) down into the pit and one is not allowed to pull them up (in order to save their lives).” On the other hand, accepting loans from such people and paying interest on such loans is probably forbidden as opposed to natural born pagans. The reason is that the Jewish heretic was born with the obligation to conduct himself as Jew, whereas the same cannot be said of the natural born pagan. Our sages in Sifri Ha'azinu 308 interpret the word (Deut. 32,5) בניו מומם as meaning: “although they are blemished they are still His children;” in other words, loans accepted from such people are considered as loans extended by Jews. At the very least, if one accepts a loan from such a Jewish idolater one violates the negative commandment ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול, “do not place obstacles in the way of a blind person. “
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכי תחדל לנדור, “if you refrain from making vows, etc.” There was no need to tell us that if one does not make vows that one will not become guilty of violating same, i.e. sinning; the words לא יהיה בך חטא, “you will not be guilty of a sin,” refer to what was written in verse 22, i.e. “if you make a vow, etc.”  The Torah warns that the very fact that you do make vows is what may lead to your ultimately becoming guilty of the sin of not honoring your vow or being late in honoring it. Unfulfilled vows are apt to cause numerous sins, especially if the vow was not unreservedly for the sake of heaven. 
  Our sages at the beginning of the first chapter of Chulin (folio 2) interpret the verse in Kohelet 5,4 to mean that better than even keeping to the terms of the vow is not to make a vow in the first place. If one wants to bring an offering to G’d, one should do so at the time when one decides on it without first making a vow about it. (Nedarim 9). They also say in Nedarim 22 that even people who make vows and kept them on time are called “sinner.” They base themselves on this verse, i.e. that the only way to avoid being called “sinner” in relation to the subject of vows is by not making any vows.
  
  Verse 24
  
   מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית,  “you must fulfill what has crossed your lips and perform it.” According to the plain meaning of the text, these words refer once more to the vows discussed previously. Up until now the Torah had only forbidden being late in honoring one’s vows but had not said anything about the vow having to be carried out. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write something like: “when you make a vow, carry it out and do not be late in paying it.” The meaning of the words מוצא שפתיך, is the actual vow. The words תשמור ועשית, refer to carrying out all the conditions of the vow, i.e. כאשר נדרת לה' אלו-היך,  “as you vowed to the Lord your G’d in the free-willed gift of your heart.” The additional words אשר דברת בפיך “as you said with your mouth,” mean that you will not omit any detail of what you promised to do.     The Torah says all this to demonstrate how seriously it takes a vow. This is why the penalty for failing to keep such a commitment is so extreme, i.e. it is considered a sin against one’s soul. Compare Numbers 15,31 הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “that soul, his sin is upon him.” There are a few other instances where the Torah describes the ongoing sin in such terms such as when a poor person whom we have abused cries out to G’d in anguish about the treatment he has received from us when we held back his wages (Deut. 24,15). There are a few more such examples. The penalty may be that known as נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life,” an example of the punishment matching the crime. When the Torah describes a sin in terms of involving נפש, you have to be on guard. Whenever the Torah uses the term נפש in such situations it is a reference to the life of the body of the sinner. Delaying payment of a vow is considered as a trespass against the essence of G’d. [Compare what author wrote in connection with Numbers 30,3 near the end of the kabbalistic approach where the author explained why a vow is something more serious than forbidding oneself something on oath. Ed.] This is why the Torah writes the unusual “for the Lord your G’d will demand it of you.” This is the essence of the “King” Who supervises all the details of what goes on. He demands accounting for blood spilled  (Psalms 9,13) both in this world and in the world to come. This is why the words דרוש ידרשנו  ה' אלו-היך מעמך have been repeated. 
      A Midrashic approach: on the line מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית, the first two words refer to the positive commandment, whereas the word תשמור refers to the negative commandment not to violate the terms of the vow. The word ועשית is an admonition to the court to ensure that you keep your vows. If for instance, you vowed to offer certain sacrifices, the court may force you to honour your vow by beating you until you respond by saying that you are willing to keep your vow. This is based on Leviticus 1,3 יקריב אותו לרצונו, “he will offer it (willingly),” as interpreted by Rosh Hashanah 6. If the subject of the vow were charitable donations the donor is most certainly forced to fork over what he had promised even if the court has to put up some of his property for sale to satisfy his vow (Rosh Hashanah 6). The delay permitted then is even shorter as the poor people for whom the donations were intended cannot afford to wait. The Talmud in Baba Batra 8 says that such taking of pledges from the donor to make good on his vows may even be performed on the Sabbath eve. The words כאשר נדרת refer to regular vows, whereas the subsequent words לה' אלו-היך refer to sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings. The words ה' אלו-היך occur in connection with each one of those offerings. The word נדבה refers to a free-willed gift, as implied by the word. The words אשר דברת, refer to donations made to the Temple treasury, items not suitable for the altar. The word בפיך is a reference to charitable donations. The sages derive this meaning from Isaiah 45,23 יצא מפי צדקה דבר ולא ישוב, “from my mouth has issued forth righteousness, a word that shall not turn back.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: the words מוצא שפתיך correspond to פי ה'; just as man expects G’d to make good on what He promises, so G’d expects man to make good on his promises, even if these promises were not reinforced by an oath or something similar. The sages, in Shevuot 36 have said that when the word “no” appears twice this is equivalent to an oath. They illustrate this with Isaiah 54,9 אשר נשבעתי מעבור מי נח עוד על הארץ “as I swore that the waters of Noach nevermore would flood the earth, so I swear that I will not be angry, etc.” Also, when Noach had offered the sacrifice thanking G’d for his being saved from the deluge, the Torah speaks of G’d “smelling” the fragrance of the offering (Genesis 9,21) “I will not again curse the earth on account of man, and in the same verse, I will not again smite all living creatures as I have done.” This formulation is absolute and irrevocable. If the statement appears only once, though it is not an oath, it is nevertheless something that is binding on the person who has made it. This is why the sages in Baba Metzia 44 have stated that anyone who reneges on his promises invites the penalty of מי שפרע i.e. the same G’d who brought retribution on the generation of the deluge.    They also said that we are all children of the Lord and have been sanctified by an oral covenant directed at the mouth which is situated between our ten fingers, as well as the covenant of the Brit Milah which is situated between the ten toes. The mouth is the seventh orifice (from the head down) after the two eyes, the two ears and the two nostrils. We know that the number seven represents sanctity, both in terms of the Sabbath, the seventh heaven as ערבות, His abode, etc., etc. He has chosen the seventh day of the week as His holy day. He has chosen man’s mouth to be the instrument to sing the praises of His Holy Name. This is the reason for לא תחללו את שם קדשי, “do not desecrate My Holy Name,” (Leviticus 22,32). The mouth was given to us to pronounce the praises of the Lord, not to be used profanely. It is most inappropriate to abuse our lips to tell lies and thereby to deny one of the covenants G’d has made with us. The psalmist prides himself (Psalms 44,18) for not having been false to G’d’s covenant.
      When the Israelites transgressed commitments taken upon themselves with their mouths, Moses upbraided them by saying: “why are you violating the covenant you have made with the Lord?” (Numbers 14,41) For all these reasons Moses says in our Parashah: “be sure to observe and carry out what emerges from your lips.” There is no need for us to be told here that we have to keep the negative and positive commandments which were commanded to us by G’d. Self-imposed vows rate higher than the commandments which we are obliged to keep without having volunteered to do so. The vows are holier than the ordinary commandments, this is why the Torah has to warn especially against not honoring them. This is what is meant by the words כאשר נדרת לה' אלו-היך נדבה, the inspiration to make these voluntary vows originates in the highest celestial regions and is known as the סוף הבנין, “the ultimate stage of the structure,” or the level of the emanation תפארת, the highest associated with anything even remotely physical. This is what is described as תרומה in Exodus 35,5 of which the Torah writes כל נדיב לבו יביאה את תרומת ה', “everyone whose heart prompts him will bring the offering of Hashem.” This generosity is part of what the people who heard the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai were imbued with as a result of that experience. This is meant by אשר דברת בפיך, i.e. “which you uttered with your mouth.” This is a reference to the קול, רוח, ודבור perceived by the people at Mount Sinai. This is what prompted the sages to interpret the words אשר דברת as being a reference to קדשי בדק הבית, items donated for the use of the Temple treasury (compare Sifri).
  
  Verse 25
  
    כי תבא בכרם רעך, “when you enter the vineyard of your fellow,” The Torah speaks of a worker hired to help with the harvesting of the grapes (Baba Metzia 87). Our sages there continue to understand the word כי תבא עליו השמש  (24,15) which clearly speaks of a worker, as proof that here too (only) a worker is meant. Otherwise, everyone could help himself to the grapes in any vineyard any time. This is also the way Onkelos translates our verse, i.e. ארי תתגר, “when a trader,” i.e. someone who has legitimate business in that vineyard.
     ואל כליך  לא תתן, “but you must not put any of it into your vessel.” This would be considered robbery. The Torah made a concession only concerning the desire of a person to eat on the job when he is tempted greatly to immediately gratify his appetite. Had the Torah not given its blessing to the laborer to eat ad hoc, he would have done so as a thief, something far worse. This is why the Torah adds the significant restriction כנפשך שבעך, “until you have satisfied your immediate craving.” The expression שבעך is reminiscent of Proverbs 13,25: “the righteous eats to his heart’s content;” Solomon means that he does not eat as a glutton, only to still his hunger. The same considerations apply to the laborer working in a grain field as outlined in verse 26. He must use his hands and not a tool (sickle) in order to cut down grain for personal consumption.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה, When a man takes (marries) a woman and lives with her;”  The Torah speaks of two methods of acquiring the woman; 1) money or equivalent. 2) marital intercourse. Whenever the Torah speaks of כי יקח, the meaning is not that someone simply “takes,” but that he acquires something with money (or equivalent). Examples of the relationship between קיחה and money are already found when Avraham wanted to purchase the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23,13) נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have deposited the money for the field, take it from me.” There is yet a third way in which one can acquire a woman, i.e. by means of a document. The Torah alludes to this in the very next verse when a divorce is discussed. Just as a document is required to dissolve the husband-wife relationship, otherwise the woman cannot be remarried, so a marriage may be concluded by means of such a document. The words ויצאה והיתה, “she leaves and she remarries” next to one another are understood as comparing the process of leaving a marriage to that of entering a marriage (compare Kidushin 5). We therefore have three ways in which a woman can be acquired as pointed out at the beginning of Tractate Kidushin.    The exegetical tool known as גזרה שוה, “identical expressions comparing different subject matter” is so strong that it enables the sages to treat as a capital crime violation of a law derived at only by a comparison of such wording. If a girl who has not been betrothed engages in sexual relations she is not sentenced to death by the court. If she had been betrothed only by receiving the equivalent of some money, she is considered as legally married for the purpose of being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, even though she never lived with her betrothed. This shows that the גזרה שוה is an extremely powerful exegetical tool (compare Maimonides Hilchot Ishut 1,2 and the Talmud Kritut 5,1.) [In the Talmud there it is pointed out that although the subject of פגול, faulty intentions concerning the consumption of sacrifices, is a major part of the Torah, the penalty is arrived at only by means of a גזרה שוה. Ed.] All these ways of acquiring a woman have to be witnessed by two valid witnesses in order to be legal, although if the woman wants out of the marriage she may require a bill of divorce because her status had been in doubt  (Maimonides Hilchot Ishut 4,6). [Witnesses to consummation of a marriage mean witnesses who testify that both parties had secreted themselves long enough for such consummation to be capable of having taken place. Ed.]
     ספר כריתות, “a book of dissolution.” According to the plain meaning of the text this “book” separates, divides, between the two parties that they will not have anything more in common with each other for all future time. A  divorce cannot be limited to a certain time frame, must be absolute, not conditional. If the husband were to say to his wife: “this document of divorce is valid on condition that you will never drink any wine,” this is not a bill of divorce. Even if he said: “on condition that you will not drink wine for the rest of your life,“ this also is not a valid divorce. If her husband said that the bill of divorce would be valid if she would not drink wine during the remainder of his life, the divorce is valid, seeing it is entirely possible that he would die before her, so that the condition is capable of being fulfilled and she would then cease to be obligated by it (Maimonides Hilchot Gerushin 8,10). Similar rules apply to all the conditions attached to a bill of divorce as long as the condition is not part of the written bill of divorce but is oral or spelled out in a separate document (Hilchot Gerushin 8,3).
      A Midrashic approach based on Tosafot Gittin 2, (dibur hamatchil  “המביא”). The word ספר כריתות includes that there must be (at least) twelve lines; just as in the Torah scroll (known as the Book of the Torah) one needs to leave 4 lines empty at the end of the Book of Genesis before commencing to write the Book of Exodus, and the same at the end of the “book” of Exodus, and again at the end of the “book” of Leviticus,” (making a total of twelve lines), so the Get, i.e. bill of divorce, has to correspond in appearance to such a “book” of the Torah. [At the end of the Book of Numbers there are no mandatory empty four lines as this “book” is considered the last “book” of the Torah, Deuteronomy being known as Mishneh Torah, a review of the Torah].    Onkelos translates the words ספר כריתות as גט פטורין, “a document of release.”  Seeing that this document is called ספר by the Torah, it requires that it be written in a similar manner to the Torah. The word גט has a numerical value of 12, i.e. alludes to the requirement to have 12 lines.
    If you will analyse the divorce bill called ספר, you will understand the logic of why the dissolution of a marriage has to involve the writing of a “book.” When the Lord created His universe He employed 22 letters (the aleph bet), refining each letter both in the heavens and on earth, matching them to each other, weighing each, etc., etc. He  gave them the kind of shapes which contained elements of all that exists in the universe. It is impossible to weigh something except by “matching” it to something else, i.e. comparing it to something else. G’d did not only “weigh”, i.e. “match” the letters but each creature in order to determine who would be a suitable partner for whom. This is what the sages in Sotah 2 had in mind when they said that 40 days prior to the formation of the fetus as a viable embryo a heavenly voice announces who the suitable marriage partner will be for that creature to be. Even if the two human beings live across the ocean from each other G’d will arrange for them to meet and marry. Seeing that the letters of the aleph bet had been instrumental in making the match in the first place, letters of the aleph bet, i.e. a “book” has to be the instrument to dissolve that union  (compare Commentary of Raavad on Sefer Yetzirah 2,2). This is a reminder that pairing off potential marriage partners has its origin in prehistoric times, antedating the universe.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אחרי אשר הוטמאה, “after she has been defiled.” by her second husband. The Torah describes this woman as “defiled” to her former husband seeing she has in the meantime had carnal relations with her second husband. 
      According to the opinion of our sages in Yevamot 11 the meaning of the words "אחרי אשר הוטמאה" is "ולא אשר הוטמאה", “and [in addition] he cannot [remain married] with his wife who has become defiled;” — there are two separate halachot here. 1) A divorcee who has remarried cannot marry her former husband again even if she did nothing of an adulterous nature in the interval. 2) If a woman while married to her husband committed adultery, her husband cannot keep her as a wife even if he wants to, seeing she has been defiled while she was his wife. From the moment her husband suspects her to the point that he initiates the proceedings against her known as Sotah, he must not sleep with her anymore seeing he considers her as an adulteress. This is the meaning of: “her first husband who dismissed her cannot take her back in marriage.” As soon as the husband had reason to believe she had become defiled while married to him, that marriage is at an end. The fact that she secreted herself with another male after having been warned not to, makes such conduct a prima facie case of adultery, even if she did not drink the waters, etc. 
  
  Verse 5
  
   נקי יהיה לביתו, “he shall remain free for his home;” the final letters in the words נקי יהיה לביתו שנה, are an allusion to the Holy Name of the Lord, to the tetragrammaton. I already commented on this in Parshat Shoftim (20,9) concerning men who have either become betrothed, planted a vineyard, or built a house without consecrating it. We found that the relationship between G’d and the Jewish people after their “marriage” at Mount Sinai was also earmarked by a similar period of one year during which the Shechinah remained “at home” i.e. stationary at Mount Sinai seeing the people did not commence journeying until the 22nd of Iyar, i.e. of the second year. 
  
  Verse 6
  
   לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not take as a pledge an upper or lower millstone.” The reason is that these are the very tools with which the debtor earns his livelihood. The Torah mentions these two items merely as examples of other tools which the debtor cannot do without. The precise meaning of the word לא יחבול is that the lender must not bring these tools into his own house as collateral as he is not allowed to do this even with utensils which are not essential to the borrower. The Torah has written specifically in verse 10: “you must not enter his house to take a pledge;” even the messenger of the court must not enter the house of the borrower, but the borrower (debtor) has to bring the pledge outside. (verse 11) Seeing that this is so, why did the Torah have to write our verse at all? Answer: so that he who violates the directions of the Torah in this respect will be guilty of violating two commandments simultaneously(Baba Metzia 113).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   השמר בנגע הצרעת, “Beware of the affliction of tzoraat.” A person afflicted must be careful not to cut off the signs of his affliction from his skin. However, if the signs of the affliction were visible only on the foreskin, the area to be removed during circumcision, this is no reason to delay the circumcision and it may be removed as part of that procedure, as our Sages explain that the commandment of circumcision overrides the prohibition of removing tzoraat. (Shabbat 132).
  
  Verse 9
  
   זכור את אשר עשה ה' אלו-היך למרים, “keep remembering what the Lord your G’d did to Miriam.” This is a positive commandment related to the negative commandment not to speak evil about people (לשון הרע). We are not only to remember that Miriam badmouthed her brother Moses but the punishment that she endured on account of that. It is mentioned here as her punishment was to become afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat. Seeing that the previous verse had commenced with the word השמר, something which always introduces a negative command-ment, I might have thought that this too is a negative commandment. The Torah teaches that although this was a negative commandment which was a direct derivative of a positive commandment and is usually not viewed with the severity of an ordinary negative commandment, the reason that Miriam’s punishment is recalled here is to remind us how serious the sin of לשון הרע is considered in the eyes of the Torah.
      Consider that if righteous Miriam, the prophetess, who only spoke against her brother, who was older than he, and for whom she had put her life at risk and had said what she said without his ever hearing it was punished with the dread disease tzoraat, and all her accumulated merits did not protect her against this punishment, how much more reason do we normal mortals have to be circumspect and not become guilty of this sin. Consider further that Miriam had not really said something negative about Moses except that she had compared her and Aaron’s prophetic stature to that of her brother Moses.    In view of all these considerations it is easy to understand why the Torah looks askance at any assembly of fools, loiterers, people engaged in pointless and unproductive conversation. Solomon makes this plain in Kohelet 8,2 when he said that foolishness is the result of too much talk. Such talk will easily degenerate into sinful talk, character-assassination of one’s peers and the like. Once one has begun to speak disparagingly about one’s peers it is only a short step away from criticizing Torah scholars as we know from Psalms 31,19: “let lying lips be stilled that speak haughtily against the righteous with arrogance and contempt.” Once one is not afraid to speak about the righteous, one will start putting down G’d’s prophets, and in the end one will speak out against G’d Himself. We have examples of all this in Chronicles II 36,15: “but they mocked the messengers of G’d and disdained His words and taunted His prophets until the wrath of G’d against His people grew beyond remedy.” Compare also Psalms 73,9: “they set their mouths against heaven, and their tongues range over the earth.” Who was the cause that they set their mouths against heaven? Their tongues which had begun by speaking about earthly matters.
  
  Verse 10
  
    לא תבא אל ביתו לעבוט עבוטו, “do not enter his house to take his security for it.” It is forbidden to take the collateral (it must be offered). Neither the lender nor the court’s clerk is entitled to enter the debtor’s home for this purpose. This is an illustration of the Torah’s concern for the dignity of the borrower, and the efforts it makes not to embarrass him through allowing people to search his home for utensils to take as pledges. Another reason for this prohibition is to forestall heated arguments which might lead to murder. The lender is permitted, however, to enter the house of the guarantor of the loan, seeing he has nothing to be embarrassed about. Whereas the borrower is embarrassed about his poverty, the guarantor obviously has means, otherwise he would not have volunteered to guarantee the loan (Baba Metzia 115). This is what Solomon said in Proverbs 27,13: “seize his garment, (the guarantor’s) for he stood surety for another. Take it as a pledge for he stood surety for an unfamiliar woman” (Maimonides Hilchot Malveh veLoveh 3,7). The reason is simple. Although logic might have dictated that the pledge be taken from the borrower who otherwise may be tempted to live it up instead of trying to save and repay his loan seeing the lender will claim payment from the guarantor, the fact is that the guarantor has nothing to be embarrassed about whereas the borrower does. This is why the Torah does permit the lender to enter the house of the guarantor and take a pledge.
  
  Verse 11
  
   יוציא אליך את העבוט החוצה, “he shall bring the pledge to you outside.” Our sages in Gittin 3 say that the borrower is likely to volunteer only the least valuable of his possessions as a pledge. Seeing this is so, the sages basically ruled that when repayment of debts has to be made, the debtor may satisfy the claim of the lender with זיבורית, the relatively least valuable part of his soil. They amended this rule to insist that the debtor use at least his average quality soil for making repayment as otherwise sources of loans would dry up, the lenders not wanting to have to take inferior land in payment of their loans. If the borrower refuses to bring the pledge outside, the court can compel him to perform this positive commandment listed here just as the court has the right to compel people to perform other positive commandments. [I have not found this listed as a positive commandment in the accepted list of such commandments. Ed.]. The court may seize lands belonging to the borrower and put them up for sale to ensure the lender gets paid out of the proceeds.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   השב תשיב לו את העבוט , “be sure to return the pledge to him.” Even if the lender already kept the pledge in his possession for many years (seeing he had not been repaid) if and when the borrower does repay the loan he must return the pledge to him (and not deduct it from the repayment). The procedure of returning the pledge in the evening and exchanging it in the morning, etc., also does not have a time limit and may have to be repeated hundreds of times (compare Temurah 6). The pledges meant here are garments worn either by day or by night which the borrower cannot afford to be without at the respective time of day, and which therefore are constantly being exchanged. This is why the Talmud says in Baba Metzia 114 concerning our verse 12 that the lender must not keep the pledge overnight. The same applies to kitchen utensils which must be put at the borrower’s disposal at the time when he prepares his meals. Other, less essential utensils, do not have to be returned and exchanged on a daily basis.
      You must understand the mystical dimension of the words כבא השמש, “at sunset.” This is an implied warning that if you, the lender, fail to return the pledge by the time the sun sets, (simile for the attribute of Mercy) you will expose yourself to night (domain of the attribute of Justice) and will be struck by it.   ושכב בשלמתו וברכך, “he will sleep in his own garment and will bless you.” He will commend you to the attribute of Mercy. ולך תהיה צדקה, “and it will be accounted for you as an act of righteousness.” You will thereby add to your merits in the eyes of the Lord your G’d.
   ביומו תתן שכרו, “you are to pay him his wages on the day he performed the work.” In order that he can use the money forthwith. ולא תבא עליו השמש, “and the sun must not set on it;” i.e. for your benefit.     The words: “on its day you shall pay his wages,” are part and parcel of the line “so that he will not call out against you to the Lord.” The whole verse must be understood thus: “you must pay him his wages on the same day for he is a poor man, his life depends on his getting his wages immediately; do not allow the sun to set before you pay him so that he will not appeal against you to G’d. If that were to happen you will be at risk by nightfall as at that time the attribute of Justice commences its reign and it will be poised against you.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  . לא יומתו אבות על בנים, “fathers must not be executed on account of the children.” The Torah refers to testimony given by the children. The same applies to fathers testifying against their children (Sifri). The same is true of testimony of any blood relation being insufficient to base a death sentence on. It is a decree by the Torah that such testimony is inadmissible not only on behalf of relatives but also against them (Sanhedrin 27).
  
  Verse 17
  
  . ולא תחבול בגד אלמנה, “and you must not take the garment of a widow as a pledge.” The Torah had already warned the lender not to enter the house of a borrower in order to take a pledge; the same certainly applies if the borrower in question is a widow. The reason this is repeated is to tell us that if one does take such a pledge from a widow one has transgressed two negative commandments (Tossaphot Baba Metzia 115). A widow is more apt to break out in tears, and the Torah has legislated that she is to be treated with special sensitivity on numerous occasions. Our sages in the Sifri add that the reason this is repeated is to tell us that even the widow of a king (a wealthy widow) is included in this prohibition.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא תשוב לקחתו...למען יברכך ה' אלו-היך, “you must not turn back in order to take it;.....in order that the Lord your G’d will bless you.” G’d assigned a blessing for people who have the right thoughts. Sifri 283 adds that even if the handout, i.e. forgotten sheaf, became the property of the poor without deliberate intent by the farmer who had forgotten it, he will be blessed. How much more will he be blessed when he had arranged for the poor to become the recipient of this sheaf (or coin, etc.)?
  
  Verse 20
  
   לא תפאר אחריך, “do not go over them again;” according to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is: “do not search the branches.” The word occurs in this context in Ezekiel 17,6: “it produced branches.”
      A Midrashic approach: do not consider yourself a “beautiful” person because  you have given them or deliberately left for them olives under your olive trees. The moral lesson is that one must not publicise kind acts one performs. We have a more specific verse concerning this in Proverbs 20,6: רב אדם יקרא איש חסדו ואיש אמונים מי ימצא, “most people proclaim their good deeds; who can find a truly discreet person?” The reason that Solomon refers to the latter category of person as איש אמונים is Proverbs 11,13: ונאמן רוח מכסה דבר, “and the truly sincere spirit keeps a confidence.”    The sages also explained in Chulin 131 that the meaning of the words לא תפאר אחריך is: “do not take its beauty away from it.” Our sages derive from this verse that the regulation of leaving a “corner” of one’s field for the poor also applies to the orchards, i.e. the trees in it. The fruit is considered the beauty of the tree. The expression “beauty” has been applied only to the olive tree, just as the expression הוד, “splendor, majesty” is not applied to any other tree except the olive tree. Compare Hoseah 14,8: “its majesty was like that of the olive tree.” The reason for this is the light derived from the oil of the olive, an oil known as יצהר, a word related to אור, תפארת, הוד, all names used to describe light in the celestial regions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כדי רשעתו במספר, “according to his wickedness, by a count.” Seeing that the vowel under the letter ב in the word במספר is a semi-vowel sheva, it is clear that that word belongs to the word ארבעים in the verse which follows. In other words: “the number is close to 40, but not precisely 40.” This is where our sages got the number 39 for the number of strokes to be administered. The deeper significance of this number 39 is that a dead person needs to be resurrected; a person who committed a sin and transgressed against the laws of his master is guilty of death. His soul is subject to the karet penalty. The penalty of 39 lashes substitutes for the death penalty and is equivalent to the dew (טל=39) which G’d is reputed to employ to bring the dead back to life (compare Chagigah 12). The Talmud Megillah 7 states that people who qualified for the karet penalty but have endured the penalty of מלקות instead are thereby saved from having to endure the karet penalty after their death. In other words, this corporal punishment is a form of atonement for a greater penalty. It is as if the guilty party had already received the טל של תחייה, the life-restoring dew in advance.    There is another reason for this number. The culpability for sins through trial on earth commences with age 13. The number of strokes administered is 39, i.e. three times the number 13. This equals the numerical value of the word טל. Culpability by the heavenly tribunal only commences with age 20. Three times 20 is 60. This is what Baba Metzia 85 refers to when it describes that Elijah (the apparition of Elijah traversing the earth) was struck with 60 brands of fire for having divulged celestial secrets to mortal man.     If the sages are in the habit of always referring to 40 lashes instead of to 39 lashes, or “40 minus one lashes,“ such as when they describe the various kinds of forbidden categories of work on the Sabbath as “40 minus one” (Shabbat 73), the reason is that they wanted to model their speech as closely as possible on the language of the Torah itself, seeing the Torah wrote ארבעים יכנו,  “he shall strike him with 40 (lashes).” The reason the Torah adds the words כדי רשעתו, “in accordance with his wickedness,” is that the ferocity with which these lashes are administered depends on the severity of the sin for which it is administered (compare Ibn Ezra).
  
  Verse 3
  
   ארבעים יכנו ולא יוסיף, “he shall strike him forty and he shall not add.” This amount of lashes is a judgment by itself, a heavenly decree [not the result of an assessment by the judges of the severity of the sin. Ed.] The judge is bound to sentence the guilty party to this sentence only, and the convicted party must endure it. One must not increase the number of lashes so as not to humiliate the convicted party.    Our sages in Makkot 22 elaborate on the precise manner in which this beating is administered. The two hands of the victim are bound in two opposing directions to a kind of wooden board. The person administering the lashes takes hold of the guilty party’s clothing, exposing his chest. A stone is placed underneath him from behind. The person deputized to perform the beating (known as חזן הכנסת) stands over the prisoner with the belt made of calf-leather in his hand (and proceeds). This belt is folded over and folded over again so that it is actually four strips of belt. In addition there are belts of donkey hide interspersed to connect the other four strips with the ones made of calf-hide. The handle of the belt is one handbreadth wide and one handbreadth long. The beatings are administered one third to his chest and the other two thirds to his back. The reason the portion of not muzzling an ox while it is in the act of threshing is written immediately after this verse is to teach that the belt should be made of calf-hide.    The reason why the measurements of one handbreadth width and length respectively, and the total number of leather strips in that belt (whip) are important, is connected to the fact that a handbreadth is four fingers wide. When we fold this over we get eight finger widths and when we do this a third time we have 16 fingerbreadths. There is not a single commandment in the Torah the violation of which does not involve a minimum of violating 16 covenants. Hence the number 16 has a deep symbolic significance in the administering of the penalty for violating a negative commandment. (compare Sotah 37) The reason that two (kinds of) belts which interconnect upwards and downwards between the calf hide belts are used is to allude to the violation by the sinner of both his undertaking implied in the word נעשה and the word נשמע “we will do and we will hear (learn),” which was the formula by which the people of Israel had accepted the Torah. The reason both calf-hide and donkey-hide is used is to combine “ox and donkey.” This is an allusion to the lament of the prophet Isaiah that whereas both an ox and a donkey are smart enough to know and respect their owners, only the sinful Jewish people appear not to possess such minimal intelligence (Isaiah 1,3). Anyone who transgresses the commandments of His Maker deserves to be disciplined by lashes from a belt consisting of both calf-hide and donkey-hide.
      In the Jerusalem Talmud Makkot there is a comment that the fact that the belt was folded is derived from the words והפילו השופט, “the judge shall cast him down” (verse 2), suggesting that the word והפילו may be read instead as והכפילו, “he shall double him over.” As to the reason why one third of the lashes are administered to the chest and the remainder to the back, this  is based on the verse והכהו לפניו כדי רשעתו, which is understood in Makkot 23 as “corresponding to one wickedness in front and the other two thirds on his back.” The word יכנו, להכותו are understood as referring to two beatings. Had the Torah wanted all the strokes to be administered to one part of the body only it should merely have written the word והכהו לפניו, “he will beat him on his front (chest).” As it is, the word for striking is used three times instead of merely once, i.e. והכהו, יכנו, להכותו. This teaches that one third of the strokes are to be administered to the chest and the other two thirds to the back.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Bamidbar 23: ”why did the Torah pick the number 40 for the strokes to be administered? A human fetus is formed during a period of 40 days. The Torah also was only given to Israel after Moses had been taught it for 40 days. He who violates the Torah which took 40 days to reveal deserves 40 strokes for violating the Torah. You will find that when sin came into the world the punishment involving the universe comprised 40 elements, 10 endured by Adam, 10 by Chavah, 10 by the serpent and 10 by the earth. Therefore, when man violates a negative commandment his punishment comprises 40 elements (compare Tanchuma Bamidbar 23). [The Midrash does not elaborate. Ed.] The figure 40 again surfaces in connection with the punishment of the Jewish people for accepting the majority report of the spies. Israel was punished by having to remain in the desert for 40 years.
     פן יוסיף, “lest he  add (strokes).” Seeing the Torah repeats this expression for the second time, Rabbi Yonah the holy one, deduces that if one strikes a fellow or one’s wife one violates two negative commandments. (compare Shaarey Teshuvah by Rabbeinu Yonah section 3, item 77). The first negative command-ment is the one introduced here as לא יוסיף, whereas the second one is introduced by the words פן יוסיף. We know that this latter formula is a negative commandment as we have a rule that the word פן or השמר or אל always introduces a negative commandment (Makkot 13).
     מכה רבה, ”a great blow;” even adding one single stroke of the belt is called “a great blow.” There is an allusion in the word to the 365 negative commandments. In the event of violation there are many of  these commandments which do not carry the penalty of corporal punishment for a variety of reasons. The number of negative commandments the violation of which results in 39 lashes being administered is 207, corresponding to the numerical value of the word רבה. This is why the Torah here chose the expression מכה רבה.
      If you will analyse the mystical dimension of the subject you will discover another allusion in the expression מכה רבה. It is the allusion to the “great corporal punishment,” i.e. the fire in Gehinom, purgatory. This fire derives its power from the attribute of Justice in its most ferocious form. This attribute is known as כה, and this is why the plagues with which Pharaoh and the Egyptians were smitten were introduced with the word כה (Exodus 4,22; 7,17 et al.).   The milder form of retribution orchestrated by the court for violation of the aforementioned 207 negative commandments is a form of atonement, saving the sinner from becoming exposed to the ferocious element of the celestial attribute of Justice. It is one of the manifestations of G’d’s loving concern for us that He arranged for such a punishment to take the place of something far harsher. The reason that even a single extra stroke would be considered as מכה רבה, is that the number 40 atones for what would have become exposure to the fires of purgatory. If an additional blow [additional to 39. Ed.] is administered the victim already began to taste some of that מכה רבה unique to purgatory. The party administering same would be guilty in the extreme.
     ונקלה אחיך בעיניך, “and your brother would be degraded in your eyes.” Until the moment when he received the additional blow, the Torah referred to him simply as רשע, wicked, i.e. והרשיעו את הרשע, (verse 1), or והיה אם בן הכות הרשע  or כדי רשעתו (verse 2). As soon as the guilty party has submitted and received his punishment the Torah once more refers to him as אחיך, “your brother.” Our sages use this verse to prove that all the people whose transgression would have made them guilty of the karet penalty will be exonerated if instead they subjected themselves to the penalty of 39 lashes (Megillah 7, our author repeats this). They understand the words ונקלה אחיך in the sense of “after degrading oneself one is once more entitled to be regarded as ‘your brother.’”    This exoneration which the sages in Megillah speak of does not apply to the corporal punishment administered by the court nowadays, known as מכת מרדות, striking the rebellious for violating rabbinic commandments. Its purpose is only to shame the party into not violating the statutes of the rabbis which were introduced in their capacity as authorized agents of the Torah again. Ezekiel 16,63 makes it plain that feeling ashamed of one’s sins is a precondition of exoneration, i.e. “that you may remember and feel shame and have no more excuse because of your humiliation when I have forgiven you all that you have done.” What we described applies to the administering of the thirty nine lashes with the guilty person having his hands tied, etc., etc., as we described the procedure during the period of the Talmud. You will note that the numerical value of the letters in the word אחיך is 39, just as the numerical value of the letters in the word אלה, in verse 3 is 39 if you count the letters each as 1 plus their numerical values.
  
  Verse 4
  
   לא תחסם שור בדישו, “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” The prefix ב in the word בדישו is similar to the prefix ב in the word בבאכם אל אהל מועד in Leviticus 10,9 where it means “when.” Just as in that verse the Torah does not mean literally “when you enter,” but refers to the priest having drunk wine prior to his entering the Sanctuary (and thereby being intoxicated), so here too the word בדישו means: “in anticipation of its starting to thresh.” Even if the owner muzzled the ox before it entered the threshing ground he is guilty of violating this commandment (compare Baba Metzia 90).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת, “It shall be that the firstborn which she shall bear shall succeed to the name of his dead brother.” The plain meaning of this verse is the kabbalistic approach. The word שם in this verse does not literally mean “name,” i.e. that the child will bear the name of the deceased brother; rather the Torah speaks of the soul of the new infant which will replace that of the departed brother. This is the meaning of the words ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, “so that his name will not be blotted out from the Jewish people.” If the deceased would not have a replacement on earth his name would be blotted out from Israel. When the Talmud in Yevamot 24 understands the words והיה הבכור אשר תלד to mean that the reference is to the firstborn son of the mother of these brothers, this is not the plain meaning of the verse. The sages only use this sequence as implying that the oldest surviving brother is first in line to “marry” (levirate marriage) the widow of the deceased brother. This is the reason the word בכור appears in our verse.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו וירקה בפניו, “she will remove the shoe from his foot and spit out before him;” The Torah requires the sister-in-law (who has been rejected) to both remove the shoe of her brother-in-law and to spit on the ground in front of him (Yevamot 104). The Talmud adds that her spittle must be visible to the attending judges.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the reason underlying these whole procedures is the concern with the property of the deceased, preventing both it and his widow from passing to some other hands outside the family seeing the deceased left no heirs. This is why the Torah added: “so that she shall not become the wife of someone from the outside, a strange man.” (verse 5) The Torah presumes to know the mind of the deceased who would have wanted one of his brothers to take control of his estate and his widow rather than that they pass into the hands of strangers.    The reason for the procedure called חליצה, a device enabling the widow to remarry if none of her brothers-in-law is prepared to preserve the soul of their departed brother by marrying her, is that as long as one of the surviving brothers is willing to enter into the yibum relationship with her, the deceased brother is not truly considered as having died, seeing there is someone willing to perpetuate the seed of the deceased. The moment that there is no surviving brother willing to do this, the deceased is truly considered as dead and one has to mourn him. This is why the widow removes the shoe from her brother-in-law, a traditional sign of mourning.
      A Midrashic approach: the legislation of the levirate marriage is a part of the Torah known as חקים, i.e. defying our understanding by means of our intellect. Our sages stated specifically that the spittle required by the widow is one of the inscrutable laws of the Torah known as “statutes” (Tanchuma Mishpatim 7), seeing that the Torah wrote (Leviticus 19,19) “you shall observe My statutes.” Every one of these “statutes” is a law which serves Satan, i.e. the evil urge and the Gentile nations use it as an excuse to challenge our faith in G’d and our obedience to His commandments. The following is a list of such חקים which have defied our efforts to find a rationale. שעטנז, בשר חזיר, רוק היבמה, הרבעת כלאים, שור הנסקל, עגלה ערופה, צפרי מצורע,  פטר חמור, בשר וחלב, שעיר המשתלח, פרה אדומה. (the prohibition to weave wool and linen and wear the result; eating pig’s meat; the spitting out by the widow of a childless brother if rejected as partner in a levirate marriage; mixing different species of plant seeds or mating different species of animals together; the redemption of a firstborn male donkey; the ox which has gored and has to be stoned to death. The calf killed in expiation of murder committed by persons unknown. The birds offered (one) as a sacrifice and one allowed to escape after the termination of the affliction called tzoraat; mixing milk and meat in any form; the scape-goat legislation of the day of Atonement, the red heifer as an instrument of purification but defiling its handlers. All of these examples are enumerated by Tanchuma in Mishpatim. 
      A Kabbalistic approach: the institution of the levirate marriage  is of great value to the soul of the departed. It is a known fact that a soul derives added enjoyment when it is allowed to resurface (be re-incarnated) as a member of the family it had once belonged to seeing it already feels that it belongs. This is why the Torah writes in its introduction of this subject: “when brothers dwell together” (verse 4). Our sages (Yevamot 17) interpret these words as meaning that the rule of the levirate marriage applies only if both brothers lived on earth at one and the same time, however, briefly. If the youngest brother had been born after the oldest had died (or any other brother had died) then this mystical link does not exist between these brothers and the legislation does not apply to them.    The underlying reason for חליצה, i.e. the removal of the shoe of the surviving brother who refuses to perform the levirate marriage with his sister-in-law, the widow of his brother, is that his refusal is considered an act of cruelty towards the soul of his deceased brother. The removal of his shoe is a symbolic act signifying severance of reciprocal feelings of brotherliness. The very expression וחלצה, is similar to Hoseah 5,6: “the Lord withdrew from them,” (the Israelites who vainly tried to mollify Him with their sacrifices) seeing they had betrayed the Lord. Also the expression נעלו normally translated as “his shoe,” has a dual meaning, is the same as the word נעל, “locked out,” as in “locked the door.” The surviving brother had “locked out” the soul of his deceased brother.    The reason the Torah writes (the apparently superfluous words) מעל רגלו “from his foot,” is an allusion to the fact that the foot, leg, is the reason for someone moving somewhere, going away. In this instance, that foot had become the cause for the soul of the deceased brother having to move to another family in preparation of his soul’s transmigration.    The subject of the רקיקה “spitting out,” is a symbol for something despicable similar to spitting out. It is something revolting for the despicable spittle to have to travel the length of the spine, the symbol of the body which serves as the clothing of the soul. This is why our sages decreed that the spittle of the widow referred to has to be what is known as רוק תפל, “tasteless spittle,” i.e. totally colorless liquid. In order that this be the case, the widow in question was prevented from eating for a period of time before she performed the act of חליצה and spitting out before her brother-in-law. It was important that no one think that she spat out because she had eaten something that had disagreed with her. By spitting out רוק תפל, this colorless tasteless spittle, she symbolized that the moisture of the body [which alone makes the body viable, alive, Ed.] had departed from the deceased due to the cruel conduct of his brother. The people of the town would henceforth perceive this “brother” as a cruel individual and the name בית חלוץ הנעל, “the house of the one whose shoe was removed,”  which the Torah applies to that person remained as an ongoing indictment of his behavior. 
      You should know that the whole subject of the levirate marriage is a manifestation of G’d’s loving kindness towards His people. It is designed to ensure that as many of them as possible will enjoy the hereafter and the supernatural light available in those regions. Our sages in Sanhedrin 90 have already stated that “all Jews have a share in the world to come.” [This means that all Jews have been born with that potential; it may be forfeited due to their conduct on earth.] The subject is discussed in greater detail by Elihu in Job 33, 29-30: “truly G’d does all these things to a man two or three times; to bring him back from the Pit, that he may bask in the light of life.” In other words, a soul may experience seeing the light of the (terrestrial) world two or three times in order to save him from ultimate and absolute darkness. (oblivion) In fact, even G’d Himself is on record as responding to Job telling him to heed the word of Elihu. Compare Job 38, 13-14: “so that it seizes the corners of the earth and shakes the wicked  out of it? It changes like clay under the seal till its hues are fixed like those of a garment.” In verse 12 of that same chapter G’d had challenged Job: “did you ever command day to break, assigned dawn to its place?” G’d meant if Job had ever been able like He was able to shake out the wicked from the earth and to replace them with other human beings in their place. These similes are all a reference to the re-appearance of souls which had not merited life in the hereafter after their first round on earth, by enabling them to improve their ways when given new “garments” i.e. new bodies on a second trip on earth.    Having understood all this it is not difficult to comprehend the institution of yibum as an opportunity for the soul of the departed to be given another lease on life on terrestrial earth to make up for the errors that soul had committed while clothed in a different body in a previous incarnation. It is hardly possible for anyone to quarrel on the basis of logic with understanding the concept of yibum in this fashion.   The concept of transmigration of souls is an ancient tradition having its root already at the time of Moses.
   In the Sefer Habahir item 195 you find this spelled out when the author writes: “why do we encounter the apparent paradox of the righteous experiencing a life of difficulties whereas the wicked appear to enjoy a life of ease? The reason is that the person whom we respect as a righteous individual was a wicked individual in his youth, and is only now being punished for this.”    This raises the question of whether we punish a person for what he did in a period of his life when he was still immature. Did not Rabbi Simon say that the heavenly tribunal does not punish anyone under the age of 20? To this Rabbi (Nechuniah?) replied that he had not meant immaturity in his present life on earth, but sins committed when the soul of this individual now leading a blameless life had been in another body on a previous occasion. Upon hearing this his colleagues wanted to know: ”how long will you speak in riddles?” He replied: imagine for yourselves a person who had planted a vineyard in his backyard hoping that it would produce only grapes. When he found out that some of the vines produced some evil smelling berries instead of the hoped for grapes, what did he do? he carefully cleaned out the offending vines and planted the vines a second time. When he found that he had not been radical enough in his treatment of the vines, he proceeded to repeat the procedure a third time. When he failed again he did not give up but continued to treat every infected vine. When the students asked the Rabbi how many times G’d would repeat this procedure, he told them that G’d would repeat His attempts even 1000 times if necessary. He based himself on Psalms 105, 8: דבר צוה לאלף דור, “G’d commanded a matter even if would take 1000 generations” (to be carried out). This is the true meaning of the statement by our sages that G’d did not give the Torah until after 974 generations (Chagigah 13) i.e. that during each of those generations [of former worlds which G’d destroyed after they did not live up to His expectations Ed.] G’d planted the “vineyard” but it did not take.
     אשר לא יבנה, “who refuses to rebuild, etc.” This verse proves that the procedure of the levirate marriage is an act of kindness by the Lord towards the deceased. We know that the universe is built on the premise of loving kindness, i.e. Psalms 89,3: עולם חסד יבנה. This is why the procedure of yibum is described here in terms of יבנה, “building.” Kohelet 8,10 also refers to this phenomenon when he writes: “and when I saw the wicked buried and newly come, etc.” Solomon referred to the transmigration of the souls of those whose bodies had already been buried. The word בכן in the verse from Kohelet we just quoted has the same numerical value (64) as the word חסד,  lending further support to our interpretation of what Solomon referred to in that verse. [The letter ו at the beginning is only a preposition. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  . והחזיקה במבושיו, “and she takes hold of his private parts;” a reference to parts of the male reproductive organ, the testicles, something causing the owner embarrassment on occasion. Onkelos translates the expression as בבית בהתתה, “the housing of his shame,” similar to Genesis 49,8 where Yaakov commends Yehudah for not being ashamed to admit he had been wrong. The Torah punishes the woman in question by writing: “you shall cut off her (offending) hand.” Clearly, the text is not to be understood literally, but it means that financial compensation be paid to the victim for the embarrassment he sustained. In all matters like this the Torah never decrees that the offending party be deprived of limbs or organs but that the value of the offending organ (or the organ lost by the injured party) be paid as compensation (Sifri 293). We have other similar examples of such legislation such as “an eye for an eye,” “a tooth for a tooth,” etc., where the sages always understood the wording to refer to compensation in financial terms (Baba Kama 83). The woman in question is certainly not guilty of having her hand cut off (even symbolically), seeing that what she did was only in order to save her husband. Nonetheless, the Torah does impose a financial penalty for her indiscreet behaviour.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   גדולה וקטנה, “a large one and a small one.” The large stone (weight) is not to be used to deceive by it being used when you take merchandise, and the smaller stone when you give back merchandise. According to Sifri 162 you may read the words together with the beginning of the next verse, i.e. “if you use different weights on different occasions hoping to thereby enrich yourself at the expense of your customer you will wind up having nothing, “i.e. (לא יהיה לך כלום) (compare Rashi).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אבן שלמה וצדק יהיה לך, “a perfect and honest weight you shall have.” If you make sure to have honest weights, and your business will be based on fairness you will have alot, i.e. יהיה לך [as opposed to the previous לא יהיה לך, Ed.].
  
  Verse 16
  
   כל עושה אלה, “are all who do this.” This refers to what the Torah described earlier, i.e. uneven weights and measures, etc. כל עושה עול, “anyone doing something corrupt.” This refers to other ways of cheating.
  
  Verse 17
  
  . זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, “Remember (constantly) what Amalek has done to you.” The reason the paragraph dealing with Amalek was written at this point is to teach that if your business practices are corrupt you will have reason to worry about provocation by enemies. Our sages base this on the sequence of Proverbs 11,1: “dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,” followed in verse 2 of the same chapter by: “evil is followed by disgrace in its wake.” It seems to me that this is also the reason why  the phrase: “for it is an abomination to the Lord,” did not follow the words: “you shall not have in your house different measures,” but was only written later. Had the Torah written these words immediately, the paragraph would have concluded with the promise of long life (verse 15). The Torah preferred to conclude this paragraph with the words: “anyone acting in a corrupt fashion,” so that the reminder of the attack by Amalek could follow it immediately. This would serve as a reminder that when we are attacked by enemies the chances are that we have ourselves to blame for not living up to the ethical standards of the Torah. It also teaches that Amalek did something evil to us, seeing the Jewish people had done nothing to provoke such an attack. Amalek traveled a long way from its home in order to attack the Jewish people and it did not respect the covenant with G’d. The expression אשר קרך is related to the word מקרה, “something unrelated to known causes (coincidence).” The Midrashic interpretation derives the word from קר, cold; the meaning is that Amalek chilled the hot dish in the pot, i.e. the whole world was under the impression of the invincibility of G’d and His people, an impression which Amalek sought to undermine, to prove as wrong.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויזנב בך, “he attacked those at your tail end.” It is as if it had cut off your tail. The ones described as “your tail” are the weaker members of the people who trailed the main body (Ibn Ezra). It is a well known tactic of armies who are not strong enough to engage the main body of their opponents in battle, to whittle away at the ones at the tail end of the column, the weak ones, the tired ones. This is the plain meaning of these words.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Ki Teytze 9 is that the words ויזנב בך represent an attack on the זנב, i.e. he cut off the foreskins of these people and threw them heavenwards saying: “take what you have chosen.” The Amalekites did this to the individuals who, because of individual sins committed, had been excluded from the protective cover of the ענני הכבוד, the clouds of glory enveloping the main body of the Jewish people. Another Midrash in Tanchuma Ki Teytze 5 describes the meaning of the words: “remember what Amalek did to you” in the following terms: There are (here) two mentions of the word זכר “remember” in connection with Amalek. You are to remember what Amalek did to you, and to blot out the memory of Amalek. You are also to remember My promise to blot out Amalek (Exodus 17,14). The word: “the memory of you,” is comparable to the memory of ash זִכְרֹנֵיכֶם מִשְׁלֵי אֵפֶר לְגַבֵּי חֹמֶר גַּבֵּיכֶם, [i.e. it is completely forgotten, if used in the negative sense; if you try and emulate Avraham this “memory” will be accounted something positive, meritorious for you. Ed.] G’d said to Israel: ”be very careful with the two commandments involving ‘remembrance’ which I wrote here.” The one remembrance is written here and the other in Exodus 17,14 where G’d Himself promises to blot out the memory of Amalek. If you do what I tell you to do here you will be true descendants of ‎Avraham your forefather who described himself as dust and ashes in Genesis 18,27. If not, prepare yourselves to be like the people of total insignificance described in the verse in Job and you will be enslaved as labourers in Egypt] burdened with חומר ולבנים, “clay and bricks.” In Psalms 129,3  the slavery in Egypt is also paraphrased as על גבי חרשו חורשים, “ploughmen ploughed across my back.” [The word גבי as well as the word חומר provides the link to the verse in Job 13,12 quoted. Ed. I find the message of the Midrash confusing as it appears to warn of matters which are already past history. The people addressed here are after the redemption from Egyptian bondage, Ed.]   The Midrash goes on  in several paragraphs to describe that what happened to Amalek and especially to Agog their king as retribution for when Amalek had attacked the Jewish people in the desert. [The reader is referred to Tanchuma Ki Teytze sections 7-9. Ed.].
     ולא ירא אלו-הים, “and he had no respect for G’d.” These words refer to Amalek again. During the time that the Israelites were at Refidim, tired and thirsting for water, Amalek came to attack them.
      According to Midrash Tanchuma Ki Teytze 10 the words: “and he did not fear G’d,” mean that the people of Amalek (descendants of Esau) had a tradition that they could be defeated only by descendants of Rachel seeing that we have a verse in Jeremiah 49,20 אם לא יסחבום צעירי הצאן, “(hear then the plan G’d has devised against Edom) surely the shepherd boys shall drag them away.” These latter words are understood to refer to the youngest of the tribes of Israel, the ones which have been described as נער, (compare Genesis 37,2 where Joseph is described in these terms). We find that also Edom is described as junior in  Ovadiah 2, קטן, “junior,” and it is appropriate that a junior such as Edom be defeated by another junior. The reason is that Joseph who attained prominence and remained loyal to G’d although in the environment of two sinners (Pharaoh and Potiphar) without learning from their deeds, is so superior to Esau who grew up between two righteous people (Yitzchak and Avraham) and still did not learn from the good deeds of those righteous people. The Torah testifies that Joseph said: “I fear the Lord,” (Genesis 44,18) as opposed to Amalek. No wonder that the one was doomed to fall by the hand of the other. [If Moses chose the נער Joshua to battle Amalek this was because he was a descendant of Ephrayim, a son of Joseph. Ed.]
  
  Verse 19
  
   והיה בהניח ה' אלו-היך לך, “it will be when the Lord your G’d grants you rest, etc.” The Torah speaks about a period after the land of Canaan has been conquered, תמחה את זכר עמלק, “you are to blot out the memory of Amalek.” We have to understand this in the terms in which the prophet Samuel issued the directive to King Shaul to make war against Amalek in Samuel I 15,3. We read there: “kill all that belongs to him; spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infant and suckling, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” The reason the prophet specified all this was so that no one would ever be able to point to an animal and say: “this is one of the surviving animals of Amalek.” [If he were to utter  the name of Amalek as something still extant this would mean  that the commandment to blot out his memory would not have been fulfilled. compare Mechilta end of Beshalach. Ed.] The Midrash also claims that the Amalekites made for themselves animals by means of sorcery, changing their genes to different species. This is why Samuel did not content himself with a general description fitting all animals. He used divinely inspired wisdom in order to outsmart them.
     מתחת השמים, “from beneath the heaven.” Moses meant that G’d will blot out their power from beneath the heaven. This is also in consonance with the prophecy of Bileam (Numbers 24,20) “its  end will be utter destruction.” The word אובד in that verse is a noun, i.e. someone who is capable of destroying, “the Lord.” The Torah had already stated in Exodus 17,14 that G’d said that He personally would blot out the memory of Amalek from beneath the heaven. The reason why the Torah uses two words there, i.e. מחה אמחה, is that first G’d will blot out Amalek under the heaven, i.e. אמחה, whereas afterwards it is the turn of the Jewish people to blot out Amalek’s memory on earth, i.e. תמחה, “you will blot out.”   The words לא תשכח, “do not forget,” mean: “do not forget to blot out his memory.” 
  This paragraph commenced with the commandment to remember something and concludes with the commandment not to forget something. It is a promise that a time will come when the existence of Amalek will be totally forgotten, i.e. during the messianic era.   Even though the plain meaning of the text appears to suggest that we should not forget Amalek, i.e. what this people did to us, the mystical dimension, the רמז, corresponds more to the cantillation our sages provided for the words. This is why you find the tone sign tipcha under the word לא where you would have expected the tone sign mercha if the Torah had intended the two words לא תשכח to be read together. In other words, the word תשכח stands all by itself and is not connected to what came before. The fact that the letter ת in that word has a dagesh indicates that a time will come when the memory of Amalek will disappear from our minds. This is also what David had in mind when he wrote (Psalms 9,7) “the enemy is no more; ruins everlasting; You have torn down their cities, their very names are lost.” This is the time when G’d’s Holy Name and His throne will be  complete, i.e. the following verse: “וה' לעולם ישב כונן למשפט כסאו, “But the Lord abides forever, He has set up His throne for judgment.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     כבד את ה' מהונך ומראשית כל תבואתך, וימלאו אסמיך שבע ותירוש יקביך יפרוצו, “Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the first fruits of all your harvests; so that your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine.” (Proverbs 3, 9-10).
      With these words Solomon warned us to display faith in the Lord and in His ability and willingness to provide our needs for us. The practical way of demonstrating this faith is the setting aside of a portion of our harvests for the Lord or those whom he has appointed to be the recipient of these “gifts.” One should not begrudge the money or food given to the poor and destitute seeing in them something that impoverishes the giver. On the contrary, one should view such gifts as insuring that one will continue to be the beneficiary of G’d’s bounty. Solomon spells this out even more clearly in Proverbs 28,27 where we read: ”He who gives to the poor will not be in need.” We must truly believe that G’d will add to our resources as a result of our demonstrating this faith by sharing what we have with others. This is the meaning of Proverbs 11,24: יש מפזר ונוסף עוד, “one man gives generously (appears to waste) and winds up with more.” Solomon also said (Proverbs 10,2) ”the treasures of wickedness are useless; whereas charity saves from death.” The author of Proverbs means that the excess accumulated by means of robbery and extortion will prove ineffectual, whereas the very giving up of part of one’s fortune to assist the poor and needy is what will prove effective in determining the individual’s fate, so much so that it may save the donor from what otherwise would have been certain death.  Our sages in Ketuvot 66 phrase it thus: מלח ממון חסר, “if someone wants to treat money as if it were salt, i.e. enduring forever, he will find that it decreases.” Others quote the proverb as ממון מלח חסד, “if someone wants his money to endure as does salt, he should use it to perform acts of loving kindness(with it).” Seeing that this is so it behooves a person to spend his money (part of it) on the performance of commandments which involve expense, especially the commandment to give charity. He who gives to the poor in fact gives to the Almighty. [I suppose the meaning is that thereby G’d will not have to trouble Himself to sustain that poor person. Ed]. Similarly, he who donates money for sacred purposes such as the Temple, etc., is only giving to G’d what belongs to G’d in the first place. David spelled this out in Chronicles I 29,14 when he said: “for everything emanated from You and that which comes from Your hand we have given to You.” All of these considerations prompted Solomon to say in the verse quoted above: “honour the Lord with your wealth.”    The expression הון used by Solomon includes all kinds of things which a person accumulates in order to keep and preserve them. The word is derived from Psalms 119,14: כעל כל הון, “as over all riches.” Other examples of the word in the Bible occur in Proverbs 30,16 ואש לא אמרה הון, “and the fire never says ‘enough’”. Fire’s appetite to devour things is never satisfied. As long as an object subject to burning is available fire is anxious to devour it.    According to a Midrashic explanation found in the Midrash Mishley on our verse, the word “fire” here refers to the fires of hell and Solomon means that there is no end to the sufferings which people who are in Gehinom have to endure. It would seem that the two verses quoted at the introduction to our Parshah both describe the need to be generous with one’s wealth in order to avoid paying for one’s miserliness by undergoing the afflictions of Gehinom. It is in order to “put G’d to the test” by fulfilling the obligation to be charitable, to give away some of one’s accumulated wealth in order to see whether indeed G’d will compensate one for doing so. This is why Solomon added at the outset: “so that the Lord will fill your barns with plenty.” The word וימלאו, “and they will be filled,” is to be understood as the result of one’s fulfilling the first half of verse 9, i.e. to honour the Lord from one’s wealth. The words: “and your vats will overflow with new wine,” are in response to the words: “from the first fruits of all your harvests” in verse 9 of that chapter. This is also why the Torah refers to “the harvest of the vineyard” in Deuteronomy 22,9.    Concerning the giving of tithes, the prophet Maleachi 3,10 has stated that if someone were to test the Lord (His promises and if they come true), the only way he is allowed to do this is by means of performing the commandment of giving charity and observing if G’d indeed will enrich him thereby rather than make him poorer. The prophet describes this as an exception to the general rule not to put G’d to the test  by saying: “I will perform a certain commandment in order to be enriched materially by the reward.” Compare Deut. 6.16: “you must not put the Lord to the test.” Our sages in Taanit 9,1 have stated that the verse quoted from Malachi  represents the single and solitary exception to the prohibition spelled out in Deut. 6,16. They understand the prophet’s words: “bring your tithes, etc.,” as almost an invitation to prove that G’d does reward those who diminish their wealth by sharing the harvest with the poor, as resulting in an addition to those people’s material possessions forthwith. When Solomon spoke about the positive results accruing to the individual who honours the Lord from his wealth, he too meant this not as something given on condition that G’d would reward the individual forthwith but as a statement of fact, of what would ensue as a result of such conduct by those individuals. This is why he did not preface his comments with the words: “if you do such and such.” Basically, the lesson is that although putting the Lord to the test is forbidden, the subject of tithing is an exception to this rule.
      A Midrashic approach, based on Tanchuma Re'ey 12: the words: “honor the Lord from your wealth (הונך),” are interpreted as related to הנאה, something from which one derives satisfaction or profit. Solomon urges people who have received anything enjoyable from G’d over and above what the average person enjoys (not only their harvest) as obligated to “kick back” something to G’d and to thereby honour His name. As an example of the point just made, consider a person who has been endowed by G’d with an especially beautiful voice, a singer. It behooves such a person to place this gift in the service of the Lord by acting as Cantor in the Synagogue services during communal prayer, provided he does so in order to honor the Lord and not in order to receive personal applause by the congregants in his own honor. If such a person truly intends his vocal contribution to the Synagogue services to be in G’d’s honor, the words of Solomon in Song of Songs 2,15: “Let  Me hear your voice for your voice is sweet,” may be applied to him. On the other hand, if such a well endowed person uses his gift to reap personal honor, Scripture applies to him the verse in Jeremiah 12,8: “She raised her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her.” A similar example would be someone endowed with the ability to be a calligrapher of especial talent. He should  acknowledge having been granted this talent, by using it in the preparation of sacred texts, to write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, etc. If he does indeed write a Torah scroll from pure motives (not because he wants to sell it at a profit), he has acquired an outstanding merit. Our sages (Menachot 30) went as far as describing a person who wrote a Torah scroll from such motives as comparing him to someone who had literally received the Torah from heaven (at Mount Sinai). The same applies to people who possess exceptional skill in performing the art of circumcision. Such people should strive to use their skill regularly, seeing that the performance of that commandment is linked to 13 covenants between G’d and His people. All people endowed with exceptional skills or talents are duty bound to place it in the service of the Lord as a form of acknowledging that their talent is G’d-given.    The words ומראשית כל תבואתך quoted in Proverbs 3,9 are reminiscent of the fact that the Jewish people are described by G’d as “His first harvest (ראשית),” such as in Jeremiah 2,2. It behooves them therefore more than any other nation to know and acknowledge the Lord Who is the First of all Firsts. They must therefore honor the Lord by offering Him the very first of their respective harvests. This is what the Torah had in mind with the commandment governing the bringing of Bikkurim to the Temple as spelled out already in Exodus 23,1. The Torah commanded the Jewish people who have been called ראשית to go to Jerusalem, a place which is known as the first in the universe, i.e. ranking first in beauty, as described in Psalms 50,2 and to offer these firstlings of their harvest to the First, i.e. to the Lord of the universe. They deliver these gifts to the priest who represents the “first” of the nation performing service to the Lord in that capacity, etc. This is the meaning of the opening verse of our Parshah,
      והיה כי תבוא אל הארץ אשר ה' אלוקיך נותן לך נחלה וירשתה וישבת בה, ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה, “it will come to pass when you arrive in the land which the Lord your G’d is about to give to you as an inheritance and you will inherit it and be settled in it, then you will bring of the first fruit of all the soil,  etc.” The commandment to offer the bikkurim does not apply to all categories of harvest produced in the land of Israel. It is applicable only to the seven species for which the land of Israel is famous, This is the understanding of the sages in Sifri Ki Tavo item 297. This is arrived at by the fact that in our verse the Torah writes: “which you will bring from your land,” whereas in Deut. 8,8 the Torah wrote: “a land of wheat, barley, grape, fig and pomegranate; a land of oil-olives, and date-honey.” The seven species mentioned in that verse determine what is meant in our verse here. The seven species mentioned in Parshat Eykev represent the species of farm-products which serve as the staple foods of the Jewish people. The commandment is applicable only at times when the Temple is standing (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 2,1). The reason that the Torah writes the words: “when you inherit it and dwell in it,” is to inform us that the commandment becomes effective only at that time, i.e. 14 years after the Israelites entered the Holy Land.
     ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה, “You shall take from all the first fruit of the soil, etc.” our sages (Bikkurim 3,1) in describing the exact procedures to be followed when performing this commandment, wrote as follows: “a farmer goes into his field or orchard to check on the progress of the fruit or grain and when he observes a fig or cluster of grapes which has (almost) ripened, he attaches a string to it (to mark it) and declares that particular fruit as bikkurim.” Once he has made such a declaration the fruit becomes sanctified even while still on the tree although it has not yet completed its growth process completely. When the fruit is fully developed and cut from the tree it does not need to be sanctified again. Bikkurim are brought only from the choicest of one’s fruit. This is the meaning of the term מראשית, i.e. “from the best “(not necessarily from the first). The term ראשית also appears in that sense in Amos 6,6, where it means: “they anoint themselves with the choicest oils.” This is a principle that applies to the performance of all the commandments, i.e. one uses the choicest materials available when performing the commandment, not something of average or inferior quality. This was the difference between the offering of Hevel and that of Kayin, his older brother. The Torah reports of Hevel that he used the choicest of his animals as a sacrifice; hence G’d turned with goodwill to his offering while rejecting that of Kayin who had used inferior material. (Genesis 4,4)
     אשר תביא, “which you are to bring;” if someone has set aside his bikkurim in order to bring them to the Temple and they have been lost or stolen he is liable for replacing them; We derive this from the text here where the word תביא implies a personal obligation for the owner to present this fruit to the priest in the Temple. It is one of the few commandments which cannot be performed by means of a “messenger, שליח, the task cannot be delegated. If at the time of taking the fruit from the tree the farmer had made a condition saying that he would delegate the task of transporting this fruit to the Temple such a condition is acceptable (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 2,21).   Farmers living in the proximity of Jerusalem, must bring fresh grapes or figs as their bikkurim, whereas those living far away may bring dried grapes or dried figs instead. Bikkurim are not to be presented in the Temple before the festival of Shavuot, seeing the Torah wrote (Exodus 23,16) “the festival of cutting (grain harvest) the time of the bikkurim of your labor.” If a farmer did bring his bikkurim before that date the priest does not accept them but they have to remain in escrow until that festival and only at that time can they be designated as bikkurim (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 25-6). Concerning such situations the Torah writes in verse 11 of our chapter: “you shall rejoice with all the goodness, etc.,” etc., i.e. that the time of year when bikkurim are acceptable is the season when people are happy seeing that they started bringing in the year’s harvest. Traditionally, this period extends from the festival of Shavuot through the end of the harvest season. If the bringing of the bikkurim occurs later than the festival of Sukkot, the offering is accepted but the accompanying scriptural verses may not be recited (Sifri Ki Tavo item 297).
     מארצך, “from your land.” The sages in Sifri Ki Tavo 297 write that that as long as the particular species which qualifies as bikkurim is still in evidence on the land (unharvested) and the beasts of the field have not yet consumed any leftovers of such species, bikkurim are still acceptable. This prompted our sages to rule that after Chanukah one may no longer offer bikkurim, seeing that any fruit which ripens after that date is considered as part of the following year’s crop and must therefore be stored until the following Shavuot if it already ripened at such an early time of the year. (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 2,6)
     ושמת בטנא, “and you shall place it in a basket.” According to the plain meaning of the text the bikkurim were a distinctive present for the priest, an honor for the Almighty, and its presentation was of great practical use for the people of Israel. It was a present of great distinction for the priest seeing that the farmer personally carried the gift all the way to Jerusalem from whatever part of the country he lived in. It was an honor for the Almighty seeing that the farmer came all the way to offer prayers of thanksgiving to the Lord in connection with the bikkurim. The farmer acknowledged that all blessing originates with the Lord. The bikkurim procedure was of practical use to the Jewish people seeing that fulfillment of this commandment resulted in the bounty of the fields and orchards being greatly increased as G’d’s response to fulfillment of the commandment. The word טנא means the same as סל, “basket.” It serves as a receptacle for the fruit. This verse is the source for the ruling that the bikkurim must be presented in a receptacle (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 3,7). This is one of seven different parts of the procedure of bringing the bikkurim. They are: 1) bringing them to the designated site, 2) presentation in a suitable receptacle; 3) reciting the appropriate verses from the Torah; 4) the actual presentation to the priest; 5) an accompanying song, 6) the “heaving” of the fruit. 7) The remaining of the owner inside Jerusalem on the night following presentation. Let us describe the stages in detail: Bringing the fruit to a designated place, i.e. Jerusalem, is based on the line: “you will proceed to the place designated by the Lord to make a residence there for His name” (26,2). The need to deposit the bikkurim in a receptacle is based on the words ושמת בטנא, the same verse. The best way to comply with this instruction is to present each species of bikkurim in its own receptacle. However, if the various species have all been presented in the same receptacle this is acceptable. They must not, however, be mixed inside that receptacle but inferior species must be placed below superior species, such as the wheat which must be on top of the barley. Dates would have to be placed on top of both species of grain, etc. The figs are to be on top of all the other species. There is not to be a foreign substance intervening between the various layers of the fruit if they are all presented in the same receptacle (basket). It is best to surround the figs with grapes (Maimonides ibid.).    The donor brings pigeons and turtle doves at the same time as a sacrificial offering seeing the Torah writes: “you shall rejoice with all the goodness” (and there is no true enjoyment unless accompanied by the eating of some kind of meat (Pessachim 109). These birds were suspended on the sides of the basket in order to decorate the bikkurim. The birds attached to the baskets were offered as burnt-offering, whereas the ones carried by the donors in their hands served as peace-offerings, and they were given to the priests of the respective roster. The priests divide them among themselves as they do with other offerings (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 3,1). The recital of the verses pertaining to this commandment consisted of the reading of verses 5-to the middle of verse 10. This recital is to be in a loud voice and in Hebrew (the text of  the verses of the Torah in its original). This requirement is based on the words of Deut. 31,21 וענתה השירה הזאת, “this song shall speak up as...” Just as that song has to be recited in the original Hebrew, so the acknowledgment of G’d’s bounty when bringing the bikkurim has to be in the original Hebrew. Both the passages employ the word וענית when introducing the obligation. We find that expression also in connection with the recital of the confession of the elders that their hands are free from guilt of the unidentified victim of murder described at the end of Parshat Shoftim (Deut. 21,7). This declaration also has to be made in Hebrew(Sotah 44).     קרבן, the presentation of the offering; every person offering bikkurim must also offer a peace-offering. Song; the need to accompany the offering by a “song” is based on the verse: “you shall rejoice with all the goodness,” and joy is traditionally expressed as a form of song. Our sages base this on Psalms 33,3: הטיבו נגן בתרועה, “play sweetly with shouts of joy.” This is what the Levites did, beginning when the donors brought the bikkurim to the lobby of the Temple (עזרה). The “heaving,” waving of the basket with its contents. This is derived from the word והנחתו, “you are to deposit it,” implying that prior to being deposited it was “lifted, waved,” etc. The procedure consisted of the priest placing his hand under the hand of the owner and waving it to and fro (Sukkah 16). This is the meaning of the words (verse 4) “and the priest shall take (accept) the basket from your hand and place it in front of the altar of the Lord your G’d,” i.e. to swing it in front of the altar.  לינה, the requirement for the donor to spend the following night in Jerusalem. This rule is derived from Deut 16,7: “and you will turn in the morning (after the Passover) and return to your tents.” It is forbidden to depart from Jerusalem except on the morning after (or later). (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 3,14)    The bikkurim are forbidden to non-priests as the Torah has compared them to תרומה, describing them as תרומת ידך, “the gift of your hand,” in Deut. 12,17. Our sages in Makkot 17 base this inference on the word מידך which follows the word הטנא in verse 4 of our chapter. Just as a non-priest must not eat תרומה, so he is also forbidden to eat bikkurim. A priest who is in pre-mourning for close relatives (אונן) is also forbidden to eat the bikkurim while in that state. Clearly, he is not in a joyous frame of mind, a prerequisite for eating bikkurim as we have explained (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 3,6). 
  Someone offering his bikkurim may have his servant carry same while he is on the way to Jerusalem as far as the Temple Mount. Once he reaches that mount, he must place them on his own shoulder and carry them forthwith. This ruling applies even to the king. The recital of the passage from the Torah has to take place while the basket with the fruit is still on his shoulder. When he reaches the words (verse 10) “the earth which You have given to me,” he may deposit the basket, take hold of it with his hand, and the priest will then place his hand beneath his own and begin the weaving motion.    If someone does not own any soil (farmland) but has bought a tree and wishes to offer the first fruit ripening on his tree he may do so without reciting the “confessional” (the term refers clearly to the passage from verse 5-10). This is because if he were to speak of the fruit of “his” soil he would make a liar of himself. A proselyte also may not recite the relevant passage seeing he cannot acknowledge that his forefathers cried out to the Lord while enslaved in Egypt (verse 7). There is an opinion in the Talmud according to which such a proselyte may recite the relevant passage seeing that Avraham is perceived as being the “father” of all proselytes. The author of that opinion cites as proof that G’d said to Avraham (Genesis 17,5) “here I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.” This means that Avraham is the adopted father of all those who decide to take shelter under the benevolent wings of the Shechinah (convert to Judaism). Maimonides adopts this interpretation as halachically valid (Hilchot Bikkurim 4,3). Perhaps we may even detect a hint in the language of the text that proselytes may recite the passage, seeing that the Torah writes: “you as well as the proselyte and the Levite in your midst.” (verse 11) This appears to show that the Torah treats all three categories of Jews mentioned in that verse as equal in respect to the bikkurim legislation.    Priests and Levites who have planted orchards within their cities  in the outer rim reserved for gardens, etc., are subject to he law of bikkurim in every respect of that law. This is why the Torah wrote: “you as well as the Levite.” In the olden days the rule was that farmers who were able to read Hebrew would recite the passage unassisted, whereas those unable to read Hebrew would have it read for them and they would repeat it. It was found that as a result of this practice farmers who were illiterate would cease bringing their bikkurim to save themselves embarrassment. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the passage is to be read before everyone who brings bikkurim and will be repeated word by word by the farmer in order to save the illiterate farmers any possible embarrassment. (Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 3,11) This practice was similar to the practice nowadays not to allow individuals to read the passage from the Torah to which they have been called up so as not to put to shame those who are unable to read it by themselves.
      Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 4,16-17 describes the bringing of the bikkurim to Jerusalem in these words: “the notables of the respective towns along the route to Jerusalem would accompany the donors so that these would not appear as being solitary individuals bringing these gifts.” They based themselves on Proverbs 14,28 that “a throng of people constitutes honour for the king (the Almighty).” The donors would spend the night in the public square of the respective town they were passing and would not enter private houses so as to avoid entering an area which might house ritual impurity capable of being conferred upon them. On the morrow, early, the person appointed for this task would address them and say: “arise and let us ascend to the Lord our G’d.” The ox representing their peace-offering would precede them, its horns decorated with gold leaf, a laurel of olive (leaves) on its head. This was to alert people to the fact that the bikkurim consisted of the seven species which we mentioned earlier. A flute would play in front of them until they came close to Jerusalem. They would walk all along the way (not ride or travel in a coach) proclaiming the verse from Psalms 122,1: ”I rejoiced when they said to me we are going to the House of the Lord.” They would not walk all day long but only for two “hours” daily (points on the sundial). As soon as they approached Jerusalem they would dispatch messengers ahead  to inform the people of Jerusalem of their impending arrival. They would decorate the bikkurim at that time with kinds of crowns. If the bikkurim contained both fresh fruit and dried fruit they would place the former on top. The various dignitaries of Jerusalem would come out to welcome these donors of bikkurim. The welcoming committee would correspond to the size of the delegation of people bringing their bikkurim at that time. As soon as they entered the gates of Jerusalem they would chant the verse from Psalms 122. All the skilled artisans (who would not be required to interrupt their work to welcome Torah scholars) did come out to welcome these farmers honouring them for performing this commandment. When the processional reached the Temple Mount, each farmer would place his basket on his shoulder and proclaim the verse from Psalms 122,1. This would be followed by the recital of Psalms 150,1: “Praise the Lord in His holy Sanctuary” until the end of this hymn, i.e. “let all that breathes praise the Lord, Hallelujah.” When the procession reached the foyer of the Temple the Levites would commence their song commencing with Psalms 30,2: “let me extol You O Lord, for You have lifted me up, and have not let my enemies rejoice over me.”
      A Midrashic approach to the subject of bikkurim and the words: “and you will place it in a basket.” The wealthy farmers would bring their bikkurim in baskets made of silver threads, whereas the poorer farmers would make the baskets out of bark peeled from  the willow tree. Both the fruit and the basket would be presented to the priests as it is written: “the priest will take (accept) the basket from your hand.” You should pay especial attention to the spelling of the word הטנא, as its numerical value equals that of the name of G’d spelled א-ד-נ-י, =65. I will refer to this allusion and its meaning still later. The sages of the Midrash also explained (Tanchuma Ki Tavo 1) that it behooves us to compare the tremendous impact of the performance of the commandment of bikkurim in securing G’d’s goodwill with other efforts made by man to secure the grace and goodwill of his monarch. When one has a request to make of one’s king (flesh and blood), one may have to bribe liberally in order first of all to secure an audience. Even when one has spent all this money to secure the audience one does not have a guarantee that the king will grant one’s request. Compare this with the performance of the commandment of presenting the bikkurim to one’s King (G’d). Not only is a single fig, date, or stalk of grain an adequate price of admission to the presence of the Almighty in the Temple, but G’d assures us of His goodwill, seeing that the sages interpreted the wording of verse 15 in our chapter to mean that the petitioner is saying to G’d that he will not leave from the Temple precincts until he has been assured that his plea has been answered. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said that a heavenly echo would be heard assuring the petitioner that in the following year he would again be able to fulfill this commandment just as he had done on the present occasion. This is implied by the words of verse 16: “on this day the Lord your G’d commands you to perform these statutes, etc.” [If G’d were not willing to accept future bikkurim from the farmer why would He command him to do so again? Ed.]
      A Kabbalistic approach: In the words ושמתא בטנא, the vowel patach under the letter ב which is unusual as we had not heard about this basket previously, is a reference to the last letter ה in the tetragram. The bikkurim are called ראשית, a reference to the first three letters which represent the beginning of the universe and its creation. These first three letters of the tetragrammaton are found in association with the word ראשית in Jeremiah 26,1 בראשית ממלכת יהויקים, the name of that king being an allusion to when G’d created =יקים the universe, using the previous three letters י-ה-ו. These first three letters are perceived as enabling the last letter to serve as a receptacle of the universe, holding it together, so to speak. This is somewhat similar to the basic element earth or dust, which enables the three preceding elements fire, water, and air to be joined together and retained as a whole. Similarly, the basket in our passage represents an integral part of the whole bikkurim procedure. The words ולקח הכהן הטנא [instead of את הטנא, Ed.] suggests that the priest is the representative of G’d, here described as the One holding all the components of the universe together to ensure that they do not disintegrate. The universe is maintained due to its constant motion, the planets being in unending orbit. The weaving, תנופה, which is part of the bikkurim procedure, symbolizes this element.    Furthermore, these steps are to alert us to the fact that G’d not only supervises the motions and movements in His universe in general, but also in their very detailed movement; He is perceived as standing inside the טנא looking at the periphery to ensure that all is well in His universe. Our author uses the verse in Song of Songs 2,9: “He was standing behind our wall, observing through the windows, peering through the lattices” as the way he describes G’d’s function.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   הגדתי היום לה' אלוקיך, “I have declared today to the Lord your G’d, etc.” The word “your G’d,” instead of “our G’d,” seems incomprehensible here. How could the person making  this declaration be allowed to exclude himself from the community by using such wording (grammar)? It appears as if he did not share the same belief in G’d as his compatriots! However, consider that if the wording had been לה' אלוקינו, it would not have been clear whom he considered as the Lord. Now that he uses the wording written by the Torah it is clear that when he addresses the High Priest he speaks of the Lord on whose behalf this Priest officiates. The moment he associates the Lord with the one in whose service the Priest serves, there can be no doubt that the donor also serves the same Lord, else why present the gift to the High Priest of that G’d? It is clear now that whoever is the G’d of the High Priest is also the G’d of the person bringing the bikkurim.
   It is possible that the expression introducing this declaration, i.e. הגדתי, represents sort of a continuation such as in Psalms 51,17 ופי יגיד תהלתך, “and let my mouth express Your Fame,” i.e. continue, extend the power of You G’d which is already evident in the world. The person engaged in prayer effectively extends G’d’s power, seeing that the very fact that he turns to G’d in supplication proves that he acknowledges G’d’s power to grant his requests. When we find the line הוא תהלתך והוא אלוקיך in Deut. 10,21, this implies that what the generation of the Exodus experienced in their lifetime was a continuation, an extension of the power of the Lord which had been not quite so manifest previously. The whole formula לה' אלוקיך, so typical of משנה תורה, the Book of Deuteronomy, which is itself a continuation of what preceded it, is therefore appropriate as an introduction to this declaration by the farmer bringing the bikkurim.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    ארמי אובד אבי, “my father (Yaakov) was a wandering Arami.” The Torah here refers to Yaakov as an ארמי (as if he had been a person born in Aram) The meaning of the line is: “my father had become a poor Arami.” In other words, by the time my father arrived in Aram he had become impoverished. The word אובד also appears in hat sense in Proverbs 31,6 where the words תנו שכר לאובד mean: “give liquor to the poor person.” We know that Yaakov endured much pain while serving Lavan. He himself testified to this when he said (Genesis 31,40) “by day scorching heat consumed me.”
     וירד מצרימה, “he descended to Egypt.” Here too the meaning is that at the time Yaakov descended to Egypt he had once again become impoverished so that the farmer reciting this prayer acknowledges that seeing he had not inherited anything from his father he owes all to the Lord. He (Yaakov) resided in Egypt, a small clan, few in numbers. Subsequently, the descendants of Yaakov developed into a numerous and great nation. Whereas the name Yisrael had once referred to an individual, it then became an appellation for a whole people. You O Lord have redeemed us from hard labour  and have set us free by performing supernatural miracles  and have given us a land flowing with milk and honey. The moral lesson implied in this whole recitation is that precisely at a time when one is prosperous and free from worry one has to look back upon what preceded this success and acknowledge who it is that enabled one to achieve this well-being. This is what Kohelet 7,14 spelled out when he said: “be pleased when things go well, but in a time of misfortune reflect.” He meant that on a day when everything is going well reflect on the days of misfortune which preceded the present. Only by reflecting that one had not always been so well-off, does one learn to appreciate one’s present good fortune. This is why it is incumbent upon us to thank the Lord on days when everything is going well.
      Onkelos understands the word אובד as a reference to Lavan who is described as ארמי אובד, meaning that Lavan wanted to exterminate Yaakov (להאביד) and would have succeeded had not G’d warned him during the night before he caught up with Yaakov not to harm him (Genesis 31,29). Our sages, following Onkelos, teach that when a pagan intends to perform a forbidden act, this very intention is already accounted for him as if he had carried out his evil plan. After all, how else could the Torah describe Lavan as destroying Yaakov seeing he never laid a hand on him! The word אובד therefore reflects Lavan’s intent rather than his deed. If a pagan intends to perform a good deed but does not get around to carry it out, he is not given credit for the mere intention of performing the good deed in question. This is based on Daniel 6,15: ”and until the sun set made every effort to rescue him.” G’d did not give the king credit for his efforts until he had actually carried them out. When an Israelite intends to commit a sin but did not carry it out, G’d does not record the thought as a deed until after it has been carried out, seeing we read in Micah 2,1: “Ah, those who plan iniquity and design evil on their beds, when morning dawns they do it.” In other words, they are not debited with the plan until it has been carried out. David said in Psalms 66,18: “Had I an evil thought in my mind, the Lord would not have listened.” On the other hand, when David had a plan such as to build the Temple, he was given credit for it though he was prevented from carrying out his plan. This is why we recite psalm 30,1: “a hymn on the occasion of the inauguration of the House (Temple) by David” [instead of by Solomon, Ed.] (compare Midrash Tehillim 30).
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   בערתי את הקודש, “I have removed the holy things, etc.” This is a reference to Terumah gedolah, which is sacred and generally amounts to 2% of the farmer’s grain harvest (Terumot 4,3).  מן הבית, “from the house.”  This refers to challah, something sacred prepared in the house and given to the priests.   וגם נתתיו ללוי, “I have also given (it) to he Levite.” This is a reference to the first tithe, i.e. 10 per cent of the grain harvest remaining after the Terumah of the priest has been set aside. The letter ו in front of the word גם refers to the second tithe, the one  consumed in Jerusalem by the farmer and his family.   לגר, ליתום,ולאלמנה, “to the proselyte, the orphan and the widow.” This is a reference to what is known as מעשר עני, “the tithe for the poor,” applicable in years when the second tithe is not applicable. The various gifts fell due in the following sequence: first the farmer sets aside the תרומה גדולה which is given to the priest. It is called ראשית, as the Torah (Deut. 18,4) speaks of ראשית דגנך.  After that the farmer sets aside the first tithe intended for the Levite, as the Torah writes: “I have given to the Levite all the tithes of Israel” (Numbers 18,21). The Levite in turn has to set aside 10% of what he received as tithe from the farmer as a “tithe from the tithe,” and give it to the priest. After that, the farmer sets aside for his own use the second tithe which he took with him to Jerusalem and consumed there. This is the meaning of עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך ואכלת לפני ה' אלוקיך in Deut. 14,22. The reason the Torah repeated the words עשר תעשר is because two different tithes are referred to. After that, in the third and sixth year of the שמטה cycle, the farmer set aside the tithe for the poor and distributed it according to how he saw fit. This is the meaning of Deut. 26,12: “to the proselyte, the orphan, and the widow, you shall give it,” as these categories of people are presumed to be most likely the ones having a claim to it. This is what the Torah speaks of in the paragraph commencing with verse 12 “when you have completed the tithing of your harvest in the third year, the year of the tithe.” The Torah teaches that at the end of the third year of the cycle a new kind of tithe has to be set aside, the tithe specifically intended for the poor. In the years that this tithe applies the second tithe does not apply, i.e. the farmer does not have to take it to Jerusalem in order to consume it there but he hands it out locally. After having properly observed all the commandments pertaining to gifts to the priest, the Levite, to the poor (and consuming the second tithe in Jerusalem), he is to recite the declaration recorded here affirming that he has done his duty and that as a result he looks forward to being in G’d’s good graces (verse 15). He is not allowed to recite this “confessional” until after he has completed the whole series of gifts prescribed in the Torah. The declaration in question is recited on the last day of Passover of the fourth and seventh year of the shemittah cycle respectively, seeing that the words תכלה לעשר imply “on the festival when all the tithes have to come to an end.” The harvest from many trees is still collected long after the Sukkot festival, so that the confessional cannot be recited until the following festival, i.e. Pessach. Anyone who has failed to distribute the various tithes by that time must remove them from his house (destroy them). This is why we are told in Avot 5,12 that certain disasters (pestilence) which occur in the fourth year of the cycle are due to the failure of the farmers to discharge their obligations of tithing properly. (a plague in the fourth year indicates failure to distribute the tithe to the poor in the third year, whereas a plague in the seventh year is indicative of the tithe for the poor not having been distributed during the sixth year of the cycle). The destruction of the leftover tithes occurred on the penultimate day of the Passover so that the confessional could be recited on the afternoon of the last day (Maimonides Hilchot Maasser Sheyni 11,7).
     ככל מצותך אשר צויתיך, “in accordance with all of your commandments which I have commanded you.” A reference to the setting aside of all the aforementioned tithes. Our sages in the Mechilta Mishpatim 19 state that the words imply that not only have the tithes been given but that they had been given in the required sequence. They base the requirement to do so on Exodus 22,28: מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר, “do not be late in giving your respective offerings.”  לא עברתי ממצותיך, “I have not infringed on any of Your commandments.” The farmer declares that he did not use an excess contribution from one species to save himself part of the contribution of another species. Neither did he use produce which had already been harvested to be part of the tithe for produce which had not yet been harvested. He had not used last year’s harvest to discharge the duty to tithe from this year’s harvest, nor vice versa.   ולא שכחתי, “and I did not forget.” This means that when giving (setting aside) the respective tithes the farmer did not omit mentioning the name of the Lord. We know that any benediction which does not include mentioning the name of the Lord and His kingdom is as if it had never been recited at all (Berachot 12). 
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, “I have not eaten of it while in a state of (pre)mourning.” A person engaged in preparing for the funeral of near relatives is forbidden to eat any sacred foods (Sifri).  ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא, “and I have not removed or used up any of it while in a state of ritual impurity.” I did not set it aside while I was contaminated.   ולא נתתי ממנו למת, “neither did I give any of it for a dead person.” I did not use it to buy a coffin or other necessities for the dead person’s burial from the proceeds of the produce designated as tithes (Sifri 303 on this verse). The reason that the Torah makes the farmer recite this is that not only did he not use the proceeds from such produce for something merely permitted, but even if he had “misused” it in order to fulfill a commandment such as a burial from the proceeds this is also forbidden and he has to declare that he had not done so. In other words, one must not appear as if one pays one’s debts by diverting funds destined for another commandment in order to do so. The tithes must be used only for food and drink. One must not even buy clothing from the proceeds.  שמעתי בקול ה' אלוקי, “I have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my G’d.” I did so when I brought the tithes to the Temple. עשיתי ככל אשר צויתני, “I did in accordance with all that You commanded me.” I rejoiced and made others happy with it (Maaser Sheni 5,11); this is based on the instruction: “you shall rejoice with all the goodness” (verse 11).
  
  Verse 15
  
   השקיפה ממעון קדשך, “Please look down from the holy site where You reside.” The farmer concludes as if to say: “we have done what we have to do, now do what You have promised, please” (Maaser Sheni 5,13).   וברך את עמך, “and bestow blessing on Your people,” sons and daughters;   ואת האדמה אשר נתתה לנו, “and the earth which You have given to us;” in the form of beneficial rain expressing Your goodwill.   כאשר נשבעת לאבותינו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “as You have sworn to our forefathers, a land flowing with milk and honey.” Your promise was that the rain would make the produce of the land tasty. (Maaser Sheni 11,16). Elsewhere, according to Rashi, this verse is understood to mean: “seeing that we have done what is obligatory for us, You ought to do what is obligatory for You.” The reason the Torah uses the expression מעון קדשך, instead of the word מכון, as Solomon used in his prayer at the inauguration of the Temple (Kings I 8,39), is that the farmer acknowledges that he has rejoiced in fulfilling G’d’s commandments and the heaven known as מעון is traditionally perceived to be the area in which joy resides and originates (Chagigah 12). This is why Moses chose to refer to the term מעון when formulating this declaration/prayer. The term השקיפה used here for “looking down,” a word never used elsewhere except in connection with disaster (Jerusalem Talmud Maasser Sheyni 5,5) is to teach how great is the reward for fulfillment of a commandment when it is fulfilled joyfully. It has the power to convert a normally negative virtue into becoming a positive virtue. Rabbi Chanina, son of Papa, is on record as saying: “come and observe the powerful effect of giving alms to the poor. Every time the word השקפה, i.e. וישקף appears in the Torah it is always a preamble to something destructive occurring. Here it is a preamble to blessing being bestowed.”
      If you will analyse the subject of giving alms to the poor more profoundly you will find that the תרומה which has been described as ראשית, is an allusion to the emanation חכמה which comprises within it the emanation בינה so that it completes the cycle of the 50 “gates” of wisdom which exist in the universe. This is why (generally) תרומה represents one 50th part of the harvest. This is why the sages when defining תרומה referred two it as “2 parts in 100.” The מעשר ראשון which consist of ten per cent alludes to the tribe of Levi (the original Levi) whom we proved to have been the “tenth” son of Yaakov [starting the count from Binyamin, compare Korach 18,19]. The מעשר שני also represents the same principle; seeing it is the first tithe which we retain, it is in reality also a kind of “first tithe.” It is the first tithe of the original tithe. The tithes for the poor which are being set aside in the third and sixth year of the שמטה cycle are an allusion to the emanation יסוד, so called because it is of decisive influence on events in our world and is “distilled” from the seventh emanation. It occurred precisely in the middle of the seven year שמטה cycle.   With the setting aside (and distributing) the מעשר עני, the tithe for the poor, all the various tithes have been concluded whether in respect of higher emanations or lower emanations. This is the meaning of the words: “when you have completed all the tithe(s) of all of your harvest in the third year” (verse 12). It is why the Torah chose the expression כי תכלה [an expression reminiscent of when G’d had concluded the creation of the universe in Genesis 2,1, Ed.]. The tithe to the poor represents the essence and hence the final tithe of the various tithes legislated here. This also accounts for the otherwise unusual wording of Deut. 14,22 עשר תעשר, [which sounds at first glance as if a tithe could be given repeatedly. Ed.] This is why in that chapter the Torah legislated that at the end of three years the farmer is to remove from his house all the tithes of that year and deposit it in “your” gates, (Deut. 14,28). The word “your gates” in that connection is an allusion to the “gates of prayer. Just as in a physical sense these tithes which had not yet been distributed must be made available to all in a public area of the town, so in a spiritual sense, by doing so, the farmer’s accumulated merits due to his fulfilling these commandments are concentrated in the spiritual domain known as the gateway to prayer, to the regions in heaven where prayer is heard and answered. This is why the declaration listed in our chapter must be recited in Hebrew and audibly. [Although, according to Maimonides Hilchot Maaser Sheni 11,16 this declaration may be recited in any language, the concluding verse commencing with the word השקיפה has to be said in Hebrew, seeing it is a prayer, i.e. a petition. Ed.] When reciting the whole of this declaration the farmer acknowledges the sum total of what Judaism is about, it is a declaration of faith including a statement that he has not only not deviated from the מצות מעשיות, the performance of the deeds prescribed, but that he is in full agreement with the theological/philosophical symbolism represented by these commandments. [I paraphrased this passage somewhat. Ed.] The author understands the words אדמה and ארץ in this passage as also referring to the celestial counterparts of these regions. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  היום הזה ה' אלוקיך מצוך לעשות, “This day, Hashem your G’d commands you.” When Moses said these words, this was during the fortieth year. How could this be since 40 years had elapsed since the Torah had been given, and nothing new had been added to the Torah since? The wording (this day) teaches that Torah legislation is to be considered as beloved as if it had only been given on that very day at Mount Sinai (Tanchuma Ki Tavo 1). 
  Regarding a similar statement in the wording of the Kriyat Shema (Deut. 6,6) where we read: “which the Lord your G’d has commanded you this day,” our sages (Pessikta Zutrata) comment “they should be as fresh for you as if they had been received from Mount Sinai on this very day.” There is a reason why once the Midrash uses the word “new, fresh,” and another time it uses the term “beloved” as the manner in which we are to relate to Torah legislation. People’s reactions to certain phenomena vary not only individually, but are also affected by prevailing attitudes in different generations and environments. Man’s heart has a tendency of being governed by what his eyes behold. When something is within his range of vision he is liable to remember it, whereas as soon as it is out of sight he tends to no longer focus on it and to forget it. Miracles, etc., do not continue indefinitely and therefore are apt to be forgotten. The Torah therefore has to warn us not to allow this natural process to affect us and to insist that just as the people at the time of the miracles were firm in their faith and belief, we in our respective generations must be no less so. This lesson applies particularly to periods when the Jewish people are in exile and miracles do not manifest themselves. We are therefore exhorted by the Torah to relate to the Torah with the same degree of fondness as we did when we were a sovereign nation in our own land. At the same time, we have to be urged to view the Torah legislation as something new, reminding us of all the miracles that preceded the giving of the Torah. In other words, the very experience of the revelation at Mount Sinai is to be recalled by us every time we study any of the laws of the Torah.
   One may view this subject as if our verse here commenced with the words היום הזה, and concluded with the words ובכל נפשך, i.e. the last words in the first paragraph of the Kriat Shema. This is to teach that we are to dedicate ourselves to such a degree to all the commandments of the Torah that just as we would have been prepared to lay down our lives for any of these laws on the day they were commanded at Mount Sinai, so we are prepared to lay down our lives for them if called upon at the present time, as if we were still under the psychological impact of the revelation at Mount Sinai. 
  
  Verse 17
  
   את ה' האמרת היום, “You have distinguished Hashem today, etc.” The word האמרת means “to elevate, to distinguish” (Ibn Ezra). It is found in this context in Isaiah 17,6 בראש אמיר, “on the topmost branch.” Onkelos also understands the word in that sense when he renders it as חטבת, similar to Proverbs 7,16: חטובות אטון מצרים, “colored sheets of Egyptian linen, (excellent linen).” It is reported in the name of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi that he understood the word האמרת as a derivative of ויאמר, “he said,” in which case the meaning would be that “you have done the right thing in the eyes of the Lord by accepting His Torah until you turned around and proclaimed that He was to be your G’d.”
  
  Verse 18
  
   וה' האמירך, “and the Lord reciprocated with similar sentiments towards you.” In other words, just as you accepted Him as G’d, so He performed so many miracles on your behalf that as a result you agreed to view yourself as exclusively His people. G’d confirmed this at Mount Sinai when he said in Exodus 19,5: “if you will surely hearken to My voice and be loyal to My covenant, then you will become a treasured people for Me, more so than any of the other nations.”  ולשמור את כל מצותיו, “and to observe all His commandments.” This means that the statements about Israel’s status which we just described are contingent on the people observing the Lord’s commandments. A Jewish people who fails to observe these commandments does not qualify for the distinctive title עם סגולה.
  
  Verse 19
  
   על כל הגוים אשר עשה לתהילה ולשם ולתפארת, “over all the nations that He made, for praise, for renown, and for splendour.” Whereas the Lord will make the Jewish people supreme in these respects, He does not do so with any of the other nations as they have been assigned to the various planets which govern their fates. לא כאלה חלק יעקב כי יוצר הכל הוא, “not like these is the portion of Yaakov, for it is He Who formed all things”  (Jeremiah 10,16).   This difference is meant when the Torah describes the Jewish people as being לשם ולתהילה. Israel’s fame is its praising the Lord and His great name. He is Israel’s G’d in a somewhat exclusive manner.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   שמור את כל המצוה, “Observe the whole command ment, etc.” The Torah refers to the impending command to erect stones on Mount Eyval (verse 4) after they have been inscribed, stones taken from the river Jordan at the time the people would cross that river. These stones are intended to commemorate the miracles which occurred enabling the Israelites to cross the river without becoming wet at a time of year when it was swollen with melting snow from Mount Hermon. There were a total of 12 such stones as we know from Joshua 4,2 that one stone per tribe was to be erected. Joshua commanded the twelve men to whom he had assigned the task of taking these stones from the river after the people had completed crossing. These stones were carried on the shoulders of the twelve men, each of whom represented his tribe (Joshua 4,1-8). These stones were deposited next to the place at Gilgal where the Israeites spent the first night in the Holy Land, close to the river. The stones which were erected on Mount Eyval had the entire text of the Torah inscribed on them. Another twelve stones (Joshua 4,9) were erected in the river bed of the Jordan at the site of the miracle where the priests with the Holy Ark had crossed and G’d had arrested the flow of the river so as not to swamp the Holy Ark (Joshua 4,7). The reason the stones are described as having to be “large,” is to enable the engravers to inscribe the whole text of the Torah on their surface. The latter stones are reported as still being in existence at the time the Book of Joshua had been written. [What is written in Joshua 4,3-4 is an elaboration of what was mentioned in summary in the preceding verse 2.] (compare Daat Mikra). There were a total of 36 stones, three groups of 12. Twelve were erected in the river bed of the Jordan, before the Jordan had resumed flowing south. 12 were erected at Gilgal. The final twelve were taken all the way to Mount Eyval. These latter stones were made into the altar on Mount Eyval as mentioned by Rashi in his commentary on verse two of our chapter. [According to a view also mentioned by Rashi in conjunction with the Baraitha in Sotah 35, the stones which were made into a (temporary) altar on Mount Eyval were brought back to Gilgal and erected there.]   Our author feels that the plain meaning of our verses allows for only a total of 24 stones, 12 of which were erected in the river bed, whereas the other 12 were taken from the river. The stones erected in the river bed remain to this day and their purpose had been to enable the feet of the priests carrying the Holy Ark not to get wet in the slime while crossing the river. [The actual flow of the water had been arrested in deference to the presence of the Holy Ark. Ed.]   We find the expression באר used in Deut. 1,5 when Moses is reported as “explaining” the Torah. We find it used again in verse 5 of our chapter here. This gives rise to the exegesis by means of a גזרה שוה that just as Moses explained the Torah in 70 languages, the inscribing of the stones with the Torah also was in 70 languages.   The words והקמות לך אבנים גדולות (verse 3) may be understood as a כלל, a general summary of the subject under discussion, whereas the words (verse 4) והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו את האבנים האלה may be viewed as the details elaborating on the summary mentioned before. It is as if the Torah wanted to say that the twelve stones mentioned earlier were to be treated in a certain manner. Verse four refers to the aforementioned stones and instructs for them to be erected on Mount Eival. They are to be covered with plaster and then inscribed after the altar on Mount Eival has been erected. [the building of the altar is to precede the erecting of these stones, not as the wording appears at first glance (Rabbi Chavell) Ed.] Following all this, the stones are to be inscribed with the text of the entire Torah, well clarified (verse 8). If we do not explain the verse in this fashion i.e. on the basis of A) summary (כלל) followed by B) detailed instructions (פרט), the entire passage will sound confusing. What would be the point of writing in verse 8 that the entire Torah, well clarified, is to be inscribed on these stones, seeing that G’d had already instructed the Torah to be inscribed on the stones in verse 3? Furthermore, how could the Torah first write: “you are to write upon them” (verse 3), and subsequently “you shall build an altar there?” (verse 5). The Talmud in Sotah 32 also appears to understand our paragraph as an example of the exegetical principle  of כלל ופרט.
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ושדת אותם בשיד, “and you shall coat them with plaster.” The Torah did not use the term גיר, chalk, in this instance as the prophet Isaiah 27,9 used when describing shattered altar stones. This in spite of the fact that גיר is a far stronger material than שיד. The reason the Torah ordered the stones to be covered with שיד is that this is a material which stands up to rain better than גיר.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וכתבת עליהן את כל דברי התורה הזאת, “You are to inscribe on them all the words of this Torah.” This teaches that the entire Torah was written on these stones. This is also the view of Nachmanides who writes: “for we have found in the book of Tagai that the entire Torah was inscribed upon them starting with Genesis and concluding with the words: ‘before the eyes of the whole of Israel’ (Deut. 34,12), complete with all the decorations of the letters which we are familiar with.” These stones were the model from which the script of the Torah nowadays was copied. Thus far Nachmanides.
   According to Rabbi Saadyah Gaon, quoted by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, these stones only contained a list of the 613 commandments as they are recorded in the Book Halachot Gedolot in the form of warnings.
     למען אשר תבוא אל הארץ, “so that you may arrive in the land,” etc.; this means that on account of your keeping these commandments of the Torah you will be allowed to enter the Holy Land. The reason the stones had to be erected and inscribed was to remind the people that their conquest of the land was only designed to enable them to keep the Torah in that land. This is the way Nachmanides understands these words. (verse 6) This would then be the reason that the sages decreed that mention of the Torah must be made when reciting the benediction acknowledging our taking possession of the land of Israel (in the recital of grace, ועל תורתך שלמדתנו).   It is possible to explain the words למען אשר תבוא אל הארץ as “in order to enable you to come to the land,” seeing that the power of the Torah destroys all our enemies in the land enabling us to settle in their land as our heritage.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אלה יעמדו לברך. “These are to stand (on Mount Gerizim) to bless the people.” Our sages (in Sotah 32) state that the blessing consisted of: “Blessed be the man who has not made a hewn image, etc.,” whereas the curse consisted of the words spelled out in verses 15-26. Six tribes whose ancestors were sons of either Leah or Rachel stood on the mountain facing which the blessing was pronounced, whereas the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah as well as Reuven and Zevulun stood on Mount Eyval, in whose direction the curses were pronounced in order to complete the number of six tribes required to stand there. The reason the tribe of Shimon was also associated with the tribes in whose direction the blessings were pronounced was that the Torah lists here eleven different curses and the Torah wanted to avoid pronouncing a curse in his direction. Moses decreed that all the tribes receive a blessing, seeing, however, that the tribe of Shimon was not deserving of a blessing on account of Zimri its leader who had caused so much death amongst his own people, he wanted to at least not make it appear as if he were being cursed, i.e. of associating the word ארור with something pronounced in his direction. Had he allowed this to occur Shimon would have been beyond redemption (Rashi in the name of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan).   Our sages in Sifri Vezot Habrachah item 348, claim that the blessing of the tribe of Yehudah contained within it an allusion to a blessing for the tribe of Shimon, seeing that Shimon’s tribal territory was described as an enclave within that of the tribe of Yehudah. The fact that the tribe of Reuven was placed on the mountain in whose direction the curses were pronounced does not constitute something negative against this tribe. I believe that this was the final part of the apology for the episode described in the Torah involving Reuven and Bilhah. Cursing someone who sleeps with the wife of his father (verse 20) was meant to draw our attention to the fact that actually Reuven had never been guilty of that sin. This is why the sages of the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni Vayechi 157) claim that Yaakov, his father, had already told him that the stigma which had attached itself to him on account of what is described as יצועי עלה in Genesis 49,4 would not be totally removed from him until the one (leader Moses) of whom the Torah had written עלה, “arise!” would come. As soon as Moses arranged for the tribe of Reuven to take his place among the tribes facing the pronouncement of the curses, Reuven’s stigma had been completely wiped out. What occurred at Mount Eival enabled our sages to say (Shabbat 58) that anyone accusing Reuven of having committed the sin of sleeping with his father’s wife is in error.    What precisely was the arraignment of the respective tribes like on these two mountains? Our sages in Sotah 32 have described it in these words: “6 tribes ascended the top of Mount Gerizim whereas 6 other tribes ascended the top of Mount Eyval. The priests and Levites took up their position in the valley separating these two mountains. The priests would surround the Holy Ark. The Levites would surround the priests. The Israelites would be on either side of them (on the mountain). This is the meaning of ‘and all of Israel its elders and law-enforcers and judges would stand on either side of the Holy Ark facing the Priests who carried the Ark of the Covenant’ (Joshua 8,33). The Priests and Levites turned their faces in the direction of Mount Gerizim, beginning to recite the blessing, commencing with the words: ‘blessed be the man who has not constructed a hewn image, etc.’ The tribes standing on both mountains would respond by chanting “Amen.” The blessings were followed by the curses, a similar procedure being followed.” After completion of this ceremony they brought the stones and built an altar of them, covering the altar with plaster and inscribing on it the entire Torah in seventy languages. This is proven by verse 8, i.e. באר היטב. After this they took the stones with them returning to their assigned place for the night (Gilgal). Thus far the wording of the Mishnah. [The difficulty in all this is the distance from Gilgal to Mount Eival and the impossibility to accomplish all this within a day without miracle. (Compare the various commentators of the Mishnah), Ed.]
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה, “cursed be the man who will construct a hewn image, etc.” Our sages in Avodah Zarah 52 understand the wording to mean that the curse becomes effective from the time construction of that image commences. We find proof of this in Deut. 9,21: “and the sin which you had constructed, the golden calf, etc.” Clearly, Moses considered the golden calf as a sin before it had even emerged from the crucible.
     ושם בסתר, “and he emplaced it secretly;” the Torah refers to idolatry which had not come to the attention of the authorities. Had it come to the attention of the court, the court would have dealt with the perpetrator and there would not be a need to pronounce a curse on him. Our sages in Avodah Zarah 51 state that idols made by Israelites become forbidden only from the moment they have been worshipped, whereas idols constructed by pagans become forbidden immediately. This is why the Torah refers to פסילי אלוהיהם, “hewn images of their deities” (Deut. 7,25) as having to be burned even if they have not yet served their intended function.   Among the eleven sins listed here, the sin of idolatry is mentioned first as it is equivalent to all other sins combined (Chulin 8). This is followed by the sin of belittling father or mother, seeing that G’d, father, and mother, are the three partners who between them produce another human being (Kidushin 30). This is why the Torah is insistent that all of these three be treated with honor and respect. The reason the Torah singled out these eleven sins from among all the others, is that they result in exile for the people if they become habitually guilty of these sins. Now that the people were about to enter the Holy Land, it was important for them to realise which sins, if committed knowingly, would result in their forfeiting the land.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the selection of these eleven sins was due to their being capable of being perpetrated without the sinner having to expose himself publicly and therefore facing either the court or the disapproval of his peers. The Torah started by listing the worst of these sins, a sin committed vis-a-vis one’s Creator only. It followed with sins which are perpetrated between man and his parents, not necessarily involving anyone else. Who would know if the son belittled his parents? Similarly, the sin of השגת גבול, making adjustments (illegal) to he boundary between one’s property and that of one’s neighbour, is one committed surreptitiously, not publicly. Misleading a blind person by causing him to go astray is also something which the person against whom the sin has been committed is unable to pinpoint and accuse the sinner of. Perverting the judgment of proselytes, orphans, or widows also belongs into this category as these people have no one who will take up their cause; the sinner expects to get away with what he does. Perverting justice is altogether something that is covered up by the one doing it. The various examples of illicit sexual relations are in the nature of something secretive seeing they are perpetrated between consenting adults, neither of which is liable to admit to having been involved in such acts. Moreover, the examples of which the Torah speaks here are the kind that no one would be suspected of in the first place, thus preserving the likelihood that it will go undetected except by G’d.  The Torah lists sleeping with an animal, as the animal, if raped, cannot protest its treatment, so that in effect the deed has been committed in secret. [There is some debate as to the correct text in the wording of our author explaining why the sleeping between two males (homosexual relations) has not been listed. According to one view it was omitted because the second male, the passive one, could protest what has been done to him as opposed to the weaker sex, the women, who are afraid to complain. Ed.] The accepting of bribes is also, by definition, something secretive seeing that it is neither in the interest of the judge nor the litigant involved to publicize what he has done. Thus far Ibn Ezra.
      A Midrashic approach to the above. The eleven sins listed here correspond to eleven virtues mentioned by King David in Psalms 15 as determining who is entitled to sojourn in G’d’s tent, i.e. Temple. Anyone residing outside the land of Israel is obligated to practice these virtues; they are the very opposite of the sins listed in our chapter here. When David demands that the person be הולך תמים, live without blame, this parallels the Torah’s demand in Deut. 18,13 תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, “you shall be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d.” David’s demand to be פועל צדק, “do what is right,” means he must not rob or steal anything belonging to his fellow. Our sages (Baba Batra 88) phrased it as “righteousness should emanate from you, you should give a little extra to your customer rather than a little less than called for by the scales.” This is the opposite of adjusting boundaries in one’s favor. The next stipulation of David, i.e. “speaking the truth in one’s heart,” means that one’s heart and one’s mouth, one’s pronouncements, should by in harmony with one another. This is the reverse of steering the blind person the wrong way, pretending to be helpful to him. The words לא רגל על לשונו, “his tongue is not given to evil,” is the opposite of “striking his fellow in secret” (verse 25). This is a form of slander, הולך רכיל. The words לא עשה לרעהו רעה, “he has not committed any harm to his fellow,” is the reverse of perverting justice, listed in our chapter in verse 20. The words וחרפה לא נשא על קרובו, “he has not brought shame on his relative,” mean that  he has not perpetrated deeds which result in his relative becoming guilty of a sin, i.e. the reverse of the sexual acts described in our chapter. The words נבזה בעיניו נמאס “a contemptible man is abhorrent in his eyes,” mentioned by David (verse 4) as a qualification required to entitle one to be at home in the Temple, is the opposite of the sin of belittling one’s father and mother. The cause of such belittling is that one feels haughty and superior. Honouring those who are G’d-fearing, another prerequisite listed by David as part of the entrance fee to the Lord’s Sanctuary, is the reverse of belittling one’s parents. “Not having lent money to a fellow Jew and charging interest on it nor accepting a bribe against the innocent” (verse 5), is in stark contrast to the sin of spilling blood. People who take David’s moral/ethical demands to heart will be sure not to become shaky in their faith and fair conduct, ever. 
     וענו כל העם, “and all the people are to respond, etc.” This expression is reserved for the response in respect of committing idolatry. In connection with all the other ten sins listed, the Torah merely describes the people’s response as ואמר כל העם. The reason for this distinction is that the people had heard the prohibition of idolatry (the first two of the Ten Commandments) with their own ears directly from G’d. Their response therefore would be “a response in the true meaning of the word.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת, “cursed he who will not uphold the words of this Torah.” This includes all the commandments in the Torah. The meaning of the verse is: “a person must acknowledge all the commandments of the Torah as true and emanating from G’d; he may not exclude a single one of them from his acceptance as such by denying that it is of value to body and soul. He must not view a single commandment as superfluous and meaningless.” This is the meaning of אשר לא יקים לעשות אותם. He must be convinced in his heart that all the commandments are worthwhile observing seeing they are all full of meaning to people engaged in studying them. A more literal meaning of the words לא יקים is cited by the Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7, which claims it refers to a reader of the Torah who fails to raise the Torah scroll with the text visible to the entire congregation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  . ובאו עליך כל הברכות האלה והשיגוך, “and all these blessings will come upon you and will overtake you.” The meaning is that instead of having to chase after these blessings the blessings will “chase” after the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  . ברוך פרי בטנך, “blessed will be the fruit of your womb.” In this instance, the blessings accruing to the body are listed before such blessings as having abundance of food and drink, blessings which commence only with verse 5. When the curses are listed, the Torah begins with describing deprivations involving the people’s food supply (verse 17) before describing afflictions of the body (verse 20). This teaches the concern of G’d for us in that before harming us physically, He warns us by depriving us of something affecting our pocketbook, something not involving pain to our bodies.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך, “and all the nations of the earth will realize that the Lord’s name is proclaimed over you and they will be afraid of you.” If someone is a servant of the king’s minister his stature does not compare to someone who is a servant of the king himself. Even the ministers of the king are in awe of the king’s “private secretaries,” etc. This is because the title of the private secretary contains the appellation “Royal such and such,” i.e. reminds people of the proximity of this individual to the king.   This is the subject discussed by our verse. Whereas the nations of the world are subjects (servants) of the King’s ministers, i.e. the sun and the moon, etc., all of whom are servants of the Lord, Israel knows of no intermediaries in its relationship with the Lord. As a result of appreciating this when aware of the bounty with which G’d provides the Jewish people, these nations will develop a sense of awe of the Israelites.  Seeing they will develop awe of the Israelites, they will most certainly develop awe of the master of the Israelites, i.e. the Lord.
      Our sages in Menachot 35 explain the words כי שם ה' נקרא עליך as a reference to the phylacteries on the head (עליך), according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. This would account for the fact that that phylactery has two letters ש (a three stemmed one and a four-stemmed one) as part of its housing, a halachah dating back to the times of Moses. It is as if our verse would tell us that when the nations of the world observe these two letters ש on our phylactery on our heads they will be seized by a sense of awe and develop fear of us.
      Furthermore, another mystical aspect of this verse is that when you read the alphabet in a reverse order i.e. exchanging letters such as א=ת, ש=ב, ר=ג, you will find that the letters of the great and Holy Name of the Lord, the tetragram, i.e. normally י-ה-ו-ה, are instead מ-צ-פ-צ whose combined numerical value is 300, or the same as ש. This is the letter ש written in larger than normal script at the beginning of שיר השירים, the beginning of Song of Songs. The year comprises 300 days on which the phylacteries are worn (after the Sabbath days and festival days have been deducted from the 365 days of the solar year). If you will look still  more deeply into the significance of this letter ש, you will find that it is an allusion to the שכינה, a manifestation of the presence of the Lord. The letter ש of the four “heads” is an allusion to the Shechinah which orbits (surrounds) the entire globe as well as outer space and which exerts its influence on the 4 “chayot” of the Divine entourage (מרכבה) described both in the visions of Ezekiel and Isaiah.    The strap to which the phylactery of the head is tied, and which has a knot in the shape of the letter ד, is an allusion to the four kinds of wind which operate (low) on earth from four directions guided by the Shechinah. These winds sometimes blow upwards and sometimes downwards. The straps (the part under the knot which looks like the letter ד and which continue in a downward direction), indicate that the Divine input into this earth’s domain occurs from above in a downward direction, i.e. emanates from the higher emanations חכמה and בינה.    Consider the fact that already in the manner in which man’s body has been constructed the nose may be considered as analogous to the letter שין, the two nostrils leading in the direction of the brain, the site of חכמה and בינה. The significance of this organ  (brain/nose) which is “stamped” by the letter ש is that it is viewed as teaching the lesson that the Shechinah itself collects Divine input (from a still higher source, [the <i>ein sof</i>, Ed.?]. Similarly, we may view man’s נשמה as both suffusing and surrounding his entire body, its power (influence) extending in all four ventricles of the brain. The first two ventricles are the seat of the ability to record by means of an illustration (כח הציור), the center orifice is the seat of מחשבה, entertaining abstract concepts, thinking without the aid of illustrations; the last orifice is the seat (source) of memory, retaining impressions gained over a period of time. All of the foregoing teaches us that the letter שין is an allusion to the Shechinah and he four chayot  by means of which the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah have tried to illustrate these concepts for us inasmuch as they reflect celestial images as well as how these concepts are reflected in the microcosm, i.e. the human being which itself reflects powers in the celestial regions. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   והשיגוך, “and they will overtake you.” In this verse, introducing the curses (afflictions), the word is spelled plene, i.e. with the letter ו, whereas in the previous appearance of this word in verse 2 describing the blessings the word was written defective, without this letter ו. The reason may be to reflect the verse in Psalms 91,15: “I will be with him (Israel) in distress.” This message is, however, alluded to in those words, i.e. עמו אנכי בצרה in the last letters of each of these words, the letters of the tetragrammaton ו-י-ה, which whenever they appear in reverse order allude to the attribute of Justice. The veiled message is that in spite of the awesome list of afflictions in this chapter they will not result in the extinction of the Jewish people. G’d will continue to watch over the Jewish people though they may not be aware of this.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  . ידבר ה' בך את הדבר עד כלותו אותך, “the Lord will make the pestilence adhere to you until it consumes you.” The word כלותו refers to the word הדבר, i.e. the pestilence,  [the pestilence in its most violent form, Ed.] The word כלתו, usually understood to mean “it will totally consume,” is written defective, without the latter ו, to hint that the result will not be as terrible as we might think at first glance.
  
  Verse 22
  
  . יככה ה' בשפחת, “the Lord will strike you with fever, etc.” Notice that in both these verses the instigator of the affliction is the attribute of Mercy, Hashem, not the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים. However, there is no question that in this instance the term Hashem is used to describe the attribute of Justice as it has been used in Genesis 6,7 when the Torah wrote (using the attribute Hashem) “I will wipe out man whom I have created.” We also find the term Hashem used to describe the attribute of Justice in Exodus 17,14 when G’d describes His intention to wipe out Amalek. By the same token, there are instances when the term אלוקים refers to the attribute of Mercy, and not as usual, to the attribute of Justice. One such instance is Genesis 8,1 ויזכר אלוקים את נח, “G’d remembered Noach.” Another such example is found in Genesis 20,17 when the Torah describes G’d as curing Avimelech and his household, employing His attribute of אלוקים. All that these examples teach, -as we have pointed out repeatedly,- is that neither attribute ever operates in an undiluted form. Each of these respective attributes of G’d contains at least minor elements of the opposite attribute at the time when G’d employs the respective attribute which is mentioned. This principle is alluded to in our verse by the otherwise redundant addition of the latter ה at the end of the word יככה. This letter reminds us of the disciplinary function even within the attribute of Mercy, i.e. Hashem. We encounter this extraneous letter ה also in Leviticus 26,18 (during the list of the afflictions) when the Torah warns of further disciplinary afflictions using the word ליסרה instead of simply ליסר. in our chapter the extra letter ה appears with all the seven categories of afflictions.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . בגרב ובחרס, “with wet boils and itch, etc.” The word גרב refers to an itch which the afflicted person scratches with a shard of earthenware. This is the approach taken by most commentators (Ibn Ezra quoting unnamed sources). It is, however, possible to understand the word ובחרס as related to שמש pronounced shamash (Pessikta Zutrata), that this affliction is due to G’d wanting to frighten the victim who faces such an affliction. The affliction is known by three names, שמש, חמה, חרס. The reason it is known as שמש is because man is supposed to be a servant serving his master, which the Jew afflicted with this disease has not been. Seeing that the servant (Israel) is of an especially high-ranking nature, this reflects on his Master and His High Rank. The name חמה reflects the fact that the skin affected becomes especially hot; it is also called חרס, reflecting the fact that the sun is supposed to spread light on earth (Job 9,7). [Both man and the sun have a similar task, the former to provide spiritual enlightenment, the latter to provide physical light. Ed.]  Furthermore, if you examine the three words שמש, חרס, חמה, you will observe that the combined final letters of these three words spell שס'ה (365) an allusion to the number of days in the solar year. This is a reference to the orbit of the sun created on the fourth day of creation. It is the outermost orbit of the four respective orbits, i.e. daily rotation of earth on its axis, the cycle of the week, and the cycle of the month, i.e. lunar orbit. The veiled warning in all this is that if one does not obey the rules laid down by G’d the result will be a universe which will eventually self-destruct due to our not having observed the commandments of the Torah which are part of the laws of nature. [I have translated this somewhat freely. Ed.] The author cites various verses from Scripture such as Judges 14,18, in which the word חרס means “sun.”  Seeing that in Psalms 121,6 David appears to view the  sun as a negative force, i.e. “the sun will not strike (יככה) you by day nor the moon by night,” it appears that the thrust of David’s words is that disease and malfunctions in nature are all due to faulty eating habits (involuntary at times), or to exposure to an inclement climate. All of these things are caused in one way or an other by the motion of the sun.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  . והיית אך עשוק וגזול כל הימים, “and you will only be cheated and robbed all the days.” The same message is repeated once more in verse 33 with a minor variation, the word רצוץ, “downtrodden,” being substituted for the word “robbed,” in our verse here. As usual, the word אך or רק, represents some exclusion to what preceded them. In this instance the word אך excludes other nations who will never be as downtrodden as the Jewish people when they are being disciplined by the Lord. On the other hand, the word רק, in connection with the elevation of the Jewish people in verse 13, also means that such an elevation as will be experienced by the Jewish people as part of the blessings is unparalleled amongst the Gentile nations.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  . יירש הצלצל, “the chirping locust will impoverish.” The word יירש is from the same root as להוריש, to dispossess in Deut. 4,38. This is also the way Onkelos understands it, i.e. in Deut. 4,38 when he writes יתרך. Rashi, on the other hand, understands the word as derived from the word רש, poor. In that case, the Torah would describe the locust as making the fruit “look poorly.” The word צלצל describes a certain species of locust, based on the noise this species makes when it appears in swarms. The word is found in a similar meaning in Psalms 150,5 צלצלי תרועה, “the cymbals making loud noises.” The Targum renders this word here as סקאה, suggesting that it is a kind of locust or beetle equipped with a sack-like bag. The word appears in Baba Kama 116 as robbery with violence, the Talmud quoting our verse as proof for the meaning of ונטלוהו מסיקין. The meaning there is that one robs from the robber.
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוקיך בשמחה, “because you did not serve the Lord your G’d joyfully.” The Torah accuses people who do serve G’d not to have done so joyfully. A person is obligated not merely to carry out G’d’s instructions but to do so gladly, in a happy frame of mind. Joy when performing any of G’d’s commandments is considered as fulfillment of a commandment by itself, meriting additional reward. This is why one may be punished for failing to perform the commandments with a joyful heart. This is why the Torah requires that its commandments be performed with full intent and joyfully. Our sages in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5,6 comment concerning this that if Reuven had been aware that G’d would write in the Torah concerning his attempts to save Joseph’s life from the hands of his other brothers (Genesis 37,21) that he would receive a reward not only for his deed but for the good intentions accompanying same, he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders and brought him back to his (their) father. The Torah also makes a point of underlining the joy in Aaron’s heart when he saw his brother Moses again after so many years. Had he known that his feelings would be commented upon favorably (Exodus 4,14), he would have gone out to meet his brother accompanied by an orchestra of many different musical instruments. Had Boaz known that his offering Ruth food and drink in abundance would be recorded for eternity as a good deed of his, he would have fed her the choicest parts of a fatted calf, instead of merely bread and vinegar (Ruth 2,14).
  
  Verse 48
  
  מרב כל, ועבדת את אויביך בחוסר כל, “You will serve your enemies...deprived of everything.” This is another example of how G’d makes the punishment fit the crime (Sanhedrin 90). Seeing that the people did not serve the Lord when they had “plenty of everything,” they would wind up serving their enemies when being “devoid of all.” We read in Chagigah 9 that the words of Isaiah 48,10: “I have refined you, but not as silver, I test you in the furnace of poverty,” mean that G’d reviewed all the various positive attributes He could treat the Israelites with and found that only the attribute of poverty would be appropriate. The scholar Shmuel commented on this statement  that this is the meaning of the popular saying: “poverty is as appropriate for the Jewish people as a red harness for a white horse.”
  
  Verse 49
  
  . כאשר ידאה הנשר, “as the eagle will swoop.” This is a reference to the Roman Emperor Vespasianus and his general (and son) Titus (before the latter became Emperor). He had thought that it would take him 10 days to reach Jerusalem whereas he found that he reached the city after only five days of travel. He had overheard a young child quote our verse in which G’d describes a nation being carried against the Jewish people from the end of the earth much like an eagle which swoops down out of the sky. He applied this verse to himself when he experienced such an extraordinarily fast journey in his campaign against Jerusalem. Just as this particular verse applies to the destruction of the second Temple, so the entire chapter speaks of events happening at the end of the period of the second Temple.
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
   והצר לך בכל שעריך, “It will besiege you in all your cities.” The word שעריך is a simile for “in every location.” It is possible to explain the fact that the Torah uses the word שעריך four times in our context  (verse 52 twice, plus verses 55 and 57) as meaning that the first time the word is mentioned it is in the nature of a heading, כולל. The second time the reference is to the gates guarding the country. The third time it refers to gates guarding entrances to houses of individuals, whereas the last time it is derived from the word שעור, “measure” in the sense of “planning.” It describes how the enemy would thwart whatever plans the Jews would make to counter him and fight him. Such planning of counter measures would only result in additional hurt and confusion among the Jewish people. The entire passage then would express the very reverse of what happens when one plans successful activities. Israel would be frustrated in every single move it makes. It would endure the reverse of what has been described as the fate of the wicked in Psalms 10,5: ”his ways prosper at all times.”
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
   אם לא תשמור לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת הכתובים בספר הזה ליראה את השם הנכבד והנורא הזה, “if you will not observe to carry out all the words of this Torah which have been written in this Book, in order for you to revere His honored and awesome name.” The meaning of this verse is that there must be one overriding consideration running throughout all the commandments of the Torah, i.e. to infuse reverence in the people for the Lord. This is not the first time that Moses explains this as the overall purpose of Torah legislation. He had already made this point in Exodus 20,17 during the revelation at Mount Sinai, when he said: “G’d has come in order to test you and to ensure that the awe of Him shall be on your faces so that you shall not sin.” King Solomon also concluded his Book of Proverbs with the need for יראת ה', “reverence and awe of the Lord” (Proverbs 31,30). We also find that Isaiah 33,6 emphasizes the need for this important virtue. Our sages, in elaborating on this theme in Shabbat 31, imply that even if one has studied all the tractates of the oral Torah, the yardstick by which man is measured after death is whether he did relate to all of this with reverence for the Lord or not.    The plain meaning of the verse in Isaiah 33,6 יראת ה' היא אוצרו is that it is a virtue stored up in G’d’s treasury, something very dear to Him, consisting of the cumulative virtues of awe of Him by G’d-fearing people which G’d treats like a most precious possession, “locking it away” in His most inaccessible treasure chamber. The reason that the prophet employs the term “treasure, something to be stored,” in connection with this virtue is that a king cannot establish a treasury unless he collected the funds for it from outsiders, from people. Anything the king locks away is called אוצר, “treasure.” What all this teaches is that of all the virtues we must acquire, a measure of awe and reverence of the Lord is the overriding virtue, “coloring,” i.e. lending value, to all the other virtues man practices. One of the reasons that this is so is that all the other commandments can be performed only at certain times, such as the wearing of a tallit or phylacteries. When one has put on these phylacteries one has effectively concluded performing this mitzvah. Not so with the commandment to relate to the Lord with יראה, with awe. It is a commandment which permeates all our waking hours. This is what David had in mind when he wrote (Psalms 19,10) “the reverence for the Lord is pure and endures forever.” Such a statement could not have been made concerning performance of any of the other commandments which require active performance, [as opposed to the mark of circumcision on our flesh. Ed.] It is a commandment which is both positive and negative, i.e. cultivating it is the positive aspect of the commandment, whereas failure to cultivate it and to maintain it at all times is a violation of it, i.e. equivalent to transgressing a negative commandment.
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
   והתמכרתם שם, “and you will offer yourselves for sale there.” you will actively beg to be bought as slaves (an ultimate degradation of yourselves). ואין קונה, “but there will be no buyer.” This is a promise by G’d who spares you this ultimate degradation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואזנים לשמוע עד היום הזה, “and ears to listen, until this day.” The message is that a student does not truly appreciate the opinions and knowledge of his teacher until he reaches the age of 40. This is why the sages in Avot 5,27 characterize the attainment of the fortieth birthday as a time when one is granted בינה, a measure of insight.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ותבואו אל המקום הזה, “and you arrived at this place.” Moses inserted these two verses in the middle of his lecture as he wanted to reinforce the people’s faith in the fact that they would conquer and inherit the land of Israel, just as they had conquered and inherited the lands formerly belonging to Sichon and Og who also belonged to the seven Canaanite tribes whose land had been promised to the Jewish people (Avraham and the other patriarchs). The two and a half tribes Reuven, Gad, and half the tribe of Menashe had already taken possession of these lands at the time Moses was speaking, leaving the land on the West Bank of the Jordan for the other 9 1/2 tribes.
    You should appreciate that the warnings of doom enumerated in this whole portion are Moses’ own wording as distinct from similar warnings of disaster in Leviticus chapter 26. This does not mean that Moses “made up the תוכחה by himself.” Rather, it means that the syntax used by the Torah reflects that G’d approved of the choice of words Moses had used so that effectively everything recorded in the written text of the Torah is equivalent to something dictated by G’d Himself.   If our sages (Megillah 31) stated that the “curses contained in the Torah and which were uttered by the priests were words put in their mouths by G’d Himself,” whereas those contained in the Book of Deuteronomy reflect Moses’ words, they meant that Moses succeeded in voicing thoughts which reflected exactly what G’d would have told him to say.    The reason that the Torah chose to write two versions of these exhortations and warnings, one being G’d’s initiative and words, the other at the initiative of Moses who had divined what G’d wanted him to say, is that the version we read at the end of the Book of Leviticus is that which became true at the time the first Temple was destroyed, whereas the longer version we read here in the Book of Deuteronomy was not fulfilled until the second Temple was being destroyed. One proof that this is so is furnished by the words (Leviticus 26,30) והשמדתי את במותיכם והכרתי את חמניכם, “I will destroy your private altars and demolish your sun-idols.” These are phenomena which existed only during the period of the first Temple when idolatry was widespread among the people during the reigns of many kings. The curses listed in Deuteronomy were all fulfilled during the collapse of the second commonwealth and its Temple. 
  Seeing that the Shechinah resided in Jerusalem during the period of the first Temple David wrote (Psalms 24,7) “lift up your heads o gate! Up high, you everlasting doors, so the King of glory may come in!” The words מלך הכבוד used by David there mean מלך של הכבוד, a reference to the Shechinah resident in Jerusalem, i.e. the Temple during that epoch. During the period of the second Temple the Shechinah did not reside permanently in Jerusalem, but merely straddled the Temple from time to time as described by Chagai 1,8: ”I will look upon it (the second Temple) with favor and will be glorified, said the Lord.” The letter ה at the end of the word ואכבדה in that verse is a hint that the Shechinah will be there as a loose cover, חופף. In the future, when the third Temple will be built, the Shechinah will return in full force as it had been manifest during the first Temple. In fact, its manifestation will be even more pronounced than it had been during the period of the first Temple. This is what Isaiah meant when he said (Isaiah 60, 1-2) “Arise, shine, for your light has dawned; the Presence of the Lord has shone upon you! Behold! Darkness shall cover the earth, and thick clouds the peoples, but upon you the Lord will shine, and His Presence will be over you; nations shall walk by your light, kings by your shining radiance.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
     טובה תוכחת מגולה מאהבה מסוטרת, “Better an open rebuke than love which is concealed.” (Prov.27,5) 
  In his Book of Proverbs Solomon taught us important principles about the nature of rebukes and how to administer them. He taught the people that life itself is closely linked to rebukes and the ability to accept same, whereas death is inextricably involved with people who resent being rebuked and are unwilling to accept rebukes. We know that life is closely linked to rebukes from Proverbs 6,23: “instructive rebukes are a way to life.” We also have a verse expressing similar sentiments in Proverbs 10,17: “he who accepts rebukes is on the way to the path of life.” Yet another verse from Scripture dwelling on the same subject is found in Proverbs 15,4: ”a healing tongue is a tree of life,” i.e. the way to heal a tongue (which has wagged) is to rebuke the owner. On the other hand, death attaches itself to people who hate being rebuked as we know from Proverbs 15,10: “Harsh discipline is needed for those who abandon the right path; he who hates rebuke will die.” He who departs from the right path (of Torah) only temporarily but does not hate being rebuked will be judged by harsh discipline in order to make him abandon the path of evil; the one who hates rebukes, however, cannot be brought back to the right path by afflictions. There is no hope for him. As a result, such a person will be sentenced to death (by the celestial court)    A love to accept rebukes is a strong indication that the person in question possesses fine qualities, generally. A negative attitude to rebukes indicates that such a person also suffers from other negative traits. This is the reason Solomon says (Proverbs 9,8) “do not rebuke a scoffer lest he will hate you, rather rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” When rebuking a fellow human being one must reveal sincerity and not engage in flattery. One should give him credit for whatever good points he has, and at the same time restrict oneself to point out such a person’s shortcomings, for the righteous and the wicked are two total opposites. When someone has escaped the path of wickedness he does not automatically qualify for the appellation of צדיק, a righteous person, until he has embraced the path of righteousness in his lifestyle. This is because the character of a wicked person is so totally different from that of a righteous person. When such a wicked person has abandoned his former path in life he has only reached the half-way mark separating him from the truly righteous person. This is why the rebuker has to be candid and explain to him the whole truth and not indulge in flattery, praising him for abandoning the path of evil, thereby lulling him into the belief that he has already completely rehabilitated himself. This is what prompted Solomon to say: “better open rebuke than concealed love.” He may appear to reveal hatred by rebuking so candidly; however, better to appear in that guise than to appear as loving the subject of the rebuke by suppressing further guidance and congratulating the subject as if he already had completed the path of rehabilitation.R' David Kimchi, (Radak) quoting his father, takes a different view of the meaning of our introductory verse. He understands Solomon as saying that an open rebuke is good; however it is so only if the rebuker reveals underlying love for the rebuked by speaking to him privately, not exposing him to embarrassment.A Midrashic approach mentioned in Devarim Rabbah (Lieberman edition item 8) states that the “open” rebukes are the ones addressed by Moses to his people, whereas the ones described as “from hidden love,” refer to the rebukes of Bileam who flattered Israel by pronouncing blessings, whereas in his heart he hated the very people upon whom he showered all his blessings. For instance, when he complimented the people on preserving each other’s privacy by saying: “how goodly are your tents O Yaakov,” etc., (Numbers 24,5) what he really wanted to say was: “how goodly are your tents O Moav, your dwellings, children of Ammon.” Had G’d not twisted his mouth this is what would have come out of it.There is yet another way to understand this saying by Solomon. The words: “open rebuke,” refer to the rebukes we read in Leviticus chapter 26, whereas the ones in Deuteronomy, all of whom originate with the Lord Himself, though the wording may have been Moses’, were approved by G’d as we explained already. The words מאהבה מסוטרת, may mean: “from the One whose love is not manifest, i.e. G’d, the attribute Shechinah.”This attribute is often referred to as אהבה, “love,” such as in Proverbs 15,17: “better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened ox where there is hate.” The “love” referred to in that verse is a reference to the Presence of the Shechinah. The basis for such exegesis is found in Song of Songs 2,7: אם תעירו ואם תעוררו את האהבה, “do not dare to arouse the love,” [a reference to premature attempts to secure the redemption, return to Israel of the Shechinah. Ed.] The word באהבה in Song of Songs 8,7 “that vast floods cannot quench love,” also refers to the Shechinah. Similarly, the word אהבה, love, is used in our liturgy when we say להודות לך וליחדך באהבה, “to give thanks to You and to declare Your unity in the form of the Shechinah,” (prior to reciting the Kriyat Shema). [The reason the word באהבה in that paragraph is not taken at face value, is presumably that the same word occurred immediately before the word להודות already, thus making it redundant unless it meant something different than usual. Ed.] Therefore, Solomon describes open rebuke as emanating from G’d’s attribute Shechinah. Wherein then is the goodness of which Solomon speaks manifest? Even though the Israelites had violated so many of the commandments that G’d had been forced to bring upon them all the various afflictions mentioned both in Leviticus chapter 26 and in Deuteronomy chapter 28 so that the people were progressively deprived of the first Temple and the second Temple, all this was for their own good. Moses explained this to the people already in Deut. 8,21 when he said that G’d starved the Jewish people “in order to afflict you, to subject you to trials in order to treat you well in your distant future.” All afflictions serve an educational purpose, to ensure that in the end you will become worthy of your lofty destiny. Although all the curses have been exhausted (fulfilled) i.e. Israel deserved the afflictions, the Jewish people have not ceased to exist. This is the meaning of Maleachi 3,7: “I the Lord have not changed, and you the Children of Yaakov have not perished.” Our sages in Tanchuma Nitzavim 1 comment on this verse that when the Gentile nations experience a single series of afflictions this results in their demise from history, whereas the Jewish people, in spite of having experienced one holocaust after another, are still around and flourishing. They cite Micah 7,8 as proof of this. We read there: “Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy! though I have fallen, I rise again, though I sit in darkness the Lord is my light.” Deut. 32,23 proclaims the same message when the Torah writes: “My arrows I have used up against them, yet they have not perished.” The matter can be compared to a warrior who erects a beam shooting all his arrows at the beam. In the end, the warrior finds that he has exhausted his supply of arrows but that the beam is still standing. Although Israel has collapsed frequently under the afflictions G’d has disciplined it with, it always emerged from these afflictions and was rehabilitated. This is also the meaning of Jeremiah in Lamentations 3,12: “He has bent His bow and made me the target of His arrows.”    This is also what Moses said in his admonitions here in the following verse:
    אתם נצבים היום כלכם, ראשיכם, שבטיכם וזקניכם ושוטריכם כל איש ישראל, “You are all standing upright here his day, your chiefs, your tribes, all the men of your elders, your law-enforcers, all the men of Israel.” All of the Israelites were assembled there in one place in anticipation of the renewal of the covenant just as they had all been assembled on the occasion of the first covenant at Mount Sinai. Seeing the people had been unfaithful to the first covenant when they had said (about the golden calf) “these are your gods O Israel” (Exodus 32,4), there had arisen the need to conclude a second covenant with this generation in the wilderness of Moav which the people had to confirm with an oath and a curse in the event that they would again dishonour their commitment. This is the reason Moses used the preamble: “you are standing here upright, all of you in the presence of the Lord your G’d.” Moses meant to compare the present assembly to the one 40 years earlier at Mount Sinai. Whereas on that occasion Israel’s word, unsupported by an explicit oath, had been deemed sufficient, this time they were required to confirm their undertaking by an oath.It is possible to understand that our verse contains 2 promises: 1) that the Jewish people would endure and would never become extinct but would survive (as a people) all future catastrophes befalling mankind. 2) that the people would merit life in the hereafter if they would observe the commandments of the Torah. The need to give the people this assurance arose out of the fact that if they were to experience the full brunt of the curses mentioned in the previous portion, they would surely think that this spelled their doom. Moses therefore reminded them that just as they were all standing before him upright and well now, so they would emerge from even the worst aspects of the afflictions listed in the Torah and would be rehabilitated. The effect of the afflictions suffered in this life would be to erase the impact of their sins so that their claim to a life in the world to come would remain intact. This is what was meant when the Torah wrote in Deut. 6,25: “it will be a merit for us if we are careful to perform this entire commandment before Hashem.” This is the assurance of life in the hereafter. This is also a meaning of the word כלכם which is an allusion to the statement of the sages in Sanhedrin 90 that כל ישראל יש להם חלק בעולם הבא, that “the entire Jewish nation has a share in the hereafter.”
  A Midrashic view (Tanchuma Nitzavim 1) of the words: “you are all standing here upright this day;” just as this day commences in darkness, the darkness later giving way to light, so the darkness that you find yourself in as a result of enduring the afflictions listed previously will be replaced by bright light,” as described by Isaiah 60,19: “the Lord will become for you an eternal light and your G’d will be your source of splendour.”
  ראשיכם שבטיכם, “your heads (leaders), your tribes, etc.”  The meaning is: “your heads, who are the leaders of your respective tribes.” Moses listed the more distinguished people first, afterwards the adult males, followed by the male children who were under age, followed by the women, concluding with the proselytes.
  כל איש ישראל, “every man in Israel.” The sages in Tanchuma Nitzavim 1 use this expression to teach us that every man in Israel is co-responsible for the sin of every other Israelite. They bring practical proof for this from Joshua 7,11 where G’d told Joshua that the sin of one man, Achan ben Karmi, was the reason that the entire people had suffered a military setback at the hands of a small town, Ai. The words describing Achan’s sin are: “Israel has sinned.” This spells out the extent to which every Israelite shares in the sin of another Israelite. [Obviously, there are degrees in such sharing of another Israelite’s sin. Ed.] This is also why we read in Leviticus 26,37: וכשלו איש באחיו, “they shall stumble one over the other.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 27 interpret these words as meaning “they shall stumble over the sins of one another.” This teaches the principle of reciprocal responsibility of one Israelite for the conduct of (all) other Israelites. If such reciprocal responsibility extends to all Israelites sharing misfortune on account of the sins committed by a few, how much more so will it apply to the reciprocal entitlement to enjoyment by all Israelites of good fortune (life in the hereafter),  the entitlement to which was merited by the few! This is the meaning of the words of Eliphaz to Job ימלט אי נקי, “he will deliver the guilty; He will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands.” (Job 22,30) In other words, a single individual with “clean” hands can be the instrument through which all the inhabitants of an island are saved. One single individual whose lifestyle is beyond reproach may save [for a period of time, Ed.] all his peers from impending doom. It follows that seeing while a righteous person is alive he saves his compatriots from doom, the death of such a man is a signal for all his compatriots to repent their sins, as they have been deprived of the protective merit of this righteous person. We have a principle that מדה טובה מרובה על מדת פורענות, that the range of the application of measures of good exceeds the range of the application of measures of evil. Hence if the righteous shares in the guilt of the sinner, the sinner benefits even more strongly from the merits accumulated by the righteous (Sotah 11).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לעברך בברית ה’ אלוקיך, ”for you to pass into the covenant with the Lord your G’d.” This “passing” is equivalent to “entering into.“ This is evident from the fact that the Torah does not use the regular preposition used with the verb עבר, i.e. לעבור על, but the preposition ב. What occurred here is similar to what occurred when G’d concluded the covenant with Avraham in Genesis 15,17 when He passed between the pieces. This is why Onkelos translates לאעלות בקיימא. The word ובאלתו refers to the people of Israel; in other words: “by means of its oath which He made you swear and which you accepted upon yourselves.”
  It is possible to understand the word ובאלתו as referring to G’d, meaning “and by means of His oath which He swore to you.” The whole verse then would mean: “you are standing here today ready to enter the covenant and oath of the Lord by means of which He swore that You will be His people and that He will be your G’d.” The verse following would prove that this is the meaning, seeing the Torah writes there: “as He said to you and swore to  your fathers.” Further reinforcement of this interpretation is provided by Samuel I 12,22: “seeing that the Lord had agreed (sworn) to make you His people.” Even though all the commentators there understand the word הואיל to be an expression of G’d’s goodwill, grace, I believe the word הואיל in that verse derives from the word אלה, and means “for G’d swore to make you His people.” This does not preclude that the oath itself was an expression of G’d’s goodwill towards the people so that there is no conflict between the two interpretations. Still further proof of the meaning of אלה in our verse is the comment in Tanchuma Nitzavim 3 on Song of Songs 7,6: מלך אסור ברהטים, usually translated as “a king held captive by tresses” (of hair). According to the Midrash the meaning is “a king who is bound by his oath.” The word אסר meaning oath, occurs in Numbers 30,7. G’d’s oath to the patriarchs that He would not exchange the Jewish people for any other nation is what ties Him to Israel. The word רהטים in the verse from Song of Songs which we quoted is a reference to the patriarchs; this word occurs in the record of their life stories both in Genesis 18,7 where the word הבקר is rendered by Onkelos as רהט; as well as in connection with Yaakov in Genesis 30,38. This is why G’d cannot violate His oath to the patriarchs .You will find that in Ezekiel 20 when the Jewish people challenged the continued validity of the Torah’s commandments by describing themselves as having been freed (sold) by their master (G’d) since they had become exiled, that the prophet did not accept that argument and vehemently pointed out that the basic relationship between G’d and the Jewish people is an eternal bond, that severing it would mean the total demise of the party who severed it. [I have merely summarized the dialogue in Ezekiel 20. Ed.] Basically, Ezekiel’s argument was that as long as the master had not received monetary compensation from the “buyer” of the slave no transaction had taken place at all; the Jewish people still belong  to their erstwhile master, i.e. G’d. This is also reflected in the words of Isaiah 52,3: “you have been sold חנם, without price, therefore you will also be redeemed without monetary compensation having to be paid.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ולא אתכם לבדכם, “And not only with you, etc.” Moses means that although G’d concludes this covenant with the present generation of Jews as well as the oath warning against non-performance, seeing that you are standing here this day, the fact is that even future generations of Jews unable to stand  here today are included in this covenant. The reason that Moses is able to make such a statement is that the trunk of the tree is viewed as the father, i.e. “the root ” of all subsequent branches. All the branches are only the offshoots of the original roots. Concerning how it s possible to include unborn generations in this covenant, i.e. reciprocal undertaking, our sages in Tanchuma Yitro 11 comment that all souls ever created since the days of the creation of the earth were present at this assembly. They are not all described as “standing,” as souls without bodies cannot “stand.” The words אשר איננו פה, “who are not here,” refer to the bodies of such souls. The words עמנו היום, refer to their souls, which are present even today. The word עמנו, “with us,” refers back to the word עומד, “standing,” in verse 14.  It is as if the Torah had written: “and all those not standing here with us this day.” The reason Moses uses the word “standing,” is because the angels in Zecharyah 3,7 have been described as בין העומדים האלה, “among these who are standing.”Our sages in Tanchuma Yitro 11 also claim that all the prophets who ever lived (after Moses) all received their prophetic powers when their souls were at the assembly at Sinai; however they were not allowed to make use of their prophetic powers until their respective generations when they were alive on earth. This is also the meaning of Malachi 1,1 משא דבר ה’ ביד מלאכי. It is significant that the wording is not על מלאכי, but ביד מלאכי. The present formulation means: ”A pronouncement: ‘the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi,’” whereas the other formulation would have meant that the “message only now came to Malachi.” The present formulation describes only the point in time when this message, which the soul of the prophet had received at Mount Sinai, was released for publication. We find something similar in Isaiah 48,16 where the prophet writes: “from the beginning I did not speak in secret; from the time anything existed I was there. And now, the Lord G’d has sent me, endowed me with His spirit.” The meaning of the verse is that the soul of the prophet had received this communication from G’d already at Mount Sinai but it had only now been released for publication.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  . כי אתם ידעתם, “for you have known;” a reference to the fact that among the people Moses addressed here there were some who remembered the abominations practiced by the Egyptians, whereas all of them had observed the abominations practiced by the peoples whose land they had crossed in the meantime, i.e. Edom, Moav, Ammon and Midian.
  
  Verse 16
  
   ותראו את שקוציהם...עץ ואבן, “you have seen their detestable idols, wood and stone, silver and gold.” The former were on display openly; the latter — due to their value and the owners being afraid of theft — were kept inside their homes (Tanchuma Nitzavim 3).
  
  Verse 17
  
  . פן יש בכם שרש פורה ראש ולענה, “lest there be among you a root flourishing with gall and wormwood.” Venom is considered the ראש, ‘principal’ of all bitter roots or leafs, being more bitter than any other variant. Some commentators explain the meaning of the word ראש here as a reference to the venom of the viper in whose head it is found, i.e. animal-based. The word לענה, by contrast, refers to some bitter vegetable matter. We find the expression in Numbers 30,14: לענות נפש, “to cause bitterness in a person.” It describes the person making such a vow as causing herself the utmost anguish.
  
  Verse 18
  
   והיה בשמעו את דברי האלה הזאת, “it will be when he hears these words of a curse, etc.;” a reference to what we read above in Deut. 27,15: “cursed the man who makes a hewn image, etc.” The person concerned is under the mistaken impression that he will be a beneficiary of the merit accumulated by the many people who do observe the Torah and have forsworn any form of idolatry.  והתברך בלבבו לאמר “and he will bless himself in his heart, saying;" He will think upon hearing the curses that they will not harm him and actually be turned into blessings.בשרירות לבי אלך, “I will walk as my heart sees fit.” He says to himself that in spite of the fact that he does not accept any part of the Torah which does not appeal to him he will not be punished, seeing that he is only an individual whose actions are not relevant when the vast majority of his fellow Jews are observant and therefore the whole people is deserving of G’d’s bountiful blessing as promised. Seeing that he reasons in such a way, the Torah adds immediately that he is totally wrong. G’d will not forgive him, i.e. turn a blind eye to his conduct; on the contrary, G’d’s wrath will be fuming, etc., against such an individual. The word אז in our verse is understood to mean “immediately,” by Ibn Ezra.
  It is also possible to understand the words בשרירות לבי as an expression of aggressive obstinacy. This individual deliberately disregards the opinion of the multitude, “doing his own thing” openly. The meaning of the expression is similar to what is known in the Talmud (Gittin 26) as אשרתא דדייני, “a document signed by judges testifying to the fulfillment of conditions in an accompanying document,” i.e. confirmation.The reason the Torah writes למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה, is that the wicked person prides himself with his evil deeds and determines to continue in his evil ways, thereby adding more “thirst” to his whole system which previously was adequately supplied with moisture. He had hoped to become satiated by indulging his cravings for sin. His punishment consists of the fact that instead of deriving satisfaction from his sins, he constantly feels the irrepressible urge to commit more and more sins. Instead of slaking his thirst for whatever it is he wishes to achieve, he will find that he gets ever thirstier. [A form of the principle described by our sages in Avot 4,2 עבירה גוררת עבירה, “one deliberately committed sin brings in its wake another.” Ed.] The desire to sin acts like a roller-coaster; once on that path it is almost impossible to stop and to reverse course. It is also a well known fact that man’s heart is the “root” of the body. His thoughts are like the branches, his deeds like the fruit of the tree. The Torah has already stated (Genesis 6,5) that “all the thoughts of (wicked people) are centered all day long on doing evil.” Such people will not cease producing bitter fruit (Jeremiah 17,8). Even if all the planning of the wicked people is not translated into deeds, such wicked people are punished for the wicked thoughts they entertain. This is what Solomon referred to when he said (Proverbs 15,13) “a happy heart makes for a cheerful face; a sad heart causes a despondent spirit.” The meaning of the entire verse is that one should not think that mere thoughts have no bearing on one’s personality. If a person has a positive attitude to life, is joyful, or has a negative attitude to life, is despondent, all depends on the kind of thoughts he entertains. In other words, the thoughts have their origin in the heart; when these thoughts are translated into action they have an impact on the body, i.e. the body reveals the nature of the thoughts a person entertains. It follows that the despondent person is in line for punishment even more so when he actually enjoys contemplating the performance of sins. This is also what the sages (Yuma 29) had in mind when they said that the contemplating of sins is a more serious offense than the actual carrying out of the sin. The sinful thoughts, when carried out, leave their mark on the body of a person, whereas spontaneously committed sins do not leave such marks on the body. This statement, i.e. psychological insight, of the sages is of very great importance. The statement has given rise to many and varied interpretations as I have already mentioned elsewhere where I said that it means that contemplating sins is more serious than committing the actual sin seeing that the contemplating of the sin is what brings about its execution. By contemplating sins on a regular basis, the heart becomes involved in one’s deeds. Seeing that the soul has its home in the heart, such evil thoughts tend to corrupt the soul. [The author clearly feels that the soul, something disembodied, abstract, must be housed in something physical in order to be able to function. One cannot think of the soul as being something detached from the body, independent. Therefore, the part of the body in which the soul is “at home” is of crucial significance. Ed.] Contaminating the soul by entertaining these sinful thoughts is therefore a more serious offense than the actual spontaneous commission of a sin which had not previously had such an impact on one’s soul.Another interpretation of the statement that הרהורי עבירה קשין מעבירה involves often “follow-up” sins. Let us say that a person entertains the thought of breaking into someone’s house. If he is contemplating this sin instead of spontaneously stealing, he most likely weighs what action to take if his plan encounters opposition. He will think of how to deal with the opposition, i.e. possibly decide to kill the person who would frustrate his plan. Thus he already adds further sinful thoughts before even committing the original sin.
  Should someone ask: “how can the Torah decree penalties for thoughts which have never been carried out? How can the Torah expect a person to be so perfect that the temptation and intention to commit a sin never occurs to him?” Let me explain the essence of the subject. We know that man is in charge (has the choice) of the actions he carries out. This is what the Torah alluded to in Deut. 30, 15-19: “see I have today given into your hand (control) over life and goodness, over death and evil;......you shall choose life.“ Just as man can control his actions, he can also control his thoughts. True, the latter require some preparation, education. We are commanded to entertain constructive thoughts and to avoid thinking potentially destructive, sinful thoughts. G’d gives credit for our entertaining positive constructive thoughts, whereas He punishes us for thinking sinful thoughts. If, on occasion, one does entertain unworthy thoughts, thoughts which creep up on a person uninvited, such thoughts reflect the fact that the individual in question has not trained himself sufficiently not to entertain unworthy, potentially sinful thoughts. The only cure for this is to concentrate on G’d and what He expects us to do and how He expects us to relate to His universe and our environment. One must relate to such unworthy thoughts with anger at oneself for such thoughts to have occurred to one at all. If one does so, one may rely on the saying of our sages that הבא לטהר מסיין אותו, “when a person makes a genuine effort to purify (himself or others) he receives a divine assist.” (Yuma 38) There are numerous verses in the Bible testifying to the principle that there are divine assists for people trying to do the right thing. One such verse is found In Chronicles I 28,9: ”for the Lord searches all minds and discerns the design of every thought, if you seek Him, He will be available to you.” Another verse in a similar vein is found in Proverbs 21,2: ”G’d probes the (content) of one’s hearts.” Solomon means that when man entertains positive thoughts, G’d will help translate them into reality. Other verses from Scripture which convey similar messages are found in Psalms 10,17, as well as in Chronicles I 29,18. 
  Maimonides explains the statement that the contemplating of commission of sins is קשין, something more severe than the actual commission of the sin, by reference to the fact that the ability to entertain thoughts is one of the major factors elevating man above the beasts. Abusing such a faculty is more serious than committing sins with the body, something we have in common with the animals, i.e. the  lower forms of life. Perverting the very distinctive feature given to us by the Almighty by contemplating actions aimed against our Creator, is indeed an unforgivable abuse of the powers granted to us. By turning the dominating element of his personality into a tool to commit sins, the subservient part of man, i.e. his body, will automatically tend to become corrupted thereby. When someone commits a sin using as his instrument a foolish slave, this is not nearly as serious as when one uses a free man to carry out one’s nefarious schemes. This is what Maimonides wrote at the beginning of the second part of his Moreh Nevuchim. [Actually it is found in section 3, chapter 8] Yet another reason why planning a sin is more serious than the actual commission of it (a thought attributed to Nachmanides by the author in his book Kad Hakemach), is that the author of the statement had in mind the satisfaction one derives from having carried out the sin. The fact that the perpetrator still thinks about the sin as an accomplishment results in his punishment becoming harsher. According to this interpretation no penalty accrues to the contemplation of a sin not carried out. The author, in his volume Kad Hakemach, reasons that seeing that we do not have control of our thoughts, we cannot be held culpable for them. [I am quoting from Rabbi Chavell’s notes, seeing I have neither seen the comment by Nachmanides nor the author’s book Kad Hakemach. Ed.] This is based on the statement of our sages in Kidushin 40 that G‘d does not combine the sinful thought with the actual performance of the evil deed. There is no penalty for the thought. This is also supported by a verse in Psalms 66,18: ”Had I an evil thought in my mind, the Lord would not have listened.” The only exception to this rule is contemplating idolatry. Such thoughts are punishable even if not carried out, as it states in Ezekiel 14,5: “Thus I will hold the House of Israel responsible for their thoughts, because they have all been estranged from Me through their fetishes.”
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   שרפה כל ארצה, “a burning up of its entire land;” according to the plain meaning of the text the word ארצה refers back to what the Torah described in verse 21 as “the plagues which afflicted that land.” In that verse the land had been described generally, whereas in our verse the Torah gives some details of what precisely happened to the land, i.e. that it was “burned” by sulphur and salt. The Torah now makes clear that this affliction struck the entire land.Alternatively, the words כל ארצה, can mean that the choicest part of Israel’s land was turned into something similar to Sodom and Gomorrah which had been destroyed by sulphur and brimstone. 
  It is also possible that the word כל in the expression כל ארצה refers to the land which had formerly contained everything, i.e. כל; the land which epitomized every thing good under the sun. When G’d related to that land (and its people) with goodwill, benevolently, the land of Israel was לא תחסר כל בה, “did not lack for anything,” (Deut. 5,9) whereas now when the Divine Presence had withdrawn in anger, it once more came to resemble a land which had been burned.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  . וישתחוו להם, אלוהים אשר לא ידעום ולא חלק להם, and they served their gods; gods they did not know of and which He did not apportion to them.” Moses meant that the Jewish people had never known that these idols were supposed to possess independent divine powers. Not only this, but G’d had not assigned these powers to the Jewish people but only to the Canaanites (Nachmanides). This is based on Deut. 4,19 where we discussed it and pointed out that Israel had been assigned as its protective Power the Creator of the entire universe, and that the Lord Himself is described as מנת חלקי וכוסי, “the Lord is my allotted share and portion” (Psalms 16,5). We also have a verse in the Torah itself, Deut. 32,9 כי חלק ה’ עמו, “for He is the share of His people.” 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  . ויתשם ה’ מעל אדמתם, ”the Lord uprooted them from their soil.” This whole paragraph refers to the period of the first Temple, seeing that this was the period during which the people were guilty of idolatry. The expressions ויתשם and וישליכם refer to the fate of the ten tribes, exiled by Shalmanesser, who never returned to their homeland. Such people are considered נדחים, “outcast.” This is why the Torah uses the expression כיום הזה, i.e. their fate became similar to yours as of this day. Just as you are all together in one place, not spread out over the area comprising your homeland, so these exiles will be in a closely confined area. As long as you (the Jewish people) have not yet come to your homeland, i.e. אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה, (compare Deut. 12,9) you too can be considered as נדחים. Your descendants will once more face such crowded conditions, if and when they are exiled due to breaking the conditions of this covenant. Whenever a people are not on their own land where they have space to spread out they are considered as נדחים, outcast.
  וישליכם אל ארץ אחרת, “He expelled them to another land.” The letter ל is anyway the largest of the letters in the א-ב. Here it is written even larger. This may be an allusion to the exceptionally high spiritual level from which the people were flung down at the time they were exiled. The prophet Jeremiah (Lamentations 2,1) already speaks of this when he says: השליך משמים ארץ תפארת ישראל, “the Lord has cast down from heaven to earth the majesty of Israel.” Another verse referring to the same experience of the Jewish people is found in Psalms 78,61: “His majesty is in the hands of an oppressor.” This is similar to Daniel 8,12: ”it hurled truth to the ground.” This is a reference to the countenance of Yaakov engraved on the throne of G’d [he is known as personifying “truth” just as is G’d Himself, Ed.] This is also what we read in Midrash Eychah 2,2: “G’d said to Israel the reason you have the audacity to anger Me is that you rely on the fact that the picture of your patriarch Yaakov’s countenance is engraved in My throne, This is why I will fling it back at you right into your faces.” This (according to the author of this Midrash) is the meaning of the verse we quoted from Lamentations 2,1 that “He hurled the majesty of the people of Israel from the heaven.” This is also what David referred to when he wrote (Psalms 102,11) כי נשאתני ותשליכני, “for You had lifted me up high only to cast me down.” G’d flung down the Jewish people whom He had raised previously to such great heights (spiritual). It is as if the psalmist said that the very great height to which the Jewish people had risen previously was a reason why their fall became so phenomenal. Seeing that G’d had flung the Jewish people down from such great heights, “He no longer remembered the footstool of His feet on the day of His wrath* (Lamentations 2,1). [the thrust of this commentary, if I understand correctly, is that the upheaval caused to the Jewish people by its exile was matched by a similar upheaval in the celestial spheres. Ed.] The various portions of verses from Lamentations (5,16) or Amos (5,2), as well as from Ezekiel (19,12) cited by the author, all tend to describe the decline of Israel’s image in the celestial regions before this was followed by Israel’s physical decline and exile. It is part of the mystical aspect of what is referred to in our verse.
  
  Verse 28
  
    הנסתרות לה’ אלוקינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו, “The hidden (sins) are for Hashem, whereas the revealed (sins) are for us and our children forever to deal with.” Rashi comments that the reason why the eleven letters commencing with the letter ל in the word לנו have dots above them is to tell us that G’d did not punish the multitude for revealed sins committed prior to the crossing of the Jordan. Once they confirmed the blessings and curses at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval respectively, the period of reciprocal responsibility began. [The following is not found in our editions of Rashi’s commentary. Ed.] Rashi quotes the Jerusalem Talmud in Sotah 7,5 in support of his view. The Talmud quotes that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said that at these two mountains the people accepted the responsibility for hidden sins. Joshua had said to them: “if you do not accept reciprocal responsibility for the hidden sins you will all be swept away by a great flood.” Rabbi Shimon ben Sevidai added that we should know that the majority of the sages who were members of the Sanhedrin died during the battle of Ai (after the assembly at Mount Gerizim, proving that the elders are held responsible even for hidden sins, i.e. that of Achan ben Karmi). Joshua said to the people after that, that by the death of these 36 members of the Sanhedrin that בכם הותרה הרצועה “as of now you are held responsible also for hidden sins committed.” [This statement is not found in our editions of the Jerusalem Talmud; I am relying on the notes and research of Rabbi Chavell, Ed.] At that time, a heavenly echo was heard announcing that the Sanhedrin, and certainly lesser dignitaries, have no business investigating hidden sins. There are different interpretations of the meaning of the words בכם הותרה הרצועה. Some say that what is meant is that when Moses had warned the people (29,17) “lest there be amongst you a root flourishing with gall and wormwood,” that as of that time reciprocal responsibility for hidden sins already commenced. [seeing that the people at that time accepted the oath and the covenant. Ed.] This is Rashi’s view as it appears in Sanhedrin 43.The dots really should have appeared also over the letters in the words ל-י-ה-ו-ה אלוקינו in order to show that the hidden sins are not G’d’s exclusive domain to investigate, except that for reasons of etiquette it was deemed inappropriate to place those dots over the name of the Lord. 
  According to Rashi there, although a penalty accrues to the people and/or their leaders for not bringing sinners who committed their sin in private to justice, the duty to investigate if such sins had been committed begins with the time when the people crossed the river Jordan. [If I understand Rashi correctly, investigation of such sins, rather than sentencing the sinner, is of the essence. We have to do what we can in order to become free from this reciprocal responsibility we described earlier. Ed] Seeing the dots could not be placed on the letters of the name of Hashem, they were moved sideways and had to include a dot over the letter ע of the word עד in order to total 11.
  Nachmanides, tackling the problem, writes as follows: “my opinion is that if we follow the plain meaning of the text the word הנסתרות refers to sins committed in private and not witnessed by credible witnesses. The word reflects David’s exclamation in Psalms 19,13: שגיאות מי יבין מנסתרות נקני, ‘who can be aware of errors? Clear me of unperceived guilt!’ David means that such hidden sins are exclusively G’d’s domain to investigate and to punish. No guilt attaches to the Jewish people or their representatives concerning such sins. However, the revealed sins, הנגלות, are forever our obligation to investigate and deal with as a חוקת עולם, an eternal statute, etc. This responsibility devolves upon us due to the wordsאשר איננו פה , (verse 17) for all future generations. Seeing that with these words all Israelites for all future times had been committed to observe the Torah, etc., the Torah saw fit in our verse to exempt us from sins committed  without our knowledge so that we would not be held responsible from the curse devolving us for such sins.” Thus far Nachmanides.
  The sage Ibn Ezra writes as follows: “the word הנסתרות refers to acts of idolatry committed by individuals in the privacy of their homes. Bringing such people to justice is exclusively G’d’s business; He will take care of such individuals. No guilt attaches to us for the commission of those sins.
  I have heard it said in the name of Maimonides about this verse that that the words הנסתרות לה’ אלוקינו refer to the fact that mystical dimensions of the Torah, such as the true reason behind the various commandments, are the exclusive domain of the Lord; if man succeeds in revealing even a small portion of such reasons, this does not excuse him from fulfilling the respective commandment in accordance with what the Torah has revealed about it in the text. It is our duty to perform all the commandments as written, even if we are certain that seeing we know the true reason for them this would make performance redundant in our eyes. This is the meaning of והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם, i.e. “and what has been revealed we are duty bound to fulfill forever more.” While this is a wonderful and profound explanation, it has nothing to do with the text in our paragraph. We must understand the text as related to the previous verse in which the fact that the people have been exiled and apparently abandoned by Hashem has been described.
  One may explain the whole matter of reciprocal responsibility described here as follows: “the hidden ones (sins) are G’d’s problem, seeing that in the previous verse the syntax is exceedingly long, i.e. the words: ‘The Lord removed them from their soil in anger and wrath and with great fury and He expelled them to another land as of this day.’” The verse is a reference to this long and seemingly interminable exile we find ourselves in. The word הנסתרות is a warning not to try and figure out when this exile will end. This knowledge is reserved for Hashem alone. However, as soon as G’d reveals the advent of the redemption it will become clear that our future and that of our children will endure forever (in spite of the gloom and doom prevailing during the long years of exile). Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to carry out the commandments of the Torah seeing the Torah is valid forever. It will not become redundant even in the days of the Messiah. Its applicability is as basic during the years of exile as during the glorious era following our redemption. This is reflected in the exegesis by our sages of the words in Deut. 16,3 למען תזכור את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך, “in order that you may remember (by the performance of this legislation) the day you came out of Egypt for all the days of your life.” Had the Torah omitted the word כל, “all,” in that verse, I would have been entitled to conclude that when a greater redemption such as that of the Messiah will take place, the provisions to observe Passover will become redundant. Seeing that the Torah wrote the word כל ימי, it is clear that it meant to legislate the observance of Passover (and other laws) even for the period when it is overshadowed by a more recent and all-embracing redemption (Berachot 12). By adopting this explanation, the whole verse by itself as well as how it relates to the previous verse and to what follows becomes crystal clear. 
  As to the missing letter ו in the word הנסתרת which appears as if it were singular, the word as it is should be viewed as an allusion to the שכינה, the hidden Presence of G’d. After all, G’d had warned us that in times of exile He would “hide” His face from us, אסתירה פני מהם in Deut. 32,20. The reason the Shechinah is described as something hidden is that the clouds of glory covered it both when it was inside the Tabernacle and elsewhere in the desert. The word הנסתרת in our verse may be understood as an appeal to the Lord our G’d by the Shechinah to reveal Himself, for His Presence to become manifest, and to reveal itself when this exile will come to an end. Our sages (Midrash Tehillim 9) follow a similar approach in the way they understand the words אגילה בישועתך, “I want to have a revelation of Your salvation” in Psalms 9,15. Significantly, the psalmist does not speak of ישועתנו, “our salvation,” but of “Your salvation.” This is not the only verse in which the Shechinah is perceived as asking mercy, salvation, for itself from the higher emanation of Hashem. Other verses in Scripture carrying a similar message are found in Isaiah 30,18, as well as in Psalms 60,7 where the words הושיעה ימינך וענני, “deliver Your right hand and I will have been answered,” are understood as an appeal by the Shechinah to Hashem to manifest Himself. Israel’s salvation and the Shechinah’s salvation are equated. A still clearer verse attesting to this phenomenon is found in Samuel II 7,23: “which You have redeemed for Yourself” [a reference to G’d’s personal self-interest (instead of Israel’s). Ed.]. We have already elaborated on the mystical aspect of this whole subject in our commentary on Deut. 5,26. You ought to realize also that our sages derive from our verse here that an expert may be able to interpret dreams by his knowledge of the deeper meaning of the letters in the holy names of G’d and the ability to rearrange same. [The author goes into greater detail, the meaning of which escapes me. Ed.] 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
    ושבת עד ה’ אלוקיך...בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך...ושב ה’ אלוקיך את שבותך, “and you will return unto the Lord your G’d with all your heart and with all your soul. Then the Lord your G’d will bring back your captives, etc.” You have already become familiar with the statement of our sages in Avodah Zarah 5 “that the son of David (redeemer) will not come until all the souls in the bodies have expired;” this is based on Isaiah 57,16: “until a belated spirit from Me envelps them and the souls which I have made.” The meaning of the whole verse is that G’d will not be angry at the Jewish people forever, nor will He remain furious indefinitely by not redeeming the people, seeing that a spirit  יעטוף מלפני, “certain spirits emanate from Me belatedly,” and the souls which I have created enter the body at this stage of history. [Rashi understand the word כי in that verse as meaning “when.” Ed.] The word יעטוף is a kind of “being late,” such as when it occurs in Genesis 30,42 “for the ones born late belonged to Lavan.” [If I understand correctly, the author understands that just as the evil spirit enters man at birth, whereas the urge to do good does not enter him until he is of age, (13), so one cause of his corruption is due to the belated entry of the יצר הטוב. This affords G’d an opportunity to find some excuse for man’s (the Jewish people’s) behavior and to redeem them after a sufficient interval. Ed.]
  Nachmanides, in commenting on our verse, focuses on the reason why the verses 2 and 3 appear sequentially, i.e. the words נפשך ושב follow each other. He understands the first verse as saying that if all the Jewish people (“all your souls,” כל נפשך) become penitents) only then will the redemption occur, i.e. G’d will bring back your captives (ושב ה’ אלוקיך את שבותך). The meaning is that totally new (renewed) souls will enter the bodies of the Jewish people. This is why the Torah here stresses אתה ובניך, i.e. this תשובה movement must embrace not just a single generation. These two words are an allusion to the whole people of Israel (historically speaking). We find yet another pronouncement on this subject by our sages in Yevamot 62, in which this conclusion is arrived at from the same verse in Isaiah, and the Talmud adds that immediately after this statement [actually immediately preceding this statement, Ed.] the prophet continues with the words ואמר סולו סולו פנו דרך, “Pave (a road,) pave a road, clear a path!” The prophet paints the scenario which alone will clear the way to the final redemption.
  ושב וקבצך מכל העמים, ”then He will bring you back collectively from all the nations to which He scattered you.” I have already mentioned (29,27) that the previous paragraph speaks of the period of the first Temple when the people sinned by committing idolatry and they were punished by being banished to ארץ אחרת, a different country, and the ten tribes were cast out, הנדחים, by King Shalmanesser of Assyria to Chalach, Chavor on the river Gozan and the cities of Media (Kings II 17,6). This passage proves that our assumption was right, seeing it commences where the last passage had left off, i.e. the נדחים, the outcasts of King Shalmanesser, by referring (verse 1) i.e. “to which the Lord your G’d had cast you out there.” Clearly, it speaks of the exile to which the ten tribes had become doomed. They represented the bulk of the Jewish people. Having dealt with the ingathering of the ten tribes from their exile, the passage continues speaking  about yet another ingathering, the countries to which the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin had been exiled where we have been enslaved by people who hated us and persecuted us. These people are the Arabs and Edomites. We are scattered throughout their countries until this present day and this is why the Torah speaks of “the countries to which the Lord your G’d has scattered you” (verse 3). In that verse the Torah addresses us. The Torah twice mentions ושב, “He will bring back,” to hint  that there will occur two separate ingatherings, one of the ten tribes and one of the tribes Yehudah and Binyamin. Concerning these ingatherings we read in the prophecy of Isaiah 56,8: “I will gather still more to those already gathered.” It appears therefore, judging by the syntax of the text in our verses, that the principal ingathering of the tribes who will do penitence will be that of the ten tribes, the ones described as אשר הדיחך ה’, “whom the Lord cast out.” G’d assures the ten tribes that repentance will immediately trigger their return to their homeland. After having dealt with the redemption of those tribes, the Torah adds ושב וקבצך, (verse 3) that there will occur a second ingathering, that of the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin. This is why the Torah had employed the expression והפיץ, “He scattered,” seeing that these two tribes are scattered all over the globe. After that, the Torah once more addresses the נדחים, the ones who had been cast out, i.e. the ten tribes, assuring them that even if they had been scattered in the meantime to the ends of the earth, G’d would not fail to gather them in and bring them back to their homeland which they would once again inherit. Actually, we find allusions to three separate “inheritances” here. The third will outrank the former two inheritances, will encompass more territory than the Israelites controlled during the glorious days of King Solomon. Moreover, G’d promises the people that the evil urge will be banished and that such emotions as envy and jealousy will disappear from among them. This is the meaning of verse 5: ”He will do good to you and make you more numerous than your forefathers and circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring  to love the Lord your G’d with all your heart, etc.” The meaning of the words ואתה תשוב, “and you will return,” in verse 8, is that the penitence of which G’d speaks is an assurance, a promise by G’d to the people.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אל הארץ אשר ירשו אבותיך וירשתה, “to the land which your forefathers had inherited, and you will inherit it.” Our sages in Seder Olam (chapter 30, an ancient historical text) have explained that the words: “which your forefathers inherited, and you will inherit it,” mean that whereas they inherited it twice, they did not (need to) inherit it a third time. The first time the people inherited the land and sanctified it by their presence was under Joshua. This sanctification remained effective only until their expulsion and the destruction of the Temple. The second sanctification (and inheritance) occurred during the time of Ezra. That sanctification was for all times so that after the present exile there is no need to inherit and sanctify the land once again. This is how my teacher Rabbi Shlomo Aderet, may his light shine, explained this matter to me.
  It is possible to explain our verse as meaning that whereas the first and second inheritance by the Jewish people extended only to the land of Israel, the third inheritance will include entitlement to any part of the globe. This is what the Torah means in our verse when it writes: “He will do good for you, and increase you more so than for your forefathers.” This is why the expression “inheritance” is used by the Torah in connection with the period of the first two Temples, but not in connection with the future. The expression used in that connection clearly envisages an additional distinction the Jewish people will enjoy then. This is similar to what our sages (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,37) expounded on as the reason why whenever we read about the word שירה in the Bible it is feminine, except when the song refers to events in the future, such as in Psalms 96,1 or Isaiah 26,1. It is the nature of a woman to become pregnant and give birth and to experience the same procedure time and again. The redemption of the Jewish people in the future will be a final redemption, something not needing to be repeated. This is why, when the Bible speaks of such times, the song sung then will be a masculine song, i.e. שיר חדש. It is the function of the male to inherit his father’s property absolutely, once and for all, as distinct from when daughters receive such an inheritance, as an emergency and interim measure. (Compare Ezekiel 48,33: שער יששכר אחד, שער זבולון אחד, “the gate of Issachar — one; the gate of Zevulun — one.”) 
   Midrashim  link the verse in Ezekiel with Zecharyah 13,8 describing the destruction of two thirds of the inhabitants of Israel. Midrash Tanchuma Shoftim 9 on the words לתת להם ולזרעם אחריהם, “to give to them and to their descendants after them,” breaks up this verse into three sections. The words לתת להם refer to the people leaving Egypt; the word ולזרעם refers to the immigrants in the time of Ezra, the word אחריהם refers to the eternal redemption. In a Midrash in Devarim Rabbah (not found in our editions, see Pesikta Zutrata on Deut.1,8), לתת להם refers to the people leaving Egypt, ולזרעם refers to the immigrants to Babylonia,  אחריהם refers to the returnees during the messianic epoch.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ומל ה' אלוקיך את לבבך, “the Lord your G’d will circumcise your heart, etc.”  Nachmanides writes on this verse: “this means that the Lord will remove the ‘foreskin’ covering the people’s heart”, a simile for desires of sexual and other varieties which are described as ערלת הלב. We know that someone who is captive to such desires is known as ערל, from Jeremiah 9,25 where the prophet describes the Jewish people as being of uncircumcised heart [although they do not have a foreskin on their sexual organ. Ed.] Just as the removal of the foreskin of that organ helps to restrain excessive sexual urges, so the removal of its equivalent covering of the heart will control the cravings responsible for committing other sins. G’d assures the people in that verse in Jeremiah that a time will come when such obstacles to obedience to G’d’s laws will be removed. [Although what the author wrote here is the gist of what Nachmanides writes, it does not represent an accurate translation of his words. Ed.]
  
  Verse 7
  
  על אויביך ועל שונאיך, “against your enemies and those who hate you.” The former are the Ishmaelites, Arabs; the latter refer to the descendants of Esau. The prophet Micah (Micah 5,8)  speaks of “your hand shall prevail over your foes, and all your enemies shall be cut down.” This is a reference to the two nations to which we are enslaved and amongst which we are scattered. This is why the sages in Baba Batra 73 refer to two geese in a story related by Rabbi Bar bar Chana. The story goes as follows: “I once walked in the desert and we saw these two geese which lost their feathers due to their excessive obesity. I extracted a continuous thin line of honey from them. I said to them: “are we going to have a share in the world to come?” One of them lifted its body, whereas the other lifted its flank.” When Rabbi Bar bar Chana came to Rabbi Eleazar (and told him of his experience) the Rabbi said to him that the meaning is that in the future the Jewish people will have to render an accounting. Thus far the Talmud. [The fact is that the entire story does not appear in our editions of the Talmud. Rabbi Chavell claims he has found it in a similar form in Agadot haTalmud. Ed.] The meaning of the whole story is that the sage (Rabbi  Bar bar Chana) saw in his mind, while in an isolated part of the world, i.e. the desert, that these two Empires, that of the Mohammedans and that of the Romans, attained tremendous power in this world. This was symbolized by the obesity of the geese. When the Rabbi asked them: “are we not going to have a share in your prosperity in the future?,” the meaning of the words: “one of them lifted its wings” is a reference to Ishmael This was a symbol that the Ishmaelites will flee to us in the future and take refuge under the wings of the Shechinah. They will give us their beasts to use as sacrifices to the Lord on their behalf. This is the meaning of  Isaiah 60,7: “all the flocks of Kedar shall be assembled for you (the Jewish people); the rams of Nevayot shall serve your needs.” This indicates that these Ishmaelites will convert to Judaism. It also is an allusion to the fact that they will wear phylacteries, seeing the phylacteries have been compared to wings (Shabbat 49). Concerning the other goose which raised its rump, this is a reference to Edom, whose protective angel had dislocated Yaakov’s hip joint in the nocturnal encounter described in Genesis 32,26. It is also an allusion to the commandment of circumcision, i.e. that in the time under discussion these people would convert and circumcise themselves. There is no need to add that at that time political and moral sovereignty will be restored to the Jewish people. This is the symbolism portrayed by the fatness of these two geese and the honey which dripped from them. As to the words of Rabbi Eleazar that the Israelites would be called upon to give an accounting at that time, the meaning is that they will have to give an accounting for not having become penitents during all the preceding years, and have tarried so long before living as true Jews. The reason the term אויב is applied to the Roman Empire, whereas the term שונא is applied to the Islamic Empire, is that the former is a term describing fiercer hatred and animosity than the word שונא. אויב  is an enemy who is full of hatred in his heart, knows no mercy. A שונא, on the other hand, though he too inflicts hurt and death, tempers it with a degree of mercy. Proof of this found in Isaiah 47,6: ”but you showed them no mercy. Even upon the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy.” [actually in that chapter the prophet speaks of the cruelty of the Babylonians, not the Ishmaelites. Ed.] The very etymology of the word אויב, reflects that it refers to unrelenting hatred; it is derived from אבוי, a word which has the same letters as אויב, and means “woe.” The reason that the Torah mentions אויביך before speaking of שונאיך, [when we would have expected the Torah to describe matters in an ascending order, Ed.] is that it wanted to link the שונאיך to the pursuit, i.e. אשר רדפוך, “who have pursued you.” This nation has traditionally uprooted our exiles wherever their rule extended. The reason they are referred to by the term שונא, “someone who hates,” is that G’d Himself describes His relationship with Esau with the words: “I have hated Esau,” (Maleachi 1,3). Midrash Mishley confirms this when explaining the words (Proverbs 30,23) “because of the loathsome woman when she becomes married.” The “loathsome, hateful one,” is understood to be a reference to Esau. The verse from Scripture cited as proof is also the one from Malachi I,3. The final words in that verse in Proverbs, i.e. ושפכה כי תירש גברתה, “and when a slave-woman inherits her mistress” (another phenomenon confounding Solomon who describes such phenomena as intolerable), is a reference to Ishmael, seeing his mother Hagar was the slave-woman of Sarah.) Seeing that the attitude of the Ishmaelites towards the Jews is more hostile than that of the Edomites, the Torah describes them as “your enemies.” This is confirmed by the popular saying: “rather under the Edomites than under the Ishmaelites.” [The idea is that if Jews have a chance which exile to choose they would invariably prefer to live under the yoke of the former. Ed.] G’d, when describing for how long He will hold generations responsible for the deeds of their forefathers, says ועל רבעים לשאוני, “and to the fourth generation concerning those who qualify for the term שונאי, “those who hate Me” (Exodus 20,5). Concerning G’d’s אויביו, “His enemies,” however, we read in Psalms 37,20: ואויבי ה' כיקר כרים כלו בעשן כלו, “and the enemies of the Lord shall be consumed like meadow grass consumed in smoke.” The verse teaches that nothing at all will remain of these “enemies.” This is why they are compared to the fat of the fat sheep which goes up completely in smoke (on the altar). Solomon refers to both of these nations as “two daughters,” mentioning that both are destined for Gehinom, hell. This is what he meant when he wrote in Proverbs 30,15 that “the leech has two daughters, ‘give give’!;” He compared Gehinom, the place where judgment is meted out to the souls of the wicked, to a leech which is a blood-sucker. Concerning these two nations the prophet in Isaiah 66,17 wrote: “those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves to enter the groves;” the former who sanctify themselves are the Edomites whose habit it is to shake their fingers in different directions. The latter are the Ishmaelites whose habit it is to bathe their hands and feet  (to cleanse them) but not their hearts, which is their essence. The prophet in that verse continues אחר אחד בתוך, and alludes to the manner in which the Edomites sanctify themselves in the center of the garden. Alternatively, these last three words may be an allusion to the day of their judgment, a day already appointed for that purpose. One of these nations will be judged on a Friday preceding the onset of the Sabbath, whereas the other will be judged immediately after the Sabbath, the Sabbath remaining “in the center;” when the prophet describes one of these people as “consuming swine,” he refers to the Edomites, whereas the ones described in that same verse as eating reptiles and mice, are the Ishmaelites. The verse concludes by saying: “they will perish together.”
  
  Verse 8
  
  . ועשית את כל מצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “and you will carry out all His commandments which I command to you this day.” After having spoken about Israel’s repentance, and their return to the Holy Land, the Torah now speaks of the commandments being commanded “this day;” we find a similar formulation already in verse 2 of our chapter where the repentance had also been featured. All of this is to focus on the fact that the essence of repentance is to accept the Torah as governing our lives. This is why whenever repentance is mentioned the reference to the commandments of the Torah is appended. The prophet Jeremiah employs a similar style when he writes (Jeremiah 2,17)  “is this not what has happened to you for forsaking the Lord your G’d at the time He led you on the way?” “The way” is the path of Torah. This was the path which earlier generations of Jews observed and their lives were successful.
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי ישוב ה' לשוש עליך לטוב כאשר שש על אבותיך, “when Hashem will return and rejoice over you for good as He rejoiced over your forefathers.” It is possible that this verse alludes to the time when the King will return with His bride (the Jewish people), i.e. an allusion to the time of the redemption. At that time He will provide you with all the benefits accompanying such a return to favor. Should you inquire when exactly all this would happen, the Torah adds: “when you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your G’d to observe, etc.” The Jewish people are always expected to make the first move towards reconciliation with G’d, i.e. observing His commandments. Immediately G’d notices this, He in turn will hasten the rapprochement. Our fortunes depend on our becoming penitents. All this has been expressed in unmistakable language by Malachi 3,7: “שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם, “return to Me and I will return to you.” The letter ה at the end of the word אשובה in that verse is a reference to the final letter in the tetragrammaton, the attribute which created the universe.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
    כי המצוה הזאת, “for this commandment, etc.” In this instance the word המצוה refers to the entire Torah, just as it did in Deut. 8,1 where the Torah spoke of כל המצוה. לא נפלאת היא, “it is not hidden.” The Torah is not so mysterious and mystical that you cannot fulfill its commandments. This is why Moses added immediately: “it is not in heaven.” Neither is it beyond the ocean. All these comparisons are only variations of the words לא נפלאת. The ocean that Moses speaks about here is the great ocean, which is dark and beyond man’s ability to navigate (Ibn Ezra). Moses does not refer to seas which man is able to navigate [with the existing means of navigation, Ed.] The words compare such an ocean to “heaven,” neither of which is accessible to man.
  
  Verse 12
  
   לא בשמים היא, “it is not in heaven;” it is possible that the reason Moses makes this point is because prior to bringing the Torah to the people it had indeed resided in heaven, and we have quoted arguments offered by the angels opposing its descent to earth. The word היא which we might have considered as redundant, is a reference to the highest level of חכמה, the emanation wisdom, which does indeed reside in heaven.
  ולא מעבר לים היא, “neither is it beyond the sea.” This is a reference to the great ocean which surrounds all the land mass, an area where this superior wisdom is located. The reason the Torah (Moses) had to refer to it as ים, is that otherwise it would have to be described as תהום, and the Torah would have had to write לא בתהום היא. This is the way Job referred to it when he quoted the deep as saying: “it is not with me” (referring to wisdom compare Job 28,14). It is stylistically more elevating to refer to the ocean as something elevated than as something conjuring up visions of a deep abyss, as does the word תהום. The reason Moses added the word היא to each of these descriptions of different locations is that each time the word היא appears it represents a diminution of the area meant. In order to include the supreme wisdom we spoke of, the planetary system should also have been included seeing it surrounds the ocean. Seeing that the supreme wisdom surrounds the entire visible universe, Moses when referring to parts of it, made this point plain by limiting each part with the word היא, i.e. “it only.”The word הים used here is a reference to the part of the universe inhabited by man. This is why he added: “it is not too far from you,” implying that there are indeed levels of wisdom which are beyond man to attain [even by means of studying the Torah and observing it. Ed.]. We may surmise that Moses used the word היא four times in order to allude to the four basic celestial fundamentals which are emanated from this supreme wisdom. They are alluded to in the names of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, and David. The vision of the prophet Ezekiel (chapter 1) in which four חיות, beast-like figures equipped with angels, are featured also correspond to these four fundamentals of celestial wisdom emanated to creatures on earth. They are described elsewhere as ארבע אופנים, “four wheels,” an allegorical description of what supports the מרכבה, the chariot the Shechinah is perceived as riding in. Translated into our terrestrial language, these are the four elements which are the constituent parts of all tangible matter on earth. They ensure the continued existence of the terrestrial universe when they are combined in the correct proportions.
  A Midrashic approach to our verses, based on Eiruvin 55:  The words “it is not in heaven,” mean that Torah is not to be found amongst haughty, arrogant people. The words: “it is not beyond the ocean,” mean that Torah is not to be found among people who constantly journey from place to place to make their livelihood, i.e. hawkers. Samuel said that Torah cannot be found among astrologers or professional astronomers, seeing that the Torah writes: “it is not in heaven.” The Torah may be found only among people preoccupied with the pursuit of matters which are oriented toward heavenly concerns. People challenged Samuel, saying to him that seeing he himself was an astronomer how could he make such a statement? He answered: “in all my days I have never looked at חכמה except when I was relieving myself” [at a time when I was forbidden to engage in the pursuit of Torah. Ed.] (compare Devarim Rabbah 8,6). Thus far the Midrash. Concerning these disciplines, i.e. astrology and astronomy, Isaiah warned the people of Israel, saying to them (Isaiah 55,2) “why do you spend money for what is not bread and your toil for that which does not satisfy?” Isaiah meant that his compatriots were wasting their money in order to acquire “wisdom” which would neither satisfy their bodies nor their souls; he added: “give heed to Me, (G’d) and you shall eat choice food and enjoy the richest viands. Hearken and you shall be revived.” Torah is described in Proverbs 4,2 as לקח טוב, “a good purchase.” It is the true food, satisfying those that “consume it.” When Isaiah said תתענגו בדשן נפשכם, “enjoy with your souls the richest foods,” he refers to the “bread” which truly satisfies the soul of man, spiritual food, the Torah. The simile of דשן, something physical, material, is used by the prophet to illustrate in human language the spiritual essence of what Torah supplies to those who study it. Such metaphors for spiritual matters are also found in Psalms 63,6: “milk and fatness satisfy my soul.” Clearly, David does not mean for the soul to be fed milk. All of the above teaches that Samuel did not engage in the study of astronomy at a time when this would have competed with the study of Torah. Seeing that it is forbidden to engage in the speaking of Torah, or even contemplating thoughts of Torah, while one is in the bathhouse or in the toilet, he could use such time to increase his knowledge in other disciplines. Our sages (Menachot 99) said: “go and study Greek philosophy at a time which is neither day nor night.” What they meant was that preoccupation with any disciplines other than Torah study exposes the student to the danger of being influenced by the theologically unsound element, some of which is always found scattered in those texts. This is the reason these disciplines have been compared to silver, seeing that silver invariably contains some impurities unless it has been refined over and over again. Our Torah is compared to such silver, i.e. כסף צרוף. This is what David meant in Psalms 12,7 when he wrote: “the words of the Lord are pure words, silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold.”
  מי יעלה לנו השמימה , “who would ascend heaven for us?” The acronym of these words is מילה from which we find a hint here that only people who have been circumcised have a chance to attain a true appreciation of the unique nature of Hashem. Only the Jewish people who wear the sign of the covenant on their very bodies have a chance to attain such a spiritual level. We also find that even prophets cannot prophesy while in a standing position unless they had been circumcised. As long as Avraham had not been circumcised he always fell down when G’d spoke to him [other than in a dream when he was prostate anyway. Ed.] Compare Genesis 17,3: “he fell on his face.” This was prior to his circumcision. On the other hand, after he had been circumcised and recovered from the effects, and prayed on behalf of the righteous people in Sodom, the Torah speaks of him as עודנו עומד לפני ה', “still standing in the presence of the Lord.” (Genesis 18,22 compare Tanchuma Lech Lecha 20). Bileam, by contrast, prophesied only when in a prone position as we know from Numbers 24,4. Moses also alluded to the inability of the Jewish people in his time to attain a true appreciation of the holy name of G’d. This is why he said to G’d: “if the people will ask me what is His name (the G’d in whose name you claim to speak), what shall I tell them?” He may have meant that the few Israelites who were circumcised at that time would ask such a question.
  Seeing that המצוה (the term used in our passage for the entire Torah) which bears the seal of the Holy Covenant requires as a precondition of being fulfilled that the persons doing so have been circumcised, the sages of the Midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,18) said concerning בצבאות או באילות השדה, “by the Hosts or by the hinds of the fields,” that the word “Hosts” refers to the Upper Hosts as well as the lower Hosts, those on earth who witnessed the covenant (Song of Songs 2,7). The Hosts referred to are the ones which already bear a distinguishing mark, (circumcision) as opposed to those who will only bear this mark in the future. Our verse indirectly refers to the circumcision of our flesh after having openly referred to the circumcision of our hearts with the words: “and the Lord your G’d will circumcise your heart.” This latter circumcision brings in its wake the neutralization of the evil urge. Once this has occurred all organs of a person are eager to play their respective parts in the fulfillment of the Torah’s commandments, something that reason dictates. Being drawn to the name of the Lord will then be a natural state of affairs. This is all alluded to in the words: “who will ascend to heaven on our behalf?” [At such times when you no longer suffer from the evil urge, there is no need for an intermediary, for someone to ascend to heaven in your behalf; you can do it yourself. Ed.] The prophet Jeremiah refers to this state of affairs when he writes (Jeremiah 31,33) “for all of them know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו, “with your mouth and your heart to perform it.” The Torah mentions three things here; the mouth, the heart, and the performance. All the laws of the Torah are included therefore as belonging to one of these three categories. There are commandments which require to be fulfilled by use of the mouth; others can be fulfilled by means of the heart only; still others require “performance,” i.e. the involvement of other organs and parts of our bodies. This is what may have prompted our sages in Avot 1,20 to state that “the world stands on three things, on Torah, on service to the Lord, and on the performance of deeds of loving kindness.” When the sages said: “on the Torah,” they meant on our engaging our mouth in the service of the Lord; when they said: “on service to the Lord,” they meant that our hearts had to be involved in fulfilling the commandments. Commandments which require the participation of our heart rank higher than those which can be discharged by means of only our mouths. This is the reason that when someone who is engaged in studying Torah (using his mouth to serve the Lord) must interrupt his studies when it is time to perform a commandment requiring our heart, i.e. the reading of the first line of the Kriyat Shema. (compare Shabbat 11) According to Rabbi Yehudah haNassi (Berachot 13) it is only the first verse in that paragraph which requires the kind of concentration that one must interrupt regular Torah study in order to perform it properly. Mitzvah-performance which necessitates the mouth is ranked higher than the performance of commandments which involve other parts of our body such as offering sacrifices. (Tanchuma  Tzav 14) This is based on Leviticus 7,31 seeing it does not say זאת התורה , עולה וגו' but זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, וגו', “i.e. that there are viable or even superior alternatives to the offering of sacrificial animals. Ed.] This is the reason the word ובלבבך has been written in the middle of the three categories, to emphasize its centrality, the fact that it is the most important of the three. This is why performance, i.e. with the limbs and organs of the body, has been written only at the end of the verse. Nachmanides, at the end of verse 11 writes as follows: the words בפיך ובלבבך refer to the subject of penitence, repentance, a commandment spelled out in verse 2 of our chapter. When the Torah speaks of this repentance it draws attention to the fact that it is not so difficult to fulfill this commandment. The Torah does not demand all sorts of difficult tasks such as ascending to heaven or crossing the ocean for a person to have fulfilled this commandment. All it takes to become a true penitent is the mouth and the heart. It may be performed anywhere; you do not even have to come to Jerusalem and the Temple to have your repentance accepted by the Lord. It is the easiest thing to do, i.e. כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד לעשותו, “the matter is right at hand for you to carry out.” All you need is to employ your mouth and your heart.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב, “see here, I have placed before you today life and the good.” This verse shows that man has been given the choice to do either good or evil; for, if he did not have a free will, how could the system of reward and punishment be relevant? The way we have to understand the verse is that if you do good you will reap life, if you do evil your “reward” will be death. An alternative explanation of this verse: the words “life and the good, death and the evil,” are a reference to the Torah itself. Torah can be the elixir of life for the righteous; at the same time it could be the source of death for the wicked. Our verse would be similar in meaning to Ezekiel 20,25: “and I also have given to them statutes which are not good and social laws that they cannot live by.” [the words “to them” in the verse refer to the wicked, Sabbath-profaning Jews]. Being in exile due to their sins, and forbidden by their hosts in exile to keep the Torah, makes the continued violation of the Torah a source of the people’s death for non-observance, or for death by their masters for violating local laws and insisting on observing Torah law instead. The Jewish people’s failure to keep Torah while on their own land, ultimately places them in a no-win situation in the land to which they have been exiled.
  It is also possible to explain the words: “see I have given you life and the good,” to mean that this passage was written as a follow-up of the previous paragraph which dealt with the promise of redemption. Seeing that the time for the resurrection of the dead is understood to be close to that of the redemption i.e. 206 years later, it is appropriate that this verse commences with the word ראה which is an allusion to that time. In view of all this Solomon said in Song of Songs 8,12: האלף לך שלמה ומאתים לנוטרים את פריו, “I have my own vineyard; the thousand silver pieces are yours Shlomoh, and two hundred more to the ones who guarded its fruit.” [I translated the whole verse, using the conventional translation. Ed.] The word ומאתים is understood as if it had been written ו-מאתים, i.e. “plus 206,” the letter ו meaning the digit 6. Solomon would reveal in this verse that  the time when the resurrection occurs is 206 years after the 1,000 years [the traditional interval after the first 6,000 years of our universe have been concluded and a period of complete metamorphosis of the universe has begun. Ed.] ]The arrival of Shlomoh, described as someone granted 1000 (years?) is a reference to the coming of the Messiah, also known as Shlomoh, which would occur at the end of the 6,000 years we have mentioned. (The source of this whole exegesis is Nachmanides כתבי הרמב'ן חלק ב עמוד תקטו, Mossad Harav Kook edition, commentary on Song of Songs, edited by Rabbi Chavell) The Messiah, of course, is a descendant of Solomon just as much as he is a descendant of David.
  The reason why the passage above (verse 14) concluded with the word לעשותו, the same word we find at the conclusion of the Torah’s report of the story of creation (Genesis, 2,3), is that the Torah wants to establish a conceptual linkage to the beginning of conventional time and to the end of conventional time, i.e. the arrival of the Messiah. The Torah wants you to know that from the point of view of natural laws, both points in time are no different from one another. The universe will continue to function normally, according to the rules G’d established at the time of creation also after the arrival of the Messiah. The Talmud in Shabbat 63 stated so explicitly, the wording being: אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד גליות, “the only difference between this present world and the epoch of the Messiah will be that Israel will no longer be subservient to other nations politically.” The addition of the letter ו at the end of the word לעשתו, instead of לעשות as in Genesis 2,3 is meant to symbolise the number 6, i.e. that the 6th millennium will be no different from the first millennium as far as the conventional laws of nature are concerned. The words ראה נתתי לך היום, are intended to convey that immediately after the 6,000 years the period of the Messiah will commence. During that life the people of Israel will experience all the good that it is possible to experience. The word החיים is synonymous with the life in the world to come, i.e. the life after death and resurrection concerning which we read in Psalms 31,20: “how abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You.” the word הרע refers to a category of sinner for whom resurrection will actually spell disaster. They are the ones referred to repeatedly in both Isaiah 66,24 and  Daniel (Daniel 12,2) of whom the prophet and Daniel say: “many are those that sleep in the dust of the earth who will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.”
  The view of Maimonides, in his treatise about the resurrection, is that the people resurrected will lead normal lives, will eat and drink and produce children. These functions with which G’d has equipped them will certainly not cease. They will lead exceptionally long lives, after which they will die a physical death and continue a life of the spirit in what we are fond of terming עולם הבא, “the world to come, the hereafter.” This is what is always meant when the sages speak of someone who has been invited to the hereafter, i.e. עולם הבא. Concerning this world the sages wrote (Berachot 17): “in the hereafter there is no eating, no drinking, there are only disembodied spirits, etc.” If these people had been equipped with the organs enabling them to eat and drink and procreate, these organs would be redundant, and G’d does not create anything which does not fulfill its assigned purpose. If you were to query this by saying that Moses and Elijah went without eating and drinking for long periods although they did have a body equipped for eating and drinking, and that therefore what Moses and Elijah were able to do in this world, people could do in the world to come in spite of having bodies, this is not a viable argument. The normal bodily functions of Moses and Elijah were made redundant for a limited period and a specific purpose, so that they were never really redundant seeing they were in use both before and after the period when they were temporarily out of use. The people (souls) who are transferred to the עולם הבא will never have any use for the organs in question. Hence it would not make sense for G’d to equip them with such useless organs. This is why every intelligent person has to believe that in the region we call עולם הבא there are no bodies at all, only souls. This is the view of Maimonides which clearly emerges from his words.
  However, the sages of the Talmud are of a different opinion. (Nachmanides elaborates on this at the end of the treatise שער הגמול). The experts in Kabbalah believe that there will be no more death after the resurrection of the dead. They base this primarily on Isaiah 25,8 בלע המות לנצח, “He will destroy death forever.” They also refer to Sanhedrin 92 where the Talmud says that “the dead who will return to life will not again turn into dust.” Concerning the world (life) after death, the sages in Berachot 17 say that that a very precious statement made by Rav was that “in the world to come there will not be eating, drinking, no jealousy or competition, but the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads and enjoy the brilliance emanated from the Shechinah.” This latter statement makes it obvious that the author does hold that there will be bodies in the world to come. This is why the fact that there will not be eating and drinking, etc., had to be mentioned, seeing that if there were not presumed to be bodies this would be obvious to all. Therefore, it is proper for us to believe that there will indeed be bodies in the עולם הבא but that many bodily functions as we know them will cease to operate, just as they ceased functioning for a period in the lives of Moses and Elijah. What all this means is simply that in that world the spiritual powers of the soul will triumph over the body and what are perceived in our world as its needs. If you were to ask why the organs of the body which are not being used should exist, the fact is that they are not really redundant at all. On the contrary, these organs receive the reward for all the effort they put in while on earth in fulfilling G’d’s commandments. Seeing that G’d does not withhold reward from anyone entitled to it, or even shortchanges such a creature (compare Baba Kama 38), He does not want the body to be in a position to complain; therefore He transfers the body to the regions called עולם הבא to enable it to also enjoy these outpourings of the brilliance of the Shechinah. Support for this view comes from Psalms 17,15: ”when one day I awaken, I shall be satisfied with seeing a picture of You.” This means that the people in the world to come will experience satisfaction from beholding the brilliance of the Shechinah while their body is intact.” (Just as the disembodied soul functioned in this terrestrial life, there is no reason to believe that the body cannot function in the celestial life). This is the view of Nachmanides, and he cites proof from a Midrash in Sifri Nitzavim, according to which Moses (his body) was hidden in the regions of the עולם הבא. This does not mean that his body is there at this point in time and that he enjoys a physical existence there now. [The text refers to the body of Aaron, Ed.] The sages made a similar comment about the manner of Rabbi Akiva’s death when they said: “hail to you Rabbi Akiva; your soul exited with the pronouncement of the word אחד (first line of Kriyat Shema), you are ready for immediate entry to life in the עולם הבא.” In Berachot 58 the Talmud, in dealing with benedictions to be recited when one witnesses different events, states that when seeing the tombs of the Jewish people one is to recite: “blessed be the One who let you die in accordance with true judgment and Who will bring you back to life in the world of the future.” Bereshit Rabbah understands the words: “G’d blessed the seventh day and sanctified it” (Genesis 2,3) to mean that G’d blessed the עולם הבא which commences with the seventh millennium. The words: “He sanctified it,” refer to the fact that He allotted it to the Jewish people. This is the meaning of the words מזומן לעולם הבא, “ready for entry into the world to come.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   העדותי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ, “I call as witness against you this day both heaven and earth.” I have already explained in connection with Deut.4,26 that the reason Moses chose heaven and earth as witnesses was because they endure forever and can always be called upon to testify. Human witnesses, due to their limited life span may no longer be alive when their testimony is required. Another reason for the choice of heaven and earth as witnesses is that they are perceived as signatories to Moses’ words.
  It is also possible to interpret the choice of heaven and earth as witnesses as due to the fact that they would survive destruction of the Temples seeing that in the seventh millennium (as the author described the meaning of the words היום השביע in Genesis 2,3) only heaven and earth survive the metamorphosis occurring at the end of the 6th millennium. It makes sense therefore that after Moses had spoken of the redemption that he should continue with an allusion to the subject of the resurrection. This then is the meaning of: “see I have given before you this day “the life.”  Close upon the heels of the resurrection follows the era known as עולם הבא which Moses alludes to as הטוב, the good.” It became necessary to invite witnesses who are of an enduring nature, remain in the universe forever, as we know from Isaiah 2,11: “none but the Lord shall be exalted in that day,” just as on the first day of creation when there was only heaven and earth. At the time we described nothing but the bare essentials of heaven and earth will remain functional. 
  A Midrashic approach based on Sifri Haazinu: G’d told the people that He had created earth to serve their needs. He asks the people if, perchance the earth became disloyal and produced barley in response to the Jewish farmer sowing wheat? Or, did the heaven which He had similarly created in order to provide the Israelites with light and useful navigational information, etc., ever changed its path so that the expectations of the people were disappointed? Does not the Bible testify of the sun that “the sun rises, shines and sets at the appointed time” (Kohelet 1,8)? G’d reasons that if these planets which do not receive a reward for being loyal and carrying out their appointed tasks do not deviate therefrom, how much more so must the Jewish people who do receive a reward for keeping the Torah, and who do have to fear punishment for failure to keep these laws, be concerned with not deviating from the path of Torah? Keeping these thoughts in mind, Moses suggests to them: ‘better choose for yourself life.” This is the way Rashi explains our verse. This is what David had in mind when he said in Psalms 16,5: “the Lord is my allotted portion and my share; You control my fate.” It is as if David had said to G’d: “place my hand on the fate which spells ‘good.’” G’d Himself is called “Good,”  as we know from Psalms 145,9: “טוב ה' לכל, “ or  טוב וישר ה', (Psalms 25,8). Both verses equate G’d with “good.” G’d also gave the Jewish people the Torah, which is also known as “good,” as we know from Proverbs 4,2 כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, “for I have given you a good acquisition.” The reason why the Torah is referred to as a “good acquisition,” is because the Jewish people can hang on to it both in this world and in the world to come. The sages cite our verse as proof for the fact that Torah will be with us in both worlds. This is the meaning of the words in Deut. 5,16: ‘in order that your days on earth will be long.” The Torah refers to a life which is long, infinite, i.e. the world to come. The last words in that verse, i.e. למען ייטב לך, “in order that He will be good for you,” also refer to a world which is totally good, the world to come. Solomon pursues the same approach when he said (Proverbs 24,25) “but those who rebuke the wicked will experience delight, blessings of good (things) will come upon them.” The sages cite our verse as proof of the fact that Torah will be with us in both worlds. This is the meaning of the words in Deut. 5,16: “in order that your days on earth will be long.” The Torah refers to a life  which is long, infinite, i.e. the world to come. The last words in that verse, i.e. למען ייטב לך, “in order that He will be good to you,” also refer to a world which is totally good, the world to come. Solomon pursues the same approach when he said (Proverbs 24,25) “but those who rebuke the wicked will experience delight, blessings of good (things) will come upon them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי, “Come and eat my bread, drink the wine which I have mixed.” (Proverbs 9,5.)
   In this verse Solomon compared the Torah to bread and wine, seeing that bread and wine are the principal sources of food for the body. Similarly, Torah and wisdom are the principal sources of nourishment for the soul. The reason why Solomon commences with the expression לכו, and did not say בואו, “come,” is to teach that a person has to follow wisdom, i.e. go out in search of it and after the people who teach it. We find this verb used in this connection also in Proverbs 13,20: הולך את חכמים יחכם, “he who walks with scholars will himself become wise.” The expression is unusual as we would have expected the author to say: “he who sits with the scholars will become wise.” The only reason that in both instances Solomon used the verb הולך to describe how one is to relate to the scholars in order to benefit from their wisdom is to teach that one has to actively go after the wisdom which comes out of the mouth of the Torah scholars. One needs to denigrate oneself vis-a-vis the scholars; as a result one will absorb wisdom. It is also possible that the reason for the use of the word לכו by Solomon is a hint that even if one has to travel a long way from one’s home in order to acquire this wisdom one should do so. The message is that it is worth while to travel to distant countries in order to hear and study “My bread,” i.e. Torah. The same thought is echoed by Isaiah 55,3 who quotes the Lord as saying: “incline your ear and come to Me, hearken and you shall be revived.” G’d (The prophet) did not say: בואו אלי, “come to Me,” as man sometimes has to travel to distant places in order to study Torah. The words לכו לחמו בלחמי, may be perceived as “go to one another those who are anxious to eat of My bread.” it is a warning to remove jealousy and envy from one’s heart and that the scholars should not project an image of superiority which would prevent them from going to colleagues of equal stature. Most certainly they should not be arrogant enough to refrain from going to scholars who are of still greater stature. Wisdom increases through the interchange of ideas among equals. Our sages in Makkot 10 used the verse in Jeremiah 50,36: חרב אל הבדים ונואלו (concerning people who avoid studying in large groups) to illustrate this thought by understanding these words to mean “a sword against the loners!” The prophet condemns the people who want to study in solitary meditation only. Not only do these people not increase their knowledge by doing so, but they are even apt to become foolish, i.e. arrive at faulty conclusions. In the verse quoted from Jeremiah, we have the word נואלו and we have a similar word in Numbers 12,11 i.e. אשר נואלנו, where it means: “we have acted foolishly.” The message is clear. Concerning the words: “drink from My wine;” the letter ב in the word בלחמי in the first half of the verse appears superfluous. Why then did Solomon write it? Similarly, the letter ב in the word ביין also appears unnecessary. Actually, the letter ב in both instances means the same as in Genesis 41,2 where Ibn Ezra understands the letter ב in ותרענה באחו as not part of the word אחו. I believe that whereas when one drinks wine it is only healthy in diluted form, and damaging if drunk in its full strength, so that the word בלחמי and ביין could be understood as warning not to eat or drink all of the bread and the wine, the word מסכתי, “what I (G’d) have mixed” is to teach that when it comes to Torah and the performance of its commandments, all of them are to be studied and performed in undiluted form. This simile contains yet another lesson which is worth mentioning. If someone spends a lot of time engaged in the pursuit of his livelihood, i.e. the needs of his body, and travels abroad in order to secure himself such a sound economic existence, even though he should have concentrated the major part of his energies amassing Torah knowledge, i.e. food for his soul, he errs, seeing that when one spends all kinds of energy on the amassing of Torah knowledge a measure of success is guaranteed, whereas the energy spent on the amassing of material wealth does not always result in success. Solomon encourages the pursuit of food for the soul more so than the pursuit of physical food for the body. He makes this plain in Proverbs 2, 4-5: “if you seek it (Torah) as silver, and search for it as for treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord, and will find knowledge of G’d.” Every single commandment may be perceived of as “soul-food;” it provides the kind of nourishment which the soul will imbibe in the future when it is exposed to the brilliance of G’d’s Shechinah in עולם הבא, the world to come. If one is able to perform commandments and good deeds locally, his reward is most certainly substantial; imagine how much more will be his reward if he travels far and wide in order to fulfill some of the commandments of the Torah! The reason is that he also receives a reward for the distance traveled and the effort and fatigue involved. We find proof of this when the eagerness to fulfill a commandment is described by the Torah (Exodus 12,28) as “they went and they did.” Similarly, the Torah describes Moses’ leaving the camp of the Levites in order to go to the camp of the Israelites in these terms. He could have waited for the Israelites to come to him and take leave of him. In fact, although they had all been assembled around him to listen to the rebukes, and he could easily have said his good byes then, he waited till each one of them had returned to his tent, and only then
   וילך משה וידבר את הדברים האלה אל כל ישראל. בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום, וגו', “Moses went and spoke these words to all of Israel. ‘I am 120 years old this day.’” It is possible that the 120 years Moses lived corresponded to the 120 days he spent on Mount Sinai. During the first 40 days he received the first set of Tablets. During the second 40 days he pleaded for G’d to forgive the people the sin of the golden calf; he spent the next 40 days on the mountain in order to receive the second set of Tablets. This may be the reason why he used the term אנכי instead of אני. Our sages in Sotah 13 feel that he meant to say that on that day he was precisely 120 years old, i.e. that he died on the same day of the same month as he had been born. This may also be the reason why he used the word היום at the beginning of the previous Parshah, so that all these speeches took place on the same day. The day in question was the seventh day of Adar at the end of the Israelites 40th year in the desert. We have further proof of this in 34,8 where the Torah reported that the people mourned Moses for 30 days during which they did not journey. The Torah states explicitly that the days of Moses’ mourning came to an end. It is proper to read this verse in conjunction with Joshua 1,10: “Joshua commanded the law-enforcement officers of the people: ‘prepare for yourselves provisions for in another three days you will cross the river Jordan.’” Anyone reading these two verses together will realize that Joshua would not command the people to prepare these provisions until the mourning period for Moses had passed. To make this plain, the Torah had to write the verse: “the days of crying for (the death of) Moses had  concluded.” The Book of Joshua 4,19 reports that the Jewish people completed crossing the river Jordan on the tenth of the first month, i.e. 3 days after the conclusion of the mourning period for Moses. By counting backwards you will arrive at the date of the 7th Adar as the date on which Moses had died. When the Torah in Exodus 2,3 reported that Moses’ mother was unable to hide him any longer, the date referred to is the 6th of Sivan, the day on which the revelation at Mount Sinai took place 80 years later. On that day, the light which filled only his parents’ home on the day he was born became so powerful that it shone for the whole Jewish nation. The light which had filled the house of Amram had already forecast the eventual greatness of the boy that had been born to Yocheved. The reason Yocheved had to hide Moses in a basket, well insulated, was that the light surrounding the baby had become so much stronger that it represented a danger to the family. The Torah speaks of Yocheved having hidden Moses for שלשה ירחים ‘three lunar months,” rather than שלשה חדשים, “three months,” (Exodus 2,2) to indicate that these were lunar months. The months Adar, Nisan, and Iyar are 29,30, and 29 days long, respectively. This gives us a total of 88 days during which Moses was kept “hidden” at home, or it takes us back to the 7th day of Adar as Moses’ birthday. From all this it becomes clear that Moses died on the same day of the same month on which he had been born. The word חדש implies a period which equals 1/12th of the year, something not subject to variation either by adding or subtracting from it. The same is not true of the period known as ירח, a period which may comprise either 29 or 30 days. The reason why the Torah used the term ירחים in the verse mentioned was to enable us to calculate the precise date on which Moses was born. This prompted our sages in Kiddushin 38 to state that G’d completes the life cycle of the righteous from day to day (to grant them whole years) something they base on Exodus 23,26: את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will fill (round out) the number of your days (meaning “years”).
  לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא, “I am no longer able to go out (to war) and to come back.” Moses refers to the times he had led the armies of the Jewish people against Sichon and Og, respectively. Nachmanides claims that the reason that Moses made this statement was to console the people about his impending death. No doubt, his physical powers had continued undiminished, as the Torah testifies about him in Deut. 34,7. He simply wanted to enhance the people’s regard for Joshua who would henceforth lead them in battle, and ensure that they would inherit the land. Our sages in Sotah 13. understand the words: “to go out and to come back” as referring to words of Torah. They claim that Moses felt that his ability to teach the Torah had waned, that the fountains of wisdom had dried up for him. This by it self was a miracle as it prevented him from relating to his impending death with worry and sadness. G’d also allowed this to happen so that Joshua could take over from him during his lifetime.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ה' אלוקיך הוא העובר לפניך, “the Lord your G’d, He will cross (the Jordan) in front of you.” Moses speaks to the whole nation. He repeats this line almost verbatim at the end of his address in verse 6.
  Personally, I feel that this paragraph was addressed by Moses exclusively to the ears of Joshua. By emphasizing the words ה' אלוקיך, Moses wanted to tell Joshua something about the high level of his prophetic powers. Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel also understood it in this sense when he rendered the words as שכינתיה, i.e. implying that “the Lord your G’d is walking ahead of you.” The word הוא is a limitation, suggesting that whereas the Lord Himself had walked ahead of Moses, His Shechinah, a lesser attribute, would walk in front of Joshua. Proof of this is found in verse 3 where Moses described the attribute of Hashem as speaking to him. No mention is made there of a lesser attribute than that of Hashem. Moses referred to the time  in Deut. 3,26 when G’d had told him that he would not cross the Jordan. It says there ויאמר ה' אלי אל תוסף לדבר, “the Lord said to me: ‘do not continue to speak, etc.’” The careful phrasing of every single word in the written Torah reveals the nuances of intimacy with which G’d related to people such as Moses or Joshua, etc. This reflects the statement of our sages that if we compare the face of Moses to the sun, that of Joshua is comparable to the moon (Baba Batra 75).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת, “Moses wrote down this Torah.” This means that he wrote down the entire Torah commencing with Genesis up to the last words in Deut. 34,12: “before the eyes of all of Israel.” When we read in verse 11 of our chapter: “you will read this Torah,” this refers only  to the Book of Deuteronomy (Sotah 41).
  
  Verse 10
  
   מקץ שבע שנים במועד שנת השמטה בחג הסוכות, “at the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of Tabernacles;” this is a reference to the commandment known as הקהל, “assembly.” The word מקץ means “at the end.” Wherever we encounter the expression מקץ it means “at the end.” [I suppose the reason that our author tells us this is that the preposition” מ in front of the word קץ might have suggested a different meaning. Ed.] The first time we encounter the word in Genesis 6,13 it also means “end.” In our instance, the Torah refers to the end of the Shemittah year (the year concluded 2 weeks before the festival of Tabernacles). In other words, “after that year has passed completely.” In actual fact the commandment is observed during the eighth year during the intermediate days of the Sukkot festival. When we have a different verse in which the word מקץ is also used in connection with the year when the Shemittah is being observed, (Deut. 15,1), the meaning is that the duty to relinquish overdue loans falls due on the last day of that year by sunset (Erchin 28). If the Torah there uses the term בשנת השמטה, it means: “while the Shemittah year is still in force.” Although in both instances the word מקץ means “at the end” [as opposed to Ibn Ezra. Ed.], here it means “after the end,” whereas in Deut. 15,1 it means “just before the end.”
  If you will analyse the mystical dimension of the commandment of הקהל, you will find that just as the Shemittah year itself is an allusion to the 7th millennium during which our universe will revert to chaos, so the commandment of הקהל, which commences after completion of the seventh year alludes to the word לעשות in Genesis 2,4 which follows the report of the conclusion of the seven days of creation after the Torah had introduced the concept of the Sabbath. We also find in Psalms 92, the hymn dedicated by David to the Sabbath, that he speaks about the righteous who will flourish like the palm tree. (presumably after the seventh millennium) I have already dealt with the meaning of that psalm in connection with Genesis 2,2. The mystical dimension of the commandment of hakhel is that all people who exist at that time are called to appear before the Lord, the King of the universe. This is why this commandment had to be performed by the king. He represented the King in the celestial spheres. He had to read from the Torah (not the High Priest). This is reflected in the statement of the scholars of the Kabbalah who posit that before proceeding with the creation of the universe the Lord consulted His blueprint, i.e. the Torah.  Another reason for reading from the Torah on that occasion was to remind the people that without Torah the universe cannot endure, just as it could not have been created without it. The reason the site for the fulfillment of the commandment is described as במקום אשר יבחר, “the place which the Lord will choose,” is that the Temple-site was the place whence the universe started being created. This is the meaning of Psalms 50,2: “for from Zion, perfect in beauty, G’d appeared.” As the sages say in Yuma 54: “the world was perfected starting with Zion.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   הן קרבו ימיך למות, “here your days to die are drawing near.” According to the plain meaning of the text this verse teaches that the period man has to live has been predetermined, every single human being having a time allocated to him at birth. G’d sees to it that every person lives out the time thus allocated to him at birth. This would correspond to Exodus 23,26: “I will ensure that you complete the number of your days (years).” The expression קריבה, “approach,” mentioned here is one which is specifically reserved for the approach of death of righteous people as we know already from Genesis 47,29 when the Torah speaks about the approaching death of Israel our patriarch. Similarly, Kings I 2,1: “the time for David to die approached.” These verses prove that such times had been determined by G’d already at birth, and that G’d’s השגחה, “benevolent supervision of history,” ensures that the individuals in question get to live out their allotted time, that their lives are not cut short by acts of violence or natural disasters. Alternatively, G’d lengthens the allotted life span of these people as a reward for merits which they have accumulated during their lives. At the same time, their allotted life span may be reduced due to demerits they have become guilty of. The important thing is that no one dies unless G’d has so determined. According to our information that G’d has empowered planetary forces, stars and their constellations, to exercise their influence on the lives of people on terrestrial earth, and the orbits of these forces are of constructive or destructive influence on these lives so that their lives appear to depend on mazal,” i.e. such influences (Targum Kohelet 9,2), we find that our sages did not deny the impact of such mazal; we therefore seem to be faced with a dilemma here. Our sages said specifically that phenomena such as economic success, (duration of) life on earth itself, as well as the ability to have children, do not depend on one’s merit but on one’s mazal (Moed Katan 28). If that is so, where is there room for G’d’s השגחה in the matter? Further details of our sages’ view is found in their statement that though both Rabbah and Rav Chisdah were righteous individuals (seeing that when they prayed for rain it materialised), one lived only to the age of 40 whereas the other lived to the age of 92. Rabbah’s 40 years on earth were filled with painful experiences. Rav Chisdah was blessed to marry off 60 children, whereas Rabbah buried 60 family members. The latter could not always afford to eat even bread made from barley, whereas the former fed his dogs with white bread. These statements are proof positive that the sages acknowledged the influence of mazal in our lives, i.e. that there is substance to the discipline we call astrology. It is true that these planetary phenomena have been equipped with initial power to influence our fates. However, they are not supreme. Their influence need not be final. They are subservient to the Lord Almighty, to the attribute Hashem. If people born under adverse mazal turn to the supreme G’d, to Hashem, and appeal to Him to neutralize their apparently negative mazal, G’d will respond to such prayer if it is warranted. In fact, we may go further and posit that G’d instituted mazal partly in order to encourage us to pray to Him to change adverse mazal in His benevolent way. We know that G’d can lengthen our lives from the very verse in Exodus 23,26: “I will make full the number of your days,” i.e. “I will add to them if the situation warrants.” King Chizkiyah had 15 years added to his life expectancy although the prophet Isaiah had been sent to him to prepare his last will and testament as he was not going to recover from his sickness. G’d responded to his prayer and revoked the decree he had been subject to (Isaiah 38,5). We also know that when the occasion warrants it G’d reduces the number of years allocated to a person at birth, from Achazyah King of Israel son of Achav. The reason he had his life span shortened was that when he fell ill, instead of turning to G’d or to an accredited prophet, he turned to idols to inquire about his chances of a recovery (compare Kings II 1,16). He was told clearly that he would die now because he had turned to Baal Zevuv, the god of Akron, ignoring the presence of accredited prophets in Israel. The verse we just quoted makes it plain that Achazya’s death at that time was due to his having turned to idols at that time. Had death already have been decreed upon him previously, what point was there in the prophet telling him about it now? The above examples teach us that G’d reserves the right to lengthen or shorten the life span decreed for man at birth. G’d remains a free agent; this is why He is known as שדי. The word, derived from שדד, means that He is in charge of the laws of nature, changing them at will if He so desires. (Compare author’s comments on Genesis 17,1) These adjustments in life span, etc., occur with a view to reward and punishment. It follows that the statement that “life (expectancy), children (ability to have them), and economic success, do not depend on merit but on mazal,” which we quoted from Moed Katan, means that the power of prayer is so great that it can override predetermined fates set according to mazal. The astrologers themselves admit that the general rules are set by G’d, whereas the planetary systems only supplement details pertaining to the lives of the subjects under their influence. Clearly, He who sets the general rules is able to set aside mere details, i.e. the subordinate powers assigned to the horoscopes. It follows that it is within man’s power to create the conditions for setting aside such details if his actions merit it and he appeals to the Lord to use His powers on his behalf. On occasion, G’d fulfills man’s desire without waiting for man to appeal to Him. What the statement in Moed Katan, regarding the three cardinal parts of man’s fate does mean is that in these matters G’d does not interfere with the predetermined fates of these individuals unless asked, unless appealed to. This is the meaning of Psalms 145,19 ואת שועתם ישמע ויושיעים, “and their cry He hears and He delivers them.” On the other hand, the same psalmist says in the first half of this verse: “He does the will of those who fear Him;” this refers to the unspoken requests by these people. We have proof positive from the Torah and the Books of Prophets that the three critical values of man, 1) children, 2) life, and 3) economic success, פרנסה, are all subject to prayer. Rachel, who had been unable to conceive and had prayed was granted children (Genesis 30,22): “G’d listened to her and opened her womb.” King Chizkiyah provided proof for the fact that G’d changes even decrees of death announced by one of His prophets at His command.  Elijah and Elisha both experienced that the supply of food was dramatically increased through their prayerful intervention in the fates of starving individuals (Kings I 17,13-15 and Kings II 5,42-44). These individuals were saved from famine, although clearly that had been their assigned fate. This is the reason why our sages singled out these three aspects of life which are normally dependent on mazal to inform us that even these matters are subject to change by means of prayer by the intended victims. 
  A Midrashic approach (based on Devarim Rabbah 9,4). The words: “here the days of your death are approaching,” reflect a conversation between Moses and G’d. Moses had said to G’d: ”I have praised You using the word הן (Deut. 10,14), and You are using the same word introducing the decree that I am to die.”   We may understand this by means of a parable. A king had an outstanding minister, one of whom he was exceedingly fond. One day this minister came across a sword, which was exceptionally beautiful, the like of which he had never seen. He immediately determined that this sword was appropriate for his employer, the king. What did he do? He bought it and presented it to the king as a gift. The king said: “may they cut off his head with it.” This is what Moses had in mind when he said to G’d: “are You going to use my gift to turn it against me?”    Another thought which is contained in the words הן קרבו ימיך למות, is that G’d meant: “the time has come for your sun to set and for the moon to shine.” This was a reference to the statement of our sages we have already quoted in which the face of Moses was compared to that of the sun whereas that of Joshua, his successor, was compared to that of the moon. When G’d said to Moses: “here you are going to lie with your ancestors, and this nation will arise and serve idols, etc.,” (verse 16 in our chapter), He meant that “your power, that of the exceptional level of prophecy granted to you, will continue to illuminate the moon (inspire Joshua) although you are already in your grave, just as the sun even after it has set shines upon the surface of the moon to enable it to reflect its light.” The word וקם may be read together with the words הנך שוכב עם אבותיך וקם, “although you are lying with your fathers it will rise.” Just as the sun supplies light to the moon even after it has set, you Moses will inspire Joshua even after you have joined your fathers. This is also the meaning of the word ואצונו, i.e. “I will impress My power on the moon.”
     וילך משה ויהושע, “Moses and Joshua went; from the camp of Israel to the camp of the Shechinah.
  
  Verse 15
  
  . וירא ה' באהל בעמוד הענן, “The Lord appeared in the Tent within the pillar of cloud.” The attribute כבוד was contained within the pillar of cloud, containing within it the essence of the attribute of Mercy.
  
  Verse 16
  
  הנך שוכב עם אבותיך, “here you are going to lie with your fathers, etc.” When Moses had complained that G’d was using the very instrument to kill him with which he had used to praise the Lord with, G’d reassured him, calmed him down by assuring him that as opposed to other people who die and whose influence dies with them, his influence would continue to be manifest just as the sun’s influence is manifest even after it sets when it shines upon the moon enabling the moon to illuminate the earth with its reflected light. 
  The verse is used to prove that resurrection is promised in the Torah as the sages in Sanhedrin 90 read the sequence of the words הנך שוכב עם אבותיך וקם as if G’d were saying: “here you will lie with your fathers and arise.” Similar comments are made about Moses having introduced the famous song after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds with the words אש ישיר instead of אז שר, “then he will sing,” instead of “then he sang” (Exodus 15,1). Concerning the serenity experienced by the souls in the hereafter the sages in Avot 4,22 opined that a single hour of the serenity in that world outweighs all the good experienced in our terrestrial world. If G’d, as it were, introduced Moses to that world of serenity with the word הן, He did indeed set Moses’ mind at rest over the need for him to leave the arena in which he had been so influential. He convinced him that death is the entrance fee one has to pay for attaining that desirable serenity. Considering all this, Moses had no reason to view death as a penalty, on the contrary, he was to view it as an introduction to untold delights. All of this is alluded to in the otherwise extraneous letter ך at the end of the word הנך, seeing Moses had not been accurate (according to the Midrash) in comparing הן and הנך. This final letter was an allusion to the כסא הכבוד, “G’d’s throne of glory in the celestial regions,” the proximity of which Moses would henceforth experience. We have previously mentioned that the inexplicable use of that letter such as in Leviticus chapter 27,2 בערכך נפשות לה', is also an allusion to that כסא הכבוד. All the souls which truly belong to Hashem, לה', are to be found in that celestial region, i.e. are viewed as close to the throne of G’d’s glory in value.    From all of the foregoing you will realise that although G’d introduced Moses’ impending death to him with the word הן, Moses was not correct in complaining that the very instrument he had used to praise the Lord with was now being turned against him.  The fact that the word הן, as distinct from the word הנה, is a plural, indicates that G’d referred to two kinds of life after death which Moses would attain. The first is the life reserved for the souls while they await the metamorphosis of our universe in the seventh millennium, as we discussed repeatedly; the second is the physical life after the resurrection. Whereas the word הנך may allude to the life of the souls, the words שוכב וקם, “lie down and arise,” are an allusion to this life after the period of the resurrection when both body and soul are reunited.
     אלהי נכר הארץ, “after the gods of the foreigners of the land.” The Torah tells us that such gods as had been permitted to the Gentile nations were nonetheless “strangers” in the Holy Land as that land was always under the direct supervision of the Lord, and He had never assigned what goes on there to the supervision of any celestial/planetary forces. This land is G’d’s own “inheritance.” This is also what the sages meant when they said אין מזל לישראל, “the Jewish people are not subject to the horoscopic influences we know as mazal.” They meant that the Jewish people, when in the land of Israel and observing the laws of the Torah, are not subject to such influences. This must be so, as we have a clear statement by these same sages that מזלו גורם, that “his mazal was a causative factor in his fate.” (Yevamot 64, et al) Seeing that the planets, stars, and all other celestial phenomena have been created for the sake of the righteous, how could it possibly be that these same righteous people are suddenly subject to these horoscopic constellations? Each of these horoscopic constellations has been assigned to certain nations, such as the constellation known as scorpion which was assigned to the people of Ishmael, the constellation Sagittarius, the archer, to the people of Persia, etc., etc. This was what the Torah referred to in Deut. 4,19-20 “which He assigned to them, whereas He (personally) took you out of the iron crucible, etc.” Clearly, the supervision of the fates of the other nations by celestial forces has been entrusted to agents of the Lord, i.e. the horoscopic forces, whereas that of the Jewish people is not determined by means of intermediaries. It is noteworthy that nowhere in the Torah does G’d accuse the Gentile nations of idolatry or describe them as being punished for relating to these forces as gods. Only the Jewish people have been warned again and again not to turn to any form of intermediary, and they are being held responsible for observing this commandment in the strictest possible sense. The only time Gentile nations are described as being punished for the practice of idolatry is if they did so in the Holy Land, the land which G’d claimed as His share and inheritance. The best proof of this is found in Kings II 17,26 where the prophet tells us about the Kushites who practiced the cults of their fathers after they had been forcibly transplanted to the areas previously inhabited by the Ten Tribes who had been exiled by  King Shalmanesser of Assyria.    The reason that the Torah speaks here of אלוהי נכר הארץ, is that these deities are totally alien to the land of Israel, fulfilling neither a function for the local inhabitants nor for the Israelites. All kinds of idolatry is alien to that country, no intermediary force having been assigned to function in that land. Anyone practicing idolatry in that land is seen as if he were trying to expel the king of that country from his palace. This is one of the ways in which the land of Israel is superior to all other countries. This fact is alluded to in the verse in Job 5,10: הנותן מטר על פני ארץ ושולח מים על פני חוצות, “Who gives rain to the earth, and sends water over the fields.” This verse teaches that G’d’s benevolent supervision of what goes on earth concentrates on the land of Israel and spreads from there to other parts of the globe. These parts are referred to in the verse in Job as חוצות, “outlying areas.” The manner in which this proliferation has been described is שולח, “dispatches,” whereas the rain which falls in the Holy Land is described in this verses as the result of נתינה, “something given directly.” David refers to the areas described as חוצות in Job as אהלי רשע, “the tents of the wicked.” (Psalms 84,11) The whole verse there reads: “Better one day in Your courts than a thousand anywhere else; I would rather stand on the threshold of G’d’s House than dwell in the tents of wickedness.” When compared to Jerusalem, the city of righteousness, other locations do not qualify for a better description than “tents of wickedness.” Our paragraph refers to the period of the first Temple when idolatry was rampant.
     אשר הוא בא שמה בקרבו, “in whose midst it is coming.” the reference is not to the people but to the land. This is not the first time that the word ארץ appears as masculine; we have a similar masculine description of the land of Israel in Genesis 13,6.    It is also possible that the word בקרבו is an allusion to the Sanctuary in the land, which is viewed as being in its center. This would be analogous to a statement by our sages in Petichta Rabbah to Lamentations 22: “How long (did they relentlessly introduce more and more idolatry)? Until they introduced idolatry into the Sanctuary itself.” [The Midrash refers to a verse in Jeremiah 11,6 in which the proliferation of idolatry in the towns of Yehudah is described and the word חוצות describes the innermost part of Jerusalem. It adds a verse from Ezekiel 8,5 describing penetration by idolatry of the Sanctuary itself as the ultimate act of rebellion against the Lord. Ed.]
  
  Verse 17
  
   והסתרתי פני מהם והיה לאכול, “and I will hide My face from them and they will become prey.” Our sages in Chagigah 5 have said: “anyone who does not experience an eclipse of G’d’s face does not belong to them (the Jewish people), whereas anyone who is not subject to becoming prey is also not one of the Jews.” [This confirms the special relationship between G’d and His people Israel. Ed.] When hearing this statement, the other Rabbis said to Rava (the Rabbi quoting it) “you yourself have experienced neither a hiding of the Lord’s face nor have you become prey !” Rava answered: “do you have any idea how much I pay in bribes to King Shevor, (the local authority) in order not to become a victim of this verse in the Torah?” [he meant that the need to pay these bribes proves that he was subject to the curse, hence a Jew.] Even after this reply, the Rabbis looked at Rava suspiciously. In the interval, the king sent emissaries and incarcerated Rava. This proves that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was correct when he said that whenever the sages look at someone suspiciously or worse, the “someone” will either die or become poor.
     על כי אין אלוקי בקרבי, “because my G’d is not in my midst;”  this verse teaches that the Temple was not destroyed and the people of Yehudah were not exiled until the Shechinah had withdrawn from them. This is also what David said in Psalms 68,19: “You rose to the high regions.” Subsequently, David continues with: “You had made prisoners.” 
  You have to appreciate  that the meaning of the word בקרבי is derived from קרב, “battle;” its numerical value is the same as that of שדי, i.e. 314. In other words, when this attribute of G’d withdrew the Jewish people lost the battle.   I believe that wherever we find the word בקרב or similar in the Torah there is an allusion in that word to the “awakening” of the attribute of Justice. The root of all this is to be found in Exodus 23,21 כי שמי בקרבו, “for My name is within it” [the angel representing the attribute of Justice]. Other examples are: Genesis 48,16 וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they proliferate abundantly like fish, in the midst of the land.” The beginning of that verse referred to the המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע, “the angel who has redeemed me from all harmful influences,” a clear reference to the attribute of Justice. Other verses in which the word בקרב is clearly indicative of an association with the attribute of Justice are: Exodus 10,1 למען שתי אותותי אלה בקרבו, as well as Exodus 8,18: כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ, or Deut. 15,11: כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, “there will not cease to be someone who is destitute in the midst of the land.” The author extends the list; [I will omit further examples in the interest of brevity. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני ביום ההוא, “as for Me, I will most certainly hide My face on that day.” G’d had already mentioned earlier (verse 17) that He would hide His face. On that occasion it referred to the exile in Babylon. Now, when He describes this “hiding” of His face in even stronger terms, it refers to the present exile under the Romans. The repetition of the word “hiding” is a warning that this second exile will be much longer than the first. On the other hand, what the Torah writes also contains a message of consolation in Leviticus 26,44 that G’d will not forsake us even when we are in exile, i.e. “the land of their enemies.”    This verse reveals to us something about the length of this exile we find ourselves in. The combined numerical value of the words הסתר אסתיר is 1336. This appears to correspond to a vision in Daniel 12,12 according to which the redemption would come after 1335 years. [According to this, an opportune time for the final redemption was the year 1405 or 1406, which could have happened during the period the author wrote this, but we ultimately did not merit it then. Ed.]
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  . ואכל ושבע ודשן ופנה אל אלוהים אחרים, “and will eat, be sated, and grow fat, and turn to strange gods.” This demonstrates that this paragraph speaks about conditions during the first Temple. During that era the Israelites ate, and grew fat and also practiced idolatry. They primarily served idols known as Baalim. This is the meaning of ועבדום ונאצוני והפר את בריתי, “and they will serve them and provoke Me and breach My covenant.”
  
  Verse 21
  
   והיה כי תמצאן אתו רעות רבות וצרות וענתה השירה הזאת לפניו לעד; “it will be when many evils and distresses come upon it, then this song shall speak up before it as a witness.” This is a reference to the song at the beginning of Parshat Haazinu. There the Torah speaks in detail about the ones who have been cast out.
     כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו כי ידעתי את יצרו אשר הוא עושה היום, “for it will not be forgotten from the mouth of its offspring; for I know its inclination, what it does today.” Moses says that he can draw conclusions from Israel’s behavior in his own time when the people suffer from an inclination to practice idolatry. It is likely therefore that they will put their inclination into practice in the future. This is why, when the penalties described here, i.e. the sufferings, will occur, they will find that they have all been foretold in the Torah. The reason they will find this out is that the Torah will not be forgotten among their offspring (despite their committing all these sins). The witnesses in the song in the Torah in which heaven and earth are called on will endure and give their testimony.    The reason Moses was allowed to say such words as “for I know its inclination,” [in a negative connotation, and G’d did not punish him for slandering the people as He had done in Exodus when he had said they would not believe him (Exodus 4,1), Ed.] is that G’d Himself had described the people in these terms in Psalms 103,14 where the psalmist says “for He knows our inclinations.” Midrash Tehillim on this verse states; “woe to the dough of which the baker himself says that it is defective.”
      It seems to me that the wording of the Torah does suggest that there would come a time when the Torah would indeed be forgotten by the people. The time in question is when, in the future, the evil urge will be annulled, as distinct from the messianic era during which, as we pointed out previously, (Shabbat 138) “business will be as usual,” all the commandments of the Torah remaining applicable. As long as this present universe continues, Torah will continue as the guideline for the Jewish people to live by. The period when Torah will be “forgotten” will be during the period of the resurrection. In other words, as long as the people have the same inclination as now, i.e. they are burdened with the evil urge, Torah will not be forgotten by them. Once they are free from the evil urge there is no need to remember Torah. At that time the only holiday which will still be celebrated will be that of Purim, (seeing that it came about as a reward for the Israelites who had done תשובה). 
  The foregoing is based on a Midrash Mishlei 9, where the sages comment on the verse in Proverbs 9,2: טבחה טבחה, מסכה יינה, אף ערכה שלחנה, “she has slaughtered the meat, mixed her wine, she has also set her table.” The sages understand these words as describing the time when Queen Esther prepared the meal for the King and Haman. The words: “she also prepared her table,” which appear superfluous, mean that she prepared for the life in the hereafter as well as for that on earth when she took those fateful steps. The emphasis on this meal, i.e. a festive meal, is an allusion to the time in the future when all the festivals and their festive meals will be abolished, although the festive meal on Purim will not be abolished. This is the meaning of the words at the end of Megillat Esther 9,28: “and these days of Purim will not disappear and their memory (what occasioned them) will not be forgotten by the Jews or their offspring.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  . ושמתם אותו מצד ארון ברית ה' אלוקיכם, “you are to place it on the side of the Ark of the Covenant with the Lord your G’d.” It was to be placed inside the Ark, on the side of the Tablets. The verse refers to the text of the song in Haazinu. It should be deposited there next to the Torah scroll seeing that its text was part of the Torah. It was to remain there permanently.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  . הקהילו אלי, “Assemble to me, etc.” According to Tanchuma Vayechi 2, on this day Moses did not blow in the trumpets to assemble the people (elders) as was customary, and  as Moses had been commanded to do in Numbers 10,2. The trumpets were for the exclusive use of Moses; they were never used by Joshua, but buried during the lifetime of Moses. This was in order to fulfill the statement of Kohelet 8,5 that on the day of one’s death one does not have authority. Seeing this was the day Moses was to die, he did not employ symbols of his authority. Blowing the shofar or the trumpets was a symbol of the authority wielded by the one who blew them or had them blown.
     ואעידה בכם את השמים ואת הארץ, “so that I may call upon heaven and earth as witness against you.” Concerning this introductory statement, Moses continued with the words: האזינו השמים וגו' in chapter 32, 1. At this point he merely pointed out that heaven and earth would put their seal on his words at the end of the song in Haazinu. He invited heaven and earth to be present so that at the end of Haazinu they would be in a position to “sign” the document, much as witnesses to documents prepared in court are present during the preparation of the document so that they know what they are signatories to. He had made a similar statement earlier in 30,19. All of these passages were written on the same day. We have a halachah (Maimonides Hilchot Sefer Torah 7,3) that the words ואעידה, etc., have to be written at the top of the column in which the chapter commencing with the song האזינו השמים ואדברה commences. This would be the concluding letter (acronym) of the two words ב)י'ה שמ'ו), which are scattered throughout the Torah as letters which have to be written at the top of a column, i.e. the first letter of a verse respectively. Compare Genesis 49,8, Exodus 14,28; Exodus 34,11; Numbers 24,5, and our verse here commencing with the letter ו in the word ואעידה. I have already referred to this in Parshat Beshalach 14,28 in connection with the word הבאים. The letter ו in the word ואעידה is an allusion to the same letter in the tetragram. It is symbolic of the “heaven” which Moses said he is calling as witness.
  
  Verse 29
  
  . אחרי מותי כי השחת תשחתון, “after my death, that you will become very corrupt, etc.” History shows that during all of the years when Joshua was in charge of the people they did not become corrupt but remained loyal to the Torah. This fact is specifically attested to near the end of the Book of Joshua (Joshua 24,31) “the people served Hashem all the days of Joshua as well as during all of the days of the elders who lived longer than Joshua.” Our sages (Temurah 28) derive from this verse that a teacher treasures his disciple as much as he treasures his own body,” (loves himself) seeing  that as long as Joshua was alive, Moses had the feeling that he himself was still alive. The corruption Moses speaks of here is the practice of idolatry. This is also what he had in mind when he said: “to anger Him with your handiwork.” Moses had a prophetic vision of the idolatry which would be practiced during the period of the first Temple.
  
  Verse 30
  
   את דברי השירה הזאת עד תומם, “the words of this song until their conclusion.” This is a reference to the song Haazinu which commences with the next verse. Seeing that  Moses referred to his speech as a שירה, “song or poem,” this is the reason that it must always be written and read in the manner one writes and reads a poem. 
      Our sages in the Sifri Haazinu 333 state that some of the greatness of a שירה is that it deals not only with the past and the present but also deals with aspects of the future, the world to come. Tanchuma asks why the שירה which is in the past tense is completely in the feminine gender, whereas the parts referring to the future have been written in the masculine gender? The answer given is  that just as a woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth normally repeats the process again and again, so past redemptions and salvations of the Jewish people resulted in renewed exiles. Not so with the redemption of the future which will be absolute, final, not to be followed by any further exiles. This is why the prophet uses the masculine term שיר instead of the feminine term שירה, when he speaks of the future. Compare Isaiah 26,1: ביום ההוא יושר השיר הזה בארץ יהודה, עיר עז לנו ישועה ישית חומות וחל, “on that day, this song shall be sung in the land of Yehudah; “ours is a mighty city; He makes victory our inner and outer wall.” Another verse conveying a similar message is found in Psalms 98,1: שירו לה' שיר חדש כי נפלאות עשה, הושיעה לו ימינו וזרועו קדשו, “Sing to the Lord, a new song, for He has worked wonders; His right hand, His holy arm has won Him victory.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  פי צדיק ינוב חכמה ולשון תהפוכות תכרת, “The mouth of the righteous produces wisdom; but the tongue of the perverted shall be cut off.” (Proverbs 10,31)
   Solomon informed us in this verse that a righteous person and a wicked person are absolute opposites of one another. Whereas words spoken by the righteous reflect his wisdom, the words spoken by the wicked person reflect the opposite. This is what is meant by Psalms 1,3: “he is like the tree planted beside streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose foliage never fades;” the tree produces leaf and fruit. This is a natural phenomenon, a law of nature which became part of trees alluded to already on the third day of creation when G’d gave the directive to earth: תדשא הארץ, “the earth is to produce vegetation, etc.” The leaf itself performs a useful function in that it protects the fruit against heat by the shade it provides. Nonetheless, the fruit is what counts. Similarly, the righteous is the person, the fruit who counts, he too has “leaves,” similar to the leaves on the tree. His everyday conversation dealing with mundane matters are described as his leaves, whereas his words of Torah are described as his fruit. Just as the leaves on a tree perform an important function, so does even the mundane conversation of the righteous.    When our sages in Avodah Zarah 19 interpreted the words “and his leaves do not wither,” (Psalms 1,2) they said that it means that the casual conversations of the righteous are of similar value to the value of the leaves for the fruit of the tree, [for all the above reasons Solomon mentioned here that the mouth of the wise yields up wisdom]. The word ינוב is used in connection with agricultural produce such as in Isaiah 27,6 ומלאו פני תבל תנובה, “and the face of the world will be covered with fruit.” We also find that word in Lamentations 4,9 as referring to the produce of the field. This is also the subject under discussion in Isaiah 57,19 בורא ניב שפתים, “the One Who creates the fruit of the lips.” Speech may be perceived as the “fruit of the lips.” The righteous trains himself so carefully to utter only words of wisdom that wisdom becomes integral to his personality, he personifies it. It is similar to the fruit which represents the essence of the tree.   The words: “the tongue of the perverted shall be cut off,” describe the wicked person who is the opposite of the righteous, something which is discernible first and foremost in the way he uses his tongue. Seeing that this wicked person indulges in so much slander, libel, etc., Solomon curses him saying that his tongue ought to be cut off. It is the way of the Torah to attach blessings to the righteous and curses to the wicked. This is why we have the famous saying זכר צדיק לברכה ושם רשעים רקב, “the memory of the righteous is a source of blessing, whereas the name of the wicked will rot.” (Proverbs 10,7) It is well known that the virtue of humility is associated with wisdom, whereas arrogance is a characteristic of the wicked. Just as wisdom is “the fruit” of the righteous, so arrogance is “the fruit“ of the wicked. This is why Solomon says (Proverbs 14,3) “in the mouth of the fools is a rod (branch) of pride, but the lips of the wise protect them.” The source of arrogance is in the heart of the fool and its branch becomes manifest in his mouth. The prophet Isaiah 11,10 illustrated this when he spoke of חוטר describing it as a “branch,” i.e. “a branch comes forth from the trunk of Yishai.” Branches cannot grow unless there is a trunk to support them. There is no point in describing the emergence of such a branch unless it is going to bear fruit. The fruit of such branches of the foolish, the wicked, are words of arrogance, scorn. David paraphrases the same sentiment in Psalms 123,4 הלעג השאננים, הבוז לגאיונים, “the scorn of the complacent, the contempt of the haughty.” In other words, the fool gets so used to being arrogant that arrogance becomes second nature to him. Seeing that he “branch” of arrogance is so often in his mouth, it is a foregone conclusion that it will bear fruit, i.e. that he cannot restrain himself from saying things which reveal his arrogance to all his listeners. On the other hand, the wise are protected by their very lips against their mouths saying things they should not say.    Basically, the logic in all this is that the righteous is drawn to preoccupy himself with matters of the soul, matters which are of eternal value and meaning; the wicked, on the contrary, is preoccupied with transient values, matters which sooner or later cease to exist and have meaning. It is a well known fact that the very definition of the word “body” means that it is something “earthy,” will revert to dust, whereas the soul is something which came from heaven. As long as man is alive in this terrestrial life, he is drawn equally toward earth and heaven. He is drawn towards heaven due to his soul, and towards earthy matters due to his body. Therefore, when Moses cautioned the people to keep the Torah and its commandments, he used as witnesses heaven and earth, both of which are conceptually close to man. This is why he said:
   האזינו השמים ואדברה ותשמע הארץ אמרי פי, “Listen heaven when I speak, and may the earth pay attention  to the words of my mouth.” Moses addressed the heaven in direct speech, whereas he spoke of the earth in indirect speech. He meant to emphasize the fact that we are meant to feel closer to heaven than to earth, or at least that he himself felt closer to heaven on this day, the day he was going to die. Already Parshat Nitzavim as well as Parshat Vayelech were all speeches which Moses made on the day he died. This is why he repeatedly referred to היום, “this day,” both in Nitzavim (29,9) and in Vayelech (30,2). In our Parshah the expression היום occurs also (32,49) as it does in Vezot haberachah (33,1).    All of these four portions are linked to one another conceptually, and they deal with a number of important subjects which normally would require many days for the listeners to absorb. It was a miracle that they could all be dealt with on one single day. 
  The overriding subject of these four portions is that Moses engages in an argument with the Jewish people reviewing what had been in the past and what would be in the future. He started speaking of matters which pertained to the creation, concluding with the messianic era. This is the reason Moses commenced his speech to the people with the words: “remember the days of yore,” (verse 7) including the period when G’d assigned pieces of earth to different nations. This is a reference to the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages which followed (Genesis, chapter 11,1-9). He chose as His own people only the Children of Israel. This is what is meant by the words (verse 9): “for Hashem’s portion is His people.” The reason is that he found them on the way in a wilderness, in desolation. (verse 10). Having found them and adopted them, He lavished loving care upon them as described in verses 10-14.    In spite of all the deeds of loving care G’d lavished on His people, they forgot Him and made Him angry. This is the meaning of verses 15-19. The people proved extremely ungrateful, substituting other deities, and becoming estranged to their G’d and Protector. Moses describes this process as due to the excess economic success granted to this people, as described in verse 14. This led them to reject and abandon service of Hashem. Seeing that the people turn to deities they had never known before they would be punished with exile more than any other nation before them and they would be forced to be slaves to these nations who hate them. The only reason G’d punished them by exile instead of wiping them out is that He, Hashem, does not want the Gentile nations to be able to boast that they had succeeded in destroying G’d’s people, claiming that their deities were superior in power to Hashem. (compare verse 27). All of this befalls the Jewish people because they are devoid of insight. If they would have reflected for a moment that their erstwhile successes when one of them successfully pursued one thousand and two of them put 10,000 to flight, surely they would have realized that this had only been possible because G’d had enabled them to do this, that it was not their own superiority to their adversaries. If, now (in the time Moses describes) they suffer such indignities, this again can only be due to the fact that their one-time protector, Hashem, had “sold them out.” (verse 30).    In spite of all this, a time would come, Moses avers, when Hashem will avenge Himself for all the brutalities the Gentile nations have inflicted upon His people, as — even if He had reason to punish them —they certainly had not been given the green light to do so (compare verse 35). He, Hashem will preside over the judgment of these people.     At that point in time, G’d will remind them of His attribute of Mercy; this is why Moses continues to speak of G’d as describing the Israelites as His people, and His servants. Up until that time they had been the servants of the Gentile nations.    Moses adds that G’d uses this turn of events to convince the people that only He is their true G’d (verse 39) and that there is no G’d except He. This is the conclusion of Moses’ address.    What follows are the words of G’d directly. He, personally, assures the people of the redemption in the future, and He swears an oath to them, i.e. “I raise My hand to the heaven that I will flash My sword, etc., etc.” G’d uses the future tense, as do the prophets, and assures us that eventually all these nations who have looked down upon us will sing the praises of His people (verse 43), and will clamour to be accepted to join our faith. The catalyst will be when they observe that we will be compensated for the erstwhile loss of our land and that we will return in triumph to that land (verse 43). 
      A Midrashic approach to our verses, based on Sifri Haazinu (page 460 Malbim edition); the words האזינו השמים are an introduction to G’d saying to Israel: “take a look at the heaven and the earth which I created to be useful to you; did either heaven or earth change their ways? Did you sow seed and it did not grow, did you sow wheat and barley came up? Or, has a cow stopped ploughing or threshing? Has the donkey ceased being a beast of burden? If these planets, or animals which do not receive a reward for performing their duties and which do not even get punished for failing to do their duty have not refused to do them, how much more so could you people who are rewarded for doing your duty and who are being punished for failing to do your duty be expected to be smart enough not to deviate and rebel against Me?”    The meaning of this Midrash is that all natural phenomena do not change their norms. If Moses singled out only heaven and earth as examples to illustrate this principle, it was because they, more than any other phenomena in our universe, are charged with preserving the laws of nature which ensure continued existence of the world as we know it. Just as if the oceans would break out of their assigned role and parameters would bring in the wake of such departure of the norm immediate calamity upon earth, so if heaven and earth were to disobey the rules laid down for them the result would be even more catastrophic. What is true of inert phenomena such as heaven and earth, is also true of living creatures such as cows and asses which are the mainstays of the farmer on earth. If all these creatures do not change their habits, man must certainly not change his habits and thereby endanger not only his surroundings but himself.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words שמים and ארץ of which Moses speaks here are references to the respective emanations כבוד and תפארת, which they represent in the very first verse of Genesis. In other words, Moses did not address the phenomena visible to the human eye such as sky and earth, but to the mystical elements they represent, and which are the elements with which the Jewish people entered into a covenant. This is why Moses demanded that they hear the conditions which exist between us. The term דבור refers to Moses speaking to שמים, whereas he used the term אמירה when addressing the mystical aspect of Earth. He wanted to emphasize that דבור represents something originating in a deeper source of the speaker than the thoughts uttered and described as merely אמירה, which do not necessarily originate in his innermost self. [The author writes about why, according to Kabbalah, heaven had to be addressed in direct speech as opposed to earth. I confess I have not followed this. Ed.]
  
  Verse 2
  
    יערוף כמטר לקחי, “may my instruction drip like rain;” the word יערוף is close in meaning to words such as הזלה and ירידה, the former being used in connection with the descent of dew, i.e. יערף כטל in 33,28. Moses prays that his words should be heard and firmly embedded in the hearts of his listeners, much as rain is embedded in the earth. The meaning of the word לקחי, “my teaching,” may be an allusion to  what Moses himself had “taken,” לקח, from heaven when he received the Torah; this should now perform the same kind of work on his listeners as rain does on the earth upon which it falls. Just as such rain is useful in initiating growth of vegetation, his words should initiate fruitful under-standing of the Torah by the people who hear him.   The words כשעירים עלי דשא, commonly translated as “like storm winds upon vegetation,” reflect the word רוח, in the sense of רוח סערה, a stormy wind. The word סערה has been changed slightly in that the letter ס has been replaced by the letter ש, not an unusual occurrence. Another example is Daniel 11,40 וישתער עליו, This is also the opinion of Onkelos who translates ברוחי מטרא דנשבין על דתאה, “like blowing rain-winds on the grass.” The rains strengthen the grass. 
  Another way of understanding the word כשעירים is “like fine rain on the grass, enabling the grass to start growing.” The word רביבים (second half of our verse) would then refer to heavy rains which is good for a less sensitive kind of grass, i.e. עשב. If we follow this approach, the letter ש in כשעירים is really similar to the letter צ, such as in the word צעיר, young; the meaning then would be analogous to “young rain.” We find a similar construction in 33,19 ושפוני טמוני חול, where the word שפוני may be understood as צפוני, “something hidden (treasure)”.
      A Midrashic approach:  the meaning of the simile (both) is that just as rain, either kind, promotes growth, life, so Moses wishes that his words will do the same for his listeners Just as dew is something everybody welcomes and rejoices in, so may words of Torah be pleasing to all those who hear them.
  
  Verse 3
  
  . הבו גודל לאלוקינו, “ascribe greatness to our G’d.” Moses addresses these words to both heaven and earth. Alternatively, the words may be addressed to Israel, asking the people to acknowledge the miracles G’d had performed for them.
  
  Verse 4
  
    הצור תמים פעלו, “the Rock, Whose work is perfect!” According to the plain meaning of the text the term צור applies to G’d and describes strength, toughness, such as the essence of a rock. Just as rocks appear to be the foundation of the earth, so G’d has founded the earth and the description fits Him. At this point, Moses starts speaking to the witnesses and says: “this Master about whom I wish to speak is the Rock, and there is none as strong and enduring as He. Nonetheless, His works are perfect” [although He could get away with being imperfect and no one could challenge Him successfully, He obeys His own rules. Ed.]. David used similar language when praising the Lord in Samuel II 22,31 ה-אל תמים דרכו, “the G’d Whose path is perfect.” He meant that in spite of G’d’s overwhelming power, He deals with His creatures in absolute perfection. We have another verse, in Job 36,22-23 where Elihu mentions that no one ever reproached G’d for His conduct in spite of the great power He represents. He is even very generous in forgiving His creatures.   Our sages (Megillah 31) state that whenever G’d’s power is mentioned we always find examples of His “modesty,” i.e. of how He restrains Himself in exercising this power. They cite proof of this both from verses in the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, as well as from Scriptures. If David used the expression תמים פעלו, that “His works are perfect,” it is because no other forces of the universe can be perceived as performing their duties in a perfect fashion. Their imperfections consist in that they need divine input in order to perform their tasks at all. They do not originate anything.
      I have heard from my teacher Rabbi Shlomo Aderet that there is no need to say the words פועל אמת שפעולתה אמת in the monthly benediction over the new moon, seeing that anyhow any celestial force which needs divine input cannot be perceived as performing what we call פעולת אמת, “a true function.” Such a force is by definition not אמת, true. [According to Sanhedrin 42 and Rashi there, the words פועלי אמת שפעולתה אמת refer to the moon’s dependable performance. What Rabbi Shlomo Aderet objected to was the feminine form פועלתה instead of פעולתו.  Ed.] The entire line should refer to only a single force to whom the attribute אמת can be accurately applied, i.e. פועל אמת שפעולתו אמת, an obvious reference to G’d, Who activates the orbit of the moon, and not a reference to the moon per se. [Rather, the fact that the moon needs to renew itself every month as a result of having been reduced in size at the outset is cited by us as part of G’d’s perfection. He was justified in reducing the light of the moon. Ed.] This formula would be parallel to what Moses said here הצור תמים פעלו.
      With these words Moses alluded here to the creation of man, his sin, and his punishment. Seeing that Adam’s sin became the cause why all his offspring has to die at one point or another, Moses saw fit  to choose the day of his death to acknowledge that G’d and all that He does is perfect. He implied that when G’d created man He intended for him to be and remain perfect and to serve Him as do the angels in heaven. The word צור is also related to צר, or צייר. He fashioned all creatures including man. When Moses continues describing “His paths as being justice, loyalty, not stained by iniquity,” all these attributes must be viewed as a contrast to man. Seeing man sinned, he deserved to be punished. G’d Himself remains as He has always been. If anything changed it was the fact that G’d’s favourite creature, man, became corrupt vis-a-vis his Creator, i.e. שחת לו. The singular לו, “to Him,” instead of the word להם, “to them,” makes it plain that Moses describes Adam’s sin against his Maker. Our sages, seizing on the meaning of צייר, “painter” in the word צור, suggested that the verse (Samuel II 2,2) אין צור כאלוקינו, might instead be read as אין צייר כאלוקינו, “there is no ‘painter, artist’ comparable to our G’d.”   Moses refers to history repeating itself. Whereas Adam had sinned against His Maker, the Jewish people had copied him by making the golden calf, effectively repeating the sin Adam their ancestor had been guilty of, an act of disobedience amounting to dethroning G’d, or, in the words of our sages, קצץ בנטיעות, “uprooting what had been planted with such care.” (Compare author on Genesis 3,6) We know that this was an act of corruption from when He said to Moses שחת עמך, “your people has become corrupt. (Exodus 32,7) G’d applied this term to the sin of the golden calf though not all of the Israelites participated in it, so that the description קצץ בנטיעות would appear to be an exaggeration. The word לא which follows the word לו reminds the people that Adam had transgressed a negative commandment. Continuing with the words בניו מומם is an allusion to Kayin and Hevel who also had become corrupt. [This editor has always felt that unless Hevel had been guilty of a major sin G’d would not have allowed him to become the first victim of murder and to die without having sired children.]
  
  Verse 5
  
    דור עקש ופתלתל, “a perverse and twisted generation.” Now Moses addresses  his people, calling them by an unflattering description. These words belong together with the words in the next verse הלה' תגמלו זאת, “are you really going to repeat the mistakes of Adam, Kayin and Hevel and act likewise against Hashem?” (The author states that the period sign after the word פתלתל does not present an obstacle to how he reads these two verses). Seeing that Moses had already told the people in 31,29 that he foresaw how they would become corrupt after his death and serve idols after the death of Joshua, he now urgently warns them against pursuing such a path.
  
  Verse 6
  
   הלה' תגמלו זאת, “is it to Hashem that you plan to repay thus?” This is a reference to their becoming corrupt against their father in heaven who had performed so many deeds of loving kindness for them.    Another way of explaining the verse commencing with the word הצור, is that seeing that this was the day on which Moses was going to die, it was up to him, as it is up to any mortal at that stage of his life, to acknowledge G’d’s righteousness and justice in letting him die at that point. He therefore said that all of G’d’s ways are perfect; even death did not represent something perverse or twisted, עקש ופתלתל. He is א-ל אמונה, “a G’d of faith, etc.” Moses meant that all those who in this life do not appear to have been dealt with equitably, will find out after the death of their bodies that that there is an accounting, and that any reward which has not been paid in life on terrestrial earth will be paid then. We have many verses on this subject, to quote but one from Samuel I 26,23: “and the Lord will requite every man for his right conduct and loyalty” (David speaking to King Shaul). Other verses on this subject are found in (Psalms 89,38, et al). The words following, i.e. ואין עול, mean that G’d will not let the sinners get away with their iniquities, even if this was not noticeable while these people were alive on earth. They too will be dealt with after their bodies have died.    The words following this, i.e. צדיק וישר הוא, “He is righteous and straightforward,” mean that He manifests righteousness in the world to come, the world after resurrection of the bodies, and He is straightforward in the עולם הבא, the world of disembodied souls awaiting the resurrection.    With these words Moses alluded to a total of four worlds [in terms of time rather than in terms of space. Ed.] They are: 1) this present terrestrial world of bodies and soul. 2) the world of disembodied souls. 3) the era when souls and bodies are reunited. 4) the period after that. You, the reader, are already aware that all of these four worlds are alluded to in a single verse in Proverbs 6,22: בהתהלכך תנחה אותך, בשכבך תשמר עליך, והקיצות היא תשיחך. “When you walk it will guide you; when you lie down it will protect you; when you are awake it will talk to you.” The first three words refer to the present terrestrial world; the next three words refer to the world of the souls; the word “when you awake,” refers to the period after the resurrection, whereas the final words היא תשיחך “she will talk to you,” refer to the fourth world.   Our verse also contains references to these four different worlds  which the soul of the righteous will experience. According to the above-mentioned interpretation it is extremely appropriate that we have the custom to recite this verse (הצור תמים) in the prayer known as צדוק הדין at funerals, or even when we visit the cemeteries. If the father of all prophets saw fit to recite this verse on the day of his own death, it is certainly in place for us to do so also.    Another reason why Moses may have chosen to refer to G’d as צור on that occasion may have been his own sin when he accused the Jewish people of almost stoning him to death, and  when G’d commanded him (Exodus 17,6) “here I will stand before you by the rock in Chorev; you shall strike the צור and water will emerge, etc.” It had not been Moses’ practice, throughout the Torah, to make reference to this name of G’d which conveys an image of aggressiveness and overlordship; Moses had always preferred to invoke the names of G’d which reflect on His attribute of Mercy. There were only two exceptions to this; the first time in the שירה, when he described the attribute י-ה as עזי (Exodus 15,2) when he spoke of this manifestation of G’d against the Egyptians, and the second time when he spoke about the ongoing battle G’d wages against Amalek where Moses said כי יד על כס י-ה מלחמה לה' בעמלק (Exodus 17,16).    When Moses now mentioned the attribute צור, he did so as he wanted to praise G’d with the same word as he had once sinned against Him. This would correspond to what the sages said in Shemot Rabbah 5,23 that the reason why Moses commenced the song of thanksgiving after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds with the word אז, was to atone for a previous occasion when he had used the word אז, criticizing G’d for having worsened the fate of the Jewish people from the time he, Moses, had been appointed as their leader (Exodus 5,23). 
      If you will analyse this verse still further you will find in it an allusion to the seven disciplines (emanations) of wisdom. The words תמים פעלו refer to the emanation חסד; the words כי כל דרכיו משפט refer to the emanation גבורה; the words א-ל אמונה refer to the emanation אמת, the “centre” of the diagram of emanations. The words ואין עול refer to the emanation נצח; an emanation we know from Samuel I 15,29 וגם נצח ישראל לא ישקר ולא ינחם; the word  צדיק refers to the emanation יסוד, seeing the צדיק has been described as the foundation of the universe (its raison d’etre.)  The word וישר refers to the emanation מלכות. Moses added the word הוא in order to show that the previous attributes are all to be considered as part of a whole.
     שחת לו לא בניו מומם,  Nachmanides writes on this that the words are to be understood as “its corruption reflects upon itself, not upon G’d; because of their blemish they are no longer His children.” The word מום, blemish, describes and defines this corruption. It is a similar construction to Leviticus 22,25 כי משחתם בהם מום בם, “for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them.” The reason the Torah here refers to the people of Israel as לא בניו, “not His sons,” is precisely because in times when G’d feels favorably disposed towards them they are described as בניו, “His sons.” Seeing that their “father” is צדיק וישר, how can the people of Israel be described a His sons, seeing they are perverse and twisted? Hence the only description which fits them is “לא בניו.” This interpretation is correct.    However, seeing the word לא has the tone-sign <i>tipcha</i>, i.e. it belongs to the words preceding it, so that the words בניו מומם belong together but not to the preceding word לא, it is possible to offer the following interpretation. The words שחת לו לא belong together and mean that the reason the Israelites have become corrupted is because they themselves rebelled against the word of the Lord. We find something similar in Isaiah 42,24: ולא אבו בדרכיו הלוך, “and they did not want to walk in His ways.” Whenever Moses wanted to guide them along a certain path, the straightforward path, the true path, they did not want to and responded by saying לא נעשה, “we are not going to do this.” In other words, their corruption revealed itself in their constant use of the word לא, “no.” Seeing that previously they had been called G’d’s children, (Deut. 14,1) בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “You are children to the Lord your G’d,” they have to be described as “not His children” when they act rebelliously. This refusal to accept G’d’s (Moses’s) leadership is a major blemish, one which deserves to be characterized as עקש ופתלתל, perverseness and being twisted.
     הלה' תגמלו זאת עם נבל, “do you thus requite the Lord, o tiresome people?” The nation that strained themselves when accepting the Torah. The people considered having accepted the Torah as something which made them weary. The word נבל is reminiscent of what Yitro said (Exodus 18,18) נבל תבול, which Onkelos translates מילאה תלאי, “you will become very weary.” In our verse, Onkelos likewise translates עם נבל “they are a people who received the Torah.” According to this interpretation these words were meant as a compliment. [According to Rabbi Chavell, the meaning of Onkelos here is that the people welcomed the Torah by exerting themselves in intense study and performance, so that Moses did not criticize Israel with these words but complimented them.]
      Nachmanides writes that נבל is the description of someone who is ungrateful for favors received, whereas someone who performs kind deeds without recompense is called a נדיב, donor. He quotes Isaiah 32,5 לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב as proof that a נבל is an ingrate, the opposite of a נדיב, seeing he repays kindness not only with indifference but with evil. This is the reason why Avigail in her conversation with David refers to her own husband (Samuel 25,2) Naval HaCarmeli as: “as his name so is he,” i.e. repaying kindness with evil. David had done him great favors protecting his property only to be repaid with insolence. This is also what G’d had in mind when He instructed Job’s companions (Job 42,8) to offer sacrifices as atonement for the way they had treated Job. He said: לבלתי עשות עמכם נבלה, “not to treat you vilely; Job was going to pray on their behalf though they had accused him of a variety of wrongdoing. The companions, in defending G’d’s treatment of Job, had described him as deserving the afflictions he had endured. Thus far Nachmanides.
     הלוא הוא אביך, “is He then not your father, etc.?” Moses means that G’d made Israel His possession, bringing them out of nothing into something. Every יש, is by definition the property of the one who brought it into existence. This is also the meaning of Proverbs 8,22: ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, “the Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way.” Similarly, G’d is referred to as owning heaven and earth, seeing He created them (Genesis 14,19).    In Bereshit Rabbah 43,5 the word קנך is understood in its normal meaning, i.e. an acquisition from someone else. The Midrash answers the question from whom G’d could have acquired heaven and earth by saying: ”from the raw material they are constructed from.” I have referred to this in Genesis 14,19.    G’d is called “our father,” as He created the soul which He blew into Adam in order to make him come alive. Just as the physical father deserves this appellation vis-a-vis the body which he sires, (seeing his sperm is the first input) so G’d is described as the true and eternal father, who has provided the original input for all life. David also referred to G’d as his father when he said (Psalms 27,10) “for my father and my mother have abandoned me, only the Lord is taking me in.” Also the prophet Isaiah speaks of G’d as father when he said (Isaiah 63,16) “surely You are our Father: though Avraham regard us not, and Israel recognise us not, You, O Lord, are our Father from of old, Your name is ‘Our Redeemer.’”
   You should appreciate that the word ה-ליה-וה is written as two words, i.e. the first letter ה has the vowel patach and the letter ל which follows has a silent sheva instead of a semi vowel, i.e. sheva na, as in לישראל. The reason is that it is humanly impossible to pronounce two successive <i>sheva na</i>. This is why the sages decided to allow the <i>sheva</i> under the letter ל to remain silent so as to enable us to pronounce the <i>sheva na</i> under the letter י [for those for whom it is allowed to pronounce the tetragrammaton. Ed.] Otherwise, part of the Holy Name of G’d would be “concealed” (if it is incapable of being enunciated). The word is totally strange, there is no parallel for it in the whole Bible. It is also impossible to put the vowel <i>chirik</i> under the letter ל as we do in the word ליהודה, because then too one dot of the correctly spelled and vocalised tetragrammaton would be missing, or “hidden.”
      You should further realise that this letter ה which is written separately is written in larger script and is one of 22 such letters in the Torah which are written in larger script. (Each letter of the א-ב appears once in larger script in the Torah, compare details in the Encyclopedia Talmudit, 1,191)
      A Kabbalistic approach: it is possible to view this letter as alluding to the specially small letter ה in Genesis 2,4. Perhaps  Moses wrote the letter ה here large, at the end of the Torah, as opposed to when he wrote it “small” at the beginning, in order to remind us that this is the letter (last letter of the tetragram) with which the Lord created the terrestrial universe. The extra large letter ה at the end of the Torah is an allusion to the extra small letter ה near the beginning (Genesis 2,4), to show that the large letter ה at the end provided the extra power needed for the small letter ה to create the universe with. The large letter ה in our verse is symbolic of the repentance of the souls; in other words the ultimate repentance by man made the creation of the universe a wothwhile project for the Lord.    It is an accepted concept that when the Jewish people are full of merits they thereby reinforce the power of the Shechinah, whereas when they accumulate demerits, this power wanes somewhat. Moses asks the people by using the preface ה-לה', “are you going to be responsible by your deeds for reducing the power of the Shechinah, for making G’d feel that He wasted His time in creating man?” [freely translated. Ed.] The word זאת describes the attribute of G’d which would “suffer” through the iniquities committed by a people who are perverse, etc. This is why Moses added: “If only they would have drawn on the source of the attribute חכמה, they would have understood this and prevented it from coming about.” They would then have strengthened the attribute זאת instead of weakening it. The whole verse 29 refers to the fact that if the people had displayed the wisdom and intelligence generally attributed to them, they would have contributed to more knowledge all around as a result of which G’d’s image and attribute זאת would have been greatly enhanced. They would have considered the consequences of failing to do so.    The line הלא הוא אביך קנך is read by the Kabbalists as if the word קנך had been vocalised “kinecha,” your nest.” The first small letter ה in the Torah we referred to is understood to refer to G’d as the “nest” of the universe, performing a function similar to that which the birds’ nests perform for their inhabitants. It is perceived as the foundation of the existence of the birds; where there is no nest, birds cannot develop. Some of these considerations are reflected in the commandment of שלוח הקן, the sending away of the mother bird before emptying her nest of its young. The last letter ה in this verse, i.e. הוא עשך, is a parallel construction to הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we are His” (Psalms 100,3).    The word ויכוננך, “He has established you firmly,” means that G’d has constructed Israel in such a way that it may be rehabilitated.
      A Midrashic approach based on Sifri Haazinu; the word וכוננך means: “a metropolis which contains everything” —  It is a people which produces its own priests, prophets, scholars, scientists, scribes, etc. It does not have to rely on outsiders, non-Jews. This is the meaning of Zecharyah 10,4: “from them shall come cornerstones, tent pegs, bows of combat, and every captain shall arise from them.” [The prophet speaks of the self-sufficiency of the Kingdom of Yehudah.] Pharaoh had not found anyone amongst all his wise men who could interpret his dream satisfactorily, but he had to turn to Joseph. Nevuchadnezzar did not find an interpreter among all the wise men of Babylon and had to turn to the Jew, Daniel.
  
  Verse 7
  
   זכור ימות עולם, “Remember the days of yore;” Moses asks the people to remember all the good G’d had done for the Jewish people ever since the creation; i.e. בהנחל עליון גוים, “when the Supreme One gave as inheritance to the nations, etc.” 
     בינו שנות דור ודור, “understand the years of generation after generation.” They should understand what occurred ever since the Shechinah made its home within them. This is reflected in ימצאהו בארץ מדבר, “when He found it (the people) in a land of desolation.” The word יצב in יצב גבולות עמים, is to be understood as an infinitive (see Ibn Ezra) similar in meaning to the word להציב. We find the word דבר, i.e. dabber, also used as an infinitive in לא ידעתי דבר (Jeremiah 1,8). The meaning of the full verse then is: “when G’d assigned to the various nations lands as their respective inheritance, and when He separated their languages, as described about the descendants of Noach in Genesis chapter 11, etc.” You will find that in that chapter 70 descendants of Noach are listed. These are the founders of the 70 nations the sages always speak of. You will reflect on the fact that when your patriarch Yaakov descended to Egypt his clan comprised 70 members born to him or his children. G’d did not select for His own inheritance more than these 70 people whom He set apart to become His people. This is the meaning of the words כי חלק ה' עמו, “for Hashem’s portion is His people” (verse 9).    Some commentators explain the words גבולות עמים which we translated as “the nations’ boundaries” to mean instead: “the diagonal lines assigned to the world,” i.e. the division of the globe into 12 areas governed by different constellations. The words: “for His people are G’d’s share,” would then refer to the fact that the fate of the Jewish people is not governed by such constellations, but that G’d personally decides on the fates of individual Jews. This verse then would be the clearest proof that the fates of the Jewish people are not subject to the influences of the stars but are decided by higher forces. No other nation has achieved such a status, as is spelled out by David in Psalms 147,20: “He did not do so for any other nation.”
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ימצאהו בארץ מדבר, “He found him (Israel) in a desolate land.” I believe that the reason Moses said: “in a desolate land,” i.e. ארץ מדבר instead of simply: מדבר, is that the clouds representing the attribute כבוד joined the people at the time they entered the desert, מדבר. The meaning of the words בארץ מדבר then is: “in a land adjoining a land, i.e. cultivated, inhabited areas.” You will find something similar in the Torah’s description of the Jewish people’s departure from Egypt, when the Torah writes (Exodus 3,20-21) “they journeyed from Sukkot and they encamped in Eytam, at the edge of the desert, בקצה המדבר. The Torah adds: “and the Lord would walk with them both by day and by night.” The meaning of the words ימצאהו then is twofold: it can mean “He found them,” i.e. the word is derived from מצא, or it can mean “supplied, “ i.e. ספק.“ Onkelos appears to have understood it as meaning the latter when he translated ספיק צרכיהון בארעא מדברא, “He supplied their needs in a desert-like country.” Onkelos means that the attribute כבוד found the Jewish people when they were about to enter a desert-like country and proceeded to supply their needs.
     ובתוהו ילל ישמון, “in desolation, a howling wilderness.” Moses recalls that when the people reached this point in their journey, far from civilisation, the matzot (dough) which they had slung over their shoulders when they left Egypt (Exodus 12,39) were exhausted.
     יסובבנהו, “He circled it.” He surrounded the Jewish people with the clouds of glory. According to Onkelos who translates as אשרינון סחור לשכנתיה, the meaning is: “He surrounded them with flags from four sides.” The verse then explains that the Jewish camps in Sinai were like a circle with the Shechinah among them; this is also the meaning of Song of Songs 7,1: כמחולות המחנים, “with the camps encircling.” The author speaks of two camps, i.e. the camp of the Israelites and that of the angels. The latter had descended from their celestial regions with the Shechinah (Bamidbar Rabbah 2,2). This is also alluded to in Taanit 31 that at some time in the future G’d will arrange for a circle for the righteous in Gan Eden and His attribute כבוד will be amongst them.   יבוננהו, “He granted insights to it,” He enabled them to understand things by means of the Torah.   יצרנהו, “He preserved it;” He protected them against the attack by Amalek and attacks from the other nations.   כאישון עינו. “as the pupil of His eye.” The pupil of the eye is known in classical Hebrew as אישון. The reason is that it contains within it something which resembles a human being, איש. The word, or rather the ending ון, suggests something small, just as the word שבתון in the expression שבת שבתון suggests a diminution of the Sabbath, something akin to but not quite like the Sabbath. Whereas the word שבת describes the principal parts of the Sabbath, the word שבתון describes an addition to the Sabbath, something secondary and therefore something “smaller.” We find a similar construction in אמנון, אמנינון  in Samuel II 13,20 where it describes Amnon being put down, being degraded as a brother, seeing he had not acted as a brother should (compare Kimchi). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  . כנשר יעיר קנו, “Like an eagle arousing its nest;”  Moses compares  G’d’s attribute כבוד to the eagle, the king of the birds. Similarly, the attribute כבוד is perceived as the “king” of all the disembodied spirits. Just as the eagle takes its young, carrying them on top of its wings, guiding them to various places, so G’d alone, guides the Jewish people (in the desert). He did not employ the help or assistance of any other deity. We have a similar verse in Psalms 73,25: “Whom else do I have in heaven except You?” Assaph means that we rely neither on angels nor any other celestial forces but only on G’d directly. He goes on saying: “having You I want no one on earth.” Furthermore, elaborating on the comparison with the eagle, “just a the eagle renews itself from time to time, so Israel does renew itself from time to time.” The author cites Isaiah 40,31 יעלו אבר כנשרים as meaning that the eagle produces new wings from time to time. He quotes Psalms 103,5 as confirmation of the verse in Isaiah.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ירכיבהו על במתי ארץ, “He makes it ride on the heights of the earth.” This is a simile describing Israel as having received control of a choice piece of real estate on earth, a central part of the civilized world, a land “higher” than all other countries. [If the earth is considered as a globe and Jerusalem its center, instead of the equator or longitude 180 degrees, then this is literally true. Ed.] (The author bases himself on Sifri 316). The thrust of these verses is that in spite of the advantages conferred on the Jewish people in every sphere, they trampled it and thereby kicked out (at G’d). The meaning of the words כליות חטה in verse 14 is “the fat part, choicest part,” of the wheat kernels. The reason Moses uses the comparison with kidneys, כליות, is because the wheat kernels resemble the shape of the kidney. According to Taanit 23, in the days of Shimon ben Shetach there was such prosperity in Israel that the wheat kernels were as large as oxen. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  . ודם ענב תשתה חמר, “and you would drink the blood of its grapes as if it were aged wine.” Moses refers to the juice in the grapes as “blood,” seeing that its red color is similar to the color of blood. Another reason, mystical, if you will, is that grapes were the indirect cause of death in the world according to the view that the fruit of the tree of knowledge were grapes (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8).    The word ענב refers to the seeds inside the grape. The reason Moses speaks about grapes in the singular instead of the customary ענבים, plural, is that he wanted to alert us to the vast amount of wine, blessing for the country, which develops from such tiny beginnings as the seeds in the grapes. When the grapes hang together in a cluster they are called אשכול by the Torah, whereas in Talmudic parlance such a cluster is known as פרכיל. We find the expression פרכיל ענבים in Sukkah 10, i.e. clusters from which grapes are suspended. The trunk from which such clusters of grapes are hanging is called גפן, a grapevine, when the cluster is still attached to it, whereas when the branch to which the clusters are attached has been severed from the trunk it is called זמורה. This is borne out by Numbers 13,23 ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול ענבים, “they (the spies) cut from there a branch, full of clusters of grapes.” The verse in Numbers describes the excellence and quantity of the produce of the land of Canaan at that time. The Torah there adds the word אחד, to tell us that each of the spies took a different specimen from the fruit of the land. One took a cluster of grapes, another pomegranates, still another a fig.
  
  Verse 15
  
   וישמן ישורון ויבעט, “Israel became fat and kicked.” Up until this time the Jewish people had never been called Yeshurun. It is possible that Moses did not use the name in order to flatter them, but, on the contrary, in order to point out how a people who were once considered entitled to such a compliment had forfeited their claim to that name. The name derives from אשורנו, a vision the prophet Bileam refers to as having had, i.e. the ability to behold supernatural phenomena (Numbers 14,17). The Jewish people had seen such phenomena, i.e. the attribute of כבוד at the time they experienced their spiritual high during the revelation at Mount Sinai. This is why Moses employs this term immediately after having described the Mount Sinai experience of the Jewish people with the words יסובבנהו יבוננהו in verse 10. Seeing that the Torah described the attribute Israel focused at that time as “and the appearance of the glory of G’d was similar to consuming fire at the top of the mountain,” (Exodus 24,17) it is clear that the people at the time had a visual experience. Later on, during his blessings of the people in 33,4 Moses again refers to this term saying ויהי בישורון מלך, “the Lord became King amongst the people known as “Yeshurun.” When Moses concludes his blessings of the people in Deut. 33,26 he again refers to the Jewish people as Yeshurun, saying אין כא-ל ישורון, “there is none like the G’d of Yeshurun.” He meant that the very experience the people had had at Sinai should have convinced them that there is no power in the world that can equal their G’d.    All this is really part of this song which is a collection of criticism, rebuke, during which Moses argues with the people concerning their conduct in the future. He foretells them that they would become sinful and rebel against the Lord, becoming forgetful of all the kind deeds G’d had performed for them. This is why on this day, the last day of his life, he mentions the description Yeshurun three times to underline how terrible it is when a people who attained such spiritual stature as they would experience a spiritual decline.    The prophet Isaiah paraphrases Moses when he said in Isaiah 1,4 הוי גוי חוטא עם כבד עון, “woe, a sinful people, a nation laden with iniquity!” Our sages comment on this that when Isaiah used the term גוי he referred to the people who had distinguished themselves as being referred to as ,ומי גוי גדול, “and who is such a great nation?” How could such a nation become sinful? Furthermore, this was the nation which had been described as עם קדוש, “a consecrated people,” in Deut. 14,2. How could such a people have fallen so much that it fits the description “laden with iniquity?” The Jewish people had been described as “children are you to the Lord your G’d” in Deut. 14,1, and as “seed blessed by the Lord” (Isaiah 61,9).
     ויטוש אלו-ה עשהו וינבל צור ישועתו, “it deserted G’d its Maker, and was contemptuous of the Rock of its salvation.” The verse alludes to the two attributes of G’d which orchestrated the Exodus. The reason Moses did not say א-ל but אלו-ה was to include both the emanation תפארת and כבוד. This is why he added the letters ו and ה. This idea is reflected also in Job 35,10 איה אלוה עושי . The words וצור ישעותו mean that by means of the attribute צור, the deliverance of the Jewish people at the Sea of Reeds was orchestrated.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
   יקניאוהו בזרים, “they kindled His jealousy by means of alien (gods).” By turning to idols, the Jewish people aroused G’d’s attribute of “the jealous G’d.” They angered this very attribute which had delivered them at the Sea. A reference to the sin of the golden calf and possibly to the affair at Shittim.
  
  Verse 17
  
    יזבחו לשדים לא אלו-ה, “they would slaughter to demons, non-deities.” These possess no power at all; (unlike celestial constellations). אלוהים לא ידעום, “gods which they did not even know of as such.” These so-called deities were not even on a par with angels, disembodied spirits which had been created prior to the 6 days of creation, or on the second day of the creation, or on the fifth day (compare author on Genesis 1,4) חדשים מקרוב באו, “new ones, recently arrived!” Creatures which are more recent than man. A reference to the mortality of demons equaling the mortality of man. לא שערום אבותיכם, “beings which were unable to inspire fear in your fathers.”     Another meaning of the line, “new ones, recently arrived.” The line is a reference to the theology in question, i.e. something the Jews had learned recently, such as when they were in Egypt. The Egyptians were already familiar with that cult.
     Another possible approach to these words: There are basically three categories of idolatry (compare author on Yitro 20,3). One of them is the believing in certain philosophies, even if one does not worship something physical. We have been warned against such idolatry by the first words of the second Commandment: לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים. The second category of idolatry is the worship of reproductions in a cast form or other three-dimensional form, of celestial phenomena, the assumption being that one thereby wants to “catch” the power of these phenomena and put them to work on one’s behalf. The Torah warns against this with the words: “do not make for yourselves, etc.” (Exodus 20,4) The third category of idolatry consists of serving demons, something we have been warned against by the words אשר במים מתחת לארץ, “which are in the water beneath the earth” (Exodus 20,4). These are the demons that dwell in the תהום, “the empty space” mentioned in Genesis 1,1. This is why, at this point, Moses warns against serving these demons, saying we must not slaughter for them seeing they do not possess any power, not even that attributed to the celestial phenomena commonly known as horoscopes. Moses adds the apparently gratuitous words: אלוהים אשר לא ידעום, to emphasize that not only are these phenomena not deities, not equipped with any powers, but they have never even been acknowledged by idolaters a having any power. They are phenomena of such recent origin that they were not even perceived as threatening by their forefathers. The forefathers Moses referred to were Terach and Nachor, Avraham’s father and grandfather, who did worship hewn images of celestial phenomena. Even they were not so foolish as to imagine that cults involving demons could be of any use.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   מכעס בניו ובנותיו, “by the anger caused by His sons and daughters.” This was an allusion to the first Temple when both men and women practiced idolatry as we know from Jeremiah 44,9: “have you forgotten the wicked acts of your forefathers, of the kings of Yehudah and their wives?” We have another verse relating to his subject in Ezekiel 8,14: “next He brought me to the entrance of the north-gate of the House of the Lord and there sat the women bewailing Tammuz.” (a Babylonian god). This is why our verse lists “His sons and His daughters,” separately.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר אסתירה פני מהם, “He said: ‘I will hide My face from them.’” I have already mentioned in Genesis 1,3 that the term אמירה, i.e. ויאמר, when applied to G’d reflects a benevolent kind of utterance or thought [when it was not uttered in someone’s hearing such as at the time when there were no creatures as yet who could hear the utterance. Ed.]. We may understand the words אסתירה פני as 'אסתיר ה', “I will hide the attribute ה which is “My face.” 
     בנים לא אמון בם, “children who have no sense of loyalty within them.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word אמון here is an adjective raised to the level of a noun. The verse then would mean that amongst these “children” there is not a single loyal person, a person of faith.
      A Midrashic approach: These children do not respond with Amen.” This is reflected in the absence of the letter ו which we would have expected if only the plain meaning were correct. [The failure to pronounce Amen after the blessing of the prophets is a serious offense. Ed.]  Our sages in Berachot 58 derive from this verse that  a person who responds by saying Amen to a blessing in which the Lord’s name is mentioned has performed a greater mitzvah than the one who recited the actual benediction.
      A Kabbalistic approach: they are sons who have no one who teaches them and trains them (in the right path). The divine force which is known as פנים, “G’d’s face,” is the one that teaches and trains His children. Seeing that the Jewish “children” referred to are the Jews in exile from whom G’d “hid” this “face,” they have no one to train them in true Jewish values, to teach them the living Torah. The אומן Moses speaks about is symbolized by the final letter ה in the tetragrammaton. This is what the words אסתיר-ה פני מהם refer to.
  
  Verse 21
  
   הם קנאוני בלא א-ל, “They have aroused My jealousy by means of a non-deity, etc.” Seeing that they chose to exchange Me for something which has no power to save anyone,  (compare Ezekiel 8,3 that the סמל הקנאה המקנה, it is the image of jealousy which provokes jealousy. Seeing that G’d is a jealous G’d, such symbols provoke His latent jealousy.)
     ואני אקניאם בלא-עם, “so I will (retaliate) by provoking them by a non-people.” [A group of human beings claiming to be a nation and having the rights of a nation although they do not share the ingredients which make a people into a nation. Compare the Palestinians in our days. Ed.] Moses referred to the Jews being exiled by the Babylonians (compare Isaiah 23,13 who ridicules the Babylonians’ claim to nationhood, seeing the Assyrians had annihilated that people.)   בגוי נבל אכעיסם,  “I will make them angry by means of a vile nation.” This is an allusion to the exile under the Edomites (Romans). The reason the Torah refers in such demeaning terms to the Edomites is because the founders of this nation denied the genetic bond which existed between their common ancestor Yitzchok. Instead of assisting his kin, that nation watched gloatingly when the first Temple was being destroyed (Ovadiah 11). You will also find that Assaph referred to Edom as נבל, vile, in psalm 74,18 where we read: ”be mindful of how the enemy blasphemes the Lord, how base people revile the Lord;” he continues in verse 22 of the same psalm: “rise O G’d, champion Your cause; be mindful that You are blasphemed by base men all day long.” In verse 19 of that psalm the author writes: “do not deliver Your dove to the wild beast; do not ignore forever the band of Your lowly ones.” All of this is meant to make plain that the base people, עם נבל, he referred to was the חיה הרביעית, the “fourth beast” in Daniel’s vision, a reference to the kingdom of Edom. (Our author elaborated on this in connection with Bileam’s prophecies Numbers 24,28). (Compare also Psalms 68,31 where the “beast of the marsh” is a reference to Edom.)
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   מזי רעב, “burned by famine.” The expression is used in this sense in Daniel 3,19 where it refers to stoking a furnace i.e. למזא לאתונא. The idea appears to be that on account of the pangs of hunger, one’s natural warmth is burning up healthy tissue seeing it does not have food to burn up. As a result these people will be consumed by raging fever.
     וקטב מרירי, “and bitter destruction (death);” according to Ibn Ezra this refers to some kind of poisoned air which kills people. This appears to occur mostly at midday. Examples are: Job 3,5: “may it be struck by the pall of the day.” This is also the meaning of Psalms 91,6  ומקטב ישוד צהרים, “and from the scourge that rages at noon.” A description of the plague, pestilence. Moses speaks of four different judgments, afflictions. which can be summarised as רעב, דבר, חיה, חרב, famine, pestilence, wild beasts, and death by the sword. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אמרתי אפאיהם, “I had said: ‘I will consign them to the most remote corner.’” “I will scatter them to the ends of the globe.”    According to Nachmanides, the words mean that G’d says: “I had originally wanted that they remain scattered to the corners of the globe forever so that their memory will be blotted out among mankind.”This is an allusion to the exile of the Ten Tribes  who were exiled to the region of the river Gozan, (Kings II 17,6) the river referred to by our sages as Sabatyon. (according to Sanhedrin 65 Sambatyon) The word גוזן is related to ויגז שלוים, Numbers 11,31 “it (the wind) swept quail.” We also encounter the a similar word in Psalms 71,6 כי אתה גוזי, “for You were my support.” The people standing on the far side of that river are effectively removed from human society (no one can cross the river). The river is called Sabatyon because it stops flowing on the Sabbath. In the language of the people in that region the word סבט is equivalent to our word שבת. In Arabic too, the Sabbath is called סבט. It is a custom among those people to append the ending יון to many words, hence the name סבטיון. Nachmanides furnishes examples of other words with that ending.    Even though, at this stage, the Torah speaks here in riddles, allusions,  and in a very abbreviated form, we can find illuminating comments by our sages on the subject scattered throughout the Talmud and Midrashim. For instance, in Bereshit Rabbah 73,6 Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Seymon says that the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin were not exiled to the same areas as were the Ten Tribes who had been exiled long before beyond the river Sabatyon, whereas the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin were scattered all over the globe. In Midrash Shir Hashirim Zutta 1,16  the words אף ערשנו רעננה are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to these Ten Tribes who were exiled beyond the river Sabatyon. The Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,8 writes that there were three exiles of the Israelites (the northern kingdom, I presume, Ed.); 1) beyond the river Sabatyon, 2) the exile somewhere close to Antiochya; 3) an exile which was preceded by a cloud descending and hiding the people being exiled. Just as the Ten Tribes (actually 7) were exiled in three stages and to three locations, the two and a half Tribes on the East Bank of the Jordan who were the first to be exiled also were exiled in three stages. The source from which we derive all this is Ezekiel 23,31: בדרך אחותך הלכת ונתתי כוסה בידך, “seeing you walked the same path as your sister, therefore I placed her cup in your hand.” Just as the exile was divided into three episodes and locations, so the eventual return to the Holy land will follow a similar pattern The sages base this on Isaiah 49,9: “tell the prisoners ‘get going;’”  this (part of) the verse applies to the exiles from beyond the river Sabatyon. The second half of the verse in Isaiah which reads: “to the ones who were exiled in darkness,” applies to the people exiled beyond the Sabatyon. The next section of the verse i.e. the words: “show yourselves!” refers to the exiles who had been mysteriously swallowed by the cloud; The final words of that verse, i.e. “they shall pasture along the roads,” apply to the group of exiles who had been taken to somewhere near Antiochya.    In the Tosephta of Sanhedrin (chapter 13) we have been taught in the name of Rabbi that the Ten Tribes will enjoy a share in the world to come. He bases himself on Isaiah 27,13: “it will be on that day (the day described in verse 12) that a great shofar will be sounded and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria and the expelled in the land of Egypt shall come and worship the Lord on the holy mount, in Jerusalem.” The peoples mentioned are the ones we know as the “Ten Tribes.” According to Sifra Bechukotai 8 the reference is to the people described in Leviticus 26,38. Rabbi Akiva says that the reference is to the Ten Tribes who have been exiled to the land of the Medes.
  
  Verse 27
  
   לולא כעס אויב אגור, “If I were not concerned with provoking the anger of the enemy, etc.” The Hebrew words are to be understood as: לולא שאני מפחד מכעס אויב as explained by Ibn Ezra, as G’d saying that He is conscious of His need to battle the enemies of the Jews who draw the wrong conclusions of history, [such as that the G’d of the Jews has lost His power. Ed]. The word אגור is the same as Deut. 1,17 where Moses told the judges לא תגורו מפני איש: ”do not be afraid of any man.” The meaning of the words פעל כל זאת refers to the שפטים, the judgments, i.e. that the enemy of the Jewish people would not credit G’d with having orchestrated these judgments on His people as a punishment for them. 
  
  Verse 28
  
   כי גוי אובד, “for a nation bereft, etc.” a reference to the Gentile nations [as a group, Ed.].
  
  Verse 29
  
   לו חכמו, “if only they had displayed wisdom (the Jewish people).   ישכילו זאת, “they would have appreciated with their intelligence that G’d had orchestrated all these afflictions as retaliation for their iniquities.” Furthermore, if they would have used their intelligence they would have realized that at the time when one of the enemy put a thousand of the Israelites to flight this too had only been possible through G’d’s doing. Unless their “Rock” had sold them out and had delivered them into the hands of the pagans this could never have happened.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   כי לא כצורנו צורם, “for our “Rock” is not like their “rock.” The “rock” Moses speaks of is that of the “nations bereft of counsel” whom he previously characterized as “our enemies.” They should have realized all this, i.e. that they were not qualified to be our judges. Alternatively, the words ואויבינו פלילים may mean that “when our enemies are criminals, they think that our rock is not like their rock,” i.e. that He is inferior to their rock instead of superior to their rock. This would be a desecration of the Lord’s name.
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי מגפן סדום גפנם ומשדמות עמורה, “for their vine is from the vine of Sodom and Gomorrah;” There is some repetition here, seeing that the meaning of the word שדמות is the same as גפן, “vine.” The word occurs in this sense in Isaiah 16,8: כי שדמות חשבון אומלל גפן שבמה, “for the vines of Cheshbon are withered and the vines of Sibmah.” The word also occurs in this sense in Chabakuk 3,17 ושדמות לא עשה אוכל, “and there is nothing edible on the vine.” Moses speaks of the nations whose roots are evil and bitter, so that one cannot expect the fruit to be sweet. Also the wine can only be “like the anger of dragons” (verse 33).
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
    הלא הוא כמוס עמדי, “have I not carefully stored it away?” Their wine is stored away under My care until they will drink it. Sooner or later they themselves will have to drink their own poisonous wine. G’d is storing up His eventual vengeance against the people who have abused Israel. The construction is similar to Psalms 91,8: “you will witness the punishment of the wicked with your eyes.” [A reference to the words in verse 35 לי נקם ושלם, i.e. verses 34 and 35 are one unit. Ed.] לעת תמוט רגלם “at the time when their foot shall slip.” When the measure of their sins is full. The word שלם here is used by Moses in the same vein as G’d used it when explaining to Avraham in Genesis 15,16 that the Emorite people could not be driven out of the land of Canaan until its measure of guilt was full, שלם. 
      It is also possible to explain these verses as follows: the words הלא הוא כמוס עמדי, refer to the word אחריתם, “their end” in verse 29, i.e. the eventual end of Israel’s enemies has been a carefully preserved storage in the hands of the Lord. We find a similar construction in Daniel who had asked; (Daniel 12,8) מה אחרית אלה, “what is going to be the end of these (dire predictions)?” G’d had answered him that the timing of the redemption, and therefore the timing of the retribution against the enemies of our people, was a well guarded secret with Him until the time when it would occur (Daniel 12,9). In fact, this would occur at a time which seems most unlikely at the time, a time when these nations appear to rule the world. 
  The word למו at the end of verse 35 contains an allusion to the time of the redemption (seeing the three letters in that word are the acronym of למועד מועדים וחצי, the time described as the time of the redemption in Daniel 12,7). At that time ידין ה' עמו, “the Lord will judge His people.” May the Lord hasten the time when this will occur as He said when He spoke about circumcising our hearts (30,6).
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  . כי ידין ה' עמו, “for the Lord will judge His people.” He will exact retribution from the wicked when Israel will observe that all their (own) power had waned and that they are either prisoners, עצורים, or forsaken in captivity, when they are almost completely lost, i.e. ואפס עצור ועזוב, “their power has shrunk to zero.”
  
  Verse 37
  
   ואמר אי אלוהימו, “and when he (the enemy) will say (sarcastically) where is their god?” We know that Titus after cutting into the dividing curtain in the Temple found the Holy of Holies empty, exclaimed in this fashion, astounded that there was no image (compare Gittin 56b). This is also what the prophet Micah 7,10 referred to when he said: “when my enemy sees it, she will be covered with shame. She who taunts me with ‘where is He, the Lord your G’d?’”
  
  Verse 38
  
   אשר חלב זבחמו יאכלו, “the ones who should have consumed the fat parts of their offerings.” This is part of the taunt of Israel’s enemies at the time of their political low point. The  plural יאכלו is a reference to the ‘gods’ of Israel by its enemies, and reflects their inability to comprehend that Israel believes in a single G’d, not in a variety of competing powers in the universe. They are taunting us by suggesting that these “gods” of ours should arise and help us. When the enemy continues with יהי עליכם סתרה, “may it be for you a protection,” instead of saying יהיו in the plural i.e. “let them be a protection” [as would have been appropriate in light of what we just explained]. The nations keeping Israel captive jeer, saying: “if indeed the god whom you believe in is only one, let Him hide you from all the persecutions which you are suffering and which you are about to endure still.”    Alternatively, we can understand these words as referring to G’d saying: “where is this god of the pagans to whom they offered all these sacrifices and libations of wine? This is the way Rashi understands the line. This is the basis for our sages in Avodah Zarah 29 deriving that יין נסך, wine of the pagans (normally used as a sacrificial offering to their gods), is prohibited not only to drink but to derive any benefit from. The fact that the Torah mentions this wine right next to the sacrifices of animals, זבחמו, establishes this halachic linkage between the two.
  
  Verse 39
  
   ראו עתה כי אני אני הוא, “see now, that I, I am He.” The word אני, as well as the words אתה or הוא, describe a presence, an existence of the subject. They are both nouns [as opposed to pronouns. Ed.] just as in Sukkah  48: אני והו הושיעה נא. I have already explained that verse in Exodus 15,2 when discussing the words זה א-לי ואנוהו.    Moses is at the point where he sums up what he has been saying in this song. The function of these nouns (names) here is to express love and foretell that those who have been scattered will once again be gathered in and united [describing Himself in the first person as well as in the third person is G’d’s way of hinting at the fact that what had been scattered can be fused together again. Ed.]    Subsequently, G’d continues with: “I kill, but I also revive.” This is an allusion to the resurrection which will follow the redemption after a relatively brief interval. He then continues, quoting the Lord, with: “I am the One Who lives forever.” (verse 40). This is an allusion to the world of the future which will follow the era of the life of the resurrected bodies. This is in accordance with the view expressed in Sanhedrin 90 that the dead who will be resurrected at the time of the resurrection will not die again. (See lengthy treatment of the subject on Deut. 30,15). These people will be transferred to a celestial region with body and soul intact, where they will continue a life which knows no death. Concerning this life, our sages always say that “people destined for it have been ‘invited’ to the world of the future.” This is the ultimate purpose of the whole system of reward and punishment, and concerning this experience even the prophet Isaiah 64,3 already said that it is beyond the powers of any prophet to describe, as none has been privileged to have been shown a vision of it. It is something reserved exclusively for G’d to show to the people so honored.   To give us an even stronger hint of the concealed nature of what life in that region will be like, the word לעלם, “forever,” has been spelled without the letter ו. Our sages compare this to the first vision of G’d Moses experienced in Exodus 3,15 where G’d also used this word when He said זה שמי לעלם, “this is My Name forever.” There too our sages point to he absence of the letter ו, i.e. at the concealed elements of such a future. Whereas up until now, Moses had been speaking, at this juncture, G’d resumes speaking. Hearing the promise of a redemption from G’d directly is more reassuring than hearing it through the words of an intermediary. It convinces the listeners that the ingathering will be orchestrated by G’d Himself, not through one of His agents. If and when this occurs, all the nations will sing the praises of His people (verse 43).
  
  Verse 40
  
   כי אשא אל שמים ידי, “For I shall raise My hand to heaven, etc.;” the promise of the redemption of the future is here being confirmed and reinforced with an oath, seeing that the gesture of raising one’s hand towards heaven is typical of someone swearing an oath. We find another example of this in Daniel 12,7 where the promise of the redemption in the future is also accompanied by this gesture. David also used this formula in Psalms 10,12 when he said: “rise, O Lord, raise Your hand.” Not only the promise of the redemption of the future is accompanied by an oath, but even the promise of the redemption from Egypt was accompanied by an oath, seeing that G’d referred to this in retrospect by saying “נשאתי את ידי,“ “I had raised My hand” (Exodus 6,18). [The author quotes more examples which I will skip. Ed.]
      Nachmanides, under the heading דרך האמת, offers the following contribution: seeing that at the time of the exile of the Jewish people G’d had cast down the glory of Israel from heaven (compare Lamentations 2,1), He now had to mention that He would pick it up with His hand and restore it to the celestial regions once the time of goodwill towards the people of Israel returns. This is the “hand” known as the יד הגדולה which battles on behalf of the Jewish people. This is the meaning of: “I said by My eternal life I revive My strong hand when I sharpen My flashing sword. I will seize it in order to wreak judgment on those who oppose Me and Israel. That will be the time when My name will be whole and My throne will be whole” (Tanchuma Ki Tetze 11). Thus far the words of Nachmanides.
  
  Verse 41
  
   אם שנותי, “When I will whet My flashing blade;” the use of the past tense here when we would have expected a future tense, seeing G’d speaks about what will be, is typical of prophetic pronouncements. The meaning of the construction is that “if I whet the blade of My sword in the heaven and take hold of judgment on earth.” These words parallel those of the prophet (Isaiah 34,5: “for My sword shall be dripping (with blood) in the heaven, lo, it shall come down upon Edom.” 
      A Midrashic approach: “If I were to whet My sword, with a flashing blade, says the Lord, I would destroy the world;” What can I do to prevent this (rhetorical question)? My hand must grasp judgment.” So far the words of the Midrash. You know already that whenever the “sword” of G’d is mentioned that this is a reference to His attribute of Justice. Examples are Isaiah 66,16: “with His sword against all flesh,” or Psalms 2,21: “save my life from the sword,” and similar verses in which the word חרב is featured. A man is supposed to constantly be conscious of the impending attack by the attribute of Justice. We have a full verse in Job 19,29 where the author  cries out: “”be in fear of the sword, for your iniquity is worthy of the sword. Know there is a judgment.” The thrust of the verse is to remind people that what transpires in this universe is not accidental or coincidental, but is part of a master plan.” I have already commented on Genesis 3,24 where the flashing blade of the sword guarding the entrance to Gan Eden is mentioned, as well as on Deut. 7,24, that G’d’s sword is extremely sharp, has 16 blades. When the Torah speaks here of חרבי followed by ותאחז, this is an allusion to the 16-sided blade of G’d’s sword by which the wicked will be judged, and which even the righteous have reason to be afraid of; however, (under the appropriate circumstances) this sword is entrusted to the righteous. This is the meaning of the שיר חדש, the new song which will be sung by them in the future, as we know from Psalms 149,6: “with paeans to G’d in their throats and many-bladed swords in their hands.“ The sages amend the word בידם, “in their hands,“ to be read as בי-ה as referring to 16 blades. [The number 15 i.e. י-ה, may refer to the additional number of blades. Ed.]
      This song of Moses is a great source of comfort regarding the redemption of the future and the destruction of the idolaters and the avenging of Israel from its enemies, as well as concerning the atonement of Israel’s iniquities. Perhaps this is even reflected in the acrostic of the respective first letters of different sections of this song, i.e. the letters ה-ז-י-ו  ל-ך, having been so divided by Ezra who arranged the reading into these sections (see beginning of verses 1-7-13-19-29-40). He had foreseen with holy spirit that by reading this portion in the appropriate stanzas there would be an additional ray of hope and an appeal to the people to engage in penitence whenever these verses are read in public, generation after generation (compare Rosh Hashanah 31). The message of the acrostic is that the radiation of the brilliance of the Shechinah will be restored to us as in former days.  
     אשיב נקם לצרי, “I shall return vengeance upon My enemies.” In other words, I will retaliate against them for what they have done to Israel. G’d calls the adversaries of Israel: “My enemies,” whereas earlier, in verse 27, Moses called them פן ינכרו צרימו, “lest its tormentors would misinterpret.” The suffix “its” in that verse referred to Israel. The message of our verse is that anyone who is the tormentor of Israel thereby makes himself into an enemy of the Lord. 
  You will find a similar construction during the song Moses composed after crossing the Sea of Reeds, where in Exodus 15,7 he speaks of G’d as “You will destroy those who rise against You, קמיך,” where we would have expected Moses to say קמי, “the ones who rose against me.” Moses wanted to make the point, however, that anyone attacking the Jewish people is at one and the same time attacking the G’d of the Jews. This concept is reflected in Psalms 83,3-4 where David says: “for Your enemies rage, Your foes assert themselves. The plot craftily against Your people, take counsel against Your hidden ones.” David equates the people who attack Israel with those who rage against the Lord. He refers to the Jewish people as צפונך, “the ones hidden by You,” seeing that the Lord hides them, protects them. Actually, the meaning of the word here is close to the meaning of והייתם לי סגולה, “You will be for Me something treasured.” One has a tendency of hiding one’s treasures. One does not entrust its care to agents, to subordinates.
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   הרנינו גוים עמו, “O nations, sing the praises of His people!” When the Jewish people are loyal to their traditions, to the Torah, then the nations of the world sing their praises. They admire the fact that even when exiled, the Jewish people hold fast to their beliefs and do not try to assimilate themselves (compare Rashi). Alternatively, the word הרנינו is derived from רנה in the sense of “proclamation,” i.e. the nations everywhere will proclaim about this people that the Lord has avenged their blood. The word would be used here in the same manner as in Kings I 22,36  ויעבור הרנה, “a shout went through (the camp).”
     כי דם עבדיו יקום, “for He will avenge the blood of His people.” Moses prophesied in these verses about the troubles which would befall the Jewish people during our exile and all the bloodshed that the people would become  victims of at the hands of their host nations. They would lose their money through violence, both physical and through discriminatory legislation. These events have been specifically forecast by Ovadiah 10 as being perpetrated by Yaakov’s brother Esau (the Edomites) when he wrote: “for the outrage (violence perpetrated) to your brother Yaakov, disgrace shall engulf you and you shall perish forever.” In anticipation of this retribution, Moses says “He will avenge the blood of His people.”
     וכפר אדמתו עמו, “and He will appease His land and His people.” According to both Onkelos, Ibn Ezra, and Rashi, the words אדמתו עמו are to be understood as אדמתו ועמו, “His land and His people.”   The Midrash (Sifri on our verse) understands the words as if the Torah had written וכפר אדמתו על עמו, “its land will be atonement for its people.” According to Ketuvot 111 the meaning is that if a Jew is buried in the land of Israel, his sins will be transferred to the soil, i.e. the land of Israel will act as a Mikveh, a ritual bath, cleansing him from his impurities. The wording there is “that being buried in the land of Israel is equivalent to being buried beneath the Holy Altar.” This is an extension of the verse “You shall build an altar of earth for me” (Exodus 20,24). This is also understood to be the meaning of the sages’ comment that the reason G’d created Adam out of earth was that the place which would serve as the means of his atonement was his origin. [by making him out of earth, G’d facilitated his eventual atonement when he would return to earth. Ed.] This is the advantage of ארץ ישראל, that it is the palace of the King (G’d) and therefore is also known as ארץ ה', (Joshua 22,19). It is also known as נחלת ה', “the Lord’s heritage.” Anything outside the boundaries of the land of Israel is always referred to as something “outside, external.” The Scriptures refer to such countries as חוצות, (compare Proverbs 8,26 where the word ארץ and חוצות appear side by side to make this distinction and is even called אהלי רשע “tents of the wicked,” in Psalms 84,11).     In the parlance of our sages in Gittin 8, any land outside the land of Israel is referred to as ארץ העמים. To make the distinction crystal clear, the sages decreed ritual impurity on any produce imported from these countries and even its airspace was considered as ritually impure, so that by having traversed it one needs to purify oneself. The only exception to this ruling was Syria because it adjoins the land of Israel. I have already mentioned this in connection with 31,16 אלוהי נכר הארץ.
     וכפר אדמתו עמו; this means that the Jewish people will purify their land of the corpses of the enemies (Ibn Ezra). The word וכפר therefore has to be understood in the sense of וטהר, “and it purifies.” The word also appears in that sense in Ezekiel 39,16 וחטאת אותו וכפרתהו. Ezekiel speaks specifically of וטהרו הארץ, “they (the Israelites) will cleanse the earth” ‎(of these bodies of the slain pagans who were killed during the final confrontation with Gog and Magog preceding the messianic age).   ואין אלוהים עמדי, “and there is no other deity with Me.” (verse 39).  G’d says this versus the pagans who had taunted the Israelites to ask their deities to help them. Seeing the nations had spoken of deities in the plural, G’d had to emphasize the uniqueness of His being in the singular, having no assistants or junior partners. When G’d said: “I kill and I revive,” He specifically referred to the Jews whom He had killed, (allowed to be killed) pointing out that He would revive them. [since that is so, even their “death” was not a regular death. Ed.] Our sages in Sanhedrin 91 claim that here we have incontrovertible proof from the Torah that there will be a resurrection. They said further that just as when the Torah speaks about G’d being a Healer, this is demonstrated by someone who had first been afflicted with disease or injury, so describing Himself as someone who brings to life also implies that the person brought to life had first died.   This is made plain in Samuel I, 2,6 where Chanah speaks about G’d being ממית ומחיה, מוריד שאול ויעל, “killing and reviving,”’ consigning to the grave (nether regions), and to raise up again.    The reason that the sages felt called upon to spell out that the Torah speaks about one and the same person being killed and revived, is that from the words מחצתי ואני ארפא, “I have struck with injury and I will heal,” (32,38) the impression could have been formed that G’d speaks about two different individuals; the sages wanted to make clear that this is not the case. Seeing that G’d employs the past tense in that verse, it is clear that He speaks about the same person He had first struck down being healed again. 
      There are many people who are wondering why such an important concept as that of the resurrection has not been spelled out in the written Torah in detail. Seeing that the Torah has spelled out in detail many less important concepts, sometimes repeating them several times, the failure to spell out the concept of resurrection of the dead is considered especially puzzling. The fact is that Torah addresses first and foremost terrestrial matters of concern to us. When you recall the Torah’s report of the creation you will note that the description of the creation of light on the first day was condensed to a minimum, seeing that this light was not significant in terrestrial terms. When the Torah returns to that subject on the fourth day of creation, it goes into greater detail seeing that this light, the sun’s and the moon’s, is of concern to our life on earth. Similarly, even on the third day, the Torah explained details about the coming into existence of vegetation as it grows in areas of our human habitat. David follows a similar pattern when he describes the original light as merely עוטה אור כשלמה, “something G’d draped over His universe, much like a mantle” (Psalms 104,2). He also gives short shrift to the מים העליונים, “the waters in the celestial regions,” contenting himself with writing המקרה מים עליותיו, “Who sets the rafters of His lofts in the waters,” (Psalms 104,3) whereas he becomes far more specific when discussing the waters in our globe. Compare  verse 6 in the same psalm: “You made the deep cover it as a garment, the waters stood above the mountains, They fled Your blast; You set bounds they must not pass so that they never again cover the earth.” The עליות which David speaks of are the  universes we call outer space, whereas the psalmist elaborates on waters which exist in our terrestrial universe. Hence, in verse 6 of that same psalm, David was so much more specific.    There are numeous more verses of that nature. All the targets described by Moses in the Torah are primarily of interest to our physical existence on earth. These targets man can attest to, i.e. see if G’d’s promises were fulfilled provided he (the people) acted in accordance with the Torah’s laws, or if the nation fell victim to the dire threats if they did not. When people realise that these targets have been met and realised, they will be more likely to accept on faith promises which by their very nature cannot be proven while they are one earth. For the reasons mentioned, the Torah understandably was very brief in its allusions to matters whose fulfillment lies beyond our present life on earth. The life of disembodied souls in the celestial regions while awaiting the resurrection, has similarly been alluded to only in the vaguest manner. The average reader may not even notice these allusions whereas the elite may notice their significance. The truth is that the written Torah was given to and for the multitude who do not concern themselves overly with abstract matters, matters of interest primarily to the intellect rather than to the senses.    If you will take an analytical look at the words, or rather the letters in the words (verse 39) סתרה ראו עתה כי, you will find that the respective final letters in these four words spelled backwards spell out the tetragrammaton. We have stated repeatedly that whenever this name appears backwards, it is an allusion to the attribute of Justice also contained in that name. In this instance, it is a hint of the retribution in store for the Gentile nations at the time of the redemption. Immediately after this allusion (verse 41), Moses refers directly to ותאחז במשפט ידי אשיב נקם לצרי , “I shall sharpen My flashing sword and My hand grasps judgment. I shall wreak vengeance upon My enemies.”
      You will find a total of 18 sequences in the written Torah in which the tetragrammaton has been spelled either forward or backward either in the last letters of the words or the first letters of the words of a sequence of four words, such as the ones we showed you in verse 39. Seeing that our verse (39) is the last of these 18 examples, I have used the opportunity to list all of them and to elaborate a little about them.    The following is the sequence in which these 18 groups of four words each appear in the Torah; I am listing first four examples in which the first letters of the respective words read forward spell the tetragram 1) (Genesis 1,31) יום הששי ויכולו השמים. 2) (Genesis 38,24-25) יהודה הוציאוה ותשרף היא. 3) )Exodus 4,14) ידבר הוא וגם המה. 4) (Deut. 11,2) ידו החזקה וזרועו הנטויה. These are the four examples in which the letters of the tetragram appear in the proper sequence, i.e. right to left and as the first letters in each of the words. The next 4 examples refer to the last letters of the four words respectively, but they too are read from right to left. They are: 5) Genesis 19,13) .פנ'י ה-' וישלחה-ו ה-'. 6) (Ex. 3,13) ל-י מ-ה שמ-ו מ-ה. 7) (Deut. 24,8) נק-י יהי-ה לבית-ו שנ-ה. 8* מ-י יעל-ה לנ-ו השמימ-ה, (Deut. 30,12). The next 10 examples all feature the sequence of the letters of the tetragram from left to right, i.e. backward. (sometimes these letters are at the beginning of the words in question, sometimes at the end, such as in our example in the verse above). In all these examples the allusion is to the attribute of Justice. You can figure these out for yourselves by looking at: 9) Genesis 11,9 ו-משם ה-פיצם י'-ה;ה-ארץ it is clear from the context that the attribute of Justice had been poised to strike at all these people at that time. The same is true of 10) (Genesis 44, 3-4) ה-מה ו-חמוריהם ה-ם י-צאו. The Torah already alludes to the impending crisis when the goblet will be found in Binyamin’s sack.  [I am only pointing to the verses now without elaborating. Ed.] Exodus 4,15; Exodus 4,14; Exodus 4,3; Exodus 16,7; Exodus 26, 21-22; Numbers 1,51 (compare commentary  by author). Numbers 5,18 (compare commentary by author). Numbers 14,24-25 (compare commentary by author). Numbers 14,43. Finally, there is our verse here completing the ten occasions when he Torah provides allusions that the attribute of Justice, as an appendix of the tetragram, was invoked by G’d. By way of contrast, the eight examples we quoted first, in which the respective letters of the tetragram appear in their usual order, i.e. from right to left, are indications that the subject matter is the attribute of Mercy. Seeing that between them we have a total of 18 such 4-word sequences, the easy way to remember this is by reference to the short line חי ה'.
  
  Verse 44
  
  . הוא והושע בן נון, “he (Calev) and Joshua son of Nun.” At this point the Torah refers to Joshua by his original name Hoshea; we know that Moses had changed his name from Hoshea to Joshua before he went out on the mission with the spies (Numbers 13,16). The moral lesson we learn from this is that although Moses had changed Joshua’s name, i.e. added a letter to it to show his eminence, and although he had already been appointed as Moses’ successor, this promotion did not go to his head, did not make him arrogant, but he was content to function as השע בן נון. 
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  . שימו לבבכם לכל הדברים אשר אנכי מעיד בכם היום, “apply your hearts to all the words that I testify against you this day;” this is not part of the testimony but is simply a form of warning, just as was Exodus 19,21 when G’d told Moses: רד העד בעם, “descend and warn the people.” We have a similar occurrence of the verb העד as “warning” in Exodus 19,23 כי אתה העדות בנו, “for You have warned us.” In this verse Moses warns the people that everyone should pay careful attention to the words of the Torah; this is why he speaks of לבבכם instead of לבכם. He urges people to serve the Lord with both parts of our hearts, the good urge as well as the evil urge, יצר הרע. This is why the sages said in Kidushin 30, quoting G’d: “I did create an evil urge, but I also created the Torah as its antidote.”
  
  Verse 47
  
   כי לא דבר רק הוא מכם, “for it is not an empty thing for you;” according to the plain meaning of the text this means that G’d did not command the laws of the Torah as a wasteful exercise. It is also possible to understand these words to mean as if they belonged together with the words כי הוא חייכם, “for it is a lifeline for you;” Moses means that even the commandments which we, in our ignorance, consider as wasteful, irrelevant, are a lifeline for us not only in this life but also as a conduit to the world to come.
      A Midrashic approach: the placing of the word מכם at the end of this phrase suggests that if we find the words of Torah, empty, devoid of meaning and content, then this is due to מכם, “your emptiness;” it is not that the words of Torah are “empty.” You have simply not attained the intellectual level at which you can appreciate the words of the Torah.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
   אל הר העברים הזה הר נבו, “to this mount of Avarim, known as Har Nevo.” The reason this mountain was known as הר העברים was because it was open in two directions, both in the direction of Kadesh and the direction of Hor Hahar (i.e. in the direction of where both the brothers Moses and Aaron were buried.) I explained this already in connection with Numbers 20,28.
     אשר על פני יריחו, “which is facing Jericho.” We find the word ירחו spelled with the vowel <i>tzeyre</i> in the Torah without the letter י,  whereas in the Book of Joshua  it is spelled with the letter י as יריחו. Perhaps the reason for this discrepancy is that the word ירחו when spelled with the vowel tzeyre and without the letter י is derived from ירח, moon, suggesting that Moses’ level of prophecy was of a higher calibre than that of Joshua who had access only to the emanation מלכות (the tenth, i.e. lowest emanation, hence the letter י) Moses, on the other hand, had access to the emanations כבוד and תפארת, [the word ירח is a כנוי for the Shechinah, according to the Remak. [Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. The combined lower 6 emanations are known as ירחים . Ed.] Whenever the town of Jericho is mentioned in connection with other prophets (in the Books of Prophets) it is always spelled the same as in the Book of Joshua. The author speculates on the word ריח, “odor, fragrance” and the additional letter ו, meaning that Joshua’s prophetic inspiration was “drawn” from the letter י representing the lowest (10th) emanation which itself derives its inspiration from the higher emanations, i.e. the ones symbolized by the letter ו.
  
  Verse 50
  
    ומות בהר, “and die on the mountain.” According to Ibn Ezra, the word ומות is an instruction to Moses to prepare himself for death by burying himself.    It is also possible to explain the word as meaning that G’d is saying that “I decree that you will die forthwith,” seeing control over death is not given to mortals. This is the reason that in Hebrew you do not have a form of the imperative which would describe an instruction to someone to die. The Hebrew tongue (לשון הקודש) does not provide for imperatives concerning matters which man is incapable of carrying out immediately. Examples of this are both dying and sleeping. You cannot order a person to immediately go to sleep, seeing it is something not under his control. Similarly, you cannot order him to die forthwith, as this too is not under his control. Our verse is an exception, seeing that G’d is speaking, and He can decree immediate death.
  
  Verse 51
  
    על אשר מעלתם בי....על אשר לא קדשתם אותי, “because you have trespassed against Me....seeing that you did not sanctify Me.” Moses’ sin was that at the rock, concerning which the Torah (G’d) had already said in Numbers 20,24: “because you rebelled against My command.” In this instance, G’d speaks of Moses’ failure to sanctify Him. The word אותי here is derived from אות, “miracle.” This is the reason it has been spelled with the letter ו. [Otherwise, seeing it would be derived from את plus a pronoun-ending, the letter ו would not be justified. Ed.]  I have already discussed the deeper meaning in Numbers 20,6.
  
  Verse 52
  
   כי מנגד תראה את הארץ, “for you shall see the land from a distance.” G’d did not describe the land as “the land of Canaan,” as He had done earlier in verse 49. The reason is that the expression את הארץ includes both the land of Israel and the regions beyond death to which Moses would presently be transferred. Both the terrestrial Jerusalem and the celestial Jerusalem are included in the words את הארץ. Not only this, but the very word תראה includes both seeing with the physical eye and seeing with the mental eye. G’d enabled Moses to see the whole land with his mental eye, i.e. to appreciate fully what he saw with his physical eyes. The word כנגד may mean that Moses would see the land he saw was “in contrast to” the land of Canaan. This is the reason G’d had to elaborate once more by saying: “which I will give to the Children of Israel.” It was not enough for G’d to say: “but you shall not enter there.” G’d wanted to make plain that the only land Moses would not enter was the terrestrial ארץ ישראל; he would certainly enter the ארץ החיים.  In Parshat Pinchas there is also mention of two distinct visions; when G’d says in Numbers 27,12: “and see the land which I will give to the Children of Israel.” In verse 13, immediately afterwards, G’d adds: “you will see it and be gathered in to your people.” The second vision refers to the celestial counterpart of the land of Israel. I explained all this in that context. This land is one allocated to the righteous. It is the land to which David aspired when he said (Psalms 116,9) אתהלך לפני ה' בארצות החיים, “let me walk in the presence of the Lord in the lands of THE life.” King Chizkiyah also referred to this land when he said in Isaiah 38,11: “I had said that I would not see G’d, G’d in the land of the living.”
   When we say in our Amidah prayer on New Year’s Day and on Yom Kippur זכרנו לחיים, “remember us for life,” as well as “inscribe us for life,” the reference is to the life here on earth concerning where we acquire the entitlement to a life of the soul of which David had said אתהלך לפני ה' בארצות החיים. David meant that he wanted to prove his worth by his conduct on terrestrial earth so as to qualify for the ארץ החיים, the land of “the Life” i.e. the celestial regions. [The author bases this on the plural of ארצות החיים, instead of ארץ החיים. Ed.] This is the life which all of Israel is invited to partake in as our sages said in Sanhedrin 90: “all of the people of Israel are entitled to a basic share in the world to come, seeing that Isaiah 60,21 prophesied: ‘and Your people who are all righteous shall inherit eternal life, i.e. ארץ.’” The same prophet said in Isaiah 57,13: “but those who trust in Me shall inherit the land and possess My sacred mount.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
     תנו לה מפרי ידיה ויהללוה בשערים מעשיה, “Acknowledge her for the fruit of her hands, and let her accomplishments praise her in her gates” (Proverbs 31,31). 
  Solomon commenced the concluding chapter of Proverbs with the words אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who can find a woman of valour?” According to the plain meaning of the text he spoke about an intelligent woman, eager and competent to discharge the duties of her household, working hard both by day and by night; this is the meaning of Proverbs 31,18: “even when her affairs thrive her lamp does not go out at night.” This woman is known far and wide for the good she does for the poor, sustaining them with the work of her own hands. This is the meaning of 31,20: “she extends her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hand to the needy.” This whole chapter teaches us both moral/ethical lessons as well as lessons in good manners. A man is to look for this kind of a woman when he wants to get married as she is the mainstay of his home to be. Together with her he can look forward to building his family. Solomon wanted to enumerate all the virtues of such a woman in alphabetical order in order to demonstrate that a woman who possesses all these virtues also symbolizes the entire Torah. Her presence is her husband’s best preparation to achieve success in his Torah study and mitzvah performance, much as the body is the preparation for the soul to attain its objectives.    This is what the sages alluded to  when they said (concerning a man finding a woman) “if he has merit, she will prove an invaluable helpmate” (Yevamot 63). Addressing the same subject, Solomon said: (Proverbs 18,22) “He who found a wife has found a good thing; he will obtain favor from the Lord,” seeing the Torah had said it is not good for man to remain solitary (Genesis 2,18) Solomon, when discussing marriage, said that a woman does not deserve to be praised on account of her physical beauty, graceful mannerism. Solomon said (Proverbs 31,30) “grace is deceptive, beauty is vain, a G’d-fearing woman is the woman who is truly praiseworthy.” This is also why he concludes by saying: “acknowledge her for the fruit of her hands and let her accomplishments praise her in the gates.” It is appropriate that she be praised for what she does, not for the attributes she was endowed with at birth [something for which one should praise the Lord, not her. Ed.] We find that Abigail was the prototype for such a woman whose good virtues employed at the right time and in the right place, saved her husband and her entire household from being killed by David and his men. David himself acknowledged this when he said to her (Samuel I 25,33): ”blessed be your prudence, and blessed be you yourself for restraining me from seeking redress in blood by my own hands.“
      A Midrashic approach: the words: תנו לה מפרי ידיה, “acknowledge her for the fruit of her hands,” refer to the opening words of the chapter “who can find a woman of valour?” The Midrash understands the whole chapter as a parable describing Torah and wisdom, something very elusive, almost impossible to attain fully. Solomon proceeds to enumerate the advantages of Torah and wisdom in order to encourage people to immerse themselves in both Torah and wisdom. He commences by saying that בטח בה לב בעלה, “the heart of someone who has mastered this discipline has absolute confidence in it.” This is why he adds ושלל לא יחסר, “such a person will never be short of ‘loot.’” It is a well known fact that people who constantly engage in the pursuit of wisdom do not experience the lack of anything.    The poor and destitute whom Solomon refers to in verse 20 are the students, who have thus far only accumulated a minimum of wisdom, not having expended sufficient effort yet to acquire it in larger doses; this is why Solomon says to people at large: “give her (wisdom) from the fruit of her hands.” Solomon encourages the people at large to treat wisdom with respect seeing it produces such good fruit, i.e. honour and glory for those who have acquired it. The fruit which are the result of the acquisition of wisdom are the good deeds man performs, as a result of which he qualifies for eternal life in the celestial spheres. Concerning this, Solomon himself wrote in Proverbs 11,30: “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life.” He referred to the Torah being the entrance card to the tree of life, i.e. eternal life. The Torah already stated concerning the tree of life that if Adam were to eat from it “he would live forever” (Genesis 3,22).
      A Kabbalistic approach: when Solomon concludes the Book with the words תנו לה מפרי ידיה, “let her enjoy the fruit of her hands,” he refers to the virtue he had commenced with, i.e. “who can find a woman of valor?” Solomon wanted to seal his Book with the virtue which is the “seal” of the בנין, the structure comprised by the various emanations, its seal being the emanation חכמה [the simile with which he described the woman of valor. Ed.]. Seeing that the Jewish people had heard the Torah out of the fire and the prophet Chabakuk 3,10 referred to this experience saying נתן תהום קולו, “the deep gave forth loud roars” [see the whole verse, Ed.], Solomon arranged the praises of the Torah/wisdom in the order of the 22 letters of the aleph bet. The meaning of the concluding verse: “give to her of the fruit of her hands,” is a call to bestow a blessing on the emanation חכמה, also known as Torah. The whole idea is similar to what the sages said in Avot 3,7 תן לו משלו שאתה ושלך שלו, “give to Him part of what is His, for you yourself and all that is yours are really His.” The words ויהללוה בשערים מעשיה, “and let her accomplishments praise her in the gates,” are a reference to what the blessing consists of. David also used the words ברכה and הלול, in the same verse (Psalms 104,35) when he said ברכי נפשי את ה' הללוי-ה, “let my soul bless the Lord, Hallelujah.” Even though every human being is himself the beneficiary of G’d’s blessing, G’d nonetheless desires blessing uttered by human beings. He specifically commanded this when He said (Deut. 8,10) “you shall bless the Lord your G’d.” Isaiah tells us that “for whoever blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the true (אמן) G’d.” (Isaiah 65,16) You should pay heed to the saying of the sages (Sotah 38) “he (the priest) who utters a blessing will in turn be blessed.” The reason is that by blessing the people in the name of the Lord, he (the priest) has included Everybody i.e. G’d, in his blessing. It is well known that the whole idea of bestowing a blessing is to contribute to the continued existence of the universe. This is why G’d bestowed blessings immediately after He had created certain phenomena, especially living creatures which are very fragile as compared to inert phenomena. [This is why we find already in Genesis 1,20 when the first living creatures were produced by the waters, that G’d felt compelled to bestow a blessing on them.  Perhaps the absence of such a blessing for the vegetation on the third day is the reason we have non-fruit-bearing trees. Ed.] The reason that the whole Torah commences with the letter ב instead of the letter א for instance, is that it wanted to begin with an allusion to blessing. G’d blessed Adam, i.e. the human species (Genesis 1,28); He blessed Noach and his children (Genesis 9,1, the remnants of the human species). Only with the advent of Avraham (described by our author as ראש האמונה, “the father-figure of all true faith”) did G’d transfer the ability to bless to him and his descendants as we know from Genesis 12,2. Instead of telling Avraham that he would be blessed, ברוך, He told him that he himself would originate blessings, i.e. והיה ברכה, “become (a source of) blessing.” Ever since, the righteous have become the “sources” of blessings (or distributors directing blessings). This was how Yitzchok viewed himself when he said: “let me bless you in the presence of the Lord before my death.” He meant that if he did not transfer the power to bless given to him, it would die with him as he was conscious of the responsibility entailed by this power to bestow blessing (compare Genesis 27,7).   At this point, Moses makes use of this power, just as had Yaakov before his death (Genesis 49,28). The remarkable thing (from a kabbalistic point of view) is the use as an introduction of the word זאת on both occasions. This is also why the sages said that Moses continued where Yaakov had left off (Devarim Rabbah 11,1) — Yaakov concluded with וזאת ( וזאת אשר דבר להם אביהם )and Moses began with וזאת (וזאת הברכה).
   וזאת הברכה אשר ברך משה איש האלו-הים את בני ישראל לפני מותו, “And this is the blessing with which Moses blessed the Children of Israel before his death.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses arranged, prepared, this entire blessing and bestowed it on the respective tribes on the day of his death, seeing it is customary for the righteous to bestow such blessings on the day they die.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Vezot Haberachah 1: the letter ו at the beginning of the word וזאת means that Moses added something over and above the blessing which had been bestowed on the people by Bileam. Bileam should really have bestowed seven blessings on the people corresponding to each of the seven altars he had built at the time. However, if you will check you will find that Bileam only uttered three blessing instead of seven (We know this from Balak who remonstrated with him saying: “here you have blessed them three times (Numbers 24,10). In view of this, G’d said to him: “you wicked and niggardly person; seeing that you are too jealous to bestow the proper number of blessings on these people, I will appoint Moses, who is more generous than you to complete the blessings these people are entitled to. This is the meaning of Proverbs 22,9: “the generous one is blessed (יבורך); do not read the word as יבורך but as יברך, “he will bestow blessing.” The person whom Solomon refers to in this verse is none other than Moses. He was anxious to bless Israel, and he completed the four blessings Bileam had withheld from the people. The first one of those four is found in Exodus 39,43: “Moses saw the entire work, and behold!-they had done it all as Hashem had commanded, so had they done; and Moses blessed them.” The second occasion Moses blessed the people is in Leviticus 9,23: ”Moses and Aaron came to the Tent of Meeting; they came out and blessed the people and the attribute of כבוד appeared to the entire nation.” The third time Moses blessed the people was in Deut. 1,11: “May Hashem, the G’d of your fathers continue to increase you one thousand-fold and bless you as He has said to you.” The fourth occasion when Moses blessed the people begins in our portion with the words: “and this is the blessing, etc.”
      A kabbalistic approach: The words: “and this is the blessing,” are a reference to the תרומה, the gift, the Torah, and the covenant, all of which have been introduced with the word זאת on different occasions. (compare Exodus 25,3; Deuteronomy 33,1; Isaiah 59,21). This is why Moses commenced his blessings at the point where our patriarch Yaakov had left off. I already elaborated on this in connection with Genesis 49,28.
     איש האלו-הים, “a man of G‘d.” According to the plain meaning of the text a man who was great as he was endowed with the power of prophecy by G’d when He had appeared to Moses in the burning bush. [In his waking hours, already on the first occasion He communicated with Moses at the burning bush with His attribute of the tetragrammaton (Exodus 3,2-4,17) where he was told that he would be an אלו-הים to Pharaoh. Ed.].
      A Midrashic approach based on Midrash Tehillim 90,1: the word means: “a judge.” This is based on Deut. 33,21 צדקת ה' עשה ומשפטיו עם ישראל, “he carried out the righteousness of Hashem and His justice with Israel” [See Rashi ibid. (2nd explanation)]. Moses’ personality reflected the sages’ definition of יקוב הדין את ההר, “let the attribute of Justice bore a hole in the mountain.” [He strove for absolute perfection. Ed.] Rabbi Yehudah, son of Simon said: “why was Moses described as איש האלו-הים? When a man (husband) is confronted by certain vows made by his wife he has the option of annulling them or letting them remain valid. This is what the Torah says in Numbers 30,14: אישה יקימנה ואישה יפרנה, “her husband may either confirm it or her husband may cancel it.” Similarly, Moses was in a position in his dealings with G’d to say to Him קומה ה', “let the Lord arise,” or שובה ה', let the Lord desist” (compare Numbers 10,35). Thus far that Midrash. 
  You need to analyse what the author of this Midrash had in mind. In view of the fact that the prophetic powers of Moses were emanated from the force of the power of Mercy, which is elsewhere described as an active force, an instigator, self-propelled, the Torah compared Moses to the role of the activist, the initiator, whereas the attribute of Justice is described as both initiating and responding as the situation may require. Moses was also compared to that attribute, seeing that the glue which sticks to something is described by the material it sticks to. This is why the Torah here calls him איש האלוהים. [Instead of איש ה'. The Torah differentiates between Moses the man, and Moses’ prophecy. The former had an affinity to the attribute of Justice, the latter was an outgrowth of the attribute of Mercy. Ed.]
      A kabbalistic approach: the reason he is called איש האלו-הים is because it is the Torah’s nature to associate the word איש, with the attribute אלו-הים. You will not encounter the word איש ה' anywhere in the Torah. On the other hand, the word עבד is frequently associated with the attribute of Mercy, i.e. עבד ה'. Moses himself (as well as Joshua) is described as עבד ה' in Joshua 1,1 and numerous other verses.
     לפני מותו, “before his death.” the Torah means: “close to the time when he died.” According to Devarim Rabbah 11,5 the words mean that when an angel came to take away his soul, Moses stopped him and got up and first blessed the people. The words לפני מותו then are to be understood as לפני המלאך הממיתו — “in the presence of the angel who had come to take his soul.”
  
  Verse 2
  
   ה' מסיני בא, “The Lord had come from Sinai.” The Torah really should have written בסיני, “at Sinai,” instead of “from Sinai.” Similarly, instead of writing משעיר, we would have expected the Torah to write בשעיר, “at Se'ir,” and בהר פארן, instead of מהר פארן. Most of the commentators simply say that the letter מ here is taking the place of the letter ב. I do not think it is that simple. Rather, I think that if the Torah had written בסיני, this would have sounded as if a certain place had been assigned to G’d. Seeing that G’d is known as the מקומו של העולם, “assigning space to the universe,” and not vice versa, the wrong impression about G’d’s omnipresence would have been conveyed (compare Bereshit Rabbah 68,10). In Psalms 68,18 David speaks of אד-ני בם סיני בקודש, “the Lord is among them as in Sinai in holiness.” David was careful to avoid saying קודש בסיני, which would have meant “holy at Sinai.” He reversed the wording to avoid giving the impression that it is possible to assign a certain place (only) to G’d. This is why here Moses had to write מסיני בא. This means that the beginning of the revelation the attribute of כבוד originated at Mount Sinai. He goes on to describe how this revelation expanded to other areas and included other people’s consciousness.  Originally, it had emanated its rays towards Israel from afar i.e. from Se'ir. At that time Israel had been a long way from Sinai. It had gradually been perceived as closer, i.e. near Mount Paran. This was the area from which Moses had sent the spies (Numbers 13,3) [in terms of space, not time, Ed.] From Mount Paran this attribute of כבוד moved to Sinai; from there it was finally revealed to the Jewish people. The reason Moses did not describe all these steps in chronological order was that he wanted to demonstrate that the purpose of all these moves by the attribute of כבוד was the revelation at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people.  Actually, the prophetess Devorah explained all this in Judges 5,4-5 when she said in her song of thanksgiving: “O Lord, when You came forth from Se'ir, advanced from the country of Edom; the earth trembled....before the Lord, Him of Sinai, before the Lord, G’d of Israel.” 
  It is noteworthy that in connection with the distant Se'ir Moses used the term זרח, “shone,” i.e. the term used for the sun’s rays when it just rose over the horizon, whereas in connection with Paran Moses used the verb הופיע, which denotes that its visibility was far more pronounced. As the attribute of כבוד came ever closer to Sinai, its rays and brilliance intensified. By the time Moses speaks of the attribute of כבוד getting to Sinai, he uses the expression בא, i.e. it had arrived at its destination. This was the mountain which G’d had selected for this attribute to come to rest on (compare Psalms 68,17.) Thence, it became visible for the eyes of all the Jewish people.
      A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Vezot Haberachah 4: the words “He shone forth from Se'ir,” mean that G’d first offered the Torah to the descendants of Esau who refused it. He then offered it to the various other descendants of Avraham, all of whom declined. Finally, He offered it to the Israelites who accepted. The fact that only Esau and Ishmael are singled out for mention simply means that even they who were Avraham’s descendants did not want the Torah. Other nations, not genetically related to Avraham, most certainly did not show any interest in it either. Our sages in Avodah Zarah 2 state specifically that G’d offered the Torah to all the nations and peoples of all tongues but that they all declined.
     מימינו אש דת למו, “from His right, fire turned into law became theirs.” We must imagine the word היה as following the word מימינו. While G’d was displaying celestial fire, He made the Israelites hear the words of the Ten Commandments. The reference “from His right,” does not refer to the angels but to G’d’s essence. It is as if the Torah had spoken about אש ודת, “fire and (religious) law.”
      A Kabbalistic approach: G’d used His right side (attribute) to make the people hear the words of the Ten Commandments (as if) emanating from the fire (compare Deut. 5,19). This describes the spiritual niveau of the Jewish people at that time. However, Moses, whose spiritual niveau was higher, heard the voice of G’d from His right  without the need for fire to form a screen. Perhaps the two words אשדת are spelled as one word, as an allusion to what happened at the time. This is the Torah’s way of describing the affinity of the law to the fiery experience when it was revealed. The Torah already described in  Deut, 4,15: “the day on which the Lord your G’d spoke to you out of the fire.” I have referred to all this already on Exodus 20,1. Jeremiah 6,29 uses the fusion of two words into one to describe the affinity of one to the other when he said נחר מפוח מאשתם עופרת, “the bellows puff, the lead is consumed by the fire.” According to our tradition the word מאשתם is written as a single word.
  
  Verse 3
  
   אף חבב עמים, “Also (You) love the peoples (tribes of the Israelites).” Apart from having given to the Jewish people His law out of the fire, G’d displayed additional signs of His love for this nation, such as calling them סגולה, “precious.” (Exodus 19,5). The Aramaic translation of סגולה is חביבין, “beloved” i.e. the word Moses uses here. G’d meant that He was fonder of the Israelites than of all the other nations. On the other hand, it is possible that Moses meant that G’d’s fondness of His people was manifest in His applying the title “nation” to each of its tribes (compare Rashi). He bases this on Deut. 33,19 עמים הר יקראו, “the tribes will assemble at the Mount.” 
      It is also possible to interpret  that what Moses meant was that even at a time when the Torah speaks of the people derogatively, calling them simply: העם, this does not mean that G’d is no longer fond of them. We have several examples of the term העם, being used in an unflattering manner; Numbers 25,1, ויחל העם, “the people debased itself;” or Numbers 21,5: וידבר העם באלו-קים, “the people spoke out against G’d.” Or, Exodus 32,1 ויקהל העם, “the people assembled” (in preparation of demanding a new leader). In each of these instances the word העם points at their being at a moral/spiritual low. Even if Moses, perhaps, did not relate to the people with fondness at such times, G’d did not stop being fond of them.   Still another way of understanding the words אף חובב עמים is that the word אף here means “anger” as it does on numerous occasions. The message is that even when G’d has reason to be angry at the people, He still also relates to them with fondness. The reason that this is so is that they are His people, עמים שלו.   כל קדושיו בידך, “all its holy ones were in Your hand.” A reference to the Levites (Ibn Ezra). They took their lives into their hands, i.e. they placed their lives in Your hands, when they executed the Israelites who had actively worshipped the golden calf. 
     והם תכו ברגלך, ”and they planted themselves at Your feet.” They always feel drawn to the site of the Holy Ark which symbolises Your Presence, which they perceive as הדום רגלך, “the footstool for Your feet.” The word תכו is the same as הכו, the letter ת being a substitute for the letter ה. This letter is used interchangeably in a similar manner in Kohelet 8,,12 where the words עושה רע מאת should normally have been עושה רע מאה, “doing evil one hundred times.” Or in Psalms 132,4 we find the words אם אתן שנת לעיני “if I will allow my eyes to sleep,” when we would have expected the psalmist to write אם אתן שנה לעיני. [The author quotes more such examples. Ed.] We sometimes find the ת replacing the letter ה, whereas on other occasions the letter ה replaces the letter ת. In the phrase (verse 11) commencing with ישימו קטורה, “they shall prepare incense,” etc., the letter ה, I believe, is also a substitute for the letter ת in the word קטורת, incense. I believe this is a rule in grammar, seeing that the letter ה normally symbolizes the feminine gender, such as in אמרה, שמרה, קראה,, as well as in all the other verbs; the letter ת seeing that it is the final and last letter in the aleph bet, also symbolizes something feminine, passive. This is the reason it was made the last letter. The letter ה at the end of the third person of the verb is also reminiscent of the last letter of the tetragrammaton. The letter ת is used in many forms of the verb in the third person feminine future. In other words, the function of the letter ת and the letter ה frequently overlap, so that we need not be surprised to see them used as alternate spelling for each other.
     ישא מדברותיך, “it bears (willingly) Your pronouncements.” This is a reference to the Levites carrying the Holy Ark containing G’d’s pronouncements, the Tablets with the Ten Commandments (Ibn Ezra). Alternatively, [especially because of the switch to the singular, i.e. the individual, Ed.] each one of them gladly acts as the bearer of G’d’s instructions teaching them to his fellow Israelites. This would be similar to verse 10 where Moses praises the Levites for being the teachers of Torah.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word תכו in תכו לרגלך, is derived from  הכה, to hit, to strike. They are as if struck at the footstool of G’d, carrying the Ark and the Tablets inside them. According to the Midrash the carrying with one’s body of spiritually heavy loads, such as the Levites’ carrying the Holy Ark containing the Ten commandments and the Torah scroll, is debilitating and took its toll of the people doing this. This is why their number of adult males comprised fewer than half of that of the smallest other tribe (Bamidbar Rabbah 5,1). [Perhaps this is why they had to retire from active duty at the age of 50. Ed.] The words ישא מדברותיך is an allusion to the fact that each individual Levite was considered by G’d as the instrument of “carrying (like a flag)” the words of the Lord. The people, so to speak, heard the words of the Torah from the mouths of the Levites as if they had emerged from the Holy Ark [similar to the concept of מתוך האש, which we discussed earlier. Ed.].
  
  Verse 4
  
   תורה צוה לנו משה, “Moses commanded us the Torah;” according to the plain meaning of the text  this is a continuation of the previous instruction to the Levites that each one of them has the burden of instructing all the Israelites that the commandments he performs are based on a tradition going back all the way to Moses. The Torah had become an inheritance for them seeing they are what is called the “congregation of Yaakov.” The reason he mentions “Yaakov” instead of saying מורשה קהלת ישראל, is to exclude the Ishmaelites and Edomites, both of whom though descendants of Avraham or even Avraham and Yitzchak, are not descendants of Yaakov, the other descendants of Avraham having declined to accept it. Torah is an heritage only for the descendants of Yaakov, being one of the four gifts from G’d given exclusively to the Jewish people. (the other three are: prophecy, the land of Israel, and resurrection of the bodies at some point in the future).
      It is possible to understand the word מורשה as referring to the land of Israel so that the meaning of the whole verse is: “due to the merit of Torah which Moses commanded us, we inherited the land of Israel of which it is written: ‘I give it to you as an inheritance I am the Lord’” (Exodus 6,8). The land becomes the inheritance of the community of Yaakov as a result of these people observing its commandments. If we were to transgress its commandments we would be exiled and be deprived of it.   The word מורשה, as distinct from ירושה, refers to something which is continuously to be passed on as an heritage to future generations [as distinct from a normal heritage which the owner could give away during his lifetime without passing it on to his heirs. Ed.].    We find the expression מוריש ומעשיר “G’d makes poor (as opposed to ‘bestows as inheritance’) and enriches” (apparently simultaneously) something that appears very contradictory, in Samuel I 2,7 in Chanah’s prayer. This is not the only word in the Torah which appears to have opposite meanings on occasion. One such example is Numbers 4,13 ודשנו את המזבח, which at first glance could either mean: “and they will clean the altar” (from the remains of pre previous offerings), or it could mean that the priests were to provide the altar with fat, i.e. the fattest, best animals. Everything depends on the intention. When the community of Yaakov relates positively to the Torah, the land of Israel will “behave” positively toward the Jewish people, they will enjoy it as a bountiful inheritance. If the Jewish people disdain the Torah, the land of Israel will disdain the Jewish people. [The dual meaning of דשן when applied to G’d’s Altar, can have similar allegorical meaning. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (Makkot 23-24): the numerical value of the letters in the word תורה add up to 611, i.e. the number of commandments taught and commanded the Jewish people by means of their leader Moses. The other two commandments, i.e. the first two commandments in the Decalogue, the people had heard directly from the mouth of G’d at Mount Sinai. The expression מורשה קהלת יעקב is understood as including all those who have become part of the Jewish people, קהלה, through conversion. Our sages (Yuma 72) state further that there are “three crowns,” the crown of Torah (not hereditary), the crown of the priesthood, exclusive to descendants of Aaron, and the crown of the kingship, inherited only by descendants of King David. The “crown” of Torah must be perceived as if lying neglected in an out of the way corner, something which can be picked up by anyone desirous of acquiring it.    Another Midrashic approach understands the Torah’s choice of the word מורשה instead of ירושה, as a hint that it could also be read as מאורשה, “betrothed,” i.e. that the purpose of giving us the Torah was to make us the Lord’s “betrothed.”    A kabbalistic approach also understands as above, that the words מורשה קהלת יעקב as if the spelling had been מאורשה קהלת יעקב. Seeing that Torah is also known as רחל in terms of kabbalistic parlance, a departure (absence) of the Shechinah from the Jewish people is described by Jeremiah 31,14 as “Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her absent children.” At a time when G’d considers the Jewish people in a state of grace Rachel is described as “the wife of Yaakov” (Genesis 46,19).
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויהי בישורון מלך, “He became King in Yeshurun.”  [continuing the author’s approach based on the “plain meaning”, Ed.] every Levite would be expected to declare that there was a king in Israel, i.e. none other than the Lord Himself. The concept is that the presence of the Shechinah over the Jewish camp was a manifestation of the presence of the king. The reason the expression Yeshurun has been used here is that it reflects a visual experience, i.e. the experience of the Israelites at Mount Sinai. At that time they had been enabled to have a visual experience of the attribute of כבוד. This was where all the heads of the tribes had assembled together with all the tribes in order to accept G’d as their King. [Compare Deut. 32,8 where the author explained the word ישורון, as the same as אשורנו in Numbers 24,17 where Bileam uses is to describe his visionary powers. Ed.]
      A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata): The “king” referred to in the line ויהי בישורון מלך, is Moses, seeing that people had heard the entire Torah (legislation) from his mouth. The Torah means that the manner in which all the people including their tribal heads assembled around him, gave Moses the stature of king. This was not the first time that Moses had acted as lawgiver. It had occurred in Deut. 31,9 already when he had given the Torah to the priests, the Levites, carriers of the Holy Ark. We also find Moses ordering all the people to appear in his presence in Deut. 31,28.   Another way of understanding our verse is that the “king” described here is G’d Himself. The Torah describes that G’d became king only when all the tribal heads assembled. We find something similar described in Psalms 47,8-10 where David refers to G’d’s position as “king” in connection with the leaders of mankind indicating that they accept Him as such. In the case of the Jewish people: “when the leaders of the people volunteered to rally around Him.” We have another similar description of G’d becoming king in Amos 9,6. [The prophet portrays that G’d cannot build His chambers in heaven until an assembly of His loyal people have laid the foundation for this on earth. Ed.] The common denominator in all these verses is that G’d does not impose Himself as “king,” but waits until His creatures manifest their desire for Him to be their king. 
      A kabbalistic approach: the word ויהי בישורון מלך, is an allusion to the emanation מלכות, which is the one emanation which has absorbed input from all the other emanations “above” it. This is the background to the commentary on the verse in Amos 9,6 הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה, “Who builds (commences the structure) in the heaven and gathers it all together when it reaches earth;” [my translation, Ed.] in other words, you may perceive of G’d’s “structure” described by the prophet as if it consisted of a palace built on a number of ships, in sections. As long as the ships supporting different parts of this palace are securely tied together the palace is not in any danger of crumbling; the structure which the prophet describes as the universe, G’d’s palace, i.e. heaven, is secure only as long as Israel provides its sound foundation on earth. This can only be when the Israelites themselves form a firm union one with the other, אגודתו. In the absence of the proper אגודה, “union, brotherliness,” of the Jewish people on earth, His throne in the celestial spheres may be viewed as somehow defective, insecure. The word מעלתו, though spelled in the singular, i.e. “His celestial region,” is to be read as if it had been spelled מעלותיו (pl.) i.e. “His celestial regions.” This is an allusion to the ten emanations. The letter י in the way we read the word alludes to the highest [in our diagrams lowest, Ed.]. emanation, the one which includes input from all the others. This indicates that this verse in Amos makes G’d’s throne’s completeness conditional on the condition of the Jewish people on earth, especially their brotherliness, their ability to establish a single אגודה, union.   You should remain aware that the word ויהי in our verse teaches that this king is the Lord G’d. Furthermore, in the word ויהי you find three of the permutations of the holy name of G’d, the tetragram, when you perceive of that name as capable of 4 permutations. The four permutations would be יהו'ה, יה'ו, י'ה, י, the last three being capable of construction from the word ויהי. The sequence would correspond to the fruit used as part of the 4 species on Sukkot; [We use a progressively smaller number of each of these species, i.e. 3 Hadassim, 2 Aravot, 1 Lulav in the אגודה, i.e. the three species which form part of the bunch. Ed.] 
  Seeing the word ויהי is emanated from the tetragrammaton, this indicates that the tenth emanation belongs to G’d. The meaning of the word מלך in our verse may be similar to  what David had in mind when he said in psalm 145,1 ארוממך אלוה-י המלך, “let me extol You, my G’d and king.” It may also correspond to the way the word is used in Numbers 23,21  ה' אלוה-יו עמו ותרועת מלך בו, “the Lord their G’d is with them and their king’s acclaim in their midst.” Solomon may have used the word in a similar sense when he said in Kohelet 5,8 מלך לשדה נעבד, “even a king is indebted to the soil.” The expression מלך is used in that sense (also by Solomon) in Song of Songs 7,6 when he said מלך אסור ברהטים, “a king is held captive by (nazarite) tresses.” The common denominator of the verses we have mentioned is that even a king is subject to restrictions. When G’d is described as king, this does not necessarily mean His total independence, but His dependence on His subjects in a certain way. [All of this is part of what our sages call His ענוותנותו, “His self-imposed humility.” Ed.] Similarly, the verse ה’ צבאות הוא מלך הכבוד סלה, “the Lord of Hosts, He is the king of the attribute כבוד.” [If I understand the author correctly, the latter expression, i.e. king of an attribute, even that of כבוד, is less encompassing than the title represented by the tetragrammaton. All of this shows that G’d imposes restrictions upon Himself. The reason that the psalmist added the word סלה was so that we should not err and think that when G’d manifests Himself as an attribute, כנוי, that this represents His essence. Ed.]
  
  Verse 6
  
    יחי ראובן, “may Reuven live!” According to the plain meaning of the text this is a prayer that Reuven should enjoy long life and not die prior to the time set at the time of his birth seeing it is impossible that he should live forever. [The “he” refers to the tribe. Ed.] 
     ויהי מתיו מספר, “and may his numbered ones be part of the whole nation.” The word ואל in the first half of this verse must also be understood as applying to this second half, i.e. “and may his numbers never cease.” We find a similar construction in Proverbs 30,3 ולא למדתי חכמה ודעת קדושים אדע, where the meaning is not: “and I did not learn wisdom and I will have knowledge of holy ones,” but the meaning is (as if the word לא had been repeated) “and I have not learned wisdom and (therefore) I do not have knowledge of holy ones.” Yet another example of such a construction is found Psalms 9,19 כי לא לנצח ישכח אביון תקות ענוים תאבד לעד. If one were not to read the word לא, “not,” as also applying to the second half of the verse, not only would the second half of the verse contradict the first half, but the meaning of the whole verse would be: “for not always will the destitute be forgotten, the hope of the poor will be lost for ever.” Clearly, this is not the psalmist’s meaning, but he means: “neither the destitute will be forgotten forever, nor the poor.” [The author quotes a few more such examples. Ed.]
      The order in which Moses enumerates the tribes in his blessing follows the sequence in which they received their inheritance. Seeing that the founder of the tribe of Reuven was Yaakov’s oldest, his tribe is also described  as the firstborn seeing he is mentioned first.   Moses mentioned Yehudah next, seeing this was the tribe who received its inheritance first on the West Bank of the Jordan. The next tribe receiving a blessing was the tribe of Levi because this tribe was encamped around Jerusalem, right next to the tribe of Yehudah. Next was Binyamin whose tribal territory adjoined that of Yehudah; also because the Temple area was shared by both tribes. The tribe of Joseph came next so as not to downgrade Joseph even further, seeing his younger brother Binyamin had already received his blessing. This was followed by a blessing for Zevulun, a tribe who distinguished himself by answering Barak’s call to arms in the days of Devorah. Not only that, but it was due to his financial support that his brother Issachar could devote himself to Torah study without having to worry about where his livelihood would come from.    Having completed his blessings for the tribes who were offspring of Yaakov’s senior wives Leah and Rachel, Moses now turned to bless the tribe of Gad seeing he shared a flag with one of the tribes born by Leah, i.e. the tribes of Reuven and Shimon (Numbers 2,10-14). Next came Dan, who was himself in charge of one of the camps; next came Naftali who was senior to Asher.
      It is possible to explain the words יחי ראובן ואל ימות as applying to this tribe’s success in war, i.e. that they should not only be successful but also not incur any casualties. The words ויהי מתיו מספר would be an allusion to the distant future when the Romans would condemn 10 sages to death by torture for their forefathers having sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites at the time. Moses hinted that at that time his blessing would not be effective, and members of that tribe would be included in that decree (though Reuven their ancestor had actually saved Joseph from death). We find that the word מספר has a mystical dimension; Isaiah 10,19 speaks of so few trees of a forest remaining that even a young child can record its מספר, “its number.” Rashi quotes Sanhedrin 95, according to which the prophet refers to the letter י meaning “ten” as being so small that even a very young child can write it. Moses would then hint that whereas Reuven’s conduct vis-a-vis Bilhah had been forgiven to the extent that none of his descendants would die prematurely on that account, the pardon was not so absolute, and that is why at the time the Romans decreed the death of the ten sages the number was 10 instead of 9, seeing that neither he nor Binyamin had had a share in it.
      A kabbalistic approach: the word יחי in the line  refers to life in the hereafter. The words ואל ימות refer to what would happen to Reuven as part of the system of the transmigration of souls, in order to spare him having to die a second time. This is the meaning of Onkelos’ translation of the words ואל ימות, i.e. יחי ראובן לחיי עלמא ומותא תנינא לא ימות. Onkelos revealed to us here that there is a transmigration of souls when the souls of people who committed certain sins reappear in another body to rehabilitate themselves by a second circuit of physical life on earth. This occurs after they had already once received their reward or punishment in the hereafter after having died, (separated from the body which housed them originally). This is a concept which is not hard to understand when one considers that the cycles of Shemittah years are something which repeat themselves time and again. A soul returns to a new habitat on earth after having received its initial judgment for how it performed on earth the first time around. [The “shemittah” cycles the author refers to are not the seven year cycles on terrestrial earth we are familiar with, but the cycles of seven times 7,000 years each of which contains as the last one thousand years a period of metamorphosis for the universe, At the end of the 49,000 years an absolutely perfect terrestrial universe will emerge. The author has referred to this in detail repeatedly, the first time on Genesis 2,3 on the words אשר ברא אלו-הים לעשות. Ed.]   According to many views expressed by our sages, this metamorphosis is what is known as תחיית המתים, commonly translated as “resurrection of the dead (bodies).” [The authorities who interpret the concept in the manner we just described base themselves primarily on Isaiah 22,14. They find support for this in the way Targum Yonathan renders that verse in Isaiah. Ed.]    In the Talmud Taanit 2 there is a debate concerning whether rain should already be mentioned in our Amidah prayer on the first day of Sukkot or whether one should wait until the last day of that festival. One of the arguments in favour of the former view is the fact that we mention the resurrection of the dead every day of the year in that prayer, although surely, the time for this event to occur is not daily? It is suggested that an event which could conceivably occur at any time qualifies for such mention in our daily prayers. At any rate, according to a view in the Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 8,7 the verse in Isaiah refers to the second death of the persons referred to (who deny that there is life after death). Their punishment will be that they will not participate in the ultimate resurrection.     At any rate, considering both the comments of Onkelos in our verse and those of Targum Yonathan in Isaiah, it appears that the words of Moses about the tribe of Reuven are a prayer that they should live long enough so as not to need a second round of physical life on earth to rehabilitate themselves. [I wonder whether all this is in view of the tribe of Reuven and the other one and a half tribes on the East Bank of the Jordan having being the first ones to be exiled and being lost to the קהלת יעקב, Ed.]     You will find that David has some very specific comments on the subject of resurrection, transformation of souls, the hereafter, etc. Compare Psalms 103, 3-5: “He forgives all your sins, heals all your diseases. He redeems your life from the Pit, crowns you with steadfast love and compassion. He satisfies you with good things (jewelry?) in the prime of life, so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.” David mentions a number of experiences which occur after the initial death of the body. Forgiveness of sins; healing of diseases in the second round, a redemption from the grave. All this proves that something happens after death. Subsequently, David describes the goodness the people who have been resurrected will be surrounded with by G’d. The word תעטרני, “You will crown me,” appears to speak of an abstract experience in the disembodied life in the hereafter where one experiences the radiation of G’d’s brilliance, זיו השכינה in the parlance of our sages. This is followed by renewed youth, i.e. life in a body on terrestrial earth.     It is significant that the five stages of existence dealt with by David in the three verses we quoted from psalm 103, all end with the letter י, i.e. עוניכי, תחלואיכי, חייכי, המעטרכי, נעוריכי, “your guilt, your disease, your life, your crown, your youth.” These letters י are not part of the nouns in question and have been added by David to allude to certain concepts involved here. They refer to the five names (levels) by which the soul is known. They are נפש,  רוח, נשמה, יחידה, חיה. [I have listed them in ascending order. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 7
  
   וזאת ליהודה, “and this for Yehudah;” according to the plain meaning of the text we have to insert the word ברכה, “is the blessing” after the word וזאת “this.” He needed the blessing especially since it was this tribe who always was in the forefront in any military encounter between Israel and its enemies. This is why Moses assured Yehudah that G’d has heard his voice, i.e. his prayer for assistance.  ידיו רב לו, “his (own) hands will fight on his behalf;” he will not even need help from the other tribes. According to Rashi, Reuven and Yehudah are paired as both of them had been guilty of sins and both made public confessions. Makkot 11, referring to Yehudah having been guilty of the (conditional) oath in Genesis 44,32, where he guaranteed the safe return of Binyamin. This was something beyond his power as it needed the agreement of other parties over whom Yehudah had no control, making him guilty of uttering a vain oath. His punishment was that during all the 40 years that the Israelites were in the desert the bones in his coffin kept rolling around. Moses reasoned that the confession of Yehudah (concerning his mistake of sleeping with his daughter-in-law Tamar and almost burning her to death) was what triggered Reuven’s confession concerning his misconduct with Bilhah and that therefore he should be credited with this merit so that his bones could find rest. [Tosafot state that although Yehudah’s sleeping with Tamar had occurred after Reuven’s misconduct so that “how did his confession affect Reuven?” They answer that up until Yehudah’s public confession that Tamar was more just than he, Reuven had not confessed publicly, only privately. The letter ו which precedes the word זאת, conceptually links Reuven’s conduct and Moses’ blessing for him to that of Yehudah. Ed.]    Even though Yehudah’s bones had now come to rest, this still did not represent total forgiveness, i.e. he did not have the strength to ascend to heaven unaided, by his own strength. The reason was that the banishment he had accepted for himself in that oath we referred to covered both this life and the life in the world to come, in his own words: כל הימים, ”for all times.” This is why Moses added the words ואל עמו תביאנו, “and return him to his people.” Reuven’s public confession cleared his brothers from the suspicion that one of them might have been the one who tampered with the bed of Bilhah.
      A kabbalistic approach: When Moses said the words וזאת ליהודה, he addressed the emanation מלכות which is the emanation from which the hereditary dynasty of Yehudah draws its divine input. It is this emanation which gives the kings of Yehudah the power to wage war successfully. Interestingly, David, a king descended from Yehudah, refers to the same emanation as זאת, when he proclaimed in Psalms 27,3: אם תקום עלי מלחמה בזאת אני בוטח, “if war overtakes me, I put my faith in זאת, the emanation from which my forefather Yehudah drew his strength.”     The emanation מלכות, sometimes referred to as זאת, is featured repeatedly in the life of David, such as in Psalms 99,4: ועוז מלך משפט אהב, or in Psalms 72,1: משפטיך למלך תן. This is the reason that David was successful in all his many wars. This is also why he never fails to give thanks to the Lord Who was the source of his success. The whole formula למנצח מזמור לדוד, is evidence that David attributed his success to the מנצח, “The One Who grants victory.” Just because the kings of Yehudah enjoyed the assistance of the attribute/emanation מלכות, it was doubly important for David to acknowledge that ultimately success is rooted in the Original Cause, in Hashem. Seeing that David’s career involved spilling much blood, he was not chosen as the tool to build the Holy Temple which symbolizes peace (Chronicles I 22,8). It was left to his son Solomon, a man of peace, someone who practiced the attribute of צדקה, to build the Temple. This is the meaning of Psalms 72,1 וצדקתך לבן מלך, “and Your clemency to the king’s son.” [David speaking about the status of his son Solomon, contrasting his own dominant characteristic of משפט, with that of his son, i.e. the characteristic צדקה, Ed.]
  
  Verse 8
  
   וללוי אמר, “and concerning Levi, he said:” The preposition ל in the word וללוי must be understood as בעבור, “for the sake of;” Moses is addressing G’d in this verse. He adds the words לאיש חסידך, “for Your pious one,” referring to his brother Aaron. He continues with אשר נסיתו במסה, “whom You have tested at Massah,” referring either to the incident at the waters of strife which was the only time Aaron had ever failed. Alternatively, Moses referred to the location Massah formerly known as Refidim [it is not clear to me how Aaron was involved there. Ed.]  תריבהו על מי מריבה, “You strove with him at the waters of מריבה; “a reference to the sin involving the striking of the rock instead of speaking to it. This was the only sin Aaron had ever been guilty of. Moses did not mention Aaron’s involvement in the sin of the golden calf, seeing Aaron’s intentions at that time had been 100% honourable. If Moses had entertained the slightest doubt about Aaron’s sincerity at that time, he surely would have mentioned it now in order to ask forgiveness for that sin.    The fact that Moses uncharacteristically mentioned the תומים here before the אורים, needs analysis. The Torah always mentions the אורים ahead of the תומים. The reason is that they represent the principal names of Hashem. The reason Moses reversed the sequence here is to make plain that they are mutually interdependent, that the אורים, though preceding the תומים, are a totally ineffectual tool for communicating with Hashem unless they are accompanied by the תומים. I have explained this in greater detail in my commentary on Exodus 28,30. This is also the opinion of Nachmanides. They are perceived as representing a certain level of Holy Spirit; any High Priest who wore these folded over parchments inside the folds of His breastplate was equipped with this level of Holy Spirit while wearing same. This is what prompted Onkelos to translate the words תומיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך, as ,תומיא ואוריא אלבשת לגבר דאשתכח חסידא, “I dressed a man who is pious in Your Urim and Tumim.” The matter is similar to what we read in Chronicles I 12,19: “and a spirit ‘dressed’ (seized) Amashai.”
      There are four distinct levels of prophecy. Bat Kol, Urim veTumim, Ruach haKodesh, and full-fledged prophecy. They are listed here in ascending order, but all of them are derivatives of the emanation tzedek; this is the meaning of Job 29,14: ”I clothed myself in righteousness and it robed me; Justice was my cloak and turban.”
      Let me explain something about the differences between the four levels of prophetic power I have listed. There is a mystical element to the phenomenon known as בת קול which accounts for the name בת קול as opposed to the masculine בן קול. Similarly, there is a mystical reason why the Talmud speaks frequently of בנה אב to describe an exegetical method more familiarly known to us by a masculine expression, i.e. בנין אב (in the Baraitha de Rabbi Yishmael which we recite in our daily morning prayers). Why, for instance, do they not call it בנה אם? Similarly, the expression יש אם למקרא or יש אם למסורה is strange, seeing we might have expected the expression יש אב למסורה or  יש אב למקרא to convey that there is a valid tradition justifying a certain way of reading or writing a word in the written Torah. All of these expressions have been formulated by our sages with extreme care and reveal a deep insight into the different levels of divine inspiration which they reflect. [Rabbi Chavell, in his notes, quotes a certain Rabbi Ezra bar Shlomoh (a kabbalist from Gerona, hometown of Nachmanides, author of commentary on aggadot in Talmud, disciple of Rabbi Yitzchak the blind (also Gerona) who found that the only five times the Talmud uses the masculine expression בנין אב is when it refers to a direct verse from the written Torah, i.e. a more direct link to the divine origin of such an exegetical tool.]    Actually, every single verse in the written Torah is in the nature of something directly revealed, and the sages could have been expected to refer to it in the masculine form every time, i .e. בנין אב, or בנה אב, but certainly not as אם למקרא, or אם למסורה. The fact is that matters handed down to us by the oral tradition, i.e. תורה ש-בעל פה, the sages usually preface with the word אם, in order to make the distinction of the origin of the tradition. If we keep these principles in mind, we can understand that the expression בת קול was used, seeing that the listener received his instructions via what the Torah itself describes as only a קול and not from the mouth of G’d. Compare Deut. 28,1 which states clearly and unambiguously והיה אם שמוע תשמע בקול ה' אלוקיך, “it will be when you will surely heed the voice of the Lord your G’d.” Also in Numbers 7,89 the Torah speaks of Moses hearing the voice speaking with him from above the lid of the Ark.” It is appropriate to call that “voice” בת, “daughter” [like the subsidiary companies in Israel are called חברת בת, literally: “daughter companies.” Ed.], seeing that the instruction was heard through an intermediary. The author describes as yet another reason why the sages called this relatively low key form of divine communication בת קול, their perception of it as an illustration of the “throne” of G’d which is perceived as broad at the top, tapering off towards the bottom. He claims that אש, fire, is similarly perceived as broad at the top and narrow at the base. The term בת קול therefore reflects something which originates at the throne of G’d rather than in His Essence. This type of communication from celestial regions was a fairly commonplace one even during the period of the sages of the Talmud (Eruvin 12, et al). Moreover, the pious people during the second Temple experienced this kind of communication from celestial sources after there were no more prophets and the High Priest did not have the breastplate with the Urim veTumim embedded in them to facilitate direct communication with G’d. This latter form of communication from celestial sources was one rung higher than the Bat Kol. The form of this communication was representative of what is termed אספקלריא שאינה מאירה, “an unclear vision,” which characterized the type of prophetic visions experienced by most prophets in varying degrees. We had explained already in connection with Numbers 12,6 that the Urim veTumim  were a device confirming the truth of the communication received, (compare author on Exodus 28,30). The word אורים itself suggests spiritual enlightenment. The function of the אורים was to visually make the High Priest aware of the letters representing the divine communication, whereas the function of theתומים  was to enable him to arrange the letters in question in the appropriate order, to avoid misunderstanding the message.     The third level of divine communication is commonly known as רוח הקודש, which is equivalent to or an outgrowth of the tenth emanation. The author appears to feel that a person is able to attain this level of spirituality if he applies to himself Deut. 23,10 ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, “to guard yourself against anything evil.” This level of divine inspiration appears as if it was self-generated by the recipient, who was granted insights without hearing any outside voice or seeing any vision as do prophets. People who experience this level of spirituality are apt to make statements regarding future events without appearing in the least captive to outside communicators. They neither dream the message nor go into a trance or anything like that. It is simply that what they say is perceived as inspired from a higher source. The person uttering such messages has no idea of where they originated from.     The fourth level of prophetic insights is prophecy uttered by an acknowledged man of G’d, someone who, while doing so, completely divests himself of his normal personality, becomes merely an instrument of G’d communing exclusively by means of his disembodied intellect with the source from whom he receives his message/instructions. Once he has divested himself of his bodily functions so that they do not represent an impediment to his receiving clear and undistorted messages from a celestial origin, this may occur either in a dream or even during his waking hours. There is no point in elaborating on this at this point as I have already done so in a book called חשן משפט. [The book does not seem to be extant. Ed.]
      On the other hand, Nachmanides appears to feel that the level we know as רוח הקודש is superior to the level known as נבואה, prophecy. According to his view, the levels starting from the highest to the lowest are: רוח הקודש, נבואה, אורים ותומים, בת קול. According to his view the level of spirituality we call Ruach Hakodesh, “Holy Spirit,” is derived form very lofty spiritual regions such as have been described in Exodus 35,31 (concerning Betzalel) וימלא אותו רוח אלוקים בחכמה, “He filled him with divine spirit, with wisdom, etc.” 
  You will also find in the Sefer Yetzirah 1,9 that חכמה is referred to as רוח אלוקים חיים ברוך ומבורך, that the name of G’d is both  דבור קול, רוח i.e. that all these manifestations of G’d’s name are called רוח הקודש as they are all disembodied, incapable of being perceived visually. At any rate, the author of the Sefer Yetzirah describes חכמה as רוח אלוקים חיים, “spirit of the Living G’d,” and lists it as first and foremost in a list of spiritual attainments.    The foundation of prophecy, נבואה, is anchored in the tetragrammaton; Urim and Tumim, the level of spirituality ascribed to true Torah scholars, rank below the spiritual level of prophecy, but above that of Bat Kol, seeing that the Bat Kol has its origin not in the tetragrammaton but in the Shechinah (attribute kavod). All the various spiritual attainments by man (of a lower level than Bat Kol) are also traced back to the Shechinah. At any rate, seeing that the phenomenon of Bat Kol is rated so low, it is clear why the sages stipulated אין משגיחין לבת קול, “that pronouncements from heaven reaching us via the phenomenon of Bat Kol have no binding force halachically” (Baba Metzia 59). [when opposed to rulings based on other forms of exegesis. Ed.] Such pronouncements cannot countermand halachic rulings based on נבואה, prophecy, for instance, either. The reason we are in the habit of referring to נבואה also as רוח הקודש is that this is the celestial source of all spiritual attainments which devolve from it. [The term רוח הקודש, then is used loosely as a collective term for all that is divinely inspired.]
     לאיש חסידך, every High Priest from the tribe of Levi is given the title חסיד, ‘the devout one.’ The reason for this is that it is the function of the High Priest to draw down to his people the heavenly attribute of חסד, (loving kindness). This is why the priests bless the people in order to channel this attribute and its beneficial effects to as many of his people as possible. The blessing is pronounced by invoking the tetragrammaton, the holy name not allowed for others to pronounce. The blessing originates in the tenth emanation, and this is why the Torah prefaces the formula of the words of the blessing with the word כה which is the attribute of Justice, as we know from Exodus where Moses tells Pharaoh in the name of G’d הנה לא שמעת עד כה, “here you have not listened until כה,” i.e. from now on the attribute of Justice will be invoked against you (Exodus 7,16) [This announcement had been the prelude to the first of the Ten Plagues. Ed.] Moses followed this (verse 17) by telling Pharaoh בזאת תדע, “through the attribute זאת you will know, etc.,” i.e. clear proof that both כה and זאת are כנויים, [similes for the attribute of Justice, most commonly appearing as elo-him. Ed.] At any rate, Moses refers to the fact that the whole world is blessed by means of the Priest, hence Psalms 145,10 וחסידך יברכוכה, “and Your devout ones shall bless You.” Instead of reading this as one word, David may mean that the word is to be read as יברכו כה, “will bless the attribute of Justice.”
  
  Verse 9
  
   האומר לאביו ולאמו לא ראיתיו, “who says of his father and his mother : ‘I have no regard for them.’” Moses speaks of the tribe of Levi as a whole here, just as at the time of the sin of the golden calf he had simply called out: “whoever is for Hashem, to me!” (Exodus 32,26) In response to that call all the members of the tribe of Levi responded with alacrity  (same verse) Moses had then instructed them to execute all those who had actively worshipped the golden calf, and not to spare even family members if there were such who were guilty. Just as in that instance, although Moses mentioned ‘his son and brother,” this was not meant literally, so here too the words ‘his father and mother,” are not meant literally, as there never had been a father or mother of a Levite who had been guilty of that sin so that their son could have demonstrated that he was prepared even to kill father or mother in response to that call. If even a single Levite had been guilty of worshipping the golden calf, how could the Torah have testified that “the entire tribe of Levi assembled around Moses in response to his call?” The meaning of the words: “father, mother, brother, etc.,” in the verses mentioned referred to such relations who were not from the tribe of Levi. If a Levite had married a woman from the tribe of, say, Zevulun, and the son of that woman found his maternal grandfather worshipping the golden calf, then her son would have had the duty to execute his grandfather seeing he was not a Levite and was guilty of execution. In other words, Moses referred to a possible grandfather, calling him “father,” something not  unusual in those days. [the Torah constantly calls the ancestors ‘your fathers’, not your grandfathers or your great-grandfathers.”
     כי שמרו  אמרתך, “for they have carefully observed Your words;” a reference to the second of the Ten Commandments: ‘you shall not have any other gods.’   ובריתך ינצורו, “and Your covenant they have preserved.” This is a reference to the covenant of circumcision. We have a tradition according to which the Israelites did not circumcise their male children while in the desert, whereas the tribe of Levi did perform this commandment also in the desert (Sifri Behaalotcha 67). Even though Moses speaks here of the tribe of Levi in general, there is also a specific allusion to the prophet Samuel (a Levite himself) concerning whom Moses said that he did not see his father or his mother seeing that as soon as he had been weaned, his mother took him to the Tabernacle and entrusted him to the High Priest Eli to raise and train in the service of the Lord. The words: “and he did not recognize his brothers nor knew his sons,” also apply to the prophet Samuel; the idea is that he sired children for the service of the Lord rather than in order for them to be his personal convenience [as many fathers considered their children then. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ברך ה' חילו, “O Lord  bless his resources;” this is a reference to the heave-offerings, tithes, firstborn male domesticated animals, and the first ripe fruit, which made up the livelihood of the priests and Levites. ופועל ידיו תרצה, “and the work of his hands shall find Your favour;” this refers to the sacrificial offerings, a portion of which was for consumption by the priests.
   מחץ מתנים קמיו, “smash the loins of his foes; as if the Torah had written: “smash his foes in the loins.” מן יקומון, “so that they cannot rise.” Prevent those that attempt to rise against them.
  
  Verse 12
  
   לבנימין אמר, “to Binyamin he said:” according to the plain meaning of the text the preposition ל here must be understood as בעבור, “for the sake of, on behalf of;” Moses means that seeing Binyamin is a favourite of the Lord, He will make His residence (Temple) in the territory of that tribe. The tribe will dwell in security, trusting the Lord, the Lord His G’d dwelling between his shoulders.
     חופף עליו, “it hovers over him;” a reference to G’d’s attribute of כבוד, i.e. the Shechinah which rested over Jerusalem, most of which was situated in the territory of Binyamin. The reason Moses speaks of the Shechinah hovering between the shoulders of Binyamin instead of “over his head,” is because the floor of the courtyard to the Temple the עזרה did not literally stand on the top of the mountain but about 23 cubits below the summit, near the level of a well called Eytam (Yuma 31). It had been David’s intention to build it there as explained in the Talmud Zevachim 54. Moses refers to the Temple here as “shoulder,” and so did Joshua his disciple in Joshua 16,5. The reason Joshua added the word “Jebusite” there is to hint that David purchased the site from Arona the Jebusite (Samuel II 24,24).    Some (Ibn Ezra) explain the words: “between his shoulders” as describing the fact that the Temple stood in the middle of the tribal territory of Binyamin.
      A Midrashic approach: our verse contains allusions to three Temples. (compare Zevachim 118) The words ישכון לבטח, “will dwell safely,” refer to the first Temple, Solomon’s. This is why in the Book of Chronicles the attribute כבוד is specifically mentioned as filling the inside of that Temple (Chronicles II 7,1). The words “He (the attribute כבוד ) hovers over it all day long,” refer to the second Temple; the word ”hover” denotes a less regular presence  than does the word ישכון used by Moses as describing the situation during the first Temple. Finally, the words: “and He dwells between his shoulders,” are a reference to the third Temple when the full extent of the Shechinah will return to the Holy of Holies. This is what our sages explained in Sifri on our verse.   The reason all these allusions are contained in the blessing for Binyamin is that it was this tribe which served as host for the Divine presence. We have a tradition that the body of the original Binyamin was never attacked by worms. There are seven people  concerning whom we have a tradition that their bodies were not attacked by worms. They are: Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moses, Aaron, Miriam and Binyamin the son of Yaakov (compare Baba Batra 17). Of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov the Torah said specifically that G’d blessed them in all respects, i.e. בכל, מכל, כל respectively. Of Moses and Aaron the Torah writes that they died על פי ה',  If they died “by a kiss” as our sages describe their mode of dying, it is reasonable that G’d would not allow the worms to attack their remains. Although the Torah, for obvious reasons, does not describe Miriam’s death as similar to that of her brothers, our sages feel certain that her death was similar. As to Binyamin’s death, the very description of him as ידיד ה', “beloved of the Lord,” surely suggests a similar treatment of his body by the Lord. Some sages say that David’s body too was not attacked by worms. They base this on Psalms 16,9 (“also my flesh will dwell securely”). I have heard a support for this theory from Exodus 16,24 describing that the manna which fell on Fridays did not turn putrid and was not attacked by worms, contrary to the manna which fell on other days and was saved overnight. The word הבאיש, normally understood as “turned putrid,” could be read with the first two letters as an acrostic so that it would be ה'ב איש, meaning “7 men” (were not attacked by worms), etc. This would serve as Scriptural support for the view of Rabbi Eleazar that Miriam was also one of the people whose flesh was not attacked by worms. (to make up the number ה'ב=7) The word בו in that same verse in Exodus, having a numerical value of 8, would serve as support for the view that the flesh of an eighth’ person was immune to worms, i.e. the flesh of David.
      A kabbalistic approach: The words: לבנימין אמר ידיד ה' ישכון refer to the attribute כבוד having made this statement. As a result of that attribute dwelling among the tribe of Binyamin, the latter felt secure, i.e. לבטח, being confident that he was under the protection of G’d, the Essence. The whole matter is similar to what we read in Exodus 14,31: וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה ויאמינו בה', “as soon as Israel saw the ‘great’ hand, they believed in the Lord.” This is also the reason that the prophet Nathan named David’s second son from Bat Sheva ידיד-יה (Samuel II 12,25) [“beloved one of G’d,” to show publicly that no stigma was attached to the union of David and Bat Sheva now. Ed.] 
  According to the Sefer HaBahir item 65, G’d said to Solomon: “seeing you bear My name, I will allow you to be the one to build the Temple for Me.” This is the meaning of Kings I 5,26: “and the Lord had given [I believe the key is the word נתן instead of ויתן, which would have meant that this wisdom had been granted to Solomon only at that point. Ed.] wisdom to Solomon, as He said to him.” We do not have a verse (at that junction) where G’d is on record as granting wisdom to Solomon. However, in Kings I 3,28 we have this verse: “when all of Israel heard the decision of the king (about the two women who each claimed that the baby was hers) they stood in awe of the king; for they saw that he possessed divine wisdom to execute justice.” Thus far the Sefer HaBahir. [the author of that book also refers to the sages who said that every time the word שלמה appears in Song of Songs we must treat it as one of the holy names of G’d.    From all the foregoing we learn that among all the tribes there was none who was as blessed as Binyamin in that the Shechinah dwelled among him permanently in a more concentrated form than among any of the other tribes. Clearly, he possessed greater merit than the other tribes. Perhaps this is also the reason why this tribe was singled out to be mentioned separately, i.e. Moses begins his blessing with the word לבנימין, instead of ולבנימין, which would have emphasised what he had in common with the tribes mentioned first. (Only Reuven, who was mentioned first, did not have the letter ו  meaning “and” introducing him). Perhaps, just as the etrog occupies a special position among the four species, not being tied up together with the other three species, the absence of the letter ו when introducing the blessing for the tribe of Binyamin may convey similar considerations. The absence of the letter ו (where we really would have expected it) may be a hint that Binyamin is to be perceived as part of the בנין, “the structure” comprised of the ten sefirot, creative forces, leading to the terrestrial universe.
  
  Verse 13
  
  . מבורכת ה' ארצו ממגד שמים מטל, “his (Joseph’s) land is especially blessed by the Lord, with the heavenly bounty of dew.” Moses refers to rain as מגד שמים (Ibn Ezra) reflecting a statement by the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 4,3 that the waters in the celestial regions were suspended (kept in place) only by a word of G’d. What are the “fruit” of these waters? The rain waters. This is also in line with what David said in Psalms 104,1: “You irrigate the mountains from Your lofts, from the ‘fruit’ of Your work the earth is sated.” The “heavens” are considered G’d’s “works.” We have another verse making a similar point in Psalms 8,4: “When I behold Your heavens, the “work” of Your fingers.” The psalmist calls the rain “the fruit of His works.” Similarly, here; Moses refers to this as מגד. By adding the word ומטל, Moses blesses Joseph with both dew and rainfall.
     ומתהום רובצת תחת, “and from the deep waters crouching below.” This is a reference to the waters on terrestrial earth, i.e. Moses blessed Joseph in that both the waters from above and from below should be beneficial for his land. You may perceive the relationship between the upper waters and the lower waters as analogous to the relationship between light and darkness; hence the choice of the word תהום, by Moses, a word which meant “darkness” already in the second verse of the Torah. The reason the word טל was left to the end, was to place it next to the word תהום, seeing dew descends at night when it is dark.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וממגד תבואת שמש, “and from the bounty of the sun’s crop.” It is well known that the sun is closely associated with the element fire. The closer we get to the sun or vice versa, the hotter it gets. The feeling of being cold is generally associated with the distance from the sun. The heat of the sun causes crops and fruit to ripen. The moon, by contrast, is associated with the element water. Proof is the fact that it exerts influence on the oceans (beaches) determining the tides. Absence of the moon in the sky, or gradual disappearance of it, results in the waters of the sea and some rivers receding. The power of both sun and moon to affect the ripening of crops on earth is called by Moses מגד. The verse tells us that the territory of Joseph will experience the beneficial effects on its harvests of both sun and moon. The moon is perceived as מגרשת הפירות, brings the fruit of the tree to separating. [I prefer Hirsch, who sees in the word ירחים an allusion to the number of months animals are pregnant, i.e. the fruit of the womb is produced after a certain number of “moons,” Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
   ומראש הררי קדם, “and from the tops of ancient mountains.” Seeing that fruit growing in the mountains are perceived as superior to those growing in the valley, Moses blesses the fruit of the mountainous regions in the territory of Joseph. [According to the Talmud, the best fruit came from Ginosaur on the shores of Lake Kineret, certainly not a mountainous region but 200 meters below sea-level. Ed.]
  
  Verse 16
  
   וממגד ארץ, “and from the bounty of the earth.” Having first mentioned the fruit growing in the mountains, Moses now mentions the fruit growing in the plains. By adding the word ומלואה, “and its fullness,” he refers to other benefits to be derived from that earth such as silver and gold and other ores to be mined there. The whole land is blessed by the Lord Who resides in the סנה, the burning bush, the site of Moses’ first encounter with Hashem.
      A Midrashic approach, [based on Torah Shleimah Bereshit 3,17 note #124] The Midrash asks why the land of the tribe of Joseph was blessed more than that of any other tribe? The answer given relates to the cursing of the earth as a result of Adam’s sin in Gan Eden. The soil which Adam subsequently had to work in the sweat of his brow was cursed because he had listened to the urging of his wife to also eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Joseph, on the other hand, had withstood the urgings of the wife of his master Potiphar to enjoy the “fruit” she had to offer. Therefore, his descendants, in commemoration of the merit accumulated by their ancestor, do not have to work the soil so hard to make it give up its produce as have the other tribes whose founding fathers do not have this merit going for them.
     תבואתה לראש יוסף, “may it come to rest (the blessing) on the head of Joseph.” The word תבואתה is a strange word; it is composed of the two words באתה and תבא. Moses is trying to hint here that just as Joseph went into exile into Egypt long before the remainder of his brothers, so when the redemption will come he, (his tribe) will also enjoy that experience before the other tribes will. These are the 45 years discrepancy mentioned between the 1290 years and the 1335 years which Daniel speaks of in Daniel  12,11-12. There is a time lapse between the ingathering of the exiles referred to as נדחים, “outcasts,” and those referred to as נפוצים, “scattered.” (compare Deut. 30,2-3).
  
  Verse 17
  
   בכור שורו הדר לו, “like a firstling ox in his majesty;” seeing Moses had already spoken of grain harvests, Moses compares the tribe of Joseph to an ox [used in ploughing, the first stage in working a field. Ed.]. We find this simile used in the same sense in Proverbs 14,4: ורב-תבואות בכח שור, “bountiful harvests are due to the strength of the ox.” The reason that Moses applies the term “firstborn” to Joseph is because he was the firstborn of his mother Rachel.   וקרני ראם קרניו, “and his horns are like the horns of the Re'em.”  A reference to the tens of thousands of the members of Ephrayim (and thousands of Menashe).
      A kabbalistic approach: in saying בכור שורו הדר לו, Moses attributes two principal attributes, virtues,  to Joseph. They are the emanations (attributes) נצח and הוד, the former on the right side of the diagram of the emanations, the latter on the left side. The word הדר symbolises the emanation נצח, whereas the word שור alludes to the emanation הוד. You know that these were the emanations which responded to David’s prayer; compare Psalms 22,22 ומקרני רמים עניתני, “rescue (answer) me from the horns of wild oxen.” [I do not understand how our author squares this with his oft-repeated warning that in prayer one must only address the tetragrammaton, no subordinate attributes. Ed.] Two tribes emerged from Joseph one of whom represented fertility, i.e. אפרים, whereas the second מנשה represents שכחה, forgetting. The latter name is associated with דין, judgment.
  
  Verse 18
  
   שמח זבולון בצאתך, “Rejoice Zevulun in your journeys;” a reference to going out into war (Ibn Ezra). Even though his brother Issachar was senior to him, Moses mentions Zevulun first when according these blessings seeing that it would be he who enabled Issachar to engage in intensive Torah study. Yaakov (Genesis 49,13) had also blessed him before he blessed his older brother Issachar, as he foresaw that in the future Zevulun would be the financial backer of Issachar’s Torah study. Without such financial backing, Issachar could not have devoted himself to Torah study as he did. The joy Zevulun is promised here is his reward in the world to come in recognition of his share in Issachar’s Torah. Even though, as Ibn Ezra has stated, the plain meaning of the word בצאתך refers to going out to battle, one may also understand it as: “when you leave this life on earth.” Moses blesses Zevulun with the joy which will await him in the world to come. The reason all of this joy is (apparently) reserved for Zevulun, is that he is the mainstay of Torah knowledge through his support of those who engage in its study.   Basing themselves on our verse, the sages (Pesachim 53) have formulated the saying: “anyone who gives merchandise (on credit) to a Torah scholar to trade with will be rewarded for this in the Torah academy in the world to come, seeing Solomon has said in  Kohelet 7,12: ‘for to be in the shelter of wisdom is to be also in the shelter of money;’ and the advantage of intelligence is that wisdom preserves the life of him who possesses it.”
   You will note that Moses’ blessing here contains two distinct subject matters. 1) He addresses Zevulun before he addresses his older brother Issachar. 2) He makes the blessing for Issachar part of the blessing bestowed on Zevulun. 3) The blessing for Zevulun is longer than that for the other tribes. He said concerning Zevulun that: “he will be nourished by the riches of the sea and by treasures concealed in the sand (of the beaches). At the same time, Moses was very brief in his blessing for Issachar, saying only: “Issachar in your tents.” No other tribe received such a briefly worded blessing. Seeing that Issachar was the tribe excelling in Torah study, we would have expected Moses to devote more words of recognition for that tribe. We know that Issachar excelled in Torah wisdom from Chronicles I 12,32 where the author Ezra explains the reason why that tribe dispatched only 200 members to attend the crowning ceremonies of King David, by adding that the 200 men in question were יודעי בינה לעתים, “men who understood the needs of the times,” (or were so schooled in Torah that each one could predict when the year would have to be adjusted in order not to conflict with the solar seasons).    The fact is that in spite of the relative brevity of Moses’ blessing, the words “in your tents” (pl) contained all the blessings it is possible to bestow on someone. Moses meant  the “tent” in the celestial regions, as well as the “tent” in the terrestrial regions. He extended his blessing to Issachar in both worlds. The joy that Moses referred to in the terrestrial regions has been described by David in Psalms 19,9 as פקודי ה' ישרים משמחי לב, “the ordinances of the Lord are just and fair and provide joy for the heart” (of the people studying them). He also blessed Issachar as being happy in the tent of the celestial region, a region where joy is perfect and complete. Our sages in Ketuvot 8 described this celestial region as one in which שהשמחה במעונו, “the true home of joy is in His heaven called מעון.” In that region reward is double what it is elsewhere. Perhaps the double letter ש in the name of יששכר, already indicates that his reward would be divided into two parts. One part of the reward would be given to him who studies the Torah, the other to those who sustain those who study Torah.
  
  Verse 19
  
   שם יזבחו זבחי צדק, “there they will slaughter offerings of righteousness.” Moses means that all the people coming to Mount Moriah then will do so in order to offer their thanks to the Lord for His having granted them so much wealth..
      A kabbalistic approach: Moses related the sacrificial offerings to righteousness, i.e. צדק, as this is the emanation which is perceived as the initial one (מלכות) which “receives” offerings in the first instance. The letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה, (Leviticus 1,9) alludes to this emanation; I have already remarked on this in my comments on that verse. The path of the offerings proceeds “upwards” from the emanation צדק until it reaches the highest regions.
     ושפוני טמוני חול, “and by the treasures concealed in the sand.” Moses blessed Zevulun and Issachar with generous amounts of material wealth. They would possess so much wealth that they would be forced to bury some of it in the sand to protect it against thieves (Ibn Ezra). The word ושפוני is as if the Torah had written it with the letter צ at the beginning, i.e. וצפוני, “and hidden.” The repeated wording, i.e. both שפוני and טמוני, is similar to the expression אדמת עפר in Daniel 12,2; Onkelos appears to understand it as the sand itself indicating that treasures are buried beneath it.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וירא ראשית לו, “He saw the first (portion) claiming it for himself.” According to the plain meaning of the text the tribe of Gad requested the lands of Sichon and Og which were the first part of the land of Canaan to be conquered.     The words: “for that is where the lawgiver’s plot (grave) is hidden,” refer to Moses’ grave. The word מחוקק, usually translated as “lawgiver,” may mean “an outstanding person,” such as in Judges 5,9 in Devorah’s song where she speaks of לבי לחוקקי ישראל, “my heart goes out to the rulers of Israel.” [I suppose the author considers the term “lawgiver” inappropriate once the Torah had been given. Ed.] The reason Moses speaks of ספון, “hidden,” is an allusion to the fact that the exact site of his grave would remain concealed forever. The word is used in such a sense in Jeremiah 22,14 as well as in Chagai 1,4 where it means “roofed,” “covered.” Moses probably also did not want to use the word קבור, “buried,” as this has a ring of finality about it, whereas he considered his grave as a temporary parking place for his body pending the resurrection. He realized that the decree that he had to be buried outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael proper was in order to facilitate the resurrection of the generation of Israelites who had died outside the boundaries of the land of Israel under his leadership and whose resurrection would be due only to his personal merit (Tanchuma Chukat,10).
     ויתא ראשי עם, “he came at the head of the nation;” a reference to the two and a half tribes who formed the vanguard of the army of conquest under the leadership of Joshua.
     צדקת ה' עשה, “he carried out G’d’s judgments;” by honouring his verbal undertakings to Moses the tribe of Gad carried out G’d’s judgment. He (and the tribe of Reuven and half the tribe of Menasheh) had vowed not to return home until all the tribes had received their heritage.
      A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 1,6: The words וירא ראשית לו, are an allusion to the tradition that the universe was created due to the merit of Moses who has been described as ראשית in our verse here.
      A kabbalistic approach: the words וירא ראשית לו in our verse may be understood as part of the previous line speaking about G’d expanding the territory of Gad. [The reference is to expansion of intellectual horizons. Ed.] The whole verse commencing with ברוך מרחיב גד may thus be understood as וירא מרחיב גד ראשית לו, “the One Who expands (the territory of) Gad saw that the one called ראשית was His.” The message is: “when the Lord looked at the emanation חכמה, which is the topmost of the operative emanations, in order to begin creating the universe [ראשית and חכמה are thus equated. Ed.], He foresaw that the burial plot of the one called  מחוקק(Moses) was hidden in the portion of land allocated to the tribe of Gad, seeing Moses was so integrally part of the emanation ראשית. [Clearly the word ראשית here must be understood on two levels, both in terms of time and in terms of wisdom. Ed.] He (G’d) decided then to radiate the attributes known as ראשי עם from there. In order to better understand this, refer to Psalms 24,7:שאו שערים ראשיכם , where the word ראש, ראשית, is used in a similar meaning. [The word ראשיכם clearly is a concept only, seeing gates do not have heads. Solomon (the author of that psalm who found that he could not bring the Holy Ark into the newly constructed Temple) prayed for an expansion of his perceptive powers. Ed.]     The words צדקת ה' עשה ומשפטיו עם ישראל refer to the emanations תפארת and כבוד which emanate from there. This is all very clear (author’s words). [It is not clear to me at all, but I suspect that the message is that seeing all abstract mystical concepts must have a place on earth from which they are made accessible to man, the author tells us that seeing Moses, who represented the emanation wisdom in the most near perfect level attainable by human beings would be buried there, i.e. would be “at home” there, it is natural that ‘lower” attributes, emanations, such as תפארת and כבוד, may become accessible through him who had attained the level of a higher emanation  i.e. חכמה. Ed.]
      The meaning of the Midrash as well as its mystical dimension, i.e. that Moses=ראשית, is based on the fact that he was the only prophet whose prophetic powers were such that he received what our sages call אספקלריא מאירה, “a clear, unblurred vision.” This type of prophetic vision is also known as ראשית, the “beginning, the top,” seeing that this was the highest level of wisdom Moses had attained. Anyone who prophesies does so from the level of emanation he personally has attained. However, prophesying ”from,” i.e. “out of” an emanation, does not mean that the prophet has “mastered” the essence of this emanation. This explains why Moses asked for additional perceptive powers when he said to G’d (Exodus 33,18) הראני נא את כבודך, “please show me Your attribute כבוד.” This request went unanswered. The reason the Torah does refer to him as מחוקק is because his prophecy was always in the name of the tetragrammaton, G’d’s essence. All the 248 positive commandments were legislated by G’d in His capacity as Hashem. The numerical value of the letters מחקק =248. The total number of negative commandments is 365, a number reminiscent of G’d’s attribute א-ד-נ-י (which is really 65). The opening letters of  Daniel’s prayer (Daniel 9,19) asking forgiveness for trespasses (transgressions of negative commandments) are ש-ס-ה i.e. 365. Each request is prefaced by use of the attribute א-ד-נ-י. The whole verse there reads אדנ-י שמעה, אדנ-י סלחה, אדנ-י הקשיבה, so that each word separately features this attribute and the three ראשי תיבות spell 365.   I believe that Onkelos may have alluded to this when he translated מחוקק as ספרא רבא, “the great scribe,” seeing the source of his prophecy was the great name of the Lord, Hashem.    This association of the name Hashem with the word מחוקק is particularly marked in Isaiah 33,22 כי ה' שופטנו, ה' מחוקקנו, ה’ מלכנו, הוא יושיענו. The numerical value of the letters in the word שופטנו=451, which breaks down into 365 (negative command-ments) emanated by the attribute האלוהים =86. 86+365=451. The numerical value of מחוקקנו is 312, composed of 248+the name of Hashem spelled in words instead of letters making 63. By adding the digit 1 representing the word itself we get 248+64=312.    [There probably is significance in the spelling of מחקק without the letter ו here in the Torah, and the spelling with the letterו  in Isaiah. How else could we have arrived at the allusions represented by the numerical values? Ed.] Even though Rashi understands the word מחוקק in Isaiah as מושל, “ruler,” rather than as “lawgiver,” he himself understands it in as “students, disciples.” in Genesis 49,10. I believe that I am correct in my approach. Targum Yonathan (on the verse in Isaiah) also speaks of מחוקק as “the one who gave us אולפנא, ‘religious law.’” This is correct as the Torah was given under the aegis of G’d’s  Essence, Hashem.
      This may be an appropriate point at which to point out a number of things which are all associated with G’d’s “great” name, such as the Holy Temple, for instance. It is pointedly referred to as גדול, in Kings II 25,9: “He (Nevuchadnezzar) burned down the house of the Lord, the house of the King, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and the whole great House he burned by fire.” The last words clearly elaborate on what he did to the Temple. The priest serving in that Temple has also been referred to as the “great Priest.” The largest river on earth the Euphrates has also been described as “the great river.” (Deut. 1,7) In Deut. 11,7 the work of the Lord is described as מעשה ה' הגדול. When we respond during the recital of the Kaddish, we use the formula אמן יהא שמיה רבא, “Amen, may the great name be blessed.” The Aramaic word רבא is the translation of the word גדול, “great´ in Hebrew. We also speak of שלמא רבא in that same kaddish prayer, referring to the “great peace,” i.e. the peace under the aegis of the great name Hashem. The benediction over wine recited on Sabbath morning is known as קדוש רבא as opposed to that on Friday night. (compare Pesachim 106). [Perhaps the great name of Hashem is more appropriate for the day than for the night; the night is usually under the aegis of the attribute of Justice. Ed.] The seventh day of Sukkot is known as הושענא רבא, the “great salvation.” The prayers on that day which feature the willow branch are addressed to Hashem more so than any other day as the day concludes 26 days from the date G’d commenced creating the universe on the 25th of Ellul. 26=the numerical value of the tetragrammaton, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה, hence the appellation “great” is very much appropriate for that date. If you will analyse these examples you will discover that there is a common denominator to the adjective “great” which is associated with these days or with these phenomena.
  
  Verse 22
  
  . דן גור אריה, “Dan is a lion cub.” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses compares Dan’s bravery and physical strength to that of a lion, describing how he leaps down from the mountain of Bashan. 
      A kabbalistic approach: the tribe was called Dan, corres-ponding to the attribute of Justice. When the original Dan was born his step-mother Rachel had said that G’d had judged her (Genesis 30,6). The reason Moses compared the tribe of Dan in his blessing to a lion  was that the celestial image of the attribute of Justice is that of a lion cub.
  
  Verse 23
  
  נפתלי שבע רצון, Naftali, satiated with favour;” according to the plain meaning of the text the reference is to the favour of G’d with which this tribe will be satiated; it is somewhat similar in meaning to the words in verse 16 רצון שוכני סנה, “the goodwill of (the Lord) resident in the burning bush.” He will be full of G’d’s blessing and inherit land in the west and south.
      A kabbalistic approach: Naftali will be satiated with the favour of G’d in His capacity as the attribute זאת, seeing that portion had commenced with the words וזאת הברכה. The words ים ודרום are an allusion to the world to come which is compared to ים and רחבת ים in Job 11,9. The present terrestrial world is compared to דרום, south, as we know from Joshua 15,19 (where Joshua gave such territory to the daughter of Calev, calling it (ארץ הנגב). This is also what is explained in the Sefer Habahir item 9, that the word ירשה is inappropriate as the word for שבט, tribe, is masculine and Moses should have said ירש, or רש. The addition of the letters י at the beginning and ה at the end are indicative of the blessing this territory enjoyed. We may therefore understand the verse as if Moses had written ים ודרום ויה רש, “he inherited west and south plus the blessing of the Lord.” Moses implied that he hoped that as a result of such blessing Naftali would be meticulous in observing G’d’s ways.
      According to my personal understanding of this verse, the allusions in it are both “peace” and “the covenant,” and even the emanations חכמה and בינה are referred to as רש, and this is the meaning of the sequence ים ודרום ויה רש (mentioned in the Sefer Habahir). 
  The fact is that the tribe of Naftali was encamped alongside Dan in the north (Numbers 2,25-29). His flag depicted an eagle (see our comment there on verse 2). This is hinted at in the acrostic נ-ש-ר forming the opening letters of the words נפתלי שבע רצון. [There is therefore ample justification for not taking the words “west and south” at face value. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
   וטובל בשמן רגליו, “and he dips his foot in oil.” The choice of the word טבל was meant to indicate the abundance and even surfeit of oil (olive oil) in the part of the land allocated to Asher (Ibn Ezra). This is why Moses said: “his foot,” instead of saying: “his hand.” The simile is similar to the one we find in Genesis 49,11: “he washed his garments in wine.” At that time Yaakov mentioned “laundering” to indicate how abundant the wine in Yehudah’s territory would be if one could afford to use it as water is used in laundering. Both expressions do not have to be understood literally.
  
  Verse 25
  
   ברזל ונחושת, “iron and copper.” This means that these ores will be found in Asher’s territory (Ibn Ezra). The verse could also be an allusion that Asher would be the “locksmith” of the land of Israel, i.e. that it would provide secure gates made of copper and iron for its territory to protect it against invaders or thieves trying to steal the oil. The people of Asher would, however, export their oil to other countries. The whole country would be locked by means of these gates (Nachmanides).
     וכימיך דבאך, “and as your days (of your prime) may be your old age.” Onkelos believes that the word דבאך should really have been דאבך, as in דאבון נפש, “mental distress.” He implies this in his translation of these words as וכימי עולמתך תקפך, “as in the days when you were full of vigor.” The words ימיך refer to youth, years which have been described elsewhere as ימים; whereas the period of old age is generally viewed as a period in which one endures distress of one kind or another, a period which Kohelet described as a period אשר אין לי בהם חפץ, “years which I do not enjoy” (Kohelet 12,1).    The plain meaning of these words, however, is based on the word דבאך meaning: “your flow,” like זבת שמן “flowing with oil.’ Moses prays that Asher will experience this abundance all the days of his life. The Aramaic of זב is דאיב, and Moses may have used an Aramaic word here. This would not be the only time that Aramaic words have been used in the Torah. One example which comes to mind is Genesis 31,47 יגר שהדותא, which is the translation of גלעד. Other Aramaic words are found in Deut. 33,2, ואתה מרבבות קודש. In the Book of Prophets Isaiah 21,12 we have the words אתא בוקר. The author quotes several more examples from the Book of Prophets as well as from the Scriptures.  He also quotes words of identical meaning in both languages. The Talmud’s editors Ravina and Rav Ashi used both languages at will. The only reason they could do so was that they followed the example of the Torah. The author hints that there is a mystical foundation for all this, i.e. the relationship between the Holy Tongue Hebrew and Aramaic, which he is not at liberty to elaborate on.
  
  Verse 26
  
   אין כא-ל ישורון , “There is none like G’d, Yeshurun;” after Moses had concluded blessing the tribes individually, he now addresses the whole people reminding them of how fortunate they are in receiving their share on earth by the Creator of the universe directly. He tells them that they will inherit the land of Canaan, something that has been denied him; he also explains aspects of the hereafter to them, as I will explain in greater detail. He seals his words with esoteric matters, and this is why he begins this paragraph reminding the people that there is No One comparable to G’d. Whereas all the other nations have been placed under the guidance of intermediaries, angels, etc., not so the Jewish people. The first time Moses had requested from G’d that this be so was in Exodus 33,16 with the words ונפלינו אני ועמך, “and let me and Your people be distinct.” The reason he calls the Jewish people ישורון at this stage is not because of their character but because they have a “direct line,” (ישר) to G’d, unlike the other nations. This is also why, in extolling the advantages of the Jewish people compared to other nations, he says אשריך ישראל מי כמוך, “Hail to you Israel; who is comparable to you?” (verse 29). They are unlike the other 70 nations. This is why he tells the people that their share of the worldly goods and their status on earth is different from those nations. He commences by describing the G’d of Israel as “riding the heavens,” always available to assist His people ובגאותו רוכב שחקים, “in His majesty (He rides) through the upper regions.” In the last part of this verse the word רוכב is to be added before the word שחקים, otherwise there is a verb missing.
      The concept of G’d “riding” the heavens requires some analysis. According to the plain meaning of the text the verb “riding” depicts simply someone who is in control, much as the mounted police are in control of the mob on foot. It is similar to 32,13: “He makes it (Israel) ride on the heights of the Land,” where “riding” also was a simile for being in a dominant position. Just as the horse performs at the command of its rider, Moses describes the function of the heaven as being to perform at the will of G’d Who rides it. We find this described in Job 39,18: תשחק לסוס ולרכבו, “making fun of both horse and its rider.” (G’d describing that were it not for being deprived of its natural instincts, the ostrich would fly and not leave its eggs exposed to all kinds of danger.) The orbits of the celestial bodies must not be ascribed to their own ability and power, but only to the power of G’d Who is the source of their motion.    In this verse the word שמים refers to the heavenly regions known as ערבות. Our sages in Chagigah 12 deduce this from the verb רוכב used by Moses here in describing G’d’s movements over the heaven and the same verb used in Psalms 68,5 סולו, לרוכב בערבות, “extol the One Who rides in the ערבות.”
      Maimonides writes in Moreh Nevuchim 1,70 “consider the wording of Chagigah 12 where the sages describe the Aravot as high and G’d ‘dwelling’ upon them.” They quote in support the word רוכב from Psalms 68,5. The reason that David used the word רוכב in that psalm rather than the word שוכן is that the latter word would have created the impression that a fixed site had been assigned by him to G’d, something inappropriate seeing He is the site of the universe and not vice versa. At best, using the word שוכן would have made G’d appear no better than some of the other celestial phenomena none of which possess independent powers.
      A Kabbalistic approach: when Moses described G’d as רוכב שמים, the word שמים has to be understood as a reference to the various attributes of G’d, whereas the One “riding” them is the Essence, Hashem, the אין סוף. The message Moses wishes to convey is that as long as the Israelites carry out G’d’s commandments, the distance between  G’d the Essence, and G’d in the form of His attributes is minimal, no more so than that of a horse and a rider. If the Israelites do not observe the Torah, however, He will gradually withdraw His Essence to more distant regions, thus distancing Himself from His attributes. This has been expressed in a similar vein by our sages who interpreted Psalms 60,14 where David says באלו-הים נעשה חיל, “with G’d we shall triumph;” i.e. at a time when Israel performs the commandments, whereas צור ילדך תשי, Deut. 32,18: “You weakened the Rock Who brought you forth,” i.e. you weakened G’d’s powers by not observing His commandments.
  
  Verse 27
  
   מעונה אלו-הי קדם, “you made as your abode the G’d who preceded time.” According to the plain meaning of the text the words mean: “your abode is the G’d from immemorial times.” The meaning is similar to Psalms 91,9: עליון שמת מעונך, “you established the most High as your haven.” The meaning of the word מעון is similar to סכה, “hut,” in the sense of “shelter.” Compare Psalms 76,3 ויהי בשלם סכו ומעונתו בציון, “Salem became His abode, Zion His den.” The difference between מקום and מעון is that the former describes a place beneath the subject, the latter a place above the subject (Ibn Ezra).
     ומתחת זרועות עולם, “and beneath are the world’s mighty ones.”  This could refer to powerful forces on earth which provide support for the Jewish people, or it could refer to G’d being the זרועות, “the mighty arms,” Who supports both what is beneath Him as well as what is perceived as above the earth. The simile is somewhat like Psalms 104,2 where David describes G’d as establishing the firmament (without supporting pillars) over the whole globe as if it were a carpet. The fact that G’d suspends earth without perceptible supports has also been described in Job 26,7: “He suspends the world (earth) over nothing (emptiness).” All the Lord needs to support the universe is His invisible, abstract force, power. We human beings have to restrain ourselves from voicing the thought: “how is this possible?” We are simply not able to comprehend this. (something which does not it make any less true). The word בלימה in Job 26,7 are two words spelled as one, i.e. בלי מה, “without anything.” Heaven and earth both are supported by an invisible force. This is also what Isaiah quotes G’d as saying to him in Isaiah 46,4: “I have made it and I carry it.” The prophet speaks of G’d saying that He made both heaven and earth and He carries or supports both. Anyone who possesses this kind of strength is certainly able to expel His enemies from His presence (a reference to the second half of our verse here). 
      A Kabbalistic approach: The letter ה at the end of the word מעונה (which is usually simply מעון) is a reference to the attribute of Justice. If this were not so, Moses would have said (as he did in Psalms 90,1): ה’ מעון אתה היית לנו, “Lord You have been a refuge for us.” In Psalms Moses uttered a prayer and alluded to Hashem, the attribute of Mercy. Hence he spoke of מעון rather than of מעונה. Here Moses was forced to allude to the attribute of Justice as it is the attribute which will drive out G’d’s (and Israel’s) enemies. The word זרועות is not in the construct form, i.e. “arms of,” or something to that effect. The letter ה at the end of the word  מעונה then is a reference to the first letter ה in the tetragrammaton, not the last. [I confess I cannot follow from here to the end of this paragraph. The author tries to describe that Moses demonstrates how, through observance of G’d’s commandments, an aspect of the attribute of Justice may be converted into becoming an advocate on behalf of the people. The precise steps and how they are reflected in the wording here escape me. Ed.]
  
  Verse 28
  
   עין יעקב, “the well of Yaakov.” According to the plain meaning of the text “someone who had emerged from the ‘well’ of Yaakov” (Ibn Ezra). We find a similar expression pertaining to offspring of Yehudah in Isaiah 48,1, where the words וממי יהודה  “and have issued forth from the waters of Yehudah,” also mean that the people the prophet refers to are descended from Yaakov through Yehudah.    The words אל ארץ דגן, “to a land of grain,” clearly must be understood as “in a land of grain, etc.” We have a similar use of the word אל in Kings I 8,35 where Solomon describes people praying at the Temple as ויתפללו אל המקום הזה, “and they will pray to this place.” Clearly, he did not mean that their prayers should be directed at the “place,” but, to G’d Who is perceived as being at that place.    If Moses speaks of the inheritance of the land in conjunction with Yaakov (instead of Avraham or Yitzchok), this is to preclude anyone thinking that other descendants of the two senior patriarchs had any claim to that land. This is also why we never find the expression עין אברהם or עין יצחק as it would have included other sons of Avraham, or Esau, a son of Yitzchok. We have pointed out repeatedly that the Jewish people have an exclusive claim to four gifts: prophecy, Torah, the land of Israel, and resurrection of the bodies after an interval.     The exclusivity of these gifts to the Jewish people can be attributed directly to quotes from Moses’ own lips. Concerning the gift of prophecy, he said in Deut. 18,15: “a prophet among you, one of your brethren, someone like me, etc.”  He meant: “just as I am a direct descendant of Yaakov, so any future prophet will be a direct descendant of Yaakov.” This verse teaches that prophecy is not to be found except among the Jewish people.    If you were to counter that we do find Bileam as a prophet among the Gentile nations, the fact is that Bileam was not a prophet at all; he had the occasional communication from G’d, a communication described as מקרה, as we know from the Torah itself which described G’d ‘s communication to him as ויקר instead of as ויקרא, i.e. a happening which was of a totally irregular nature. Even on that occasion, G’d communicated with him only for the sake and honour of the Jewish people (compare author’s words on Numbers 23,16 and 24,4). Alternatively, the only reason Bileam was granted prophetic powers was to silence the Gentiles’ argument that if G’d had given them prophets they too would have risen to the same moral and ethical levels as had the Jewish people (Bamidbar Rabbah 20,1).     The exclusivity of the gift of the Torah to the Jewish people is proved by the verse (Deut. 33,4) “Moses has commanded the Torah to us, an hereditary gift for the community of Yaakov.”    The exclusivity of the gift of Eretz Yisrael to direct descendants of Yaakov is proved by our verse mentioning עין יעקב אל ארץ דגן ותירוש. History has proved that during the many centuries of the Jewish people being exiled from that land no other nation ever succeeded in making it a land flowing with milk and honey. This is why it was never settled successfully by another nation for any period of time.    The resurrection of the dead being something reserved for the Jewish people is attested to by the words in our verse אף שמיו יערפו טל, “even its heavens drip with dew.” The word שמיו, “its heavens,” refers to the expression עין יעקב at the beginning of the same verse, meaning that the dew which in the future will be the mechanism awakening the dead to rebirth comes from the part of heaven ערבות, in which the descendants of Yaakov ride in the interval. In other words, the Yeshurun described in verse 26 are the souls of the Jewish people after death awaiting the call to be resurrected. This part of heaven contains the dew which will reunite these souls with their bodies. Other nations do not share this privilege; their souls will not be reunited with their bodies. This is what Daniel 12,2 referred to when he spoke about many awakening from their slumber, the “many” being Jews. The word רבים, chosen by Daniel as the ones who will be resurrected is a word which has been used to describe Jews on other occasions in the Bible, such as in Esther 8,17 ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים, which, according to Sifri Haazinu 306 (end of Deut. 32,2), refers to Jews becoming proper Jews again. According to Rabbi Simai there, Moses calls the heaven the domain of the soul, whereas he refers to the earth as the domain of the body. He calls on the dew to reunite the two. People who studied and practiced Torah on earth are as if “heavenly,” and the curse that they will die (permanently) as described by David in Psalms 82,7 does not apply to them. Obviously, the people he speaks of can only be the Jewish people.     We also find that Isaiah prophesied about the future of the Gentile nations saying that מתים בל יחיו, רפאים בל יקומו, “they are dead, they can never live; shades, they can never rise” (Isaiah 26,14), whereas in verse 19 of the same chapter he writes: ”your dead will live, let corpses arise! Awake and shout for joy, you who dwell in the dust, for your dew is like the dew on fresh growth, you make the land of shades come to life.” The meaning of the two verses is that a revival of the dead will occur only for the Jewish people. You should know that all of the Jewish people will be resurrected physically, however they will then experience a judgment which will determine their future. This is why Daniel 12,2 describes that some “will remain alive indefinitely whereas others will be consigned to everlasting abhorrence.” This is also what the psalmist Assaph referred to in (Psalms 73,20) בעיר צלמות תבזה, “when awake you despise death.” The word בעיר in that verse has its root in ער, awake, and is to be understood as בהעיר, “when in a state of wakefulness.” We encounter similar constructions, such as in Isaiah 23,11 where the word לשמיד is to be understood as if the prophet had written להשמיד, “to destroy.” Targum Yonathan renders the verse in Psalms 73,20 as “like the dream of a person who is awakened from a dream to face a day of judgment when I awaken them from their graves in anger to announce their permanent death.” We have also been taught in a Baraitha (Rosh Hashanah 16) that when the day of judgment arrives there will be three groups of people. One group comprises the totally righteous, one the totally wicked, irredeemable, and one group consists of  the ones who fall in between the other two categories. The first group will be immediately inscribed and sealed in the Book of the righteous and their fate will be sealed so that they can immediately proceed to the hereafter. The second group will be consigned to hell immediately, in accordance with the verse from Daniel which we already quoted. This proves to you that even the totally wicked (Jews) will first be awakened before being consigned to their eventual destination. For the wicked this resurrection of their bodies will actually be a punishment rather than a reward seeing that they will be judged in Gehinom both body and soul in one of the seven levels of that domain.    Concerning the people who fall between the two extremes of being totally righteous and totally wicked, the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17 says that they will express their pains during the punishments endured but, if their merits exceed their demerits, they will rise from the pain inflicted upon them and join their brethren in the hereafter reserved for the righteous. The ones whose demerits exceed their accumulated merits, however, will descend into Gehinom for a period of 12 months. At the end of that period their bodies will cease to exist and their souls will be burned, the remains being scattered beneath the soles of the feet of the righteous inhabiting these celestial regions. The fact that the Talmud describes their bodies as “ceasing,” proves that they had descended to Gehinom first both as bodies and souls.   In order to hint that the resurrection of the bodies is something reserved exclusively for the Jewish people, Moses mentioned “dew,” and immediately afterwards: “hail to you Israel.” Our sages in the Sifri 340, commenting on the words in 34,3 where the Torah describes the extent of the vision granted to Moses, עד הים האחרון, “as far as the western sea” in 34,3, add: that instead of reading these words as עד הים האחרון, we should read them as עד היום האחרון, “until the final day.”
      A Midrashic approach based on Sifri Vezot Haberachah 356: the words עין יעקב mean: “a similar type of blessing to that bestowed by Yaakov.” The essence of Yaakov’s blessing had been that G’d would bring his family back to the land of Israel. (Genesis 48,21).
     אף שמיו יערפו טל, “also its heavens will drip dew.” The simile: “its heavens” (read “his” heavens) refer back to G’d, (א-ל) just as the words ויגרש as well as ויאמר in verse 27 also refer back to that subject at the beginning of verse 26. Alternatively, the simile שמיו, “its heavens,” may refer to Israel, and the construction would be an example of appending something minor to something major. Moses phrased it thus in order to emphasise the great stature of the people of Israel, making the “heavens” subordinate to Israel. A third possibility is that the word שמיו, “its heavens,” refers to the word הארץ, “the earth;” it would not be the first time that the word ארץ appears as masculine. We have several such examples, one of which is Genesis 13,6 ולא נשא אותם הארץ, “the earth could not support them,” where the word נשא is masculine instead of נשאה. Another such example of the word ארץ appearing as masculine is found in Isaiah 9,18 נעתם ארץ instead of נעתן ארץ, “the earth was shaken.” The meaning of our verse then would be: “”the heavens which correspond to the sacred earth will drip dew,” i.e. beneficial dew. The word יערפו would then have the meaning of ירעפו as in Proverbs 3,20: “will drip down.”
  
  Verse 29
  
   אשריך ישראל מי כמוך, “Hail to you, Israel;” this verse is an explicit promise to the Jewish people concerning life in the hereafter. Seeing that in the previous verse Moses had discussed the destination(s) of the body i.e. what is good for the body, such as the blessings bestowed on earth, abundant crops, conditions of secure tenure of the land, such as a land with ample supplies of grain and wine, a land benefiting from the beneficial dews descending from the skies, and even the promise that should the people ever be exiled, no conquering nation would ever feel at home in their land, now Moses addresses his attention to matters of benefit to the soul.     We know about this already from Bileam’s blessing in Numbers 23,9: “they are a nation which dwells in solitary splendor,” הן עם לבדד ישכון; Moses now takes up this theme when he refers to Israel being בדד. (verse 28) He is at pains to point out that the rosy future of the Jewish people comprises more than a secure and worry-free existence in Eretz Yisrael, accompanied by an abundance of material blessings. This is why he introduces the subject by describing a unique feature of the Jewish people, i.e. “hail to you Israel, who is like you?” He means that whereas all the other nations, at best, can look forward to a worry-free life of plenty on terrestrial earth, Israel will experience an additional dimension of life in the celestial spheres. This is the meaning of the words עם נושע בה' תשועת עולמים, “a nation delivered by Hashem Who extends His deliverance into 2 worlds” [עולמים, pl. Ed.]. A true deliverance must include life in the world to come, or it is by definition not a true deliverance. [One may understand the words “true deliverance” as a deliverance from the initial curse that came on upon mankind, i.e. death, when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Every “true” deliverance should free one from that. Ed.]    After having told the people that there would indeed be a reward for keeping the Torah in the world to come, Moses proceeds to offer the Jewish people proof of this in the form of a miracle. He tells the people that G’d Himself would be their shield, that they would be able to boast about G’d being their “sword,” מגן עזרך. This promise includes the attribute of Justice, even. The word מגן, shield, is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, seeing a shield is generally worn on the left, and the attribute of Justice is perceived as on the left side of the diagram of the emanations. David also speaks of G’d being Israel’s shield in Psalms 18,36, when he said: ותתן לי מגן ישעך, “You gave me the shield of Your protection.” He elaborates further in Psalms 84,12, saying: כי שמש ומגן ה' אלו-הים, “for the Lord is both sun and shield.” In that verse David refers to the tetragrammaton, Hashem, as “sun,” and to the attribute of Justice, אלו-הים, as “shield.” Moses reassures the people that constant military success on earth against all their enemies is proof that they have a future in the very regions from which this success emanates, is orchestrated on their behalf by G’d.    You may consider it a rule that all the various promises to the people of Israel as a whole, such as at the beginning of the portion Bechukotai, do not concern them themselves merely with the promise of reward in this finite world of ours. They are all similes for the kind of reward awaiting us in celestial regions after the death of our bodies. The success promised by the Torah in our terrestrial world is only to be viewed as proof of the far greater reward in store for us (if we keep the commandments) in a far better world than the terrestrial globe on which we have been born. It is most appropriate that the King of Israel, Moses, on the day when he himself readied himself for entry into that better world, tells his charges that he blessed them in this fashion, that all of them could look forward to that kind of a future.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויעל משה, “Moses ascended;” according to the view of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, these words and all those that follow have been written by Moses’ disciple Joshua, seeing that after Moses ascended he did not come back, and when should he have written these words and where? Joshua wrote these lines after having been prophetically inspired, seeing that he was not an eye-witness to what is described in these verses. Ibn Ezra views the words ויראהו ה', “the Lord showed him,” as proof that Moses could not have written this, else he would have written ויראני ה', “the Lord showed me.” He also feels it is impossible for Moses to have written, concerning himself, “he was buried there.” Ibn Ezra felt constrained to adopt this approach as he could not accept that Moses describes his own death and burial while still alive.    However, this is not true; his commentary is not correct. The correct way of viewing these lines is that we must accept the tradition that Moses wrote the entire Torah including the last eight verses at the dictation of G’d. In fact, one may view Moses as someone who copied verbatim a book which had been written long before he ever lived. This is the view of Rabbi Meir in Baba Batra 15 who said: “is it conceivable that the Torah would be complete if even a single letter of it were missing? Was it not Moses himself who commanded the Levites in Deut. 31,26: ‘to take this book of the Torah?’ Did he command them to take an incomplete Torah?” We must adopt the opinion of the sages in the Talmud who hold that Moses wrote these last verses בדמע. [I have never been sure if this means “tearfully,” or “with tears,” i.e. substituting tears for ink. Ed.]    I do not believe that it is something so extraordinary for us to believe that Moses could write a verse saying: “Moses, the servant of Hashem, died there, and He buried him in the valley, etc.,” seeing he was writing matters which had not happened yet but would surely happen in the future. He had previously written about things which had not happened yet but would happen in the future, when he wrote (Deut. 32,19) “the Lord saw and became exasperated and spurned His sons and daughters, etc.” At that time Moses had predicted events which would not occur until the fall of the Temple. He had also described many other events in the future in the past tense, as if they had already taken place.  This was a style employed by many prophets and is something we should not have too much trouble to understand (Compare Nachmanides on Exodus 15,1 and the use of the future tense there for an event which had just occurred).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   זאת הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב לאמר: לזרעך אתננה, “this is the land concerning which I have sworn to Avraham, to Yitzchok, and to Yaakov, saying: “to your descendants I shall give it.” In this verse Moses hints that at an appropriate time the Shechinah will return to the land of Israel, the time in question being the one discussed at the end of the Book of Daniel. In Berachot 18 the sages focus on the word לאמור in the verse above; Rabbi Yonathan says there: “how do we know that the dead are in verbal communication with one another?” He answers that we derive this from the word לאמור in the above quoted verse. G’d is reported to have said to Moses: “tell Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov that the oath I swore to them I have fulfilled to their children.” The Talmud therefore concluded that the dead could communicate with one another, otherwise how could Moses tell all this to the patriarchs seeing that all of them were dead? The Talmud further concludes that the dead experience pain on their bodies, proving it from a verse in Job 14,22: “He feels only the pain of his flesh, and his spirit mourns in him.” The Talmud assumed first that the dead experiences only pain inflicted upon himself but not that inflicted upon others; later on, the Talmud concludes that the dead experience even pains inflicted upon others, and that they are not only aware of what goes on in their world but also of what goes on in our world. They deduce all this from our verse, seeing that if they did not know what was going on in our world what good would it do for G’d to tell Moses to tell them what He had done on earth? The Talmud retorts that this latter argument is faulty, for if the patriarchs had known what goes on in our world why did G’d have to instruct Moses to tell them something they knew already? The Talmud answers that G’d wanted that the patriarchs give credit to Moses for having told them, although he had not told them something they had not been aware of.
  
  Verse 5
  
  'וימת שם משה עבד ה', “Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there.” Note that Moses has not been described as a “servant of the Lord” until he died. During his lifetime he was variously described as איש האלו-הים, “the man of G’d,” (Deut. 33,1) etc., only now after he has died is he referred to as “a servant of the Lord.” This latter appellation describes Moses in his full stature and theological attainments. A “servant” is someone who is familiar with the intimate aspects of his master’s life, having access to the privacy of his bedroom, etc., performing duties there of a very intimate and private nature on an ongoing basis. We have been told explicitly in Chulin 7 that the righteous are even greater in death than they have been in life. No human being has ever been given the title “holy,” until after they have died. For instance, the words לקדושים אשר בארץ המה, “the holy ones who are in (under) the earth,” are understood by Midrash Tehillim (Psalms 16,3) as referring to the patriarchs who have already died. The Midrash concludes from that choice of words that even the patriarchs did not qualify for the compliment: “the holy ones,” until after their deaths. The reason for all this is that as long as people have an evil urge there is no guarantee that they will not give in to the temptation offered by that evil urge. This has also prompted the sages responsible for formulating our prayers to have us say in the third of the 18 benedictions of the Amidah prayer: “and holy ones praise You daily, selah.” They refer to the souls of these “holy ones” praising the Lord. This is also what David speaks of in the last of the psalms when he concludes כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה, “when it is all soul, it praises You, praise the Lord.”  Many people ask the question how it was possible that someone of the stature of Moses who became the instrument of giving the Torah to the people of Israel, died, whereas Elijah and Chanoch, both people of lesser stature, did not die? (Compare Genesis 5,24 and Kings II 2,11 respectively.) The answer is that Moses sinned at the waters of strife whereas both Chanoch and Elijah had not been guilty of sin at all. Seeing that they did not sin, they never became  part of the decree of death that Adam was subjected to, and could therefore enjoy eternal life.
     'על פי ה', “at the command of the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of these words Moses died as he had been commanded by G’d to ascend the mountain and to die there (Deut. 32,3). 
      According to a Midrashic approach (Baba Batra 17) the words על פי mean: ”death by kiss (divine).” His soul could transfer directly to the world of disembodied spirits, not having to undergo any prior preparation, spiritual cleansing, etc.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויקבר אותו, “he buried him.” The word אותו here is identical with עצמו, i.e. “he buried himself.” You find a similar construction in Ezekiel 10,22 where the Merkavah, the divine entourage, is discussed and we find the words: מראיהם ואותם, which normally would have to be translated as “their appearances and them”, something that does not make sense [as it would simply be a repetition of what had been stated already. Ed.] The meaning therefore must be: “their appearance and their essence.” Moses entered a cave in the valley to which he had been assigned. This is called: “burying himself.”’    Rabbi Yishmael was in the habit of explaining the three times the word את (i.e. אותו, אותו, אותם) appears in our verse here, in Numbers 6,13, and in Leviticus 22,16). In all three instances the word is used reflexively, the subjects carrying out themselves (on themselves) the activities described, such a Moses burying himself in our verse here.
      A Midrashic approach reflecting the view expressed in Sotah 9: the words ויקבר אותו refer to G’d Himself having buried Moses. The numerical value of the letters in the word בגי, “in the valley,” equal the numerical value in G’d’s attribute י-ה, i.e. 15, a hint that G’d did the burying. When the Torah speaks here about G’d “burying” Moses, this refers not only to Moses but to the righteous generally; we know this from Isaiah 58,8: “your righteousness walks before you and the glory of the Lord will gather you in.”    You will also find that the word ויקבר is in a construct form to the word Hashem (which precedes it) [as if the meaning were “Hashem buried him.” Ed.] This is based on the principle that words which appear next to one another are subject to exegesis (even if they appear in separate verses).    We need to understand what is meant by “G’d burying.” It means that the earth at that point opened miraculously to admit the body of Moses and then closed above him again, not leaving any trace. 
  It is possible to add that seeing burial is by definition a form of hiding something, the entire verse may be interpreted in terms of how Moses’ soul was hidden. The words: ויקבר אותו בגי, may then mean that G’d hid Moses’ soul  inside 13 (גי) חופות, “wedding canopies” behind which the righteous experience delight in Gan Eden. We find a similar statement [featuring the number 13. Ed.] concerning Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who was reported to be seated on top of 13 תכתכי פיזא, “thirteen golden stools.” [the 13 wedding canopies are a simile for someone being given a great deal of honor. Ed.]    The word מואב in our verse has a numerical value of 49. The meaning of the words בארץ מואב is: “in the land of the living together with the ‘49.’” If this is correct, the defective spelling of the word בגי which, if its meaning were only “in the valley,” should have been spelled as בגיא, is meant to tell something additional. The spelling, which  we already pointed out, is equal to י-ה, i.e. 15. If we take the four letters in the word מואב as 4, and add the 15 from בגי, plus the numerical value of the word מואב, i.e. 49, we get a total of 68, i.e. חיים, suggesting that both Moses’ body and his soul were accorded outstanding honor. While we are on the subject, it is worth noting that the absence of a letter where we would have expected it reveals clues to other mysteries such as the length of time the terrestrial world will endure. In Exodus 20,11 the Torah speaks about G’d having created the word ששת ימים instead of writing בששת ימים as we would have expected. The missing letter ב carries a message, i.e. that this creation was going to endure only for 6,000 “days.” [A day in G’d’s reckoning equaling 1,000 years in our calendar. Ed.] 
     מול בית פעור, “opposite Bet-Peor.” According to our sages Tanchuma Ki Tissa 20, Moses had been afraid of certain negative phenomena in the form of מלאכי חבלה, destructive angels, already at the time of the golden calf when he was on Mount Sinai. Banishing these forces could never be more than temporary, and the events at Bal Pe-or, (probably identical with Bet-Pe-or) reflected a failure on his part to counter these forces a second time. Compare what the author wrote on Numbers 17,11 יצא הקצף. Moses, who had not banished the fifth of these negative forces described as חמה, permanently, was buried facing the earthly residence of this force so as to oppose it even in death and thereby to protect his people against this force opening its mouth and accusing Israel of idolatrous conduct. We find that the Men of the Great Assembly are reported to have done something similar when they tried to banish the evil urge, throwing it into a pot of scalding water (euphemisms, of course, compare Talmud Yuma 69). At any rate, according to this Midrashic interpretation, the fact that Moses’ grave was near such an abomination is not to be construed negatively but positively, reflecting Moses’ ongoing concern to protect his people even in death.
     ולא ידע איש את קבורתו, “and no man knew (the exact site of) his grave.” The word מקום which should have preceded the word “his grave,” has been deliberately omitted to indicate that it remains unknown.
  
  Verse 7
  
  . לא כהתה עינו, “his eyesight had not become weaker.” This is actually a reference to the rays of light which the skin of Moses’ forehead emitted, a gift which he had brought with him from Mount Sinai (Exodus 34,29). The word עין here does not mean “eye,” but means the same as in the description of the properties of the manna which the Torah described as “like the sparkling, i.e. עין of ‘bedolach’” in apperance (a gemstone called “crystal” by Rashi in Numbers 11,7). Another instance where the word עין does not mean “eye,” though it appears so at first glance, is found in Ezekiel 1,22 כעין הקרח הנורא. It can hardly mean “as the terrible eye of the ice,” but must mean: “as the sparkle of the awesome ice.”
     ולא נס לחה, “and his vital juices had not departed from him.” A reference to the moisture of the body which prevents it from drying out, from dehydrating. Seeing that it is normal for people over a certain age to appear to dry out and to shrivel, the Torah testifies that Moses’ body had not displayed any signs of aging till the day he died. We find the expression לחה, i.e. לח, “moist, wet," with the added letter ה instead of the pronoun ending ו describing “his” moisture, already mentioned by the Torah when Moses was born where his mother Yocheved is described as ותראהו, “she saw him,” and the Torah inserted the letter ה to indicate that when she looked at him she also perceived the presence of the Shechinah, alluded to by that letter. The extra letter ה here means that this divine element had not left Moses from the day he was born until after the day he died.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
    לכל האותות והמופתים, “for all the signs and wonders;” according to the plain meaning of the text he performed all these miracles before the eyes of the people who quarreled with him until they were forced to concede that Moses had been right all along. He performed all these miracles in front of the other Israelites who were all loyal in their belief in Moses’ divine mission. Because Moses performed all these miracles publicly, in front of such a large audience, he became known as the prophet par excellence throughout the world and throughout history. [Compare Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 2,35. Also R' Yehudah Halevi in his Kuzari writes in this vein. Ed.] We know that other prophets did not enjoy this type of audience when they performed miracles, as we read in Kings II 8,4 that the king asked Gechazi to tell him about miracles performed by Elisha. In other words, he received the information only second hand. Gechazi, of course, proceeded to tell the king about how Elisha had revived a dead person, etc.” Moses’ prophecy and the miracles he performed were known throughout the civilized world in his time. This is what is meant here by the emphasis on the words: “before Pharaoh, and all his servants, and his whole country.”
      A Midrashic approach: the words לכל האותות והמופתים refer to the Ten Plagues in Egypt, concerning which the Torah said that they struck Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his country.”
  
  Verse 12
  
   ולכל היד החזקה, “and by all the strong hand;” this is a reference to the splitting of the Sea of Reeds in connection with which the Torah had written (Exodus 14,31) “Israel saw the manifestation of the great hand.”
     וכל המורא הגדול, “and by the great awesome spectacle;” this is a reference to what occurred at Mount Sinai during the revelation. At that time G’d had explained these awesome spectacles as designed to strengthen the people’s awe of G’d and to help them not to trespass against Him  (Exodus 20,20). Moses enumerates events in chronological order. His miracles had first been aimed at Pharaoh, and subsequently at the Jewish people.
      A Kabbalistic approach: the references to יד החזקה and מורא הגדול “which Moses performed,” are similes for the emanations Tiferet and Kavod. These emanations are also reflected in the words of Isaiah 8,13: והוא מוראכם והוא מעריצכם, “and He is the object of your reverence and of your awe “ The words אשר עשה, must be understood as: “he demonstrated,“ [seeing Moses does not make miracles, but G’d does. Ed.] The reason that the Torah here does not write matters in the same order as did Isaiah, i.e. מורא before מעריץ, the parallel of which here would be מוראה before היד החזקה, is due to the respective level of the prophetic powers of the prophet involved. Moses, as opposed to Isaiah, had been privileged to see what are called “clear, unblurred visions.” Thus it was that the Torah wrote of him “לעיני כל ישראל, he demonstrated everything he wanted to convey to the ‘eyes’ of Israel,” to their most superior means of perception, in the clearest possible manner. He was able to convey the meaning of the emanations to the people. [He did not speak to the people in riddles, in euphemisms and in parables, as distinct from other prophets including Isaiah. Ed.] I believe that this is also the meaning of 33,21: צדקת ה' עשה ומשפטיו עם ישראל, “Moses performed righteousness and justice of the Lord with Israel,” [I believe the author means that he could demonstrate how these two attributes blend with one another without conflicting with each other. Ed.]
      You have to appreciate that seeing that both the Torah and the concept of the Jewish people preceded the creation of the universe (Bereshit Rabbah 1,5), the Torah commenced with the word בראשית, and concluded with the word ישראל. This Torah which Moses presented to the entire people of Israel is a true Torah, something which is eternal in its function as a salvation for the Jewish people. In the words of Deut. 6,24 וטוב לנו כל הימים, “it is good for us for all the days (which this universe endures).” It commenced with the letter ב and ends with the letter ל which represent between them the 32 paths of wisdom contained in the Torah. If you read these two letters from back to front, you have the allusion to the fact that sooner or later the world as we know is subject to unraveling, to returning to the state it was in at its beginning. The word לב, heart, is what we get when reading the last letter of the Torah first followed by the first letter of the Torah. “Heart” is symbolic of רצון, “will.” The will of G’d is the key to the continued existence of any phenomenon. The last letter in the Torah, the letter ל, is the tallest of the letters in the aleph bet, and it points in the direction of the root of the highest tree, the one from which all existence which we are witness to emanates, and which will also be the one causing it to terminate when the Creator so desires. The psalmist David had something like this in mind when he commenced the hymn לה' הארץ ומלואה, with the letter ל. (Psalms 24,1) This is the domain from which all intelligent beings receive their first insights, perceptions. This is also the path by means of which existence as we know it will come to an end, in the words of the prophet Samuel ותשובתם הרמתה. [An allusion to the frustration of the prophet Samuel at the failure of the appointment of Shaul as king and as potential eradicator of the anti-G’d Amalek. I believe all the allusions to metamorphosis of this universe and the ones preceding it are expressions of their failure to achieve the potential the Creator had hoped for. Ed.]
  תם ונשלם